Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 16, 2014 11:30pm-12:01am PST

11:30 pm
thank you for your public comment. that ng you. and again, i'm dpoing to have to remind everyone that your public comments must be confined to this item which is about wendy paskin-jordan's reappointment. please continue your comments in relation to these items or else we will have to sprupt you. interrupt you. thank you very much. >> my name is brett, i'm senior analyst at 350.org. my job is to track public institutions reaction and due diligence to what is now called carbon risk. the point that has been made so far is that the board of supervisors as part of their fiduciary duty, is not to grow the fund but protect it, what
11:31 pm
the connection they're trying to make here is that wendy paskin-jordan has been a barrier to the due diligence of the board finding out whether or not they are sitting on significant carbon risk. i would say that it's up to this board here to up hold the integrity of its board through this. and there's a difference between intent and action. they're very separate things and although intentd is significant the action is without a doubt where the rule was broken. so when funds were traded after ms. paskin-jordan was on the board that seems like a very strong indicator for an ethics violation and this is the opportunity to keep the first board at the highest
11:32 pm
caliber business examining this further. thank you. >> hello, i'm a san francisco resident and member of fossil free san francisco as well . i think the previous comments, i have heard an explicit call that she not be reappointed and they were basically giving their reasons why they don't think she is adequately representing her fiduciary duty on the board because of these huge concerns in market risk in these areas. i want to underline that fossil free san francisco and 350.org manage to bring members of bloomberg, ronald
11:33 pm
reagan to the retirement board to speak about market risk an all members spoke up to that meeting except for one, the one we are here talking about. i comments are to urge that you reject this appointment, and if you are not prepared to do this today, to hear this again in january, get your questions answered and reject it at that time. i'd like to point out just from hearing what i heard at this hearing, the ethics commission usually charges about a $5,000 penalty per violation so if you can make more than $5,000 per violation there's no reason not to do it. the real meaningful penalty has to be in standing access to public opinion. it's clear that the due diligence must be done on
11:34 pm
this item, $20 billion of pensioner's money is at stake. i'd add, that the appointment was submitted so that it expired one day before the next meeting. >> thank you, next speaker. >> san francisco resident and member of fossil free san francisco. i'm here to oppose the appointment of wendy paskin-jordan. first of all, in terms of the ethics violation, did she accept a business ovp. opportunity. clearly she accepted a business opportunity and continues to do so and she and the investors she represents continue to be able to be leverage the amounts of money invested by the pension board for her own an her clients'
11:35 pm
benefit. i'm not able to do that, she is able to do that. now, whether or not this is technically a violation, to me does not matter. i believe that the board these to be held to a very high standard, including the standard of the appearance of a conflict. as a federal employee we were all admonished that we have a look at the appearance of the conflict as well as the conflict, that otherwise we would not be able to generate any kind of trust from the public and i believe city workers, whether in the charter or not, needs to be able to be held to that standard as well, especially with the amount of money on the table. my second point is with respect to wendy paskin-jordan is in terms of the excellent definition we were given of a fiduciary is to put the
11:36 pm
interest of the trustees board as above their own interests and that's why everyone here is talking about the risk of fossil fuel investment that you voted on and was ignored by miss paskin-jordan as the chair of that committee. so together with the hedge fund issue, all of these are fiduciary duties that she's not performing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is cay walker and i'm a life decade long member of the great panthers and a member of seiu ten to one. i was very distressed by the conversation in general here because i may not be an attorney, but the sections that were quoted is that ms.
