FIERCE Committee (Elections Commission) Meeting

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

In this page:


    See below agenda item #1 for a PDF version of the agenda. The agenda packet documents are listed below each agenda item.

    Meeting recording (Duration: 1:31:50):

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

    APPROVED May 31, 2023 Meeting Minutes below.


    1. Call to Order & Roll Call

      A member of the Commission will state the following (from the Commission's October 19, 2022 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.

      The Chair has excused the Director of Elections from attending today’s meeting, which is permitted by Article VI of the Commission’s Bylaws.


    2. General public comment

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

    3. Redistricting Initiative

      Discussion and possible action on recommendations for changes to San Francisco’s redistricting process.

      Invited Speakers:

      Attachments: Bios of Invited Speakers; Redistricting Initiative Project Plan v6; Summary of Redistricting Reform Recommendations; AB 1248 Fact Sheet; Text of AB 1248; Memo to Elections Committee Regarding AB 1248; FAIR MAPS Act Reform Fact Sheet; Text of AB 764

    4. Agenda Items for Future Meetings

      Discussion and possible action regarding items for future agendas.

    5. Adjournment

    Date & Time

    Wednesday, May 31, 2023
    7:00 pm to 9:00 pm

    Elections Commission

    San Francisco City Hall
    1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
    Room 48
    San Francisco, CA 94102-4634
    View location on google maps


    Event number: 2492 585 1908
    Event password: fierce (343723 from phones)
    Join the meeting


    Access code: 2489 943 7914

    Duration: 1:31:50

    In this video

    Order of Business

    1. Call to Order & Roll Call 00:00 (first several minutes were unrecorded due to tech issue)

    2. General Public Comment (non recorded)

    3. Redistricting Initiative 11:31

    3a. Public Comment 1:08:47

    4. Agenda items for future meetings 1:18:21

    5. Adjournment






    1. Call to Order & Roll Call

    um apologies for that let me let me start over again if you don't

    mind uh again tonight's the culmination of a year of inquiry that the elections

    commission has undertaken to study best practices in local redistricting it was the redistricting initiative was

    born out of public concerns about the redistricting task force which uh of course was brought to the

    commission's attention by a protest in front of City Hall at our March 2022 meeting we responded by holding an

    eight-hour public Hearing in April of 2022 to consider whether to remove our

    appointees which we ultimately declined to do in May of 2022 based on my experience as

    a California citizens redistricting commissioner I put together a discussion document on potential reforms to our

    local redistricting body and process with the support of the full commission

    we launched the educational phase of the redistricting initiative in June of 2022

    starting with the basics of why we even have districts in San Francisco

    since then we have had this agenda item at almost every elections commission meeting

    which like all of our meetings are open to the public and archived on our website this background is summarized in

    the second and third packet items the project plan and summary of recommendations

    I want to invite any members of the public who have not been with us on this year-long journey to review these and

    our meeting recordings which include expert testimony about what works and doesn't work to achieve

    Fair redistricting based on years of experience at both the state and local levels Commissioners levolsi Parker and I were

    appointed by commission president Robin Stone to do the heavy lifting of

    examining further refinements beyond the universal recommendations we have heard

    in the past year I want to remind everyone that the elections commission has no legislative

    Authority we can only recommend specific reforms to the Board of Supervisors who will

    then draft legislation in our March and April meetings we also

    determined that the commission itself could not take on the important step of soliciting public input

    because we're all unpaid volunteers as you can see tonight with only a half-time commission secretary instead

    we will rely on our legislative Champions who have full-time staff to do this

    as mentioned in our May 17th meeting we have approached supervisors Mirna

    Melgar Matt Dorsey and President Aaron peskin about co-sponsoring this

    legislation and so far they have indicated an openness to doing so if they ultimately agree they will hold

    Community input meetings to iron out the final details if a majority of the board approves any

    reforms will go before the voters for final approval

    that was a long introduction to set expectations for the purpose of

    tonight's meeting I want to welcome a distinguished and diverse panel of good government experts

    to focus specifically on what we should do in San Francisco they are sharing their expertise at our

    request and are not voting members of the fierce committee their buyers are provided for reference

    as the first item in the agenda packet so I'm just going to introduce their names and titles please join me in

    welcoming Russia Chavez Cardenas voting rights and redistricting program manager of

    California common cause Lauren gerardin redistricting team and

    Jenny say advocacy chair both from the League of Women Voters of San Francisco

    goffard senior program coordinator voting rights Asian Americans advancing

    Justice Asian law caucus and last but not least chema Hernandez Gill a member

    of her most recent redistricting task force who is here to give us a reality check

    I do want to thank those who took the time to submit written public comments before tonight's meeting which expressed

    concern that we were only hearing from certain former redistricting task force members I want to assure you that I

    alerted the entire 2021-22 redistration task force before our May 2022 meeting that I would be

    introducing this topic and personally invited them to share their experiences and reflections with us

    honestly it has been challenging to get responses uh perhaps due to the traumatic nature

    of the last process but we have heard from at least four former members of past task forces and I want to give a

    special shout out to chema as well for volunteering his time as a panelist

    with that I'd like to start a panel discussion for the benefit of those new to our

    discussions San Francisco used to be a Pioneer in independent redistricting establishing

    an independent citizens commission 10 years ahead of the State of California being a charter City however

    San Francisco was exempt from all of the best practices enacted in the fair Maps

    Act of 2019 which really played out in the last redistricting process

    the real question is why should San Francisco not conform to state law and

    update its task force to best practices assembly Bill 1248 C packet items form

    five um which just passed the assembly encompasses many of the best practices

    recommendations we've already reviewed according to the City attorney

    see packet item six San Francisco would absolutely be subject to its provision

    if it becomes law so

    would any of my fellow Commissioners like to raise any concerns or

    considerations for our panel given that ab1248

    encompasses many of the reforms that we looked at last year including rank

    ordered redistricting criteria pre and post service requirements for the

    Commissioners or task force members in this case an open selection process a

    non-political appointment process any specific questions that you would

    like to start with about ab48 and have our panel weigh in on

    them go ahead um

    about specific commissioner Parker um I'm not sure that I have specific

    questions about ABA 1248 or 764. I mean I other than

    um wondering if they've passed the assembly just where we're looking at in the trajectory of support within the Senate and uh and then more broadly with

    the governor if anybody has any insight on that recently then last we've heard a few weeks ago I would be curious to hear

    that I do have lots of questions about General components that are included in these and where we might sit in general

    in San Francisco and the experience of our redistricting task forces in the in the past and especially the recent past

    about some of them seem some of the the areas seem a little bit more nuanced and

    there are different ways we could go with them they're not so straightforward and some feel more straightforward and so I'm interested in a lot of discussion

    on those that's where I think the rubber is going to hit the road um and also um so so that's that's it

    and also just while I have the mic I appreciate um the folks on the panel tonight for

    all of the time that they have spent getting to know these issues and coming forward and I also want to appreciate

    all of the members of the pub who have submitted comment um to us in the last couple of days I

