tv BOS Government Audits and Oversight Committee SFGTV June 7, 2022 3:05am-5:01am PDT
more extended is fully within what can be funded by this. it's why we put a reference for up to two years and that's also consistent with the purposes of the identified. so we're happy to continue engaging to make sure if there are any changes that are necessary to make sure that those funds can be used for that purpose. open to that. i don't think that's necessary in terms of amendments today but i'm happy to continue that conversation before the full board. >> i would add this is a debate i've been having with the department for years . i do think there is a role for transitionalhousing in our portfolio . these are young folks who have probably never had anapartment before . and they are presenting dozens
of different challenges. if you throw a permanent unit on them without more robust services and interventions and programs to learn about taking responsibility of having your own apartment, itreally is a model designed , and thisisn't the only population . many times women is getting being trafficked are better suited for transitional housing andpermanent supportive housing . there is an interim that there are certain populations who need it. and the inability to think creatively and come up with different funding sources for this type of housing is maddening and it's a debate i've been having with the department for many many years. and with that i will open this up for public comment. >> members of the public who wishto speak on this item and are joining us in person should
line up now . for those listening remotely please call 415-655-0001. enter the meeting id of 248-006-5647 and press pounds twice. once connected you'll need to press start three enter the speaker line. for those in the queue please continue to wait until the system indicatesyou have been on unit and that will be your signal to begin. can we have the first speaker in person ? >> thank you supervisors. i work with youth experiencing homelessness in the haight-ashbury andhave for the past decade . as stated by preston that he asked. has become an international destination for youth coming to seek refuge from poverty, abusive families, foster care, juvenile justice system involvement and abuse. albeit not a service rich neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination we continue to make thousands ofcontacts with
youth and young adults experiencing homelessness in this neighborhood .i feel part of the community and rich history. while the point in time may look like a smaller concentration, as aprovider in that neighborhood for almost a decade i can verify that number is much larger . i'm here to support this legislation because non-time-limited housing needs to be a spectrum of solutions and responding to youth homelessness. this designated funding for unlimited transitional use funding is ready to start utilizing july 1. however it's not been a priority for hs h and it's such a shame any yout should sleep outside when funding is available and providers are eager to operationalize this program . compared to the permanent supportive housing longer-term transitional housing provide more comprehensive services as stated earlier and is often situated in smaller sites which
are two things in this report that are important when making the profound decision transition off thestreets. transitional housing gives you time to build relationships and see their lives outside of an sro .again i want toreiterate i support this legislation and it's not about replacing or not doing a minute supportive housing . it's about providing something to as part of the spectrum of solutions to homelessness . >> thanks for your comments. karen edwards that completes our speakers in the chamber . >> speaker: thank you to the board of supervisors for your consideration of this potentially life-saving legislation.
as someone who works with youth in the tay i am calling to support the legislation in the strongest terms possible. too often unaccompanied minors fall through the cracks of the city's existing housing framework. addressing insecurity among young people under 25 as to chronichomelessness as a result. people living on the streets need and deserve a stable healthy place to live in a neighborhood they feel safe and have access to the services they rely on and the people they trust . we've seen on countless occasions the powerful transformations that can happen when young people have access to theresources they needto transition off the street. if we truly want to address homelessness we need to be realistic about the solutions that work and we can't cut corners. giving young people a safe place to live whenboth save
lives and transform livesyears and generations to come . thank you for your time and consideration . >> thank you for your comments, anymorecallers ? >> mister clerk that completes the queue . >> public comment is now closed. i like to make a motion . i'd like to make a motion to send it to the full board with a positiverecommendation . >> on that motion for a positive recommendation, vice chair safai. [roll call vote] we have 3 aye's . >> chair: is there any other items on this agenda? >> that completes ourbusiness . >> chair: just to note for those joining us for budget and appropriations we will start at 2:10. the meeting is adjourned. >>.
[music] >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language]
>> good morning. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the june 2, 2022, regular meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i am supervisor dean preston, joined by vice chair connie chan and supervisor>> supervisor mandelman:. the -- mandelman. and i want to thank our crew at sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any meetings? >> the board of supervisors are convening hybrid meetings.
the board recognizes that equitable public access is essential and will be taking public comment as follows. first, public comment will be taken on each item of the agenda. those atend in-person will be allowed to go first and then those on the telephone line. for those watching channel 26, 78, 99 and sfgov tv.org t public call in number is streaming across the screen. the number is 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742, then pound twice. when connected you will hear the meeting and discussion, but will be muted and in listening mode only. when the item of interest comes up and public comment is called, those line in person should line up to speak and those on the telephone should dial star 3. remember to turn down the tv and
all listening devices. you may submit them to the clerk at firstname.lastname@example.org. if you submit public comment, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and included as part of the official file and send your comments to our office in city hall, 1 dr carlton goodlett place, san francisco, ca 94102. >> item number one is -- one second. ordinances. force there it is. amending various environmental and health codes requirements
for edible food recovery and organic waste collection. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this ordinance may line up to speak or if you are joining us remotely, please call the public comment line at 415-655-0001 and enter the meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742, then press pound twice. once connected to the meeting you will press star 3 to enter the speaker line. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until we take public comment on this item and when the system indicates that you have been unmuted, that will be your cue to begin your comments. >> thank you, madam clerk. this ordinance is sponsored by our board president walton and i believe we have various representatives here, but to get
