how about now yes okay um commissioner burnholz can you confirm
that you can hear us yeah yes I can now hear you okay let me restart
um thank you for for letting us know I'm going to restart secretary Davis if you don't mind
um so welcome everyone to the July 19 2023 regular meeting of the San
Francisco elections commission I'm the president Robin Stone The Time Is Now 603 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
Just for participating in today's meeting thank you president Stone the meetings
of this meeting will reflect that this meeting is being held in person at City Hall Room 408 one Dr Carlton B Goodlett
Place San Francisco 94102 and remotely via WebEx
as authorized by the elections commission February 15 2023 vote members
of the public May attend the meeting to observe and provide public comment either at the physical meeting location
or remotely details and instructions for participating remotely are listed on the
commission's website and on today's meeting agenda public comment will be available on each
agenda item each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak six minutes if you are online with an
interpreter when providing public comment you are encouraged to state your name clearly once your three minutes
have expired staff will thank you and you will be noted muted please direct any of your comments at
the full commission and refine from directing at individual commissioners
while providing public comment remotely please ensure you are in a quiet location when joining by phone you will
hear a beep when you are connected to the meeting you will be automatically muted and in listening mode only to make
a public comment dial Star 3 to raise your hand 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 for 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 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 on the hand icon again to lower your hand
in participating in real time interested persons are encouraged to participate in
this meeting by submitting public comment by writing on 12 pm of the day of the meeting at elections.commission
at sfgov.org it will be shared with the commission after this meeting has
concluded and will be included as part of the official meeting file thank you president Stone thank you
secretary Davis would you please proceed with item one commission roll call Commissioners please verbally State Your
Presence at today's meeting after your name is called president Stone present
vice president jordanick here commissioner burn holes here
commissioner die commissioner Hayden Crowley commissioner levolsi here commissioner
Parker president stone with all the members present you have your full quorum
wonderful thank you so much sorry
um okay no I have to turn you on when you
want to be you can just unmute everyone okay thank you so much
um thank you John awesome right
testing awesome thank you so much secretary Davis um okay so I am going to State the
um land acknowledgment before we move on to agenda item number two the San Francisco elections commission
acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral homeland of the Maita shalone who are the original inhabitants of the
San Francisco Peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their Traditions the
ramay to shalone have never ceded lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place as well as for
all people to reside in their traditional territory as guests we recognize that we benefit from living
and working on their traditional Homeland we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and
relatives of the rumai to shalone community and affirming their Sovereign rights as first peoples
uh we have closed out agenda item number one and moved to agenda item number two general public comment public comment on
any issue within the elections commission's General jurisdiction that is not covered by any uh uh by another
item on this agenda first let's move to General comment in um person and then move to remote
there are no hands raised
still good okay thank you secretary Davis let's move to agenda item number
three approval of previous meeting minutes discussion impossible action on previous elections commission meeting
minutes specifically pertaining to the June 28 2023 meeting
and also if Commissioners can project into their microphones that would be great just to ensure all everyone can
hear properly thank you commissioner die
yes I provided uh commission secretary Davis a couple of Corrections that are
December meeting has actually been moved to December 12th rather than the 13th
and then also I provided uh some names of the public commenters for the fierce
updates otherwise it looked good thank you commissioner dye and just to
clarify thank you for those edits I looked that schedule is also was relayed
in the meeting as well um so it was just the record of the meeting minutes that said the incorrect
date just to clarify um commissioner or vice president jordanick
a move that we approve the draft minutes with the purpose amendments
second give me a second um second okay we don't technically have to vote but we can
we can vote on that um are there any other comments before we take public comment
and Commissioners oh uh vice president um I was receiving notice that some
someone was trying to raise their hand earlier from the public so maybe they can
okay after um after we go through uh thank you for letting me know after we
go through the public comment and vote on the motion for the approval of the
meeting minutes we can go back to agenda item number two general public comment um are there any other comments
pertaining to agenda item number three before we move to public comment
great um secretary Davis will you see if there are any public commenters for agenda
item number three approval of previous meeting minutes
I I have one hand raised from the attendees I'm not sure if that would be agenda item two or agenda item three why
don't we unmute them and give them the opportunity and then thank you secretary Davis
Richard can you please unmute yourself what comment okay is this on um agenda
item number two or on agenda yes I want to know why I'm not getting
the agendas for the meeting I've been asking I don't know what in the hell's going on
with your group you know I asked they send them and then they don't send them
they send them and don't send them the only reason I found out about tonight's meeting because I looked on the uh
another website the League of Women Voters so thank you we will give you an opportunity to provide public comment on
agenda item number two in a moment we're actually currently on agenda item number three the approval of previous meeting
minutes so if you don't mind just holding off for another brief moment we
will come back to you for agenda item number two is there any other public comment for
agenda item number three before we move to a roll call vote
no great um secretary Davis will you call the roll call vote to approve the uh June
28th 2023 meeting minutes with the proposed amendments
um from commissioner die president Stone yes vice president jordanick yes
commissioner burn holes yes commissioner die aye
commissioner Hayden Crowley yes commissioner levolsi yes commissioner
Parker yes okay this passes unanimously thank you
um so we have closed out agenda item three we will go back to agenda item number two general public comment public
comment on any issue within the elections commissions General jurisdiction that is not covered by another item on this agenda
okay we have three hands raised we can go back to our original speaker
uh Richard can you please unmute yourself
Richard are you there we can come back to him as well we'll
come back with him um we have Brett Turner Brent if you'll
uh mute yourself then you will have three minutes to speak
can you hear us yes thank you can you hear me yes yes great uh thank you uh
Brett Turner speaking for the public on on a couple notes
um the commission and of course it's not the commissioner's fault have this commission has suffered technical
problems for a couple of years now where
I'd say I don't know maybe more often than not the public can't make comment
because this is the the technology isn't working which is obviously ironic but
we're hopeful that we can do some sound checks and and not suffer this uh at
infinitum because it's very trying for the public to to make the meetings and then
you know it's all for naught because the the system is bad
um so thank you for that any attention the other thing is um uh there's an opt out I don't know if
it's agendized uh but it's uh ab1416
Ernst is now trying to keep transparency out of the ballot printing process which
is interesting again ironic that his measures are all against transparency
along with I think Aaron peskin and Tucker Carlson and there's some others that don't want
California to uh move forward with ab1416 so I hope
you can pay attention to that we we have to start demanding transparency I don't know what's going on in San Francisco
but it seems like we're really failing and now we see Mississippi where I just
was with Mrs Medgar Evers Williams um they're moving forward they've got
six counties now with open source systems all based on the work from San Francisco so there's obviously a major
problem here that we're suffering in California Mississippi now being with
New Hampshire the technology leader for the United States it on its face is I
would say absurd and I think you're witnessing the government with
the the supervisors and mayor greed that are at the heart of the matter along
with John Ernst obviously if we could impart to the Secretary of State she needs to listen to the open source
voting guys they're the smartest people in the room it's not the vendors from 20
years ago thank you for your time
okay
okay Jen I see you have your hand raised can
you unmute yourself
hi this is done say with the league of horn voters in San Francisco um Can Can you guys hear me yes yes oh
you're just double checking okay um well to support greater transparency and Community engagement with your
important meetings the legal voters of San Francisco recommend that the elections commission send Public Notices
including meeting notices out to an interested party's email list and put
information about how to sign up for the email list in a prominent spot on your website the commission used to send
Public Notices by email which the league found very helpful and are sure other San Francisco did as well while we
appreciate that the meetings are posted on the elections commission website that requires San Francisco to visit your
website every day to see if something new hasn't added that's the thing that's a significant barrier to transparency
and Community engagement ideally the elections commission would update as bylaws so people still future
Commissioners would follow us this best practice thank you
foreign thank you
Richard would you like to unmute yourself and finish your comment
Richard would you like to unmute yourself and finish your comment
okay not getting a response okay are there any other public commenters
no okay thank you secretary Davis and just a reminder we welcome public
comment um I'm unmuted oh okay
um let's begin the three minute timer does it just pop that well my name's
Richard Rothman and all I want to say is follow the League of Women Voters you know I've asked to be on the mailing
list I get some notices that I don't get any you know in the commission secretary
I don't know who it was it was the current one or another one promised she would send me the lit the email list you
know I get him and how am I supposed to know about them meetings so send out
email lists if you people can't do that then you need to be replaced this is
unacceptable and this is an important issue about the redistricting so people
need to know about it so please send out email notices and update your the voice
message it's back from Fourth of July thank you
thank you are there any other public commenters
vice president jordanick yeah it's just for members of the public that are having trouble it looks like there's two
passwords listed on the agenda for the phones and it looks like the
the um the 86831 is not working it's the the longer one
it's um five eight five nine eight six eight three
um
I think they were trying this one can work