    know I've been talking to a lot of folks also and just appreciate that and invite you to come and please share your

    various opinions because I think that as we move through this process it's really important that it feels and

    is inclusive and inviting of all of the different viewpoints because this is such a

    if the goal is that we find something that's really easy for all of us to wrap our arms around and I believe that

    there's not a lot of debate that we need to make improvements um here in on this process I haven't heard anybody debate that

    um and so I think when we can find where we are when we have commonalities in the

    different components of these proposal of the different the different pieces of redistricting reform let's find those

    and then let's kind of debate the the nuances um of the other pieces but I do know

    everybody wants to see Improvement and so I'm grateful for that I think we're all on the same page on that and so I'm

    looking forward to hearing from everybody to see where we can land to coalesce around the other parts that are

    a little trickier and do what's best for our whole city and make make sure that

    everybody feels included in the conversation

    business commissioner Lavelle for the distinguished panel thank you for being here for the public as well

    um the question I'm that's on my mind is what are some of the ways that this can

    really happen for us in San Francisco based on the State Legislative

    legislation and the fact that there is a need and a

    public desire to change what was done the last redistricting task force

    anyone on the piano so anyone on the panel um I am trying to see how I can

    maybe project you up onto the video in the room and it's not unfortunately very

    obvious how to do that I did figure out how to do this once but if you would go

    ahead and share your video and feel free to jump

    in I'd love to

    I'd love to hear from any of the panelists to address

    the questions from commissioner Parker and levelsi and feel free to

    speak at will you are all able to unmute but I hope this is a discussion

    and I don't know if it would be helpful for for one of you to start with kind of

    the update I know there was action that took place just yesterday

    don't be shy I I was going to ask Sita to provide that update or I think I

    3. Redistricting Initiative

    think the update that you're talking about is that both ab1248 which is the independent redistricting Bill and then

    AB 764 which is the fair map Sac Reform Bill which we're not really it's not the focus of today's conversation but both

    of them got out of the assembly floor and have moved on to the state senate so

    very excited about that and for the record it's something that

    the Asian law caucus and other groups here I believe had a hand in at least drafting or supporting

    so great

    my question for uh Sunset is can you talk about why your organization Asian

    law caucus is supporting those two yeah I mean unfortunately we saw a lot

    we I think as everybody here knows we saw a lot of issues in in local redistricting both in SF but also in

    counties and cities across the state we monitored we put out a big Report with California common cause and a number of

    the ACLU League of Women Voters California a number of other organizations that we monitored over 100 jurisdictions around California and saw

    issues related to incumbency bias and incumbency protection redistricting processes that just

    weren't fair and transparent or Outreach wasn't conducted at all or very effectively and these bills really you

    know aim to address that in very specific ways so there it gets very

    technical and you know I'm happy to kind of you know we can we can dive in and walk through piece by piece but at a

    very general level we see that there's a big need across the state but it also gives cities like San Francisco the

    opportunity to form uh their own independent commission and you know it outlines it sort of offers up a

    structure but it also says if you if cities like San Francisco go want to adopt by 2029 I believe is the deadline

    their own model they can do that within certain guidelines that are outlined

    thank you yeah Lauren did you want to say something

    I I wanted to point out especially for the benefit of folks who maybe this is their first uh conversation about redistricting in a

    while that they're listening in on uh the uh ACLU of Northern California and

    of Southern California uh Asian La caucus California common cause and League of Women Voters of California

    which is the parent Organization for the League of Women Voters of San Francisco

    um released a report um uh called the promise of fair maps and it's a wonderful to report to dive

    into it examines the problems that happened across jurisdictions across the

    state and looks for common reform Solutions particularly based off of best

    practices from jurisdictions that had processes uh that went smoother at times

    or overall it's a really great report and a great basis for a lot of the specific reforms

    that came out in those assembly bills and for the record these were posted

    um for our I believe February and March meeting so

    you couldn't find that report in our agenda packet for those meetings

    I'm wondering if anyone could talk to the amendments there were some amendments uh recently uh for it you

    know for to get out of the assembly uh I noticed that there was an addition for

    for example school districts um over 500 000 constituents I was

    wondering if someone could comment on that was there an attempt to consolidate um AB 764 and ab1248

    uh I'm not sure if there was a I don't think presented to consolidate them I think we're just trying to be mindful of

    um you know the budgetary implications this would have and the implications of this would have on smaller jurisdictions

    that maybe are less well staffed and maybe don't have the capacity to carry out every single one of the provisions in these bills and so you know we

    obviously want to be thoughtful about what's realistic but make sure that this process is still done fairly adult

    jurisdictions small and large so I I wasn't super super plugged into

    the Amendments processes so I don't have too much Insight beyond that but

    generally I think we were just trying to address those incidents

    and commissioner Parker um I wonder if your question was addressed

    I I said a lot of things so yeah I mean that I was wondering about

    um the pro so I appreciate the the update that we just know that it's moving on to the Senate um

    uh what else did I ask [Music] um I think I'm more just had a statement

    you know just about like I am looking forward to the conversation with everybody about the the detailed

    um pieces um within that actually there's actually one I don't know actually if these folks will be able to answer this but one of

    the questions that come up for me when I was reading the memo that the city attorney's office provided for us about the implications of ab1248 passing on

    San Francisco was that um the ethics commission would be the appointing body and so

    um and I will admit that there are still some even finer reading that I need to do

    um on some of this but that was interesting to me knowing that there are multiple options and so I just

    I wondered if you all have some more detailed information about why that is the body that was that would be

    happening automatically if we don't do anything differently in San Francisco

    um to change our Charter before AB 1248 would pass and and force changes here

    any comments it's okay if you don't know I just I'm curious about it I believe

    uh seriously uh searching our documents in these very large bills for the

    specific reference uh so that we can point you to the subsection

    um I believe it is section 11 question 11

    3006 uh section h uh so section H uh essentially just

    lists options uh well it calls them um uh anyway it lists options in order of

    priority uh for the bodies for uh selection uh they're the the language is

    now selection rather than appointing um because of the reasons and um so the first one

    that's listed is the local jurisdictions ethics commission if one exists

    um so I you would have to ask the City attorney what they're using as their basis for their memo but that is uh the

    section that they're referring to and where they would have gone that information the second choice is a

    committee or commission with a holistic view of the local jurisdictions governance processes including but not

    limited to an elections Commission so that's number two

    um and so you know there are other choices on that list as well some of those might not work for San Francisco

    because some of those are actually elected roles and offices um so the City attorney may have also

    been looking at that but again I would recommend that you ask them about their memo

    okay and actually that's something um uh I think it's perfect to get

    community input on um because there's a multiple choice uh

    that are acceptable you know vetting slash selection bodies and that's

    something we would you know encourage our legislative Champions to to ask the public yeah who who is a trusted uh

    selection Authority for San Francisco with our circumstances with you know who

    we knew I believe one of the options was a grand jury as well uh a panel of retired judges as I recall

    was another one so I think that's a perfect item that we would want public

    input on like what would be best uh who would San franciscans Trust

    to to you know really make a fair and

    unbiased decision and choose qualified qualified task force

    members on that so I wanted to again go ahead I was

    going to say that's also something where the research that this body has done before of inviting speakers from other

    jurisdictions might also come in handy to see what their experiences have been with um you know who is a trusted impartial

    um decision maker you know person authority to select the people on the on

    the redistricting Commission because that is sort of one of the central questions of this all is how do you

    ensure its independence and who is kind of setting this whole commission up so right

    yeah and again this is the big bone of contention for San Francisco and the

    reason we will be swept up by state legislation is because we have a political appointing process and so that

    uh according to the legislation says that we would have to we would have to

    change it right and so the question is how

    um so one of the big questions I had was uh and it looks like this was one of the