11:37 pm
paskin-jordan allegedly violated, to me were very indicative of someone that had a conflict of interest. she was given this task to do a favor to do a different type of investment with gmo and didn't utilize it until she was on the board. her reasons for doing its are not clear, but she is definitely somebody that's accepting a business opportunity from any public or pry separate entity in san francisco employee's retierpt system. she is definitely accepting that. i don't think you have to be an attorney to understand that. it's right in the language. if she didn't know she was in violation of this, then she
11:38 pm
has really not the competence to be on that board or maybe she perhaps doesn't bother with those minor things such as ethics. there's also -- it was distressing to hear from somebody there was only one ethic violation filed and i know from what i've been reading and the actual documents that were sent to me that there were two and one was filed in april and i guess that was igz norred. ignored. i think the comment that we're the plan members, we're the beneficiaries. we should have -- >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is martha hawthorne. i was a nurse for 30 years with department of public health and i'm not one of the 56,000 city workers and
11:39 pm
retirees who depends on you, board of supervisors, who protect us. i've been to a number of the board meetings recently and i'm very disturbed by the behavior of wendy paskin-jordan. i would urge you to reject her appointment. she has missed many key meetings. she missed the meeting on fossil fuel divest m. she's never answered adequately the member's questions about hedge funds. we have to believe she's in favor of that. i have think we deserve better than went diz paskin-jordan. wendy paskin-jordan. i have think there is someone better that can fill our position. please, board of supervisors, if you're not ready to reject her reappointment, i think there's plenty of reasons to do it right now, however, if you're not ready, at least vote in favor of the motion
11:40 pm
for a special meeting. she should be here. she should not be missing an action once again. thank you. >> good afternoon board of supervisorses, my name is patricia jackson and i'm a city retiree. i want to speak in favor of the suggestions is that were made here by supervisor avalos to have the mayor rescind this appointment and come back in january when it can be further investigated. there have
11:41 pm
of those very corporations that are gentry gentrification our city. i want to speak in favor of the motion. i'd like to suggest too that for the future, let us consider appointees, if they're going to be made by the mayor, that perhaps they
11:42 pm
should come from some other part of our economy, someone who understands or economy or alternative investment organizations. thank you. >> my name is kimberly and i i'm a resident of san francisco outer sunset district. i'm here to ask that you reject the appointment of wendy paskin-jordan. in terms of -- the issue that has been the main issue of concern here during your meeting, which is her investment, it's my understanding her investment that theish sure today was made in 2011 and the disclosure was not made until 2014 and i ask why this wasn't made earlier if this is not a concern. secondly, i think that her lack of attention an lack of
11:43 pm
information seeking regarding divestment from fossil fuels raises an issue of her fiduciary duty as a board member. everyone on the board has met with our group, fossil free sf, to discuss the divestment except for wendy paskin-jordan. that seems like the prudent move to do so why is she not doing that? does she have another conflict of interest in regard to the fossil fuel industry? i why did she not meet on our we' eve reached out to that many times, not just year-and-a-half ago and today it's more and more clear that investment in fossil fuels is a bad investment.
11:44 pm
even the rockefeller lost their fortune because of the fossil fuel investment. why is she not giving attention to this? >> i think that any appointment of a city official, be it a commissioner, supervisor, their behavior needs to rise to a higher standard in terms of ethics. seiu ten to one is in opposition of investing in hedge funds, which they are considering. i think ms. paskin-jordan operates a management firm that has hedge fund investments that she may benefit by or influence those decisions in a manner that may present a conflict of interest. we also have serious concerns
11:45 pm
about the ethics violation that we're hearing about so given those regions, we of course asking you not to approve the appointment of wendy paskin-jordan an if you need to look at it further, postpone it off to that january 7 day, but certainly, don't approve her appointment today. thank you. >> hello, my name is an marie and i eve been a city
11:46 pm
resident and homeowner for 30 years and i'm here just to add the weight of my presence and comments to the eloquent speech of people before me. i'm a member of 350 san francisco and became concerned ed along the lines of wendy paskin-jordan dragging down the process of advancing the divestment that you all voted for and now i'm learning a lot more about other issues so i think this is a big red flag so please do not approve ms. paskin-jordan's reappointment. thank you. >> good afternoon. i want to say my father, phil paulson gets a retirement check. he retired many years ago
11:47 pm
from central shops and --[singing]
11:48 pm
>> i'm here to speak on behalf of myself and our future. we've been talking today about the importance of not investing in risk an hedge funds have some risk to them, but there's nothing more risky than investing in fossil fuels at this point for our future. i want to thank supervisors cohen and campos and representatives here for bringing attention to the whole process and supervisor breed as well. i think a lot more neighbors are informed of this process now, which is really helpful, but i think enough information has been brought forth that we should support talking to this woman wendy paskin-jordan. i didn't know her name well before this week and i'd been
11:49 pm
seeing these reports come out. i urge the board to hear more about these reports. there's 56,000 meme that people that are affected i this amazing city i would not appoint wendy paskin-jordan to this position. i would be talking with people here today, people in the rooms who have already talked about who to appoint who's going to say yes in my backyard to an inclusive, enriching and sustainable future for our city. >> thank you. any other members of the public who wish to speak on items 46 and 47. seeing none, public comment is now closed. item 47, supercampos. >> i want to summarize for my
11:50 pm
perspective, i'm not interested? a witch hunt or targeting this individual, but i feel when questions of this magnitude arise, in terms of protecting the interest of everyone involved, the retirees, the employees, the public and the individual, it's important to have a good process. the way this would normally work is that once the appointment was made and the 30 day notice is provided to the board the item goes to the rules committee where there's an opportunity to hear directly from the nominee, the applicant. unfortunate ly because of how things worked out here we haven't that had that opportunity so but supporting the motion i made to continue it to january 7 we're simply affording this individual the opportunity to come before this body, speak and hear directly from her so i ask for support on the motion. thank you. >> thank you very much.