yeah they were saying that didn't work it's funny I think they would try I think this
doesn't work okay they're saying the top one worked okay
um
if people are having trouble and we they should use I mean they won't be able to
hear this but we we have done our best to try and troubleshoot the issue um we'll continue to do our best and
with the limited resources that we have are there any other public commenters
thank you secretary Davis that closes out agenda item number two general public comment uh we will now move to
agenda item number four directors report discussion and possible action regarding the director's report
and we'll hand it over to director John Arts thank you president Stone I can
take questions on the report well I will uh say so yeah yesterday the board did consider an ordinance to opt out of uh
somebody Bill 1416 which would allow counties to place the proponent the
names of proponents and opponents uh on ballots for local ballot measures it's a
requirement for State measures so the state measures will have the listing of opponents and opponents which the
Secretary of State's office will provide to the counties uh so the department is part of its budget process uh because looking back
even last year 2022 and looking back to elections since 2008 if we were to add
the extra space on the ballots by including the uh the local proponents and opponents we would have added cards
for most every election and and part of our our budget process with with the mayor's office was instead of taking a
hard reduction of funds uh from our budget we
put forward the trailing legislation as part of the mayor's budget packet is through the budget Appropriations Committee uh to to uh equal to 500 000
so the department wouldn't have to add an extra card should the proponents and opponents add
more text and far more real estate than expected for both June and the November
elections so the board didn't adopt that ordinance instead uh it amended the
ordinance so that for this current fiscal year uh the the city has opted
out of 1416 so we will not list the proponent's opponents for local measures
they'll still be available in the vote information pamphlet in the paid argument so the information will still be available on our website and also
with with the hard copy book that goes out to all the voters um but then going forward we the
department will have to uh as part of its budget process put forward requests to the board to approve opting out of
our resolution by according to each fiscal year so that's where it stands now so the the ordinance West opt out
going forward it was amended instead to opt out for 23 24 fiscal year as part of
the Department's budget submission to the mayor's office and then starting with 2425 to do so on an annual basis
during the budget cycle and the challenge is is that the the the stack the now the now
statute allows counties to opt out 30 days prior to the submission of the official arguments uh for the election
which is July uh so by then you're already starting you don't you're
already kind of in the in the ballot processing but you're not you're not done yet and so you have to forecast
actually prior to the election of what you expect to be on the ballot uh to seek the opt out so it's a timing issue
as well as is a funding issue for us um but for now as we as we sit as we stand here uh for the next for this
current fiscal year for the which applies to the March 2024 election uh we have opted out and then for the 2024
election we'll likely seek to opt out again and for the 2024 election which is we've
discussed here at the commissions not news uh if we go to a seventh ballot card uh right now we're forecasting six
because the mayor and for other local contests are moving to the the presidential general election uh from
from November 2023 is has been shifted to November 2024. uh so right now we
think we're looking at a six card ballot if we move to a seven card ballot uh there's the cost of the ballot car which
is five around 500 000 dollars but just there's the the ballot printing vendors
operations and processes really can't accommodate us out of the card so they've got to make changes the post
office can't accommodate a seven car without changing its processes and the department can accommodate the seven
card uh without changing a lot of its processes and doing more manual work such as opening every envelope that we
receive that comes back from the voters manually instead of using the equipment
um so that's a concern that we have uh for 2024 it's and for 2023 20 for 24 24
20 24 25 for the current fiscal year 23-24 it's the additional cost and the
impact on the Department's current fiscal year budget again we didn't have to take a reduction in funds for this
fiscal year equal to 500 000 because the city opted out of the uh adding the
performance and opponents on the on the local for local measures on the on the ballot um one thing too I know that uh
commissioner jordanick sent an email to the board last week that was part of the packet and he referenced some other
counties uh so other counties haven't really opted in yet they haven't sought to opt out so it's not and there's
several counties locally that have opted out besides San Francisco I know that Sonoma Contra Costa without the doubt uh
I'm not sure of the others um and also the counties the larger
counties that people have been putting in their in their support letters uh they're they're they have monolingual
ballots so the so in San Francisco we we try to provide ballot uh language
assistance on the ballots by having both English and the the the the person's home language on the ballot because
people like to actually refer the English as a reading in their in their in their home language uh and that's one thing I actually didn't think about we
could potentially go to monolingual ballots in San Francisco to avoid going to a seven card uh and then you know put
notice in the vote by mail packages that we send out if they if they want uh information in a second language then we
can provide that that ballot to them in that way so that's something we can think of going forward
um but uh but there there are differences of monks County so it's not all just Apples to Apples as we as we
make these uh these comparisons but that's where things stand now and I can take any questions
thank you for that report report director Arns um commissioner Hayden Crowley
yes director arms thank you so much um this was a This was
um a bill that was passed by the legislature it wasn't a voter initiative then correct I seem to kind of remember
didn't we vote on something on on that discussion on him I don't think it was before no I'm not talking about the
commission I'm talking about the voters at large in the state voting on this particular issue no I guess I'm just
imagining it um when the vote at the board level they obviously that was a compromise so I'm
just curious um was there a lot of objection to the fact what was do you know what the the
vote was was it six five was it 11-0 so
so this ordinance was part of what's called trailing legislation this is actually the first time that I've ever done I've ever been a part of training
legislation since I've been director so I didn't really the first time I've gone through this process so as part of the
the budget the mayor's budget uh submission to the board the the mayor's
office suggests suggests changes in local law that are that would be cost effective or reduce the city's cost and
so for this budget cycle one of those budgets submission and and Law related
changes from the mayor's office uh was to opt out of 1416. and so when the
board voted yesterday it wasn't specifically on this ordinance just part of this package like 40 other ordinances
and resolutions I believe and so so the vote was ten to one uh supervisor Preston uh voted no but he
prefaced his vote not in relation to voting on The ordinance for 1416. instead on the funding related to uh the
police department's funding levels in the city okay okay thank you I saw that I I do have some concerns just because
uh you know we've got two in letters from folks here from California clean
money campaign and from the League of Women Voters and I understand your reasoning I really do and we have to be
mindful because next year's budget's going to just crater it's going to be worse but
as someone who votes and as someone who kind of just glances at that voter
pamphlet I kind of have my ideas and I look at things differently I actually would love to have to know who is
sponsoring things and who wasn't on the ballot that's just my personal thing if I if I saw that it would certainly make
my choice it's pretty easy um I I think it's a good thing but I
understand um why you know why this year it all of
a sudden but I do think it's something we should work toward I really do I think that um
transparency is always good that and I and I just think it's I think it's a
good idea thank you commissioner Hayden Crowley I
don't see other vice president oh actually vice president Jordan I will uh hand it over
to you but just one quick notice um on a technical matter um the phone access details have been
updated on the website so hopefully that alleviates um some issues for folks who are trying
to access obviously if they have issues they can't hear me right now but if you know anyone if you're struggling please
let them know that the information on the website page for today's meeting has
been updated with the correct code um and the agenda may may be confusing
on the PDF but on the websites page it's on the right hand side you'll see the
code is correct so hopefully that really beats some concerns vice president jordanick
uh yeah thank you president Stone and thank you Dr Ernst for your report
um I had a question about the the surveillance technology ordinance
so so can you just kind of explain more to
higher level like where are those policies um like stored or where can people view
them is it on the department's website or Is there like a technology area of the city's website
once they're adopted uh I don't know if there's a single I mean
the the policies come through quite the committee on information technology and their ordinances so I mean they're
codified in the in the city's admin code I believe so I don't I don't know the code
sections I don't have the ordinance with me I can get back to you on that okay um so the the policies are stored
as part of the administrative code or I believe so I mean it's it's I believe
it's the admin code I can I can check I don't have the resolution or the ordinance economy because when I when I
looked on the Ordnance website it seems like there's no ordinance text it just says that the the board is approving the
policy yeah I think sure well the Coit the commit so if you go to
if you if you click on the uh on the agenda item for the 30-day rule for the
last board board supervisors meeting then you'll see the ordinance that the board is would be considering
for three days prior to reviewing in in session
um yeah so I I'm looking at that but the
there doesn't seem to be um like any there's like the findings section but
there's no I'm not seeing any like crossout or underline of the ordinance or the
administrative codes but um
in any case I maybe I'll I'll just ask you afterwards or something
um yeah so my next comment was about the the opt-out ordinance I appreciate you
sharing the updates from yesterday and um you know just elaborating a little bit more on on your your rationale and
so on and I did include a memo about this topic under the commissioner's reports
but um I think one of the concerns I had was um you know sure there's the issue
about the elections covered by the budget process that the two fiscal years
but one of the issues is that because it was submitted as trailing legislation there was a it was they
requested the 30-day hold waiver which allowed less time for discussion by the public
but then the ordinance was written to be for all future elections and not just for the elections covered by the
the um the budget so so if you're going to have a policy
that's going to be setting something for all elections it seems like you'd want to allow more time for people to weigh
in because as the process went on we saw more organizations coming forward once