started, welcome, ms. gee. good morning. please proceed. >> good morning, supervisor preston and supervisors. thank you so much for considering this item today. despite being 2022, food insecurity remains a pressing issue in our city and across the state as it was already a pressing issue before the covid-19 pandemic when 1-4 san franciscans were at risk of hunger due to low income. the highest rates of food insecurity across california exists particularly in the black and latinx and is a growing trend in asian communities as well. in 2016, california passed state senate bill 1833 signed into law to reduce methane emitted from the landfills by reducing disposal of organic waste in landfills including edible foods. this ordinance coddyes san francisco's regulations and requires that 20% of edible food
that was otherwise be disposed as trash or compost be recovered from human consumption. it requires that edible food not be wasted and go to the highest and best use which is, of course, human consumption or a couple of things. the statewide food recovery goal was inspired by our city's work spearheaded by our own san francisco department of environment. over the last three years the department of environment has been conducting outreach and piloting sb1383 compliance strategies and partnered with the market, grocery outlet, imperfect food and more. they recovered 400,000 pounds of edible food and we directed that to people in need through organizations like z the food
bank and will allow the department of the environment to enforce and implement the federally mandated program within our jurisdiction. the timely passing of this legislation will allow san francisco to be eligible for a 1.1 million grant from calrecycle to create a system to create compost and gardens throughout the city. president walton hopes this ordinance can be sent as a committee report to the board meeting next tuesday because of the time. thank you. >> thank you, ms. gee, and president walton, for your
leadership on this. and tyrone tier, acting director for the department of environment. and mr. sheahan is going to be operating the presentation as i speak. and first i want to thank natalie for her work on the legislation and president walton for sponsoring it and for the committee for considering the item today. and with the senate context and the goals of which natalie was able to outline and the benefits of what we believe we can accomplish in san francisco and next slide please. as everyone knows, we understand the state of the world in the climate emergency and climate crisis in san francisco. we do have an ambitious 2021 climate action plan. and we largely know what needs
to be done and is more a matter of our dedication, courage, and resources in order to enact that plan and moving forward. and i am not overstating the fact that cities and states around the world actually look to san francisco for our leadership with how to implement the programs here in the city and scales beyond the 7x7 square mile input. sb1833 is a perfect example of our work in san francisco scaling across the state. the problem it addresses is around methane gas. and in california landfills are the third largest producers at methane gas and even more potent than carbon dioxide. it is 25 times per potent. and coming from the organics in landfills at the moment and include food scraps, cardboard, paper, yard trimmings and half of what californians dump in
landfills today. and so to that end in 2016, the state of california signed into law sb1383 which was designed to achieve a 75% reduction in the organics that it disposed at the landfill. and the way it accomplishes that goal is in two ways. and one is mirroring and modelling what we already do in san francisco which is implementing a three bin system of composting, recycling and landfill across the state. and take what we have done successfully and scale it across the state. and the second is it requires commercial food generators to donate food and enforce the requirements on food donation. the goal here, as natalie said, is for 20% of more edible food to be rediverted back into our communities by 2025. and so there is a little bit of a time lapse from when sb1383
was passed in 2016 to now which might be a question and the reason why it's taken so long for us to bring this legislation for you today is that the rules and regulations were still being developed by the state. and the state set the broad guidelines and targets but didn't define how to implement the requirements until late 2020 and we have working on the period of implementation since that time. as natalie mentioned, food insecurity is a big issue even here in san francisco. and as she mentioned, 1-4 people don't know where to get the next meal and this is information from the food securitasing force and also a group that was formed by this board of supervisors. and just to put that number in context, when you look at the state, it is estimated that
californians send 11.2 billion pounds of food to the landfill that could otherwise be feeding people. while we want to promote composting efforts, there is a greater use we can find for this food in terms of feeding people in need. next slide. the way this ordinance works is it targets two groups is the edible food generators and food recovery service organizations. let's focus on the area. and required to comply with state law and the commercial food generators. and one to donate the maximum amount of edible food and so surface edible food must be donated and to accomplish food service agreements and three to
keep records of the donations to track progress. and the two tiers for food generators and tier one started in january 1, 2022 and covers about 172 businesses like supermarkets, produce markets and wholesale food distributors. tier two starts in 2024 and that covers 500 businesses foes ku on large restaurants, large hotels and larger venues and events. next slide. the next group covered under sb1333 is 10 food recovery services and these are the basically the companies that transport and collect the food recovery organizations and there is about 374 food recovery organizations which are the
organizations providing food for many years to the many communities throughout the city. for these requirements the requirements are that, one, they accomplish signed agreements and the tier one and tier two donors as noted before. and two, they report what they have donated to the department of environment such that we can then report it to the state of california. next slide. the other component of this legislation is the provision granting enforcement of the city and while we are modelling and taking what we are mandating, we are enforcing that locally and providing the powers to get maximum compliance. and i want to be very clear that similar to all of the efforts, this is not about going out there and finding people from day one. the efforts as historically documented have been focused on
outreach and education. we want to work with businesses to let them know how to comply with sb1383 through education and technical assistant to the businesses so easily comply and to divert the food disposed in a landfill and get those in the hands and mouths of people. next slide. we have been implementing 1383 since 2021 and conducting outreach and done mailers to the tier one and tier two organizations that would be covered. and that's been done in multiple languages and hiring additional resources to do the tier one generator sites. >> next slide. another one of the pilots over the last three years as mentioned by natalie is kitchen zero sf. and in 2019 we received a $50 #
o,000 cal recycle grant to pilot strategies on what the implementation of implementing 1383 might look like. to show what is possible through the ordinance between the 2019 and 2022 period, we worked with 17 food generators to recover over 3 million pounds of food. and that is 2,500,000 meals for san franciscans. we recovered that over the three-year period and as natalie noted, that happened during a time when we were in a flow ball pandemic. we really were helping to redivert food to the highest and best use. next slide. there an operating programs that are helping to look over composting and recycling consistent with the zero waste efforts. and we have signed an m.o.u.