    Amendments and I would love one of you guys to weigh in on this if

    if you have knowledge of it uh one of the concerns I had before was it required

    um random selection for um I think the all having at least one

    representative from each district and the standard body is only supposed to have 14 members and because San

    Francisco has so many districts since we have 11 districts that would only leave

    you know wiggle room um for three you know other Commissioners at large Commissioners if

    you want to call them um if there's a problem with representation

    because the problem with Randomness is that it's random and so you may not you may end up with a

    body that's not very representative so uh I would love

    this panel to kind of weigh in on that what San Francisco should do

    yeah Jen um has raised her hand in Russia I'd love to hear from both of

    them are you thinking the same thing too uh

    because um with the uh May 18th um Amendment to the bill they actually

    have reduced or they've they fix the number of um the amount of

    existing districts um that so in this election so when they

    did around the selection they only select up to eight exit eight

    um Commissioners and for eight existing districts so that means that

    um afterwards the remainder will be selected by the eight but it will be

    similar to the previous um Bill uh previous um like the previous how it was

    previously written where um each each of the eight Commissioners cannot live in the same district as the

    other so now it's kind of um what the May 18 Amendment that's reduced to eight or

    it's six to eight because um not all uh cities have eight districts

    um yeah we're lucky we have an abundance of districts uh so that that makes it much more

    similar to the state process where ate a randomly supposedly randomly

    selected from a highly vetted pool of applicants and then those eight select the final six is that correct

    and the alternates as well and I sorry I just wanted to point out Russia is unable to turn on uh her video

    um so she'll be raising her hand uh and it's gonna be a little harder for her to figure out when to talk okay well Russia

    um you should feel free to talk as panelists you are all have the ability to talk at will so

    go ahead Russia thank you I think the one thing that you guys may want to be thinking about for San Francisco

    um is because the way the state law I saw I'm reading is that the proposed law

    um is that it would have the Commissioners randomly selected based off of the council districts if there's

    at all a concerned in our desire to want to de-emphasize current uh districts

    there are other ways to consider where those individuals would be randomly selected from if you were to do

    something outside of ab1248 so if the city went forward

    um and did uh redistricting that wasn't Bound by 1248 you may have some more wiggle room to think about how you would

    de-emphasize some of the political boundaries that are already in existence

    um there are Regional planning areas you could use census hummus data there's

    other geographies that may be more uh see that may better be representative or

    may have a more representative sample of individuals that you'd want to use if you guys decided to do something that

    wasn't Bound by 1248 um because 1248 as my readers would keep

    you tied to current Council like boundaries that already

    exists uh excellent point Thank you for pointing that out

    uh I'm curious Gemma with your reflection on what happened in the last

    redistricting task force process what um this kind of selection process

    what are your Reflections on how how it might work so eight for 12 48 8 would be

    randomly selected uh from up to eight

    current supervisorial districts

    um yes thank you um I I think this is a an important

    question and I I think that this would bring us closer

    to a truly independent body um I think the current process

    does invite that that political influence that's unnecessary

    um and I think Harms if not the actual work of the task force

    but the perception of the work if that makes sense um and what I really do appreciate of

    course is the existence of alternates something that was completely missing in

    San Francisco um and I think it is crucial to have alternates because it is a long

    difficult process and uh in the back of my mind I kept thinking what if somebody gets sick or decides to leave it creates

    an even more challenging situation so I I think this hybrid approach of having

    some uh number of of uh task force members randomly selected from a pool of

    qualified applicants and then having them select the remainder I think would be an improvement

    thank you um what about the default size of 14 task

    force members anyone think that is

    you know too big too small about right for a city the size of San Francisco is

    14 enough to represent the diversity of San Francisco yeah I've been thinking about this one a

    lot and talking to some folks and you know I think the number kind of comes

    from what we want the number to do and how that we want the number to be formed

    um there's a little cart before the horse there um but then there is the reality of

    large bodies have trouble making decisions um and that's where having the number of

    votes required can be very helpful so the 80 1248 has nine uh as the

    requirement for votes um there are other redistricting models where they have different numbers of

    votes for mapping votes versus operational votes um simply because sometimes it's hard to

    get more than a simple majority on some some things um but the having more than just a

    simple majority on mapping can be very helpful for encouraging task force members to find

    more compromise so that it isn't one versus the other it's it's all of us

    together um there there can be some uh benefits too if we if this might be a place for

    some Community input um would it make sense to have one Task Force member per District

    um does that help does that hurt is that is that are we giving ourselves the opportunity for diversity and

    representation which has been a challenge on past task forces um so I think that you know those are

    the things that would lead me to a number and my lead the elections commission to a number for its

    recommendations or it might lead San franciscans the Board of Supervisors to your number we might have different numbers for a while but

    um I think there's also you know the models that work in other cities it's challenging to find a comparison

    since other cities and Counties have different numbers of districts um they have you know different amounts

    of participation in their redistricting processes as well so um I think you know the what we really

    need is a large applicant pool no matter what size body we wind up having

    um having you know a dozen applicants is it's not great so we need we definitely

    need to make sure that the size of the body and the diversity of the body and the ability to participate through

    applicants encourages people to be really optimistic about applying um and to see it as an opportunity to

    serve in something that can be a joy perhaps

    perhaps yeah go ahead commissioner Liberty uh this is

    commissioner volsi I I had a question because I as you were speaking I was thinking about that what are some of the

    ways considering the process last time

    um in your experience that could help educate the public on the importance

    because I do think with a city like San Francisco I would be very concerned

    um for small communities of Interest I would be very

    concerned that perhaps people with certain

    education would be more apt to be a part of this I wouldn't want to see a body

    that has only phds and JD's those are great degrees however we have members of

    the community who don't have those degrees and who have good Insight so I would love to hear ways that you think

    we could get this interest to a broader group of of the

    community in San Francisco wow I see lots of hands

    um go ahead Chima do you want to open up first

    ah thank you and that is an incredibly important uh question and observation

    and certainly something that I saw and experienced in the last process I kept

    thinking um that it is one of the few uh uh jobs lack of

    a better term right that really does require a certain level of professional

    flexibility the ability to take time off the ability to have uh the support of

    where you work or a family or something right and that is I I think a huge

    barrier I I think there are a lot of people in San Francisco who are very uh

    uh politically engaged who have this Civic experience but who would be

    completely unable to participate in this process and this connects to one of the

    recommendations that has been made I I think by many people and that is establishing a process for stipends so

    that folks who are participating in this process can participate fully in it

    um and I think offering something that is fair um would increase the number of uh

    people who would consider even applying uh for for this uh role right so I think

    that's important um uh what's also important is making sure that there is a plan uh in place

    around Outreach well before this uh process begins and that the word gets

    out to all communities not just the vulnerable communities of interest but

    all communities get uh uh notice months if not a year or two ahead so that they

    can begin preparing their application right um and making sure that there is Clarity