they started hearing about it because when the budget committee first voted on it no one really
um knew about it like we we didn't find out about it until after the budget committee put it on it through the director's
report so clarification sorry when you say the budget committee do you mean the elections commission budget committee or
the Board of Supervisors the the board of supervisor inspection Appropriations Committee so
um I think that was one and then I think the amendment that was made yesterday was to amend it to apply not to all
future elections but just well I guess just the one year instead of the two years but
um so anyways that's just kind of a reaction to to that so just having more
time to um for the public to discuss and weigh in
so it makes GCA explorers just indicated that we'll actually have to put this surveillance technology policy on our
website so oh great okay good to know um so do you do you also know so it's
not going to be a part of the codes to or is it just by reference
it could be codified in the ad income okay I see
so each department doesn't have a surveillance technology policy
um already in existence before 19B uh took place they have to go through the process that that John did
um and then to get it approved and then once it's approved then they post it on their website within says 10 days of the
board's approval of the policy so um
oh there they may be I yeah in the appendix section uh
chapter 19B of the admin code it says that it contains it can it should
contain a record of all the policies approved by the board so it should be codified in the
in the appendix section so okay yeah so
um you know assuming this is adopted if you could just let us know like where where it's posted on the department's
website that would be helpful um
yeah so that's those are all my comments thank you thank you vice president jordanick um
commissioner Parker uh yes thank you for your report
um I also actually um have a similar point of view that um
commissioner Hayden Crowley shared um about this ab1416 understanding and would love to
you know if there's creative ways to think about in the future I think that that transparency or the visibility I guess I would say because the
transparency is there we have it in a lot of places but more accessible right if there are ways to do that I would appreciate that my um specific questions
related to your report um one related to the surveillance technology I reviewed all those
attachments you included which were really helpful um and I'll admit like just the name of it feels very sort of scary sort of
surveillance um and so and I and I did notice that there were a lot of notes about what
kind of data the department could use and would use and so I wonder if you can
just simplify a little bit what kind of personal data does the department have access to within technology like this
just to make it a little clearer is this more just typical kind of social
media work it's just it has a big scary name to it so it's all social media based so like
it would just be social media like your your username essentially uh there's no
addresses there's no demographic information there's no phone numbers uh
email addresses or something like that so basically we're monitoring the traffic around I mean as far as the
users are concerned we're monitoring the traffic around our postings is what it comes down to okay all right
thank you um I appreciate that um and then my other question you will not be shocked by this question
um but with the I voted sticker um work is there a reason perhaps a legal reason why you can't receive
submissions from people under age 18. yeah so at this point it's it's a
challenge to to pay that's what I wondered okay with with getting without
going into specifics it's just so that's why for this go around uh the contestants eligible contestants will be
18 or older so okay that's what I suspected because we have lots of talented artists younger than 18 would
love to see them participate but however we are we are for November we are considering how we can do uh like a
future voter or a sticker contest uh we just we don't think we can resolve the
issues and we're too we're also we're too far down the road for a sticker contest in relation to March so we are
we are we have not we want to get below the 18 um age limit but it won't be for that
photo sticker for March and in the sticker we use for March will be used for November so we'll have another
sticker contest potentially for November for for voters who aren't yet for people
who aren't yet eligible to be voters but it would be future voters yeah that makes sense yeah students in other words
okay thank you that's all good thank you commissioner Parker commissioner die
director arms yes I actually had the same exactly the same question as commissioner Parker so I'm really happy
to hear about the future voter contest um I also love the user generated content the video and it prompted me by
the way to sign up very good opt out of the voter information pamphlet uh so was
this something that was commissioned by the department or is it truly user generated just and how did you how did
that happen no it's something that was commissioned through a vendor uh so it's not
they are actual voters but they also were they also were enlisted by the the
Outreach or Communications vendor to uh to create Those ads so okay and then uh
I'm curious if your report mentioned also running running these ads on
streaming channels and cable what was what's the expenditure for that or is
that something that runs as a public information type of thing I don't I don't right now as I didn't I I don't
have the cost breakdown in my head I have to come back with that so okay uh because I'm curious if
um you can get something viral going among social media users who who like the
video it's kind of a fun video right um and get especially people who have chosen to opt out to share
has that been something that's considered certainly because I think that might be the most
effective things I opted out check out this video right and see how many more right send it to 10 10 of your friends
and so you can get them to do it too so um
and then I just had a simple question on the Excelsior Community benefit District that it's kind of an unusual election
for the property owners is it just a simple majority then it passes
yes for that election it was and it's it is for property owners so it's it's a discrete group of people that can cast
balance I noticed uh that you broke it out based on the value of the assessed
value and that's why I was asking that question does that play into it at all or was that just for interest to to see
if these were large Property Owners or small Property Owners was it so the the value of the properties weights also the
the the vote set oh it is weighted right okay got it
so the wind threshold is the majority of the weighted correct got it
got it all right thank you thank you commissioner dye um commissioner bernholz or commissioner
Wilsey did you have any um I had a few
um if and commissioner burnholds I will remain alert if you do have a hand that
you'd like to raise um so a few things pertaining to Social
and some of the conversation here someone who previously worked in Social and in influencer marketing myself very
familiar with some of these tactics I will say I mentioned this to the director offline I thought I think the
content as someone who actively follows the Department on social media
um I think the content's been great of late um and I'm not surprised that it's been
effective and I will say in response to something commissioner died that I mean I think every person who's ever worked
in Social would love things to go viral because of you know people wanting to share I imagine that that is partially
like a goal and user generated content is like a very good way of doing that
um so one thing I I think just based on seeing how great the content is would be
you know are any learnings or lessons that the department gains from the go green campaign that could inform actual
I ways to engage voters ahead of the midterms and the um uh excuse me ahead
of the primaries and the general election next year um just something to think about because it's been so so great
um and then in response to the surveillance technology I do think that term it's been very is actually
misleading because these are very straightforward platforms that are used
in by social teams everywhere I do think obviously um there are always questions about data
but um I I think the term surveillance can be a little bit
I don't know startling um and so I wonder if there's a way that there's a way to kind of
next to the policy that the department adopts just reduce any concerns around surveillance because it really isn't
surveillance it's mostly just monitoring of Engagement so just wanted to clarify
that not really a question for the director more just some thoughts um I'm I did want to call out on page
three about the I voted sticker as well I love of course the future photo sticker that's adorable
um and I also want to just commend the director for responding to the members
of the public who had presented this to the commission I think it's a really great reflection of the way that members
of the public can participate in this process and bring ideas to the table and have
um us and the director all consider that for um for real ideas and real things that
the department can actually execute on um I had some questions just
um I think you had brought up or someone else had brought up working with the Arts commission did you work with them
on this I don't know who brought that up in the past um and if not I was curious about the
the five-member selection panel is the department entirely running this like on its own are they partnering with the
commission obviously I see the amazing Suite of folks that are going to be on the panel I was just curious about the
undertaking of the of the contest so we contacted the Arts commission yeah
we're we're unable to collaborate with them on this particular Endeavor uh so
the department has mostly and also we did get uh we did contact the library as well that was another that was actually
a really good contact for us uh we pulled because they because the library not said anyway uh
um you know bad-mouth the Arts commissions just that they're the type of
art artwork uh contests they have are different than what we're doing so their
their processes and and uh and and their ways just didn't match what we wanted to
do where the library had more similar common experiences that we could pull from uh but in the end though the
department uh is mostly designing this itself uh just based on a lot of factors
cool that don't apply to other agencies cool thank you for clarifying it's good for for folks to know that
um and then one last question I had about the report is actually about the
state legislation um specifically pertaining to ab1219
um so that if it were to pass it would potentially adjust ballot formatting uh
so I in the context of our conversations around the lengths of ballots I wanted
to know how you could anticipate this maybe making our card you know having more card ballots than we already do or
would you do you anticipate it would you know what direction do you think let's say it passes it would go in terms of
adding more cards to our current ballot yeah we still think we'd be within three
cards that we projected with this were to pass okay uh right now and
I could be wrong with that that's what we that's that's our projection we still will stay within the three cards
okay okay
um thank you director aren't um and as it pertains to the conversation around the
um opting in to the around the Board of Supervisors legislation given that that
was somewhat agendized in the commissioner's reports as well I think we can come back to that some of those
conversation some of that conversation in the next agenda item should people have additional comments
um are there any other uh Commissioners who'd like to make comment
okay let's move to public comment
secretary Davis would you move to public comment on the agenda item number for
the director's report
[Music]
hello Commissioners thank you um just a couple comments uh
I don't think the and I understand the budgetary concerns um but I think there's some sensibility