with d.p.h. to break out responsibilities. and so the d.p.h. environmental health grant is responsible for inspecting the businesses as part of the health inspections and the department of environment will be inspecting pretty much everyone else as well as the food distributors, wholesale food vendors and the food recovery organizations. next slide. >> and the department of public health and to the team that is leading this work and with the representatives from the department of public health. >> thank you for your presentation. and colleagues, unless there are questions, let's go ahead and
open up public comment. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> and if you are joining us remotely, call 415-655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 2495 -- sorry. 2487 464 4742. almost said the wrong number and press pound twice. and once connected, press star 3 and for those in the queue, wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and that will be your cue to begin your comments. >> at this time nobody is in person and four listeners but nobody is in line to speak. >> thank you. public comment is closed. >> the leadership at the city level and pushing at the state
level and this as i think the next important big step we take and i want to thank you and department of health as well. and especially president walton and you have summed up the importance of this work and the stats that you discussed are really jarring just to think of how much waste there is of edible food and i think this kind of pushed to try to get this food through creative ways and enforceable ways to the communities that need it the most. certainly ms. gee highlighted some of the d10 work and obviously in my district certainly a lot of work going on around food programs in the philmore and tenderloin is part of my district. it is really this is the back
end of what you see more visibly this afternoon. and in terms of other food programs. and so i want to thank you and thank president walton for his leadership on this. i would like to be added a z a co-sponsor. and i see supervisor mandelman on the roster. >> thank you, chair preston. like you said, and please add me as a cosponsor. >> thank you. and if there are no other comments or questions, let's have a motion to send this item with recommendation as a committee report to the full board. >> so moved by supervisor mandelman. madam clerk, please call the roll. [roll call vote]
>> thank you. the motion passes. and madam clerk, let's call item 2 through 26 together. >> yes. today's agenda items 2 through 26 are ordinances adopting and implementing various memorandums of understanding and collective bargaining agreements wean the city and county of san francisco to be effective july 1, 2022 through june 30, 2024. members of the public who wish to speak on these items that are joining us in person should line up to speak and those joining us remotely, please call the public comment line number at 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742, then press pound twice. once connected to the meeting, you will press star 3 to enter the speaker line. a system prompt will indicate
that you have raised your hand. wait until we take public comment on these items and when the system indicates that you have been unmuted, that will be your cue to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you, madam clerk. and colleagues, obviously we have a number of m.o.u.s and agreements before us today. and looking forward to hearing these. just for the public and folks who wish to comment on these, and just wanted to let everyone know our intent here just in how we hear these items after consultation with folks at human eare sources and thinking -- at human resources and thinking what fits logically together, this first batch of m.o.u.s and then call the group of amendments which are items 28 to 32 which are the police and fire. and we'll then hear separately
unrepresented employees and then the remainder of the items will be called separately. but this is items two through 26. and i want to thank director eisen and her team for an incredible amount of work that has gone into getting us here today in consultations with all of our labor partners. and if you could go ahead and present to us and one thing if, you could -- although we won't go into it, just in terms of the overview, please reference the very few things that are not before us and the status of those as well in the rules committee. welcome, director eisen. >> good morning, chair preston, members of the committee. thank you for having us today. and my name is carol eisen, the human resources director and am i speaking at the right mic or should i be over here? >> up to you. >> this is probably a little
easier for us. i'm here with our the senior leadership team that has been involved with these negotiations and has spearheaded the outcomes that you see before you today. and mr. graham will lead us through the presentation, but i wanted to make general introductory comments. the items that you have called here are successor labor agreements. they are two-year agreements. what is up usual about them is that for the first time since the charter was amended to provide for interest arbitration in the event we reach impasse and cannot resolve our disputes this, round was unique in that we arrived at agreements with
all the labor organizations listed here and the proposed successor agreements that are before you today have been radified by their respective memberships. and now this so to the governing body, you, the board of supervisor, to radify the agreements. in years past we typically present these to you and explain your ministerial duty to act on them based on binding arbitrator's awards and in this instance, all these were achieved through mutual agreement. it is unique, important, and we had high turnout of city employees to vote on that you are agreements and for the most part were overwhelmingly ratified. we are very pleased with the results. it gives us a window into the
world about how city employees are feeling about the work and the employer and now it turns to you. i will call on director graham to walk you through the prepared presentation and tell you about the highlights of the agreements and i'll, of course, be here to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. welcome, mr. graham. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you, chair preston. just briefly, my presentation is going to cover all 32 item, but of course, we will be here to answer and direct any questions you may have about any particular of these other items. we have 33 amended m.o.u.s and in the ordinance before you today. 27 success to have m.o.u.s. 26 of those were radified by the employees. and the only exception is the crafts coalition and that is an arbitrator's decision which is before you as well. there are also limited amendments to the police and fire m.o.u.s.
we are not in negotiation with police and fire this year, so these are wage amendments for those m. o.u.s. we had a two-prong approach, two themes f you will. restoration and recovery were the two themes and even though we had this broad coalition approach, we still negotiated with each union and the individual items and had union autonomy for both item. we negotiated the large thing across the board and negotiated a two-year successor m.o.u.s. on the theme of recovery, one of the items that we looked at was the general wage increase and is a 5.25 wage increase on july 1.
and then there is a 2.5 increase on january 1, 2023. and then a 2.25 increase on june 30 of 2023. and year two increases include off ramp provisions to allow for emergencies that may have come up. and what we believe we achieved was a min mization for greater labor harmony and this was reflected ratifying vote and we went on with areas of mutual agreement and mutual need and made a number of m.o.u.s in that way. sord of broadly, some of the specific things that we worked with largely with other unions on and one was a hiring agreement with the largest union so sciu and ifpte. we made some plans for how we're
going to address the 2500 vacancies and made labor based market wage adjustments. we did the labor market wage increases to retain the existing work force and recruit additional excellent workers to come and work with the city and hybrid and remote works. and we codified the juneteenth holiday across the agreements which was consistent with professor ghoul's recommendation. we added health and safety improvements and tuition reimbursement improvements. and then on the police and fire wages and the amendment before you on that item, i just want to step back far moment and remind you back in december of 2020,
police and fire deferred a wage increase. and so what our amount largely does is to restore that deferred wage increase and this will have the estimated cost of 22 million and 3% wage increase in addition to the previously negotiated 3% wage increase. and in the case of police we also because police department is having issues recruiting and retaining officers, so this year, for instance, we're on pace to lose about 100 officers due to resignation. in the last three years we have seen a lot of officers who resign and transfer to other departments and leave the department all together or the industry all together. and so we're trying to address that by a 2% longevity premium
at year five and 15. and in order to attract new officers to the department, we've also moved the entry level step up so that that way we're more competitive with other departments in terms of how do attract new officers to the force so that we can backfill our ranks of officers where we see some significant decline in the overall number. that is our general presentation on items one through 32. i am available for any questions. >> thank you. i think just one and you referenced some of the vacancies in particular departments but obviously a lot of discussion overall around vacancies in the labor staff up campaign. and i am wondering if you can
just discuss ou these m.o.u.s directly address filling vacancies if at all or to the extent that is addressed by side agreements and other future negotiations. just give us the lay of the land of those discussions and the extent to which it is reflected in the m.o.u.s before us. >> sure. i will say briefly, i am not an expert at the staffing side, so i will speak to the negotiations with the unions. we worked to allow the department to have additional flexibility to staff up quickly. as you know, the merit system is a great system. it does, however, it is not intended to be a fast system. and that has impacted our ability to fill vacancies particularly in 2020 when we were not conducting in-person exam, etc., etc., and we are