    I I think that was something that I um that I saw in the process uh last time

    around um that a lot of people just did not have that ability to to participate in

    fully thank you um Jen

    uh hi yeah so you know totally agree with trema I mean the um the reason why

    we didn't have so much Outreach time you know in the last process it's because it's baked in into the charter

    um in the charter it states that um after the sunset it's kind of you know it's very linear after the census the um

    the uh the department Department of Elections will decide whether there's a significant change in population that

    merits a redistricting you know process and so it's kind of and so it was very

    frustrating because we had you know because the census was late so because the census was late everything got bogged down everything got delayed and

    it's kind of you know the issue like if you um if we had set up that you know

    every year we all we always do redistricting by default you know if if we had you know deleted that into

    Charter you know by default we would have to do redistricting ahead of what we did prior and um and the thing is so

    it's really like you know I was trying to set a time I mean I think maybe someone might know this but I think in the Oakland redistricting process they

    started back in 2019 in their search for uh their redistricting Commissioners and

    so you know they definitely had like two years like two years ahead of us to even pick a commissioner yeah so I think it's

    something yeah I think time is really important and having that time to really find our commissioners is important

    that's all thank you thank you yeah I just want to Echo that and say time is

    really really important in building in a tough time um both for the commission to do its

    work you know and do the mapping and and the Outreach but also for that in terms of this election and that actually is

    one of the uh I guess well the one of the concerns I do have with ab1248 is that uh it sort of sets this this

    deadline if you will of 250 days before the the final map deadline for the

    commission to be set up um you know and and that was decided on sort of as a compromise for smaller

    jurisdictions that you know can finish up the process much more quickly but for a city is large and diverse and complex

    in San Francisco you know 250 days is certainly not enough time um for the commission to do the actual

    mapping and the actual Outreach and then of course the Recruitment and the vetting of applicants needs to take

    place well well ahead of that so that is one of the things that the election commission should pay attention to is

    giving itself enough time um to be set up for success and then I also absolutely

    um second China's um important suggestion of having a stipend you know they're a real financial and time barriers that include

    people from participating in this process even if they they want to and have interest um so I think that's absolutely

    something that should be pursued okay we have a plus one on stipends I'm

    curious um how much time uh you think San Francisco should

    stipulate if that is an area we might deviate from ab1248 because remember

    we're kind of looking at 12 48 as model legislation but how would we tweak it

    you know to to really meet the needs of San Francisco and are

    you know unusually diverse City so

    what should be the um what should be the time that we should stipulate if we had a

    choice of writing our own version of this yeah I I've been thinking about those seats and I talked a little bit about

    this as well um you know Long Beach uh is a very good model

    um you're you know they they are different but uh they have they had given themselves much more time

    um and I still we're still picking

    until um don't have a City attorney memo on the other assembly bill which might be

    helpful to request um it's a long it's a long bill it's a

    long bill but um to know what they think will apply to San Francisco but there is something in there about requiring an Outreach plan

    um it's uh in section 21160 again I'm

    not an expert on this legislation but it does require an Outreach plan prior to

    March 1st 2031 which is well before the uh body would

    be established um and before any Commissioners would be selected and so that's an Outreach plan

    to educate the public about what redistricting is and also about the opportunity to apply

    um and you know one of the things that Jen I think someone mentioned was the linear like the linearity of a lot of

    things and the Order of things that come in so because our Charter kicks things off in a very different way

    we start recruiting for applicants here the appointing bodies do before there's

    a website for people to find out what redistricting is and you know as as

    lovely as it was for the League of Women Voters website to be the only information about that redistricting

    process for many months I believe that that was also part of the challenge not having those operational and

    administrative resources that would come from Staffing the task force or that IRC

    whatever we do wind up calling it before we start doing the application process so things like the website could be in

    place so that there could be someone who could answer questions about the application process

    um that could hold public hearings or town halls or whatever would need to be to reach out to communities and to even

    help people apply if they were having technical difficulties a lot of those things starting those earlier those are

    a budget issue but I think those will go a real long way to increasing the number of applicants as well

    um and you know as for the stipend I think that's a great question for Community input how do we set an

    equitable statement there are groups that can help us figure that out I don't think that most of the other committees

    and bodies in San Francisco that receive a stipend are a great model I would characterize most of those stipends as

    small uh so you know that's worth looking at

    um and you know making sure that that really does create opportunities and Equity um and make it more possible for people

    to participate um and you know I believe I think it was

    the California commission there's also the question of per diem um which some of this may or may not

    need to go in the charter um so that's something to also think about is what's a recommendation versus

    what what do we need to write into the charter right yeah so um so I realized we got to a late

    start unfortunately that just seems to be an ongoing challenge with hybrid meetings especially when there's no

    support staff uh I just want to do a time check because I

    know we had originally said that uh we would only keep our panel for an hour and we obviously have not had you for an

    hour yet and I wanted to uh

    I wanted to ask a question and then I wanted to see like how much more you're

    willing to to give us tonight uh and the question is

    how good or bad would it be if we were to remove all the charter

    language uh and this is I'm going to give Jen say

    full credit for raising this question a couple of months ago uh that instead of trying to develop our own

    special Charter uh amendment that we simply eliminate

    all language in the charter about the redistricting task force and

    therefore allow us to fall under state law which already as we've discussed puts in many of the key best practices

    recommendations that we've been talking about for a year it you know puts in the default

    commission uh 14 with the eight randomly selected

    and those eight selecting the six uh it would bake in the idea of those eight

    being chosen by whatever the current supervisorial districts are so it

    doesn't allow us to consider the option of other geographies that we might use uh so that

    was a good point that Russia brought up um you know does require Outreach requires

    a diverse applicant pool if you know it puts in like I said many of the other

    reforms the basic reforms that there's no debate on

    so how good or bad would it be if we just simply eliminated all the language in

    the charter and allowed ourselves to fall under state law assuming if it passes if it

    passes yeah assuming 1248 actually passes

    anyone want to opine on that and I don't know if this is like a quick

    thing or or you know something we can discuss in a few more minutes or if this

    is going to take a lot more discussion Russia I'll open quickly I think if you're

    thinking about the high level principles of redistricting and what we want to see in it's moving fair and independent and

    transparent independent redistricting condition um 1248 gets the job done because it

    really does hinge on those tried and true practices of what we've seen across

    jurisdictions across the state and at the state level for an independent redistricting commission I think it

    holds true to things of you know thinking about the composition of the

    the commission you know registering criteria um

    you know qualifications uh expertise communication bands

    um those really high level principles that are normally for folks who are supportive of a truly independent

    redistricting commission it takes those off and so if you are wanting to have a

    a look at what is going to align with like some of those tried and true breast practices I think ab1248 doesn't

    um but each jurisdiction has its own nuances as you've talked about earlier about San Francisco and so

    you may not capture everything just because of those nuances but I would say

    1248 will get you further than where you are today

    it's an improvement okay thank you Jen your thoughts uh yeah well like after

    you as you know as you mentioned commissioner die I always Advocate you for you know deletion but you know that

    way by default we would be so you know we would you know be required to follow um everything in the uh in AB