to analyzing those budget concerns and still moving toward best practices for
elections I I know we're hard-pressed for money in San Francisco
um and I I guess uh one of the billionaires can't make a donation on this but if
we're coming down to nipples and dimes over the election system best practices
I I think we should really work hard to opt for transparency not out of it
whether it's six cards or seven cards um
I I find only because I'm familiar with director arms's track record over the
last 15 years of pushing back against transparency and software systems and
transparency on the ballot and transparency in general um and and noting the State of the Union
right now with all these indictments coming down against Trump I I really
think we should be careful here and and fight to preserve San Francisco as a
beacon of light on this issue of transparency and not just fold into whatever director orange says thank you
okay thank you um the next person I have is a call-in
user um it looks like your last three numbers of four to eight
peace on you yourself well then you can restart the timer
uh hi can you hear me now yes we can hear you great thank you uh good evening
Commissioners uh Trent Lang president of California clean money campaign uh we were proud to have sponsored ab1416 uh
which uh we think and as you guys have discussed is a very important bill to ensure that um every voter knows a supported an
opponent's a ballot measures measures from the ballot arguments when they vote even if they can't read the whole voter
guide um so we were of course very disappointed that supervisors voted to opt out of applying at the local
measures uh though we were relieved that it was amended to only opt out this year uh and had the question Revisited just a
background on the need for it because you know some people will say hey this information is in the in the voter
guides which is true but uh our poll we polled uh uh likely voters in California
and it found that although 79 of Likely California voters said it was important
to them to know who supports and opposes ballot measures when they vote only 21
said they were very confident that they know them when they vote only 21 percent
worse 22 percent of Voters said they didn't even know they could find supporters and opponents in the voter
guide or where to find them in it and of course it's even harder in San Francisco because your guides are so uh so long
239 pages long for the November 2022 general election
um that's why we think it's so important that ab1416 adds a short list of supporters and opponents taken from the
ballot arguments uh to the ballot itself uh it was carefully designed with feedback from different registrars to
make it take as little extra space as possible a Max of 125 characters each is
allowed for each support assistant components and it also allows ballots to use a smaller font if needed to save a
ballot page so there should actually be some elections where it doesn't actually require an extra page
these are reasons why uh the legislature passed on the bipartisan votes the all San Francisco's legislators and is
supported by a long list of good government groups um of course this added transparency
will cost a little extra money as uh the director estimated a little over a million dollars uh in some elections but
the stakes of Voters not knowing who really supports and opposes local ballot measures is far far higher as you all
know nearly every election has multiple ballot measures that decide the fate of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars
in revenues or cost for the city even one of those measures failing because voters didn't know where trusted
organizations and leaders stand uh or or vice versa cost San Francisco's orders
of magnitude more than that so we'd like to request two things for a future commission agenda item if possible one
requesting that the commission have time to weigh in on elections related ordinances like this before they're
voted on by a supervisor committee which they didn't have this time as commissioner jordonic pointed out that
seems really important and two to consider saying this the policy of the Department
of Elections not to opt out in in the future which could give important guidance thank you
okay your time was up and we have another public commenter um
Lauren Jordan can you please unmute yourself
gerarden with the League of Women Voters of San Francisco we want to Echo the California queen
money campaigns public comment thank you Trent um and we also wanted to commend the
Board of Supervisors for amending the ordinance uh that would have
permanently opted San Francisco out of the state law uh you know it it was a
bit of a scramble um and uh it's interesting to learn more about the uh trailing legislation
process um in the conversation today so thank you for that information director orange and thank you to the supervisors
and city attorney's office for quickly acting on that Amendment um we are still concerned that having to
consider opting out or not every budget cycle is a problem for voters this could
mean that some elections would have supporters and opponents on the ballot and then some elections wouldn't
and switching back and forth on what the ballot includes from one election to another would likely confuse voters and
confuse voters stop voting the short list of supporters and opponents of local ballot measures should be on every
ballot and it should be at all the languages that voters have come to expect as San Francisco to provide and
even more perhaps um so we we also recommend the actions recommended by clean money campaign
um that there would be guidelines for you the elections commission to weigh in on these policies and ordinances before
they're voted on particularly when they're expedited and establish that
policy that the Department of Elections and San Francisco would not opt out of section 9170 in the future
um and on another quick note thanks to the Department of Elections uh for its renewed social media efforts we really
really look forward to seeing it in full gear for the 2024 elections thanks
excuse me I believe that's it for
okay thank you public commenters thank you Commissioners
um I do have some comments about some of the ordinance but like I said before I
think better to um present them in the next item when some of the things we are better
agendized are um up for discussion so we'll close out agenda item number four thank you
director Ernst and we will move to agenda item number five Commissioners reports discussion and possible action
at Commissioners reports for topics not covered by another item on this agenda meetings with public officials oversight
and observation activities long-range planning for commission activities in areas of study proposed legislation with
effects which affects elections and others based on the documents that are
currently posted as packet items I'm going to start with vice president jordanick but Commissioners are welcome
to um obviously request to raise their hands as well
okay thank you president Stone so for this item I did as I mentioned earlier I
did attach a memo um to the packet and basically it provides a timeline of the events around
the elections opt-out ordinance and I just did that mainly so we could see the
effect that the 30-day hold waiver had on the the process of allowing people to participate in the discussion
and a lot of the um the feedback came later after the budget and Appropriations Committee voted and just
to give one example something that I learned last Thursday night when I was just Googling online was I discovered
that San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee actually passed a resolution
in support of the state Bill back in January 2022 and it was co-sponsored by nine members of the
the Triple C and but that this is not this is an example of something that was
not a part of the discussion for the budget and Appropriations Committee vote so um if there had been more time
there would be time to have these these this type of information get out into
the public and um and so I'm not sure if I mentioned this
earlier but I I did want to thank president peskin for making the amendment to the legislation
um and I know as a member of The League said there was quite a scramble and it
would it took um you know courage and organization in his part to to put that together at the last
minute so um thank you thank you vice president jordanick
um I don't see hands so I will um oh commissioner die go ahead
yeah I want to thank commissioner jordanick for tracking this for us it did seem at the last uh elections
commission meeting that it was kind of a done deal so I was very happy to see
that it was appropriately amended and I completely agree with your comments that
something that might have seemed like a trivial budget issue should not set policy
forever and it I um I really liked the
uh uh Trent Lang suggestion from California clean money campaign about
ensuring that these election related measures actually get discussed by the elections commission we are in oversight
body and unfortunately we only meet once a month so when there's a waiver of 30 days that
it's quite possible it will pass Us by uh so uh definitely support that and as
a follow-on to a comment I made at our last meeting you know I actually looked this up
remember I made a comment that some large percentage of Voters don't actually read anything until they
actually come into The Ballot Box there have been academic studies on this and it's northwards of 50 more than 50
percent of Voters don't actually look at anything until they walk in and vote and
that's when they're getting their information and I know I'm smiling at commissioner Hayden Crawley because I'm
not I'm sure that you do your homework but still especially with the length of our
ballots and the number of measures that we have to consider I know that I have to take notes in with me to like
remember especially when we have competing ballot measures like which are one of my voting no on and which one am I voting yes on and it's incredibly
helpful to have the the list of supporters uh and those in opposition as
a shorthand to to make sure I vote the right way right so even for those of us
who do our homework and many of us apparently do not do our homework and it's in our interest
uh uh as pointed out not to confuse voters and to encourage them to vote and
to give them the information they need when they are able to absorb it and it turns out for a large percentage of
Voters that's when they are actually voting so
thank you commissioner die um
okay I don't see other hands I'm gonna jump in and share my thoughts which I
reserved from the previous agenda item and appreciate hearing the input of my
fellow Commissioners as it pertains to this issue um I I definitely think it's something
we should or can consider discuss and explore as more of a policy as when
um we may have or the department may present potential legislation to the
Board of Supervisors having a policy discussion that starts here um I think even though it did come up
very briefly in the commission um just seeing this like outpouring of response um you know I think there are
multiple ways that this could be beneficial one it would also give the you know beyond having more of a
discussion on the commission of what our stance is but it would also give the director the opportunity to provide more
even more context on the rationale and some of the nuances about the ballot cards and the processes as and US
perhaps having a conversation about if if collaborative Solutions exist I did
you know full disclosure have some concerns with this um with especially permanently opting out I think I have
concerns about this being an annual review um I don't think that that is going to
serve us um as a city but I think that mostly was just punting the issue down the line
um to not have it be an issue right now during the budget deficit if I may presume that was the intention
um but I think that's definitely something we can consider agendizing for the next meeting or perhaps I'll develop
some sort of proposed policy not specifically about this legislation but just when there's a potential piece of
legislation that the department would like to present to the Board of Supervisors you know what does that look