hoping to work with them and the civil service commission to come up with solutions to allow us to fill the vacancies more quickly. >> thank you. just so i am clear about the timing of these, my understanding is that these need board approval and by the end of the month. and i fully recognize the amount of work that goes into getting us here but i am in just looking at the boards with treatment of the various m.o.u.s and some accommodations to get things through as committee reports and with other juggling different committees and a bit of a rush i would say from doing this. and i am curious if you can address the timing. i don't know if this is typical
timing and in early june and the scope and types of negotiations occurring. and assess the negotiations of this coming to the board at this time. but in the various items and mapping out with our very busy committee and moving through on timelines and it feels like there is not a lot of room here. so just wondering if you can comment on the timelines here. >> sure. i will answer as best i can and then director eisen can back fill. this is my first year doing it. and the charter defines the deadlines for when to submit the m.o.u.s to the board and the charter requires them may 15 and submitted them on friday, may 13, consistent with the charter requirement. so i don't believe that there is
anything particularly different except for the juneteenth holiday. and has changed the board's schedule and made it more challenging to do items such as this where we do have this july 1 requirement. does that answer your question? >> yes, it does. thank you. and i should say that is a very -- we are happy to schedule around that so one of the thrilling things in all these agreements is seeing juneteenth move from president walton when i just joined the board we did a resolution and so quickly as a nation and a city and paid official and holiday to see that in every one of the agreements is fantastic. and i will put i will just say
that one thing since about 2001 to make caesar chavez a holiday and the folks in the state building get a paid holiday as part of the m.o.u.s but we are a labor city proudly and i am looking forward to playing with you labor friends what we need to do to bring this caesar chavez day into the holiday as city government. i digress. unless there is some breaking update, i know that is not before us. >> no breaking updates. >> can we amend the m.o.u. yet? >> may 15. >> any other questions? >> or comments? >> thank you, chair preston. and thank the h.r. team and
director eisen and leadership with the team here. i appreciate the commitment you make. and about your appointments and this is about collaboration and this is the first time the city is doing a negotiation contract and collectively and as the entire city. with all the unions and labor partners. it is amazing that not only you make the deadline of the charter amendment deadline but the result is mutually satisfactory. no one is left behind so to speak in this series of m.o.u.s and appreciate that you help keys us informed along the way. i look forward to continuing to
see the type of relationship and partnership continue beyond just now. sometimes once we reach the agreement, and i feel like it is the implementation of it and is like making sure the terms and conditions are met in the coming two years and i appreciate the effort more as a first step with the partnership and look forward to the results of them.o.u.. >> you referenced how unusual this situation is and i am just tours you because you have been in the department for some time and see this process through. and can in the last couple of cycles if you could just more
specifically, i am curious how many had to be arbitrated versus coming forward with the situation where the agreements have been reached. how did it look the last couple of cycles in charn? >> i have been involved in collective bargaining in san francisco since the charter was amended in 1991. and we have from my knowledge, we have never presented to the board of supervisors mutually agreed terms which then require your legislative action to enact the terms. other than, as i stated earlier, ministerial votes based on binding arbitrators awards. so i think that in term of our labor relations, we've gotten comfortable with that approach knowing that in the end we will have arbitrators issue awards and so this was a risk for both sides that we laid the
foundation for at the beginning of negotiations and the unique round and i won't say out is of the pandemic but certainly into changed circumstances. and i think both parties, the city, mayor's office and this board of supervisors. and preview and of course, all of our labor organizations also and and terms together and with the public committee and is a loose coalition of unions, while still preserving the rights of each labor organization to raise issues unique to them at their individual bargaining tables. the outcome has surprised everyone me and quite pleased with it. >> thank you, director.
yes, i did not know if we would be here today with policies with this level of agreement. so again, kudos to you and particularly, although not new to d.h.r., new to being the director of it and to all the labor partners. and it's been a rocky and difficult couple of years. >> yes, it has. >> and yet to labor partner, you, mayor's office, and colleagues on the board and i know we appreciate the high level of communication both in gearing up iffer this hearing and also in updates on the negotiations. but -- chairperson, you did ask what is not in front of you earlier in the opening comments. the only thing that is not in front of you and we will comment on each item as you call then as we go is the successor m.o.u. for the registered nurses
represented by the service employees international union, local 10-1 and those negotiations were concluded with a tentative agreement arrived at in the early hours of last friday morning before memorial day weekend. those documents were filed with the clerk on tuesday. they are being reviewed now by the union and continue to be reviewed by our staff and i understand we have established a schedule with your office to make sure that those also get through the board with two readings. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. let's go to public comment. >> okay. thank you, mr. chair. members of the public who wish to speak on these item and are joining us in person may line up to speak now along the side of the windows and for those joining us remotely, call 415-655-0001.
and joining the meeting and the line in the committee and unmuted and that will be your cue to begin your comments. we do have one person in the chambers now. and the president of the transport workers union and local 258. and from the m.t.a. and the local 258 and the local support and ratification for our contract. and approved the contracts as of
last month, so we did meet the deadline. i wanted to say that we are very happy and proud of the work that we did collectively. it was extremely tough, difficult, challenging. we learned a lot in the process. i think that we all came out ahead on both ends. both the agency and the unions. i think our members are very happy with the agreements that we ratified. and i'm hoping that everybody here takes that into consideration because we do not want to go back into contract negotiations any time soon. i think the only downfall to this contract is that it's only a two-year successor. i would have preferred a three-year.
we hope we get the full support of the members. on a personal note, i had my first contract last year and if this is ratified by the full board, i will definitely celebrate by making another baby this year. >> thank you. congratulations. the pressure is on. >> thank you for your comments. we are checking the queue. we have six speakers and one in the queue. put the virtual public commenter forward. >> i am wondering if the clerk is able to answer this question. is this public comment for items 1 through 26? >> this is public comment for items 2 through 26. >> okay, thanks. i will call back for the other part.
thank you. >> thank you. that completes our queue. >> public comment on items 2 through 26 is now closed. [gavel] and seeing no comments and supervisor chan has to accept out, so if i could do a motion to excuse her from this vote and subsequent votes until her return, madam clerk. >> yes, oen that motion to excuse supervisor chan, member mandelman. >> aye. >> and chair preston. >> aye. >> you have two ayes. >> and thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> i will echo my colleagues' thanks and congratulations to our labor partners and the d.h.r. team. this is a nice place to be here
at this time, so thanks, everyone. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. and thank you again for the public comment from mr. morenko and i think it is easy for us to look at the contracts and agreements and numbers and good to be reminded of the representatives who are doing the work through the pandemic. and none less than our our union operators and other m.t.a.. and thank them for coming in and look at these contracts and the folks doing incredible frontline work through the pandemic pandemic. and also coming to the table and negotiating these agreements. i want to reiterate my thanks to the partners and key role and so
if no further comments, let's go ahead and make a motion to forward this with positive recommendation to the full board as a committee report? >> on that motion. i'm sorry. >> moved? >> yes, please call the roll on that. [roll call vote] >> madam clerk, call items 28 through 32. the amendments. and the memorandums of understanding between the city and firefighters union and san francisco police officers association and municipal executive association police and
the municipal executive fire to restore various wage increases effective june 30, 2022, originally due on july 1, 2020. members of the public who wish to speak on these ordinances may line up to speak now or joining remotely, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742 and press pound twice. 1 once connected, press star 3 to comment and the system indicates that you have been unmuted, that will be your cue to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you, madam clerk.