    849 the Fairmount stock back in 2019. you know we were as I mentioned in the

    past we were we pretty much had to follow most of ab um 849 with the exception of um mapping

    criteria which um the uh the city attorney's office has teamed up we have we have written enough

    in our Charter that exempts us from the mapping criteria as stated in the framex

    act and um you know regardless if uh AV 1248 passes or not we still have a 849

    that we can follow [Music] okay

    so uh in other words I just want to restate this to make sure we all understand uh

    even if ab1248 does not pass by eliminating the language in the

    charter about the redistrict task force we would still fall under the fair Maps Act of 2019.

    okay good that's what I wanted some clarity on um any other like quick

    um opiny uh based on what you've seen of 12 48 uh go ahead seats oh no go ahead

    Lauren okay I'm sorry I missed my hands button uh so yeah I I see it's uh Jen

    both know that I have been going through these assembly bills with a very fine tooth overthinking comb as I am want to

    do and uh you know I keep trying to poke holes in it I keep trying to say why

    would we need to do so much work of writing our own stuff if it's just going

    to wind up being almost exactly the same as these assembly bills would gift Us gift us is really how I've started

    thinking about it um you know this is you know not that San Francisco cannot do the work and

    come up with a plan that works for us but I think there's there's so much really thoughtful research and best

    practices and testing of a lot of these principles that have been done in other jurisdictions

    um so I I do like it um you know there's if anything the only

    things that I'm always like is earlier dates right these these assembly bills have a little time I'd like a lot more I

    see that as a minimum I'm not sure I know it's mostly written as a as a you know at least or as a minimum I don't

    think that we'd ever it's not the tendency of legislation to ever inspire

    people to do more than the dates required uh so some of these dates

    depending on if ab1248 passes some of these states kind of still land at a bad

    time for San Francisco um you know we would uh have to establish uh whatever established means

    we would have to establish our IRC uh I think it's by early July or early August

    um and that's smack in the middle of when San Francisco government takes a break which is what happened last time

    which is why we didn't have our first redistricting task force meeting until September even though the ordinance was

    actually months before so you know anything we can do to to give more time for this process would would be the only

    thing I would ever recommend at this point but you know we might find some more things if I keep going through with

    that fine tooth comb we're counting on it Lauren she'd say what what do you what say you

    I I agree I think it gets you you know 90 95 of the way there uh as Lauren and

    others have said there you know there are certainly ways that you could improve upon it or tailor it more towards San Francisco

    but you know this piece of legislation has been in the works for a year and a half two years at least and built on the

    research of dozens of community organizations across the state and good government groups and non-profits who

    have been involved in in drafting this and been involved in the consultation so I definitely think it is a really good

    model um yeah I I I think it's a great option and it's

    certainly um it may be one of the easier options for this this group to consider

    right um so uh I would love to hear

    chema's reaction if yeah this had been put in place instead any thoughts on

    how things would have gone I I think that would have gone better right um I I

    think as you well stated uh commissioner die at I think San Francisco was ahead

    of the curve uh when we implemented the charter I think uh we are now behind and

    there's a lot of uh um challenges that the current language

    presents right uh and some of it is really fundamental like the ranking of

    the criteria something that is really basic right um I I think that this goes a long way

    of in addressing those it isn't perfect I I think you know in a perfect world we

    can come up with our own tailored version specific to San Francisco but I don't think we ought to let what's the

    term uh perfect be the enemy of the good I I think this uh brings us a long way and I I think it would be better for San

    Francisco to have something like this than to stay with the current process

    okay that sounds fairly definitive um I um

    so I'm happy to hear of 95 I've been saying 90 so that that 95 sounds even better

    um you know my thinking uh is that even if

    1248 doesn't pass um and it may simply be that it doesn't

    pass on the first try I want to remind people it took like you know 30 years to

    get redistricted reform at the state level it's eventually passed um

    uh something for our legislative Champions to consider to just use you know 12 48

    as the as the model uh and maybe tweak a few things maybe be

    more specific about you know defining what a reasonable stipend is for example or

    um you know putting in a longer timeline uh things that you know

    we know might be a little problematic um if there's a strong

    sense that there's another geography or Regional um uh description we can use besides the

    core of existing supervisorial districts is there something else that

    you know maybe describe certain neighborhoods or parts of the city that

    that might be better for San Francisco independent of whatever the supervisorial district currently is that

    is more you know representative of certain parts

    of the city yet I think there there's an argument that could be made for that

    um but that that 1248 is for San Francisco

    model legislation that is something that we we would agree is a good base and if

    nothing else and we let ourselves just get swept up by it it would be fine is what I'm

    hearing any any any commissioner wanna

    challenge that a little bit and ask a specific question any specific concern

    um this is commissioner Parker um I don't have a specific question but I feel I feel uncertain whether that

    certainly it seems like a a reasonable option and um you know these these different

    aspects that we've talked about where we've repeatedly heard that well we should ask the community about this and we should think about this so even if we

    are 95 there the appointing authority you know the there's a few things that

    feel like we should probably talk about a little more that feel significant enough to not just wholesale just Model

    A B 12 40 48 to meet um and and I'll acknowledge that I'm you

    know obviously our newest commissioner and so I'm still getting up to speed on all of this and so

    um and feel like there's more I want to dig into and more conversations um that I would like to have before I

    feel confident in suggesting that the commission um recommends that sort of wholesale you

    know I would like I would like us to have at least one more meeting as a committee here and maybe invite some

    other folks you know um maybe it's inviting again you know the past redistricting task force members to come

    up and participate and share their points of view I think chema's points of views have been really great to hear and you know maybe there are some others who

    might might be a little bit past the traumatic experience you know who might like to join us and if there are some

    others who might also weigh in I those are just the areas that to me feel like I want to think about them a little more

    and like and just also talk to a few more people to see what they think about that

    um you know and and it may be also worth having some conversations with folks who are considering being our legislative

    sponsors to where what do you think about these issues and is where how much

    do you want to have worked out before you take it to community hearings because I think we have such a responsibility as a commission that

    they're not going to spend tons of time completely reworking something that we suggest to them so you know that's what