like in terms of the commission having a say or a space or Forum to collaborate
on that and what that would look like um so perhaps we can we can talk talk
more about that generally and I I appreciate all of the all of the input
and the and the support and I again like I said I think giving that director and
also um because I I intent I am certain that the the director's intent was not to
suppress voices necessarily I think maybe just giving the opportunity to
um explain his uh perception of why an ordinance mattered so that there's a space here to have that conversation so
um the commission is also empowered to participate in the conversation as well um
and so that's my that's my stance on it so long-winded way of saying thank you
for um thank you for everyone here in your thoughts I'm commissioner Hayden Crowley
commissioner Parker commissioner jordonic commissioner dye have all expressed their feelings about this so
I'm happy to put a policy or process together that we can discuss at the at the next meeting
um and um and again I think we have we will have to revisit this ordinance at some
point down the line but not not right now um commissioner Hayden Crowley let me
just confirm that commissioner bernhold's neither burn holes nor
livable C have any other because you haven't had the chance to
okay commissioner Hayden Crowley thank you president Stone um I just want to
remind everybody that we actually did discuss this in the context of the budget it came up multiple times and
I I thought that director Ernst was very clear than why he was doing it and it certainly made sense at the time but I
didn't really think it through and I guess the thing is is that
um you know you we've got these Le I mean I just don't think we could we stopped and said hey hey hey we need to look at this
a little bit more carefully so I guess and and that's a common thing in life you know you get into a discussion and
you realize you've gone too far and you have to have to step back and say wait a minute this is I need to really rethink
this I didn't mean what I said kind of thing but we did have the opportunity
when when director Arts did discuss this with us from purely budget it seemed
that it was driven solely by budget and we didn't really talk about it as in
terms of what it meant from um the standpoint of who passed it why
they passed it what's the downside of that and what having this discussion today I realized that I I really I I get
why it was passed I get all of that because I really am I'm I'm very aware of the budget
concerns of this city and the things that we're facing but I do agree that
you can't put a price on transparency and democracy and I think that we have
to work toward that and that's our job as commissioners thank you commissioner Hayden Crowley
um you you are I this is present Stone um I wanted to just respond to that
because I I didn't intend to say that director Arts did not give us the opportunity but I think if we as a
commission want to have more of an open conversation about potential legislation
that's permanent for example then maybe we should be separately agendizing that
um and not and therefore we have time to solicit Community input I mean it's just
an idea to throw out there since um that appears to be anything so I can put some thoughts together based on the
input can also solicit input from the director on his thoughts about some of this as well to
make sure that we have some um we have a
discussion as a body about how we can approach this to make sure that these policy discussions happen and that it
isn't a last-ditch effort that everyone feels like they got a got to participate
and and why they were um why their input is important as well
um yes vice president jordanick yeah I'll just say I support that idea I think
it'd be great if you could put together a proposal and you know even over the past couple weeks it is kind of awkward
you know as a sitting commissioner to want to like give your feedback on something but then you're not you can't
really speak on behalf of the commission so you can only speak as an individual but it would be good if we would have
time to have a a position as a body if we can and it would be a lot more
powerful I think for everyone and also for the public too point of clarification you say say a
position just on anything or specifically on this ordinance um that the commission take a position
on this ordinance or or in general for ordinances that are in the future okay
yeah that makes sense because I know we're kind of going back and forth between this ordinance and just talking
about that process moving forward so yeah more about the process but um I also support taking a position on this
particular issue but I think it's not as it's down the road yeah yeah
yeah I think that's a this present Stone um I don't see any other hands up I just
want to make a glass kind I think that's a fair point because as a commissioner we have to be careful
about advocating for certain things once they're in the desk of the Board of
Supervisors um and so in in the way in which we participate and so yes I do think if
let's say individual Commissioners do have concerns being able to have a space to do it before it reaches that point is
probably better for everyone involved um I I Echo that that sentiment and also
probably better for for yeah for everyone involved um are there any other
updates um actually sorry no I did have an update um were there any other commissioner
reports
okay um I had one other item that I had spoken about in our last meeting that I
wanted to just provide an update to the public on the retreat that we had discussed uh holding for the next for
next month has been postponed um due to a variety of scheduling and
issue staffing issues um but we will
um we will follow up on that ideally sometime fall winter um to to make sure that we are
addressing some of the things that I discussed um previously and I do still very much want us to do a tour of Pier
31. it's a amazing operation that the director and his team run and I think it
would be valuable for all of us so I wanted to let everyone know it's been postponed but more details to come
that is all from me let's move to unless there's anyone else who'd like to make
comment I don't see let's move to public comment
okay uh public comment I have Brett Turner will you please unmute yourself
you have three minutes thank you Commissioners um uh just a couple uh remarks uh we're
concerned who the driving force is behind these efforts that we're hearing
about now is the public coming in late um who who's behind these efforts is it is
it I mean to to go against the state directive like this on that ordinance or
to keep open source voting systems out I I think we should ask ourselves and and and question who who
is deciding these things is it is it Steve
Bennett uh from Dominion is it Aaron peskin is is it John Ernst is it the three of them
together I I just something to ponder like how how are we getting here because
seeing you have to deal with these issues is not in the public interest it's like diversion distraction
misdirection that John Arts continues on this path it was good of commissioner
jordanick to mention even though this is a nonpartisan issue uh the D Triple C
support for 1416. um I don't think for some reason even like
I say it's not partisan but we're not taking into account any of the expert opinion on open source voting we're
ignoring the technology experts in the United States on this one we're ignoring
transparency experts like California clean money um so I'm confused on who who's doing this
with open source we had 40 counties over 40 counties supported by resolution it's
just it doesn't matter so we're still stuck here 15 years later and now we're seeing a pile on of more bad thought
regarding elections and and we're seeing Mississippi ahead of California on open
source voting so I just wanted to say I hope we're taking this all very very seriously in recognizing even though
it's a nonpartisan issue um you know we should pay attention to
some of the what what the city leaders are saying if it's not London breed it's not Aaron peskin it is the Harvey melt
Club it is all the clubs in town California clean money even the League of Women Voters
um everybody's got the right answer except for Don Ernst thank you
I had um someone else with their hand raise but
it's gone are there any other public attendees who'd like to call me
they may not be able to hear you because you're not in the mic
I had a public attendee that had their hand up is there anyone else who'd like to
comment thank you secretary Davis we will close
out agenda item number five and move to agenda item number six fair independent
and effective redistricting for Community engagement committee updates discussion and possible action on
updates from the May and June meetings of the commission's temporary Fair independent effective redistricting for
Community engagement committee so uh people may know that we did agendaize
this again this meeting notwithstanding the fact that the committee has not met in between the previous meeting and this
meeting but commissioner Parker who is a member of the committee was unable to
join us for the last meeting and so wanted to give her an opportunity to provide her comments and then I believe
perhaps uh commissioner and chair of the task force commissioner die would like
to make come as well so I will hand this over to commissioner Parker
which I feel very much on spotlight I don't hear my thoughts how many people
actually care how much I what I think um but thank you very much for making this space for me to share
um I apologize if I get a little long-winded and sharing thoughts I was really trying to pull together my thoughts on the whole thing um but also
kind of it's been a it's been a full couple of months um you know hearing from a lot of folks on this which I
really appreciate um my apologies again for missing our last meeting
um I've watched the recording to catch up on the conversation um and so appreciate being able to be
here and also to Commissioners levoci and dive for sharing some of the thoughts that I had ended our committee
meetings with and I do generally want to thank everyone who's taken the time to share
their opinions and experiences with our committee whether that's as a panelist or as a member of the public through
public comment or the many many emails we received on this topic whether or not we end up agreeing on something I think
it's really important and that multiple perspectives make for a much stronger more informed decision in the end and
civic participation is important it's a major reason why I joined this commission um
and as a newer member of this commission I've been getting up to speed on the redistricting reform initiative this body's taken on I've reviewed
transcripts from past meetings to see what past presenters and panels have shared I've engaged in a lot of
conversations to learn and I still have more I'm reviewing welcome any and all conversations of people who are listening want to talk and share I'm
happy to meet and listen but actually before I get into what kind
of my takeaways and recommendations are I wanted to just um talk folks through just kind of back
up a little bit on where we are and this is a lot based on comment that we have heard over the last couple of months
um as we've heard from so many panels comments conversations including
questions whether we should even be considering this matter as a body I wanted to check that based on my
understanding of what we're doing so my understanding on the goal is that we got
involved as an elections commission as part of our mandate to ensure that there are free fair and functional elections in San Francisco
and who else would take the time to educate both ourselves and the public on this issue it's not very close to the
mandates of other appointed or elected bodies except of course the Board of Supervisors who sets policy for the city
and county but they also cover a million other things not just this and so you
know again what is our goal with this specific redistricting initiative as a commission and I think it is to make
sure that San Francisco has a redistricting process that that a lot that realigns the city's districts