and director eisen, i don't know if you have more comments. >> i am available to answer any questions over the amendments. >> thank you. i did have just on the changes you described on the police m.o.u. item, item 30. just the rationale for some of the increases and also quantifying the changes to the steps that were made in that one which are different if i am not mistaken from the other m.o.u.s and basely redefining the base step one salary is what was previously step two. >> that's right. so we eliminated this first step. the entry level step and made step two our step one. and so again, the reason why we did that was largely to go into
the recruitment of officers. my understanding is that there are fewer than 10 people apply for the academy. the recruitment of police officers in our region is a highly competitive endeavor. currently of the 12 police officer agencies that we compare ourselves to, we are seventh in terms of total compensation. so we felt like we needed to do something in order to remain competitive in the marketplace for police, and we felt like adjusting the steps was a key way of doing that. it also results in a number of increase and with the other officers get an increase and as i mentioned before, we have the longevity and 5% and 15% and that is to help us be competitive. we are getting a lot of officers
who are resigning are making lateral moves to other departments, so that is really a concern there because we believe that part of the reason why they are making those lateral moves is for compensation. some cities have bonuses in order to try to poach police from cities such as ours. >> thank you. and is that changed to the steps? is that unique to the item 30? or is that reflected in any of the other agroements before us? >> i think the question is if we understand it, best answered by our compensation director. this making changes to what steps are and how people promote through them and whether or not they get extra pay at certain points in their career is a very common feature of our
compensation plan and it varies according to occupation. and mr. ponder is best suited to answer that. >> thank you. welcome, mr. ponder. >> good morning. we have done this in a number of instances. actually, friday morning i was doing this with our nurses. and so our salary steps go throughout someone's career. we target wage increases to recruitment and retention. sometimes, again, like we target it toward entry. with the police officer, we saw about 450 officers eligible for retirement. and again, they are going to be getting a 3% and if they retire by july 1 and giving the longevity step, it gives them an incentive to stay another year or more years to stem the tide.
so that explains the longevity and if any of the nurses or any of those do the longevity and the step increases. >> this one is unique. >> thank you. >> thanks. can we open these up for public comment? >> yes. at this time, members of the public who wish to speak on these items may line up now alongtide the win dose and for those joining us remotely, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742, press pound twice. once connected, press star 3 to
enter the speaker line. a system prompt will indicate you have been unmuted. and you can begin your comments. we can have the first commenter in person. you may begin your comments. >> welcome. >> good morning, chair preston, supervisor mandelman. sorry supervisor chan had to step out. tracy mccray, the acting president of the police officers association. carol as her team, steve, jonathan said, we are in a unique position for the san francisco police department of the 1900 members that i am up here representing and the retention issue is a big issue for this city. we are losing officers with july of 2020 to present day. we have lost over 100 officers who have lateral to other agencies. and basically the things that you may want for your districts foot patrols, bike patrols, police officers going after
violent criminals, that is all going to be severely impacted if we don't have officers out on the streets and retaining officers is probably the most important facet of the department right now. and unfortunately, there is no one here from the department to speak about that, but i will speak to the fact that you probably will have eye raising, hair raising figures from overtime that is taking to keep officers out on the street. so retaining officers is so important and i can't even explain to you how important that is to answer the calls for service that nonstop. crime hasn't stopped. the district has suffered horrendous acts in the past 24 hours. we need officers. so just please think about that when you're looking at this
agreement. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. the first virtual callers, please. >> i am calling in to urge you to approve the budget of mayor breed's critical plan to hire and keep law enforcement. as you know, the police department needs to add more than 500 officers to meet the recommended level of staffing. as the resident living here since 1996, i can tell you from experience that the streets have become less safe. in the last year my car was stolen from in front of my home and a neighbor was held up at gun point. and 86% want an increase and 75% want an increase of police in
and i cannot imagine any professionals and did not think it correct to hire teacher, for example, without adequate pay, staffing or supplies and our police deserve the same level of support of any other professionals to do their best work. i expect the board of supervisors and with the worthwhile policies to develop the diverse and well trained police department and improvement and retainment is important so make sure that our officers have everything we need to return safely after their shift to their homes and families. san francisco has 200 vacant police officer divisions and heard that 450 retirements are moving. this is not acceptable.
the voter mandate to meet the needs of the residents, businesses and visitors. we are nowhere near that time at the expense of responding to other calls for service and not at all. and the crimes to handle responding to property crimes like auto break-ins and burglaries, and i myself am a victim of an auto break in and burglary and as are the customers that go to my business, i own a small local business. and it is really impacting us. people cannot mark near us and have a safe space to do that. also i noticed that the ice cream and a cop event how scared the d1 residents and small business owners were.