    I'd say you know and I I have for instance also meeting with the mayor's office tomorrow

    um to talk about some of these things in here what they think about how this is moving so far see if they have

    suggestions in other groups they'd like to see again with this idea like let's let's get a broad-based support to move

    this all forward so um that's that's where I'm sitting right now thank you commissioner Parker can I

    um get some clarification from the panel on the options for the selection

    um agency uh as I've read it it seemed like it was

    multiple choice like here are some options and you have to

    have a commission that uses one of these um and I I heard uh one of you

    maybe it was Jen I can't remember now said that that there was actually a rank ordering of choice maybe it was pizza

    um could could you guys elaborate on that a bit more because I think if it's um

    a multiple choice that you know that that's something like I

    said we could definitely get community input on and and see who's like the the most trusted and you know would would

    create the put a new uh task force on the best

    footing uh to start with um but if it requires a certain precedence

    then you know then I would agree that we might run a weigh in on it a bit more

    because that's what it says right there yeah yeah I I this I think it was me uh

    this is the part where I I recommend you go back and talk to the City attorney about their memo um their memo says

    quote if the bill applies to San Francisco uh AB 1248 would require the Board of Supervisors to designate the

    ethics commission as the selection entity uh that's the city attorney's

    advice to the elections commission um they they did however issue their

    memo before uh the Appropriations Committee for the assembly issued its

    memo uh which uh may have had other information uh that

    the City attorney would benefit from um it does say uh

    uh order priority uh in that in the language of the bill

    um what does order of priority mean legally that I am not a lawyer so I cannot advise you

    yeah so um you know there there are other options there um do you have to go one two three four

    five down the list can you skip down to five if you want to City attorney seems to think no

    um so that's I think that's where that stands for for the elections commission until you talk with them

    okay so it sounds like there's there's a question about the the selection agency

    um it sounds like most people were okay with kind of the default structure

    um 14 members eight randomly selected eight selecting the six I I will say that's a complete copy of what's done at

    the state level so 14 Commissioners choose for the entire State of California and eight are randomly

    selected and eight select the six so it's the same model there

    um we got lots of thumbs up on a stipend with some questions on how you would

    Define that I think that's something we would certainly I don't know that that would need to be

    in the charter amendment I will say that you know that uh for the California CRC

    it was stipulated as three hundred dollars per day uh with a inflation adjustment

    knowing that you know it's a constitutional amendment they didn't want to lock it in Forever

    so um so there's a question of whether you'd want to actually put an amount or

    or Define it one of the former redistricting task force members had

    opined that it should be that it should be a compensated position but it should be a modest stipend so if she used the

    term modest so it could use language like that that could then be interpreted when it's it's

    actually implemented um yeah just a one quick note on the statements uh the so Jen and I talked um

    she is our advocacy chair so she knows this a bit better than I do but the league has uh some barriers to

    supporting ballot measures that include specific dollar amounts uh as set asides

    um so our our preference um and I it would be sad if we couldn't endorse a

    charter Amendment we liked because of a number but our preference would be to include a mechanism

    um or a formula or some sort of statement that allows for uh that to be

    determined um there are you know there are lots of ways that that can be done

    um and there may be models for that uh that the City attorney could advise on what exists for other committees how do

    they determine it and then looking at uh other uh jurisdictions that do have

    payment for their IRC So Long Beach for example their redistricting commission I

    believe they made 200 per meeting um and then I this is again where you know I'm a little bit out of my depth

    but uh we also would want to look at San Francisco's prohibition on Dual office holding

    um and make sure that the language around that is correct um we did have someone who worked for SF government who

    served on the redistricting task force and we wouldn't want to exclude everyone um who has a role already with the

    government um so making sure that so that this stipend language allows for that usually a stipend would but we gotta check the

    language yeah I'm not a lawyer but I play one after hours yes well I used to say that

    all the time I'm not a longer able to play one on the internet so yeah so that is another

    um question for you guys you know another way of asking the same question

    is if we eliminated all the language uh referring to the registering task force

    in the San Francisco Charter and that is the charter Amendment um

    you know would your organization support that and I guess that is a way of saying

    is it like mostly mostly good so better than it currently is

    I'm seeing some nods um and Russia I can't see you nod so

    maybe you can say something yeah I would say

    [Music] we do we you know we stand behind 12 48

    um as a really good catch-all of some of those best practices that you're looking

    for okay so even for San Francisco even for San Francisco

    even though we think we're very special all the jurisdictions are special and

    that's that's why everyone comes over there and you love all your children too I you do exactly

    okay great so um so again I want to do a time check

    um out of respect for our panelists and also for my fellow Commissioners who thought this was going to be a one-hour

    meeting and not that we're going to spend you know 20 minutes doing a normal technical difficulties

    um it sounds like at least I heard from commissioner Parker that she would like to have at least one more meeting to

    discuss this further um where are you on that I I would like to have more Community

    input I'm I really want where I feel it is essential is the appointing authority

    um because of what we experienced last redistricting uh commission I think

    it'll be really important for us to make sure that we get community input on the

    appointing authority so I think what we could do um I just want us to think about this is

    recommend to the full commission that 1248 be used as model legislation and

    identify certain areas of concern because one of the questions that the commission

    was trying to consider was whether to send a letter to the Board of

    Supervisors asking them to write a letter of support for 1248 and if you'll

    recall commissioner jordanick asked would we make any any amendments right

    so we just endorse it wholesale so one thing that we could take back to

    the full commission is we like 12 48 you know here are some areas and we'd

    like to learn more um and and make sure that this is

    something that we could support right and here are the areas that we're

    going to roll out that that we have some concerns about right

    um but I I do think it would be important to hear from people and I

    think that is something that you were saying commissioner Parker who don't see it as the model just to to make sure that we

    have a balanced perspective so that so the talent challenge we have

    is the commission already made clear that we don't have the capacity to run public input hearings and that is

    something that we would like our legislative Champions right so uh so in

    terms of additional meetings for this committee um

    basically I want to know if we are ready to to make a recommendation about 12 48

    with caveats right or if we want to have another

    session possibly with our panelists possibly with other invited guests

    um to hash out a few more issues before we can make that vote

    and with the Proviso of course that you two are up for that knowing that I will be out for most of you

    I would prefer to have another meeting just to let you know I know that we that is definitely something we talked about on the commission we don't have capacity

    to run a bunch of hearings but you know we're a committee that is I

    don't it feels appropriate to have more than one meeting you know to just continue being able to get into depth

    about this to talk about that specific question I think we all have you know some concerns around that especially the way that City attorney has interpreted

    it um it'd be nice to have a chance to maybe even um consult with the city attorney before we have our next meeting to try to get a

    little more specificity on why that was their interpretation and if it's changed at all with the Amendments

    um and other things as the panelists have recommended and just give you know another opportunity for people to to

    come in and make some suggestions and again you know as I did suggest if we wanted to invite anybody else to have a little more time than just a typical

    three-minute public comment you know might be nice and if they don't want to that's okay you know if that's fine if

    people want to just do public comment but I think offering an opportunity for a few more voices I would feel more comfortable before making a full

    recommendation to the commission by having at least one more meeting and allowing a little bit more of that okay

    I agree all right so so we can defer action until we've had another meeting

    but I think we've had really good input tonight um are there any more specific questions

    we have or for our panelists tonight not for me tonight I really appreciate

    it's been it's great to hear all of your input and obviously you have all spent a lot of time you know on these issues so

