Elections Commission Regular Meeting

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

comment

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

okay

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

responsibility

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