i need to tell you that the regular citizens of san francisco want the police staffed police department and this committee and board of supervisors need to deliver on this immediately. if the board delays or rejects this m.o.u., it is showing the people of san francisco that the supervisors are not listening to us who live in the neighborhoods and the small businesses who are calling for more police officers to walk beats, respond to break-ins at people's homes and the businesses to deal with all the safety problems inpacting our city. please, please, please approve this m.o.u. without further delay. >> thanks for your comments. >> thank you for your comment. >> if you are one of the six people listening to the meeting today and would like to be one of the and enter the line and
415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742. we have two speakers in the queue. please put the next caller forward. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is veronica and i am asking you to approve this m.o.u.. residents and small businesses across the entire city are asking for more officers to walk the beat in their neighborhood. to respond typically to the 911 calls and to address the break-s in, drug dealing and violent crime in the city. as you have seen, 76% of san franciscans believer that the city is going down the wrong track which includes the lack of police present. by approving this m.o.u. and filling the already approved position that are vacant, you
can add officers to district stations all across the city. our city leaders shouch doing everything that you can to fulfill these open positions and get more officers out on the streets. let's focus on getting the basic right to the city and getting it back on the right track. this means focussing on public safety and hiring more police officers. and the mayor's budget delivers what the city desperately needs. please approve this m.o.u.. >> thank you for your comments. may we have the next caller? >> good morning, chair and committee members. without weighing in to the details and what they want to talk about in the reform buck, i
want to go to the broader context and the employee organizations have negotiated and joined the call to staff up san francisco and debates through the budget process about how we staff up and what that staffing model looks like, certainly the building trades and other unions have aggressive ideas of use of hiring and other ways to increase staffing in the city as needed and public services and to go to what is negotiate and move it forward regardless of recommendation. it is important that this keeps move forward for the stability of the budget and the morale of
the city employees both nonsworn and sworn. thank you for stanning by the public employees committee and i look forward to moving this to the full board for the rest of the discussion. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. at this time we have eight listeners and one in the queue. please put the last caller forward. >> hi. thanks for taking my call. i just want to give my full support to the board of supervisors approving the mayor's budget and law enforcement. please do it today and no more important time for the safety to
have more police and the best police. >> do we have any other callers in the queue at this time? we do have one more caller. please put the last caller forward. [dog barking in background] >> hello. i would like to make a comment that i am in support of more funds going towards the police department. we're losing police by the second. no, we have not reached a 1994 city charter numbers. we have only 2/3 of those numbers right now and we cannot compete with the counties and we needs the fund to be able to do so. you can see you can reference yesterday's "wall street
journal" and the whole nation is talking about crime in san francisco. we have a recall right now because of it. and i think the board of supervisors needs to listen to the public and understand what exactly is going on here and act accordingly. at some point you think politically is the right thing to do, but not what is politically correct and what the people want. thank you. bye. >> thank you for your comments. we have completed our queue. that completes our queue. >> thank you, madam clerk. public comment on these items is now closed. did have a couple additional questions for clarity. one is the total cost on the two police items on 30 and 31. if you could clarify what the total costs are.
by doing this off the cuff. and i believe that step increase is about 1.5 million and a great restoration of the wage increase is another 4 million and the step increases were another nine million for a total of 16. this is me off the cuff. so is that part so the mayor released the proposed budget and $59 million increase to police and is that 16 million part of that 59 million if you are able to say? to the mayor's office. >> ashley, mayor's budget director. yes t costs are included in the budget that was introduced yesterday. >> got it. thank you. on all of these that are what we
call together here, on the amendment, the ordinance as it is defined, the title of the ordinance is just to restore the deferred increase. when you read the actual amendments and it is all the other additional detail. so i am just wanted to check was -- i didn't know if there was a reason for that why the short description and the title and all that referred to the deferred portion and not to any of the other agreements here. >> supervisor, i would have to defer to the city attorney's office on that. i am not sure we were directly involved in the titling. i will say on the four items that you called that are amendments to police, fire, police management, fire management, labor agreements, the lion's share of the costs and the main point of those amendments was to partially restore the wage increases that
those unions had negotiated and voluntarily agreed to defer. i just want to note because i'm not sure this really came out earl yer in each instance, those unions deferring those wage increases will never recover the 18 month of loss of that increase. what we're doing by advancing the increases is preventing them from losing another 12 months of those earlier neeshlted increases. and the questions that you have asked about the police labor agreement with the changes to agreement that are not in the title are designed entirely to address major concerns within our police department about staff leaving and about being able to hire to try and help position that department to stop the loss of officers to other
agencies and to position ourselves better in the labor market because we are not as competitive as we need to be and especially given the very difficult circumstances of being a police officer in san francisco. we felt this is minimally what we could attempt to do as a stop gap measure until we're back in negotiations next year with our police officers' association reconsidering the full agreement. >> thank you, director. and deputy city attorney pearson, i don't know if you have anything to add on that. i partly want to make sure we are okay in terms of brown act and so forth when the title references just the deferred increases but obviously a number of other significant provisions in the agreement. and if you could comment on why that is not reflected. >> sure. deputy city attorney ann pearson. the city attorney's office drafts the long title and if you look at the long titles for each one of these, it is very short. it is generally approving an
agreement. we don't go into the del days of every amendment because the agreements are in the file. and under the administrative code they have to be there for 15 days so members of the public can consult them. i am not sure why this one aspect of this was highlighted in the long title. but i think these generally cover all of the amendments that are made within the document. >> thank you. and i'm not sure it's a concern necessarily and unique to the police one that i think would have of more interest to weigh in on the policy matter. and the one that is a deferral for public view. director eisen? >> chair preston, not directly
to your point, but one aspect of the amendments to the police officers agreement that i just want to make sure that the committee is aware of, retention pay is a very common feature of police agreements in the state of california. this is not something invented here in san francisco. it's already a standing feature of this labor agreement. what we chose to do in identifying the most vulnerable periods in an officer's career susceptible to lateral transfers to other agencies where, by the way, the other those other agencies are paying signing bonus and to entice officers away from us and to resolve their own employment problems. and we identified those critical
junctures to swusz and not with the signing office. and i won't belabor this point any further except to say maybe this is more of an issue in terms of a drafting issue and a constructive suggestion. and it is one thing to have short title and that emits the details that is the ordinance and the public can look at the union and the way the titles are prepared. and it pulls out one thing that in some ways i think is probably the at least controversial. it's already been discussed and names restoration of a 1% deferral in that title and doesn't name the increases to
the basalries t longevity bonuses and the various things that have been described. i think i would favor and recommend what is more transparent approach would be to either not include my of the details or include them all when putting out the title which is the first thing and the main thing that the public sees on these. so i don't have further questions. i do have some comments and a suggested path forward on these interested to hear from my colleague on the committee as well. and so i should just say that i think that the fire ones that are before us are no concerns and especially after a day like yesterday in my district. no bigger reminder of the
crucial work being done by fire and so with thanks to all the fire, labor folks in the department and d.h.r., similar comments to those i made on the previous items and am happy to make a motion on those to move them with recommendation as committee report. i want to talk about the police ones. obviously this is what has been a commercial issue and i think there's through a disconnect between how we budget and how we talk on a policy matter and i recognize not all of that is part of this job of the negotiators and d.h.r. to resolve. i will say that the last time that the p.o.a.'s m.o.u. came before the board, i expressed
serious concerns about the city seeding bargaining power in my view to ensure that reforms are implemented by not tying any of that to negotiations or discussions so not seeking concessions on reforms. and in m.o.u. and understandings and with the extensive amendment and the title does more than restoring the wage and the base increases with the longevity bonuses increased significantly. we are in the place on a lot of the important issues to address
issues and policing in the city. so that is disappointing to me that we are asked to decide these in a silo without the city using that extent to make more progress with the rhetoric commitment to. and my understanding is the relevant m.o.u. as the thing for the amendment will be open for negotiation starting next month. and going into that negotiation with this breadth of concessions from the city raises additional concerns whether we're locking ourselves into a weak or poor part in the position again when it comes to the other issues. i recognize this is a complex
conversation and we vowed as a city to change policing in our city after the murder of george floyd and in my view the business as usual when it comes to policing is not -- should not be an option anymore. i think we can't ignore additional red flags and things that have come up over the past year or two in the last year, we have had multiple -- i don't want to say scandals, but involving police including growing evidence of what appears to be work stoppage and to withdraw from the m.o.u. with the district attorney's office which insures that crimes committed by police officers on the job can be investigated independently of the police department.