    I appreciate it okay thank you great thank you to our panel

    um so um at this point I am going to

    open it up to public comment um

    I'd just like to remind everyone that this committee has a very limited scope and the commission as a whole

    has decided that the Board of Supervisors is better resourced to run full public a

    full public input process once there is specific legislation that is drafted so

    there will be ample opportunity for you to share your thoughts during those hearings if you have already submitted a

    written comment we heard you it's become part of tonight's meeting record

    um having said that we welcome any additional reactions to the discussion

    that we just had um three minutes for anyone

    friends if there's anyone in the room first

    yes yes go ahead

    3a. Public Comment

    you know I'm reading this uh document the San Francisco Election Commission redistricting uh

    initiative and paragraph four uh on page one uh you know the Mandate for for you

    all is to ensure a free Fair functional the election Administration okay that's

    a very reasonable goal um and you're going to introduce

    redistricting initiatives to offer a public forum for Education dialogue soliciting strategic recommendations but

    again uh that's fantastic but things start to go a little sideways in this document for me

    quite frankly and when you look at page four

    at the top of page four to achieve our goal of a charter

    Amendment and redistricting reforms you know the public is really interested in

    reform okay we need reform uh around this process but I really think that it's beyond the

    scope of what you all do here to say that your goal as a charter ribbon legislation happens uh in the

    legislative chamber not here in this unelected Commission further here

    you say we recommend targeting the March 2024 presidential primary election

    you're targeting primary election date for legislation

    it's it's way out of your scope to be doing that this uh

    this reminds me of a Consulting report is what we have here do you hear what

    you're doing you're targeting a particular date for the legislation that's how we're feeling okay that's how

    the public is viewings now turning to the next page on page

    five when the expertise of this channel we hope to ask the debt

    we hope to expedite this phase you're going to expedite why do we need

    expediting think about it we've got until 2032 and

    you want to expedite not only are you targeting 2024 March of

    2024 10 muscle now for charity but you want to expedite this process I

    think you really need to explain to the public why you need to expedite anything with this much time

    you talk about legislative champions and what you're doing to push things

    through with the Board of Supervisors again I think you need to present your

    findings a lot of great findings okay you've had a lot of meetings and a lot of good input

    present those thank you sir yes thank you thank you

    um is there anyone else who has a public comment in the room

    yes sir

    okay two minutes or three three you have three whole minutes three minutes okay my name is Forrest uh so I'm a stop

    Asian can you hear me yes we can use I'm a stop HP activist

    um and I joined the reticity meetings because of like shocking anti-asian

    sentiment uh that I was witnessing um for example a 70 year old Asian rap

    I may call the comment that said that she gained weight of the 20 years to see forla invis Valley come together again

    right this one specific dish the things she wanted she was laughed at making fun of for speaking Chinese

    um and so I say all this because like I'm the first McDonald's like there'll be

    District process is definitely means some some change it's not perfect but

    yeah commissioner died you remember that the agent Community writing um or at least you'll say that publicly

    and you can't remember this moment the amazement history when uh Arnold Townsend chair of Liberty District in

    task force recent about the island at the Asian Community to give up on this one year dream and keep you portal and

    debating in the name of black nation solidarity the name of you know coming together

    I'm sure you remember this right so you can empathize with how it feels to look

    a 70 year old Asian grandma and I and tell her thank

    you for thinking about today we have six hours to make all the times you now have to wait 10 more years until

    this Valley and Portland come together right but if you don't know anything about

    that you could have invited reducing task force Tara count them to

    this meeting right born and raised in the Portola San Francisco native casually could have

    invited him set up this perspective right he just found out about the existence of this committee yesterday I

    was on the phone with him he was shot um in case we'll put a weight in not be

    Distributing through the weight in on the Asians being released in the portal on your community

    were they invited I have a hard time honestly commissioner died I have a hard time

    feeling comfortable with you representing me my community

    on the elections position because I mean the the flavor disregard for

    process that I remember he was spearheading the 11th Hour attempt to remove three sitting

    redistricting task force members who were appointed for due process halfway

    through their assignment when it was made apparent on the commission that there were no grounds for removal you

    continue to try and go your fellow commissioners to support you with no regard for

    profits this caused one of the Commissioners that's out with you to resign

    you tried to remove a senior and respected staff member of the elections

    commission thank you sir the only crime of being a being a standard straight white man

    thank you sir it's been three minutes thank you for your comments

    all right is there anyone else who would like to give public comment

    oh no

    Josephine I'm a community leader of the Chinese speaking Chinese immigrant and

    Chinese American uh I admit that I haven't been

    actions and to your commissions work and I should have because we have been

    sitting from president uh API especially at the school district the smus team

    here in advisory Council have issued um racially

    charged letters to reject applicants in the Chinese system we think that there are too many Chinese and there are too

    many West Side parents so that's what we have been saying and we are working on we can't be here does not mean that we

    don't want you know and I know that there are so many terms that we throw around today that you know we have no

    idea they need 1228 187 49 84 14 8 49

    things like that so I would love to encourage you that

    when you are talking about the Nichi British House of how to acquire how it seeds what is the model one of these

    things it'll be great to inform us to get bring us along to be inclusive don't

    be like those problems that like Zoom us out but you have the responsibility to bring us along we are part of the

    community we can have the issue figure out here with your permission or we can play it out again Big World when things

    happen in a district in about 10 years from now uh I mean like it would be

    pretty that together also and we can get to know your issues and we can figure

    out of course none of the important process is perfect you know somebody's

    still not going to be happy even with certain things how this play out neither side was happy but there was a good

    process that people like really have the chance to talk through things through and I would love to have this same you

    know Outreach to be done in the community when people are not at the table does not mean that we don't want

    to participate I would love for me to be more inclusive and and don't they spoon

    us I'm not to be part of the conversation thank you so much thank you thank you for your comments

    are there any other folks in the room

    okay let me just check and see if there's anyone online who would like to

    make a comment I

    I do not see any hands

    4. Agenda items for future meetings

    okay so with that I will go ahead and close

    um item number three for this meeting

    and let's move on to item number four agenda items for future meetings so it

    sounds like we definitely want to have another meeting um and I am open to suggestions on

    what those topics should be if there are particular panelists you would like to

    see thoughts

    I don't know did you like commissioner will see it didn't look like I couldn't tell if you're about to start speaking um I wonder if um you know we have this

    um the summary you know of recommendations I wonder if it's worth pulling out you

    know specifically the ones that are a little bit more uh nuanced and controversial and and agenda is those

    specific items and invite the public you know as maybe individual agenda items to allow people to give comment on each one

    um could be an idea um as far as folks to invite to speak

    you know I think it'd be fine to have our panelists you know again to be able to speak more maybe they they can also

    speak with others out in the community um I know I will do some Outreach too

    um and maybe we could reach back out to those the most immediate redistricting task force members and invite if any of

    them would like to join to add their experience to this especially as they've had time to reflect a little more you