confirming to the rule of one person one vote and prioritizing communities of interest and I think that this totally
relates to free and fair elections some of the comments we have received say they don't think that we should be involved with um involved at all with
this or even at the Board of Supervisors is self-interested and shouldn't have anything to do with this we are not a
legislative body but we are meant to provide oversight of Elections and to ensure that they are
free fair and functional and so I do think it's appropriate for us to make recommendations to a legislative body
not to write a charter Amendment that's we're not allowed to do that but but to recommend policy yes
um and ultimately the decision in action is up to the policy makers and maybe their actions will align with our wrecks
or anyone's wrecks if you are trusted and respected and had a good process so I suspect that at least some of those
who question the relevance of this topic to our body um are partly expressing concerns
because they don't trust us or trust in our process and maybe if they did they may not feel the same way so I think I
feel very strongly about us working on the trust piece and I welcome suggestions from the public and other fellow commissioners
and so how we figure out what to recommend we talk with field experts as
well as people who've actually done the work and know what could have gone better what works well the outgoing task
forces have added their own recommendations and their final reports and yes I have read the most recent one
including all of the statements included from Individual members and if members of the public haven't read that I
encourage you to it's super easy to find VIA search and then getting broad support
um a few thoughts I've shared some of this before in other meetings but I also want to acknowledge that I tend to live
on the side of optimism and what is possible when we listen to each other and humanize each other and act in good
faith I've seen lots of really difficult work move forward in productive ways when we take that approach
um and so how we can get broad support when we're inclusive across a spectrum
of community organizations political Champions and voices I suggested a few months ago one of our commission
meetings that our Best Way Forward would be to try to get the entire Board of Supervisors behind this you make it a
no-brainer you have sponsors on the board who represent differing political ideologies get the mayor's support lots
of varying non-prof non-partisan groups supporting it measures who come forward with that kind of a position are rarely
opposed and they most often pass very easily they also tend to be less political and much less expensive to get
done um it's important for ask for us to ask people who have differing perspectives
for their views there is a perception that our commission is only brought in one side and that the timing of this
process is political because it started right after the commission considered removing its appointed task force
members when there were people who didn't agree with how they were doing their job accusing them of misconduct
um if we have broad support that may help us build trust with more folks and of course um
I know that unanimity on every single item is very unlikely um but we might get close enough that
people can live with what the recommendations are so um we want a defendable and unbiased
process that's intended to accomplish the purpose of both our commission and the goals the redistricting task force
so we don't have broad support yet and I actually don't think we're that close
and I think that part of that is because the perception is as I said is is political and one-sided as opposed to
Big Tent some folks are supportive of what we're doing we've received several public comments on that including today
by email but lots of folks aren't supportive of what we're doing yet I
know that the supervisors on the board who I have spoken with have full plates with other priorities and are more
likely to co-sponsor a good government measure if they know it will be basically unopposed so there's a little
bit of hesitation some folks think we're rushing this unnecessarily because there's State legislation on the table
that addresses some of the very issues we've been discussing since way long before I joined the commission
the mayor's office is in that group of opinions um I still think it's possible to get
towards broad support and I also just want to note that I think it's really important that our commission doesn't
contribute to a moderate versus Progressive Dynamic um everyone agrees that improvements
should be made that's the good news everyone thinks there are improvements to be made even with this most recent
redistricting process there were recommended changes that the entire task force agreed on so that's a good place
to start right we do have things that we share in common so I I don't have the
full answer on how we rebuild trust but I think that part of it is by being very clear about what our job is and what it
isn't being thoughtful and responsive to public comments both those that support and oppose the work and taking the time
to do this responsibility and so my recommendations coming out of this and the committee
knows a lot of this because I've said it there in our committee but is to slow this process down a little bit so that
we can bring folks along with us even though the commission has been having this conversation for a year a
lot of folks have just learned about it so we need to catch them up a bit and invite their feedback to inform our
recommendations and I think that we should wait to finalize our recommendations until after we know what
will happen with ab1248 there are many things in that bill that make complete sense there's some recent revisions to
the number of members I'm including that initial group who fills the rest of the members alternates Staffing and funds
things like that or um those are things those are the kinds of things that make a lot of sense and there are some things
that are not quite as obvious like the appointing authority or a majority versus a super majority
um to come to a decision those are not quite as obvious or straightforward um I would like us to continue inviting
perspectives and explore I think it's appropriate for us as a committee to meet another time or two and once we
know what happens with AV 1248 we can move to finalize recommendations and
whether that's we make firm recommendations across all components of it or of redistricting in general in
redistricting reform or recommendations on most but leave a couple of the items open with some pros and cons on what
those are because we haven't landed I don't know but we can also as a commission help Elevate the
recommendations of past task forces and research data on best practices because we are in a position to help Elevate
some of those past recommendations by folks and ultimately that's the extent of our role to recommend and encourage action
by those in the position to do so that is in the Public's interest and that advances that one person one vote goal
um and just in watching the last meeting I'm really glad we're finding ways to increase access to past presentations
thank you to commissioner dye for putting all those links I think that's super helpful in the plan um I think we we might also bring a more
accessible presentation of all those components being considered to bring everybody along with us and make it very
clear what we're specifically looking at wanting to make recommendations on um anyway there's my long-winded
thoughts thank you commissioner Parker um I really appreciate that thoughtful
that thoughtful um those thoughtful thoughts for lack of a
better word they were they were
um but you clearly thought a lot about it it's a very meaningful
um it's not even 11. and I'm already I'm already mushy
um so I will hand this over to commissioner die I wanted to make a couple of comments that I had intended
to do from the beginning but also um commissioner Parker brought it up um and they will and then I'll hand it
quickly over to um commissioner die I that I also wanted
to thank commissioner die who is the chair of the committee um something that we talked about in the
last commission meeting in June 28th was how important it was to be able to
um provide folks transparency into how much the commission has been exploring
this issue and for how long and although we are very short staffed and limited
and resource strapped um you know not having beautiful website accessibility all the time to everything
we would want to give members of the public you know the the middle ground that um that was determined was updating
the project plan with all of the resources that have been developed over
the last year and so I really want to thank commissioner dye for putting this together and encourage members of the
public to go check that out all of our meetings are available on YouTube and I
think to respond to one other thing that's related to this before handing it
off is this element of trust um I think transparency is an enormous
part of that this document that I'm speaking about is one component of it
but also the commission had a very important conversation about how the how
the commission would develop these recommendations and specifically what type of body would do that
and we actually had that debate over a series of meetings and came to the the
determination that a committee a subcommittee of the elections commission rather than just a couple people working
offline which was kind of how it had been operating earlier on in the process was important for members of the public
to be able to participate show up see the meeting in real time give public comment and so that is another element
of trust that this commission has been striving to do and I agree with commissioner Parker we can continue to
reinforce that and I would also just like to say one last last piece of this which is a thank
you to secretary Davis who has also been fielding all of the emails from members
of the public and also aggregating it so even if you aren't you aren't getting
like an immediate response or response to all of the emails we do see them and secretary Davis has been doing an
amazing job making everyone aware of the support and you know lack of support for certain things so we do appreciate
members of the public participating and always encourage that so thank you to commissioner Dai to the committee and to
secretary Davis for supporting those transparency and accessibility measures
and with that I will hand it over to commissioner dye thank you president Stone uh so the the
document that everyone has been referring to is the agenda item packet
for uh this item uh every district attorney initiative plan version seven
uh most of the changes are on pages three through five where uh what was
just blanket which is plain text before now have live links uh those links go
primarily to our archived website I became clear in the last couple of
fierce committee meetings that uh much of the public has not been on this
year-long journey with us and we wanted to expose all of the content the expert
testimony uh the panel discussion we had with previous redistricting task force
members Etc as well as with um other independent redistricting
commissions both locally and at the state level so uh definitely encourage
all of the members of the public who have engaged with us in the last month and have taken the time to submit
letters to check this out and take a look at our
speakers and what they had to say and why they recommended certain reforms
um there are also a couple other minor edits in the plan uh based on comments
from the public clarifying our role um clarifying uh the legislative process
so there's some minor tweaks in there but uh again the vast majority of the
updates uh are to add the information on the last two committee meetings
as well as the links to all of the past content um over the past year
the other thing I wanted to announce is that the fears committee is planning to
have another meeting on July 31st at six o'clock
to continue the educational process as commissioner Parker suggested we would
like to invite members of the public who you know have not had an opportunity to
hear all this stuff to to come and hear another speaker um