as we talked about in the chief and repeatedly with the board and racial disparities in policing despite implementation of some reforms persist and are not improving in any significant way. and against that backdrop to get the announcement from the mayor because of the budget surplus created by voters for affordable housing instead to increase police budgets by $59 million which is more than just to put in context is more than the entire budget of the san francisco public defender's office. just the increase is more than the entire budget of the public defender's office. i think it is worth a conversation at the full board before we vote on this. i'm interested and these are views that i have articulated
before that are strongly held and i am not seeing the level of change and have real concerns about rewarding with concessions over and over without getting more commitments around actual changes in the department and how we police. but i do this my recommendation is from my colleague and my recommendation is if we're going to move this forward, item 30 and 31 and the two police m.o.u. amendments and that we move them to the full board, we do it without recommendation. i am fine to move it as a committee report to give us space to discuss this as a board and the policy matters that i have raised before the final decision and the final vote. that is where i am leaning and open to how you want to suggest
we proceed. >> although we agree on many, many things, i think we agree profoundly on some of these questions. given the makeup of the committee right now, i think this is proceeding without recommendation makes sense and is probably the right way to go forward. and we can have a full discussion at the full board later. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. so i want to make that a motion. >> i guess i am moving to move the item other than 30 and 31 with positive recommendation and 30 and 31 without recommendation. all of them as committee reports. >> on those motions. i did write them all down. should i restate them? on that motion to send 28, 29,
and 32 to the board recommended -- 30 and 31 are police and the fire ones to the board recommended and 30 and 31 not recommended as a -- without recommendation. to the full board. >> without reference to the committee report. all right. on those motions, member mandelman. >> aye. >> and chair preston. >> aye. >> thank you. the motions pass. and madam clerk, if you can call the next item 27 please. >> item 27 is fixing compensations for the persons employed by the city and county
of san francisco whose compensation is subject to the provisions of section a8.409 of the charter in job codes not represented by an employee organization and establishing working schedules and other terms and conditions of employment and methods of payment effective july 1, 2022. member of the public who wish to provide public comments on this ordinance may line up to speak. and we will call public comment and if you are joining us remotely, call the public comment line and enter the meeting i.d. of 2487 464 4742 and press pound twice. once connected to the meeting you will press star 3 to enter the speaker line. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmute and that will be the cue to begin your comments. >> thank you, madam clerk and director eisen, do you want to
address this item? >> this covers very small slice of city employment in the proposed ordinance that is before you today, the only change is the change in the wage rates for the coming years. >> thank you. this is hard for me to wrap my brain around because i understand enough about labor negotiations to understand when you are actually negotiating with a union. and trying to understand the process here. we got some detail from you, thank you, around who is
coffered by this and is not a level of clarity around the different -- we got the classifications like mayor something nine without really knowing what the different positions are. so just some clarity on the body of employees. and how is this negotiating? how does this come before us? who speaks? is there a representative? >> this is no representative of the unrepresented. they are unrepresented by definition. the terms and conditions are set by the employer and the staff work is done within my office. the group that's covered are most but not all of the employees of the mayor's office and a very small group of employees in the department of human resources involved in negotiations along with some of
the city's, i believe the controller is in this ordinance and there may be one or two other positions and it always follows the general terms and there are also, i believe, two executives that are represented in this and included in the ordinance. >> so why is that? >> those folks are not covered by the agreement for municipal attorneys. >> i cannot comment on why they are not in the bargaining unit and they have the same rights as any other employee, but no one has petitioned us to change
their status. >> we have a couple of people from the city attorney's office, the controller, stray folks from different departments. >> most department heads are represented by the municipal executive association with some outlieers and other elected officials. some have by charter have contracts with their commissions. so this is what's left. the state law that provides for collective bargains for local government employees is very broad and bestows rights on virtually every single employee
within our world of 33,000 employees. what is left and even your own aides are represented by a labor organization dating back 30 years and they went through the process with the election so for the mayor's office positions, is this the entire mix of represented and unrepresented or the entirety of the mayor's office staff included in the unremitted bucket? >> the former. there are represented employees in the mayor's office. as well as many unremitted. similarly in mr. graham's
organization, we have some represented employees and several in this ordinance in front of you. >> thank you. when we are looking at the breakdown and something that is like mayor's staff 11, is everyone who is in mayor's staff 11 an unrepresented employee? or is is there a mix within the classifications to who is represent and who is unrepresented? >> they are all unrepresented. >> thank you. >> seeing no questions, let's open up public comment on this. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> member of the public may line up now and if you are joining us remotely, call 415-655-0001, enter the meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742 and then press
pound twice. once connected, press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and then that will be your cue to begin your comments. we are -- there are no in-person commenters. and it looks like we have five people listening but zero in our speaker queue. so that completes our queue. >> thank you, madam clerk. public comment on this item is now closed. i'm prepared to forward this one forward and i would ask for a little more of the breakdown and mayor's staff 1 and mayor's staff 2 doesn't help us know what the positions are and a strange dynamic on these
unrepresented dynamic and i think that the board has some oversight and i think it appears to me what happens is basically either you or allowed to dictate terms and everyone under this agreement doesn't have a way to weigh in and maybe that is the nature of not being represented in a union but calls for us as a board and looking at these to take that much closer of a look. we have some outstanding requests before it comes to the full board, i don't want to hold it up here. i understand we are on tight timeline, but i want to have
that additional input. >> an it seems that you're interested in especially the mayor classifications. which just so the committee knows, they function not dissimilarly to the classifications by the municipal executive association in that they are essentially pay bans and within the pay bans, specific job titles are placed and with each mayor's administration, those can change, so members of the mayor's office have working titles and they are placed within one of those bands. it is very similar to how our classifications governing our management structure and has a
pay ban and cover the gambit of titles within city employment. >> that is why last time through we asked for and received a more detailed the classification alone may not indicate what someone does, so you just can do what was done previously which was to send us the list of the actual titles if the classification doesn't develop. i don't want to go into position by position. and i think in our discussion here and now that but just this info doesn't tell us and i appreciate the explanation and context of why it's labelled like that, but you can't look at this list which is just mayor's office and mayor's office x, and 10, mayor's office 11, and 12, and really know who we're talking about in terms of who ease being told that these are the new terms of employment.