    know see if they want to um I'm not sure who else I would love to have other suggestions from the public

    of people to have joined I'm not really sure I would like to I would definitely like to hear from as many members of the

    last redistricting task force as possible and I do think it would be huvas to have as you said

    got some elements from this summary and allow the public and give the public

    time to actually comment on it because I think that's that's what's going to be most important

    moving forward I I I personally don't think we need to hear from another panel

    of experts at this point I think at this point it's going to be crucial to hear

    from the public and give the public opportunity to make suggestions talk about

    what appointing authority they think would be most suitable because that's

    where the trust is going to come and so I personally would would like to

    give ourselves a little bit of time to kind of think about having a few agenda

    items not a long meeting because people are busy people um you know are

    parents schools ending I think we need to think about all those things but I think we need to open it up to the

    public comment I'm I personally don't feel I need anymore um expert testimony or comment

    okay so um I guess my concern I think it's

    fine to have a comment at the next meeting I um the concern that we originally had

    with the commission running a public common public input process is that our

    ability to do Outreach and and really have it be any any you know no you're

    right it's I think it's I think it's problematic I I personally would feel more comfortable sticking with what the

    full commission said which is letting our legislative Champions Run a much more comprehensive Outreach to get

    public input um and for us to be able to recommend

    you know hopefully in when we're meeting you know uh what are what our statement

    is on ab1248 as model legislation uh you know if you were to eliminate uh

    redistricting language and call out a few areas that we have questions about right that

    we believe there will need to be public input I think it's fine for us to no

    that's not not have an opinion yet right um because for example those those I

    think there were five options for the for the vetting Authority the selection Authority

    I think it's fine to say we we don't have an opinion on it and something that

    the Board of Supervisors should seek to refine through public input but

    I think the point is that any one of those five is better than the current process right

    um thank you commissioner die for managing my expectations

    uh I am busy we are all busy and you're

    correct I think at this point if there's another meeting I guess I

    know that you're going to be away I guess commissioner Parker and I we need to figure out what we want that to be

    and if it's not um public comment then what would be the

    focus and I'm open um but I I I can just speak for myself that I'm

    I'm not ready to pull the trigger in the sense of moving forward with the legislative with the proposal but I am

    ready to pull the trigger to what we can recommend to the full commission and I

    think putting this on the agenda item for our next commission meeting which is coming up fairly soon

    would probably be a better idea and then if there's a desire for a next

    meeting schedule it after that what do you think commissioner Parker um just I want to make sure your

    understanding so you're suggesting having another committee meeting after the next commission meeting if we want

    to have another meeting I I don't think we should have one before the next commission meeting in my opinion

    um that's that's fine with me I think we should have another committee meeting just because we can get more into Nuance because there's other items that are on

    our commission agenda and that's why we formed a committee that's right okay so um I do think that we should have another meeting

    um and if that means that we have uh a commission meeting to bring kind of a

    report back you know just a status update on how this went today and then have another committee meeting after that and then come back with a

    recommendation after that we can do that you know that's that's fine with me and that maybe allows for it not to be quite so compressed gives us a chance to get

    some um further specifics from the city attorney's office about our question right um that's what I was suggesting I

    was I was definitely suggesting another meeting but for us as a committee to meet after our next full commission

    meeting so just to clarify that would mean we would have nothing to report at

    the next Commission meeting I think it would be just a simple report you know a report of

    the suggestions the questions we came up with and comment from the public I think it would

    be important to just to stress what we've what we heard here you'll probably

    be a short update and but it would give a chance both for our fellow Commissioners to hear you know kind of

    what the general sentiment has been around this and what those kind of hot button issues are that we want to work out so that they know that

    um it also you know as we do it because always with our commission there's a

    There's an opportunity for the public to also give comment there you know as on the committee report section

    um so and then we could schedule afterwards just so they're not so compressed and I know you'll be out of town and you probably prefer to be part

    of the next committee meeting well I do so but I asked you guys to carry forward I mean I guess one question I would have

    for you is does it make sense for for you guys to hold another committee

    meeting possibly with an explicit invite again to the former 2021-22

    redistricting task force members inviting them to comment on 1248

    in particular um and and any of the other summary items that we've had

    um I do want to stress that that's been an open invitation the whole time but we

    can we can make it a special effort and make another invitation if it's not accepted then that's fine that's fine

    but yeah just doing another invite now that it's kind of moving it's getting closer to some action right

    um I think it would be great to invite the rest of the task force members um so whether that is before our next

    commission meeting or after doesn't really matter to me but um we want to give them if we want them

    to actually respond to what do you think about the recommendations in 1240 it would probably give them a little bit of time to review that and be able to right

    give some feedback so I don't know if a week is enough time that's fair right yeah I just respect their time

    just thinking about my schedule because school is ending um that I've got graduation and

    okay so yeah that sounds that sounds like something quite specific falling

    short of trying to do a public input process that we've had right Billy do you demanded right now have no ability

    to do thank you I would hate for it to be thank you for the reminder I have like a couple of loud voices really

    scale us right right I I the Board of Supervisors has full-time staff and they

    can do real Outreach and right um make sure the public is informed so that everyone's included and everyone

    can come and and and give their input um all right uh let me open this up to

    public input um for items for future meetings and I

    see that we already uh have someone in the room Josephine would you go ahead

    of all these terminologies that you have been involved first over here and I really appreciate you know your

    generosity of the time and your energy that really wanted to make a difference

    thank you very much any other commenters in the room

    okay uh online um I see we have

    gen say from the League of Women Voters San Francisco go ahead hi um I also want to bring up that um I

    think earlier Lauren mentioned about possibly um getting a memo analysis about AB 764

    from the city attorney's office so maybe considering um since we're asking the

    previous task force members to read up on uh ab1248 it might be

    um you know uh worth it to also how give them the memo for ab 764 as well

    thank you thank you we will make that request uh

    is there someone else who would like to make a public comment online

    looking for hands I do not see any other hands

    so I'm going to close item number four and uh

    we are adjourned only 51 minutes late um I uh

    we're going to have to coordinate offline on a possible meeting time so we'll go ahead and do that Logistics

    exercise and we will of course post a future meeting on our website

    uh at least 72 hours in advance as is required by the sunshine ordinance and

    again I want to encourage members of the public who are just joining us to go ahead and look at all the packet items

    which has the description of the bills and everything as well as very

    informational videos from past meetings for the past year unfortunately it's on

    the archived elections commission website so you have to go away to the bottom of our new website click on the

    archive website and then you can go back and look at past meetings and just a

    little tip our video recordings are on YouTube and you can right click and go to the specific agenda item which is

    very helpful because we've had some very long meetings so if you know if you look at the agenda and see where the

    redistricting initiative was you can just right click and select go to agenda item 8 and then you can skip the hours

    of Preamble of stuff that you're not interested in okay with that I will

    officially adjourn the meeting and time is 8 52. thank you all for participating

    and we will see you at our next meeting I think

    View transcript


    Approved Meeting Minutes May 31, 2023

    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

    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

    Last updated August 2, 2023