I'm pleased that we will be able to get one of another one of the 2020
California citizens redistricting Commissioners to come and speak to us
umwani who is also one of the co-authors of a report that just came out of the LA
governance reform project I as those of you who have been engaged
with us know uh the city of Los Angeles was actually the target of most of the
reform uh and as uh going through a charter
process of their own uh they have
deservedly attracted most of the attention based on the flaws of their process which were at a whole other
level compared to what we went through in San Francisco so we'll have a chance to hear from assadwani about that
process in Los Angeles as well as ask her questions about how the process at
the state level and I have to say the 2020 CRC outdid mine they actually had a unanimous
opinion I think for us we had a 13 13-1
vote on three maps in a 13 a 12-2 vote on one map but they were unanimous on
all four Statewide Maps so please join us uh it's going to be in room 400 at City Hall and of course we
will also allow participation by WebEx and then the last thing I just wanted to
mention is that I did have the opportunity to meet with President
Tuscan and supervisor Melgar this afternoon shortly before our meeting
and was joined by uh Lauren gerardin from the League of Women Voters
to see if we could answer any questions they might have
on what they needed to move forward on the legislative process and it was a
positive meeting and they've assigned staff to it and are going to take a more
active role and understanding this so that they can put together
a draft amendment that members of the public can respond to as well as other
supervisors so they're kicking the the process off from a legislative
standpoint and this again is in response to the commission's desire to engage the
board since they have far greater resources than we do to hold Community input hearings and to give the public a
chance to share their thoughts on these reforms
thank you commissioner die that's great to hear I don't see do any other Commissioners
have comments and commissioner Mobile C did you have anything about the committee I know you
know um okay let's move to public comment
oh commissioner Hayden Crowley before we move to hey sorry before we move to
public comment commissioner Hayden Crowley I I just want to thank the three Commissioners who participated in who
have participated in this process obviously commissioner die and commissioner levolsi and commissioner
Parker this is a lot of work and I know how much work it is and it's in addition to the commission meeting so I just
think it's important that we acknowledge all of you and thank you for your work thank you
um I agree um vice president jordanick yeah just a
quick question and a comment uh commissioner at the meeting that you attended it was it just you on the
commission side or yes because of course I had originally intended to to go along
with commissioner Parker but since two of us make a majority of the fears committee we can no longer do that so
um I did it by myself yeah makes sense but I just wanted to thank all of you for making your comments I thought it
was very um thoughtful yeah you took the words right
I don't know no but thank you
thank you vice president jordanick did did Lucy it looks like commissioner burn
holes uh has her hand up if yo um unmute yourself
thank you thank you very much and thanks to all of the Commissioners who've done this work
um I I just need clarification I think from commissioner Parker uh if the
for comments on uh slowing down the process are incorporated into the
timeline that's on page four or not
uh I have I have some complex thoughts on that actually I think that um
the slowing down the process I for me means let's make sure we're meeting as a committee
um a few more times to bring some more voices in so that we're in so that we are sure that the recommendations that
we ultimately end up making are informed by a lot of different voices who may not have been following along the process
for the last year that is that is the main thing that I think about related to slowing down is that and so if that
means we don't have recommendations in time to have supervisors put something together and make a March ballot and all
that I'm I'm personally I'm fine with that because I think it's more important to have a good process and to be
inclusive and reflective of a lot of perspectives um so
yeah I'll just leave it at that thank you for that um I appreciate it because I guess what I'm not clear on
then is so that that makes it sound to me I'm understanding correctly that the committee the fierce committee is
continuing on this timeline that's in the document version seven
um at least one of the three of you has expressed actually and I've heard it from the other Commissioners as well
they're great respect for and and desire for as much Community input as possible
how and when would you decide if this timeline focused on these 2024 dates will shift
um commissioner die commissioner burholtz that will be up to the legislative sponsors
and part of the reason that um
uh we had the meeting today was to answer any questions
uh in case they wanted to to make the March ballot
uh but ultimately be up to them to decide whether to introduce it in time
for the March Ballot or if they feel like they need more time so the main thing is they assign staff to look into
it and just to start the process and you know to work with the city attorney to
start drafting something so it will be their call as to whether it makes a
March Ballot or November ballot and I think the best thing that the fears
committee can do and the elections committee can do is to elections commission can do is is to continue the
education effort to bring people along and answer questions about these reforms
and so we will continue in a supporting role while our legislative sponsors take
this forward thank you commissioner dioc commissioner Parker's hand I want to just um share
kind of a technical piece of this and then a second a second element that's
related to that before I do um commissioner burn holes did you have a follow-up question
um or comment well I I guess so
is the committee saying that your Outreach efforts and educational efforts which are so important especially as
we've heard from the public through the emails that they will end on July 31 that that's the
opportunity to participate occasionally for any other Outreach would be at the
um or behest of the Board of Supervisors no uh
basically if if you look at the uh original schedule of topics uh that we covered
even in June through November you know each of those those sessions
those educational sessions so it's in response to either questions from Commissioners suggestions from the
public on what they wanted to hear next and I think what we learned at the last
couple of fierce committee meetings is that there are many members of the
public who missed out on that right uh and so part of it you know commissioner
Parker's suggestion that we um put some materials together to walk people through
um some of the different uh recommended reforms uh so that could be the topic of
a meeting past the 31st so so I I think
to answer I think the question you're asking that probably we're going to continue in parallel with whatever the
Board of Supervisors uh is going to do they they want I mean for them to
introduce it they need to start the drafting process and so that is what
they are doing is figuring out what they want to put in this Charter Amendment and in the meantime you know we can
continue um our public educational efforts to answer questions that the public may
have about uh the reforms that have been recommended that that are part of ab1248
and 764 so that uh so members of the public are
ready to engage when there's a specific proposal from the board
so it's possible that July 31st will not be the last opportunity for the public
to engage in the educational process that's what I'm hearing you say is that correct yes that's correct again the
intention is you know to respond to requests from the public
and other commissioners of you know questions that come up uh how we can you
know bring in more experts uh you know explain
some of the work that we've done in the past to catch people up so that uh
you know when there's a specific proposal from the board and they do specific Outreach for Community input
hearings that people will be ready to engage got it thank you thank you for that clarification and thank you the
three of you for an incredible work thank you
um thank you before I I do pass it to commissioner Parker I wanted to just add
a couple technical technicalities for the for the record um so
importantly as I mentioned in the last meeting I had planned to mention it again at the end of this meeting but
it's relevant here the elections commission will not be meeting in August so our next meeting is not until
September 20th in the context of State legislation as many folks know or some
some may not know they're currently on visas until the middle of August and the
last day for either chamber to present their final any final
bills is before the next convening of the
elections commission so there may be a lot of movement that happens at the state level I may recommend that the
committee you know considers if they're you know they are meeting later this month that they don't meet again until
perhaps later on to see what happened at the state level to be able to provide
um to provide some sort of thoughts for the commission on where things stand and
depending on what passes and I appreciate commissioner burnholz's
comments pertaining to the timeline as just to dust up some folks's memory I
had a lot of issues with this timeline that was listed in this document in addition to some of the other components
about the Outreach not because commissioner dye didn't put a lot of work into it but more just I didn't
agree with it just full disclosure I do think given the
state of where things are it might be confusing to have this current timeline in there and perhaps it could be an
appendix not this is not a directive but an idea that some of the stuff that's from the old like the strategy of you
know Outreach planning and things like that that will be now in the hands of the Board of Supervisors that could
maybe move to an appendix as like previous as parts of the previous plan so that we're not losing that that was
part of this but it's not confusing for new people who are joining this and saying hey wait a minute the commission
is trying to achieve that so something for the committee to consider but those dates and that timeline are relevant to
this conversation um and uh and knowing that this body
won't be meeting until September 20th it does it does mean that some things may
move on the state level before then commissioner Parker um thank you I uh just wanted to add
further Clarity to my answer to commissioner bernholz's question um you know that I do think that that
including voices and all of that is really important and also the my very strong preference
that we as a committee are not making recommendations to the commission until after the legislation outcome happens
and so that to me does conflict probably with where the the Board of Supervisors
but they can do whatever they want of course like once it's in their hands they can do whatever they want but for us and our body I think it's important I
don't think we can make a really informed recommendation until we know what's going to happen with ab1248 we don't know if it's going to affect San
Francisco we don't know what the final amendments could look like the governor might not sign it like we just don't
know and so I don't think it would be responsible for us to make a final recommendation on reforms for
redistricting until we know that outcome so I just wanted to add that um to my previous response
thank you commissioner Parker um and just one more date to add to everyone's radar October 14th is the
date the last date for governor Newsom to sign or veto any legislation as well
so we would have the opportunity as a commission to meet between the last day of the legislature any final bills would
be put forth and any um and any potential signing or vetoing