and so -- >> chair preston, we'll be in touch with your office. i was just consulting with the employee relation staff. i don't think we have any pending detailed questions from your staff at this point, but happy to work with them today and leading up to the full board meeting. >> i think my preference to do that is do this without recommendation. if that is okay, supervisor mandelman. >> i would be comfortable moving it forward with recommendation, but i am happy to move this forward as a committee report without recommendation. >> thank you. madam clerk? >> on that motion to forward this without recommendation or with recommendation? >> without recommendation.
>> member mandelman. >> and chair preston. >> you have two ayes. thank you. the motion passes. let's call item 33 is an ordinance adopting the letter and of agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the committee of interns and residents to be effective july 1, 2022 through june 30, 2023. members of the public may line up to speak when public comment is called. if you are joining remotely, call the number at 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742, then press pound twice. once connected to the meeting you will press star 3 to enter the speaker line and system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until we take public comment and the system indicates that you have been unmuted to
begin your public comments. mr. chair? >> thank you, madam clerk. fresh off a rally in support of our friends at cir yesterday and i was joined by vice chair chan there. but what do we have before us? >> this is an unusual document coming before you with the committee on interns and residents have enjoyed a legacy arrangement with the city and county of san francisco. they have been recognized as a labor organization by us and they have a labor agreement with us. but it is an unusual arrangement in that they are not really our employees. they are employees of the university of california, san francisco, and ucsf and ucsf
sets their rates and their conditions. that labor agreement that we have renegotiated from time to time has really only two features to it. and one has to do with a training and education component that we support that has a provision in it about space within the hospital environment for exclusive use of the interns and residents. the city and county and the union itself is interested in updating this arrangement. that is what this letter does for you. it explains how this is going to go forward with the bargaining relationship and shifting completely to ucsf while the city and the county will
maintain those features and this is the arrangement that the parties have agreed to and this is what is in front of you today. >> it is not in relation to this employer and to dignity and not before us at all. >> very good. >> thank you. any questions? seeing none on the roster, let's open public comment on this item. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> members of the public who wish to speak on this item may line up to speak now. for those joining us remotely, call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. is 2487 464 4742. press pound twice and once connected, press star 3 to enter the speaker line and the system will indicate you have been unmuted to begin your comment. at this time we have four people listening in but zero people in
the queue. >> thank you, madam clerk. public comment on this item is now closed. >> is there a motion to send this item to the full board with recommendation as a committee report? >> so moved. >> motor vehicles to forward, member mandelman. chair preston? you have two ayes. >> thank you, madam clerk. the motion passes. and let's call the next item, 34. >> agenda item 34 is an ordinance adopting and implementing an amendment to the current memorandums of understanding and collective bargaining agreements between the city and county of san francisco and each of the unions identified as in appendix a providing for the carry forward to the fiscal year of 2022 and 2023 of all accrued in lieu and
floating holidays. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this ordinance may line up to speak now once we call public comment. if you are joining us remotely, call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742. press pound twice and star 3 to enter the speaker line. mr. chair? >> thank you, madam clerk. and i believe director grimm is speaking on this item. >> i am available to answer any questions you may have concerning this item. >> great. can you clarify because i know there was a request for an amendment on this. hopefully it was circulated to -- i am look at my colleague. we saw a request for an amendment. i don't know if anyone can give clarity on the context or wants to speak to it. >> yeah, so the amendment was rather simple. it was simply to include a number of hours so in our
original proposal about carrying over the time from one year -- from this fiscal year to next fiscal year and amending the m.o.u.s accordingly, we didn't include the number of hours. in addition, we didn't include the aspect for floating holidays, we didn't include the 80 hours for floating holidays in the original amendment to allow them to have local comp hours. the reason we did that in 2021 is they negotiated that as part of the m.o.u. going forward, so we wanted to make sure we provided that to members currently especially in light of how many people had trouble using the comp time. >> thank you for their clarification. we got this morning before committee and you got a copy?
great. and after public comment, intend to move the amendment and the deputy city attorney to move the amended item to rules committee to stay on track with our timing. before we do that, let's open this item up for public comment. thank you. >> mr. chair, members of the public who wish to speak oon this item should line up to join us along the win dose and for those joining us remotely, call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2487 464 4742 and press pound twice. for those already in the queue, please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. we have three listening in and zero in the queue at this time.
that completes our queue. >> a thank you, madam clerk. public comment on this item is now closed. and let me go ahead and do a motion to amend, i don't know if i need to read the amendments into the record. the amendments were distributed to committee members. saying i do not need to. motion to amend. >> like to make a motion to refer as amended. >> on the motion to amend, supervisor mandelman. >> mandelman, aye. >> supervisor preston. >> you have two aye. >> thank you. the motion passes, and as i mentioned, we realize that in order to stay on track and get this to the board in time, and
not amended to the next meeting which is two weeks out and therefore, i will move to continue the item to the rules committee as amended. i don't know if it's a motion to continue or to transfer, madam clerk. can you clarify? >> to the chair, it is referred to the rules committee as amended. >> thank you. can you call the roll on that motion? >> to refer to the rules committee as amended. and member mandelman. >> aye. >> and chair preston. >> aye. >> preston aye. you have two aye. >> thank you. that motion passes. at a long end of the list of some of the policy discussions aside, that this has been i really commend you, director eisen and your team for working
so closely with everyone involved as we've noted before in terms of the board of supervisors and your staff is truly remarkable to have navigated all of this in the context of our seemingly never-ending pandemic and the stresses on the fauxeses most impacted, so thank you for your work and your team's work on all of this. we appreciate it. >> thank you very much, members of the committee. appreciate your time and attention and for moving this through the process. >> madam clerk, do we have any further business before the committee today? >> chair, that completes our business. >> all right. we are adjourned. thank you very much.