from the governor and then we will meet again of course in October so just to
make sure those dates are very very clear any other Commissioners want to make
make comment I guess maybe part of what I'm saying regarding that timeline is that you may
already have that on your side commissioner Parker that the timeline Works in that favor is really the thesis
of my timeline statements yes vice president jordanick
yeah thank you president strong me and maybe this is moot based on what you just said but can can someone summarize
again the plans in terms of whether we're going to be asking the board to
support one of those or be given
in part given that we want to wait until those bills are
you know we have the outcome on this yeah I mean I
um I think that uh given where things are uh
you know I think we'd like to see where things go in the Senate uh there might still be an opportunity
to weigh in for example at our September 20th meeting if it's gone through the Senate uh for
us to ask for a letter uh regarding Governor Newsome's signature
so any any of my committee members wanna say anything else on that
definitely so there is there's a possibility we
might want to or is that what I'm here yeah I mean there's certainly a possibility that uh
you know we could take action at our September meeting for example okay thank you
um thank you Fierce committee and other Commissioners for participating let's now
finally move to public comment on agenda item number six fair independent and effective redistricting for Community
engagement committee updates we'll first start with uh public comment in person and then move to public comment via
WebEx and the phone
thank you Commissioners my name is Fernando Marti representing San Francisco Rising I want to thank you all
for all of this work and is the word thoughtful for very thoughtful and
thorough process an amazing number of documents and history that are presented
online we do believe that you are the responsible party to develop
recommendations for reform I think nobody knows this process better than
you all um certainly the Board of Supervisors will be responsible for moving
legislation as a charter Amendment forward but that process would be very much helped and I think the desire that
you all have that there be a unanimous process with the board and with the
mayor would be very much helped by your recommendations as to what should happen
um and this is the time this is why ad 1248 is going through the legislature right
now before uh 2020 Fades from people's memory so that we can move forward
um I heard that some have raised questions about uh a trust in this committee but I think the
recommendations that you have heard from outside are from very trusted organizations is the League of Women
Voters not a trusted organization is common cause uh is Asian law caucus not
the kind of organizations that would be providing recommendations that should be followed
in this process that is not these are not partisan uh groups
um ab1248 is part of that process and I heard uh uh talk about waiting for the
outcome um the outcome might be that Governor Newsom vetoes it for Budget reasons that
should not be a reason for you all not to be ready to move forward with a San Francisco version at your September
meeting so I hope that you through this process reach some recommendations and it might be as a commissioner Parker
said they might not be recommendations on every single item there might be outstanding items that you say well you
know this one we haven't quite reached but we have the majority of these things and we are ready to vote on them as
recommendations to forward to the mayor and to the Board of Supervisors to help them Reach their decisions and moving
forward thank you very much thank you
good evening Commissioners um Alan brodell I'm a district 8 resident and I
uh notice that we're in a big hurry here there's a lot of hurrying we just heard
uh that uh sorry Mr burdo do you mind just waiting
for a moment so we can make sure we get the timer correct so we get your time properly just bear with us for one
moment okay go ahead uh and so anyway
um I want to take us back a little bit in time to May 26 at the fierce meeting um
if you go back to the YouTube uh you can see at minute one hour and 46 minutes
and 29 seconds you can go and and look at the portion that I'm talking about
um after commissioner die had delivered some comments after the remarks that
were made during the presentation she turned to commissioner Parker and asked for input and commissioner Parker uh
said and I'm going to quote uh this is what she said directly we should wait to see what happens with 1268 12 48. and
then act accordingly and continue to bring in as many different perspectives
and voices as we can to shape our recommendations that we hand over to the
Board of Supervisors and then commissioner lavosi then took over some comments after that and said I
agree with you commissioner Parker we need to take our time and step back a
bit and so then commissioner died comes and then says I'm wondering if we can
agree on the broad Strokes of 1248 and whether we'd like to ask the board to
support it or not and you know as a member of the public
looking at this meeting it's just it's two people saying one thing and then the
chair just completely not wanting to hear what's being said
and it's just a I think this that kind of thing is what harms Trust
okay as we see what's happening with this elections Commission to have two people say something so
clearly and then have it be fully and thoroughly ignored the better response
to this to commissioner Parker would be a conversation about who should we bring in what voices should we be added into
this conversation how many times should they come in but to just fully and completely ignore
both of them uh is is really just it's it's outrageous to me and I think that's
what uh gives everybody pause when they look at this commission and then to hear uh
uh people from League of women's voters Asian law caucus and so forth and so on
talk about how we need to rush this this is the last thing we need to rush why do
we need to rush we have a 10-year sentence uh a 10-year uh census there's
no there's no need to rush this is a false deadline that we're rushing towards
um that gives the public pause that makes the public trust this body less we
don't know why we're rushing uh for something that's not happening in 10 years please bring in local voices
before this body on July 31st local voices thank you thank you
okay we have public commenters online
Russia Chavez Cardenas can you please unmute yourself and I'll give you three minutes
on the timer
can you hear us Vanessa California common cause thank you for your robust discussion today I
think what we want to bring to the conversation is like while you consider how your timeline fits with the desire
to fully educate the public um and ensure that
um everyone has an opportunity to weigh in on this we would like to know that there's other jurisdictions that are
doing this very similar processes to what you all are doing um that's take Los Angeles for example
they're also going through a process of listening sessions where they are hearing folks from folks around the
community to get those local perspectives I think that the Commissioners your conversations related
to timeline to get um feedback from folks
um is imperative right now um and I would support commissioner
Parker's comments to continue to educate in commissioner uh Cynthia dies
leadership and continuing to educate the the public about this issue and just
noting that you aren't the only jurisdiction in this process you aren't the only jurisdiction that successfully
slowly moving through this process to consider what types of Charter reforms you will take in the future to ensure
that you have a truly independent redistricting commission where Commissioners are selected either
at random they're not appointed by a current sitting elected officials the types of commissioner sizes
um and some of the other logistics that will go into setting this up
um if there's any support that we can continue to provide or a subject matter expertise we would offer that to you
year um and just note that we are also
monitoring the passage of ab1248 and the other assembly Bill to monitor what is
going to happen I don't think that um you have to rush but I do think that it
is imperative to continue to have these conversations and move the the
conversation forward including local perspectives so thank you for your time
thank you
okay let's go back clear this we have another
uh speaker uh again Lauren if you will unmute yourself I will give you three minutes
thank you please go ahead
hi this is Lauren gerardin that unmute thing can take a little while to pop up
just so you know um Lauren Jordan with the League of Women Voters of San Francisco
and uh just thank you to all of you and especially the folks serving on the
fierce committee we're continuing this incredibly important work on behalf of San
Francisco um you know we we're the league we're thinking a lot about why now is the
right time to reform redistricting in San Francisco there's a suggestion that
we have 10 years we don't we do not have 10 years
um the next map will need to be done in 2032 that's less than 10 years from now
to begin with but also the next redistricting process will need to kick off in
gosh years before that map comes out um we we definitely did not have enough
time last time and so we need more time uh this time around that's part of the reform that we can do
educated and informed voters are are the key to our democracy and right now San
franciscans are more likely to have heard of and understand redistricting because of the recent redistricting
process the highs and lows of that redistricting process personal fresh in many people's minds
redistricting is a complicated issue that can be difficult to understand and we need to act before people forget
about redistricting this isn't a rush this is the right time for the process and importantly by doing redistricting
reform now none of our current supervisors will have a vested interest in the outcomes all current supervisors
and any newly elected in 2024 will be termed out and not able to run for
re-election by the time the next map takes effect in 2032 because of term limits if we delay even just a couple of
years the supervisors who are in office at that later time may be more concerned
about protecting their political power and getting reelected that is the kind of thing that leads to gerrymandering
and interference in the redistricting process and could lead to interference
in the reform process let's avoid that issue and let's do redistricting reform now thank you very
much thank you
that was our finals um speaker okay with no further with no other
public commenters um that will close out agenda item number six and we will now move to
agenda item number seven the closed session discussion and possible action regarding the annual performance evaluation of John Arts the director of
Elections and first we will take public comment on all matters pertaining to this agenda item including whether to
meet in closed session um
secretary Davis so sorry we actually have to move to public comment first on this item
um so sorry to interrupt the conversation um I know you were probably trying to
help get proper spelling of the name oh my God we have his yeah
um so are there any public commenters for agenda item number seven the closed session
there are not great okay we are now going to move to
7B vote on whether to meet in closed session to consider this agenda item uh
uh pursuant to the California government code in San Francisco Administrative Code so uh secretary Davis we please
call the role president Stone yes vice president
jordanick yes commissioner bernholds yes
commissioner die aye commissioner Hayden Crowley yes commissioner levolsi yes commissioner
Parker yes do you have any Madam thank you very
much so we are the time is now 805 p.m we are going to move into closed session
and we will return when we are done
um and for Commissioners including commissioner bernholz we're going to take a five minute break to make sure we're all set up and actually in closed
session properly sorry to have interrupted you Carrie Davis
English (auto-generated)
AllFor youRecently uploaded