11:51 pm
thank you ladies and gentlemen for coming out and hearing on this item. i'm going to be supporting this continuance. i think it's important to answer the questions we've heard here about attendance, her thinking and her thought pattern when it comes to answering some of the questions about her investment with gmo. i think also that it will also allow us an opportunity to also further develop an understanding on what the pathway is with the ethics department. i agree with one of the speakers that we as elected officials, those that serve, any kind of a position head if you're a doctor, lawyer, head of a religious organization, there's a higher standard we have to hold ourselves to and
11:52 pm
we need to remain above the suspicion of any kind of impropriety so let's give ms. paskin-jordan an opportunity to come, state her position and we will then wait to hear what the ethics commission will find and i hope this body will adhere to what the ethics commission has found. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor breed. >> thank you. i too will be supporting the continuance. i think that it is very rare that this body brings before us any of the mayor's appointments for questioning and it is clear that we have a number of questions when ethics are at kwez in a situation of this nature and magnitude involving our retirement board, it is important that not only we have this discussion and we make sure that we're asking the right questions an we're
11:53 pm
bringing to light all the thing that is are of concern, not only to us, but the members of the public. it's important that person is here to answer those questions directly. i appreciate the motion on the floor. >> thank you colleagues. any further discussion on this item? seeing none, we do have a motion before us by supervisor campos and seconded by supervisor avalos to continue item 47 to january 7, 2015. it looks like we'd like to hold this at 2 o'clock pm t. let's go to roll call vote. >> supervisor wiener. >> i. >> avalos. >> i. >> breed. >> i. >> campos. >> i. >> cohen. >> i. >> farrell. >> i. >> kim. >> i. >> mar. >> i. >> tang. >> i. >> there are 9 is. >> this motion to continue
11:54 pm
item 47 has been approved unanimously to january 7, 2015 at 2:00 pm. madam clerk can we please call our next special 3:00 pm ord erp and before that we need to go to item 6 h. 4. >> item 64 sit on december 16 today at 3:00 pm to hold a public hearing to consider and discussion issues arising from the labor dispute from the san francisco national restaurant. >> at this time we'd like to take public comment on item 64 and this is just on whether the board should sit as a committee as a whole to consider the are there any members up to two minutes? >> i'd like you to stay as a committee as
11:55 pm
committee as committee as committee asa whole because --[singing >> thank you members of the public on item 64. seeing none, public comment is closed for item 64 and can we take that without objection to approve this motion. this motion is approved. now we can proceed to item 48. >> item 48 is a hearing to consider and discuss the issues arising from a bailor dispute at the san francisco international airport restaurants. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> we're joind in our chambers by dozens of hard working employees from our san francisco airport and this motion that i've made along with my colleague, supervisor campos, is in respect to the workers that the 1,000 plus
11:56 pm
workers that work in the restaurants, but also to appreciate the airport who have been working with local 2 to come to an agreement and despite the strike over friday and saturday and otherwise labor conflicts, i'm hopeful there will be an agreement. i've heard and i know the word is spreading that there is an agreement, but it's not finalized until it's signed. i think i was up until about 2:00 am to come to an agreement that respects the contract workers that have not had had a contract for about a year-and-a-half. i wanted to say that we're talking about workers that work at about $14.05 an hour and the average pay was $24,000 a year try to live in
11:57 pm
san francisco or in other areas on that salary are very challenging and workers that have been without a contract for about a year-and-a-half. i wanted to also just acknowledge that two weeks ago, supervisor avalos we heard in the budget and finance committee a proposal to extend as restaurant lease by ten years. we heard a growing dispute from the workers themselves from the sfo food and beverage. speakers expressed indilg dignation to us that the city would be granting lucrative lease extensions to those who run the restaurants and foregoing the competitive bid process, while about a thousand employees at those outlets are facing job insecurity and a loss of health coverage. since that hearing there's
11:58 pm
been a lot of work, but also a two day walk out on friday and saturday despite the storm and it was really effective. a strike business 1,000 workers in any industry should draw our attention. the travel industry in our beloved san francisco airport, especially during the holiday season is a seriousish shun ish issue and could have the potential of hitting our city very hard economically. and from their last impression or -- and visitors who come to san francisco through the airport and leave through the airport, sometimes it's the last impression they have of our city. i think having labor piece an moving forward it's really critical so full awareness
11:59 pm
for our board is critical. as the city is the landlord to the food and bev rage and we take about $18 million a year in rent with these operations and also it's essential to the funding of the operations of the airport and that revenue stream is endangered by disputes like this one that boiled over last week. this is one of the largest employment base this is the region employing many thousands of workers and the quality of these jobs as we'll hear in a moment as the airport is a huge importance to our communities an families from our communities as well. it affects who can pay rent and who's in danger of losing their homes, it affects who gets health care security and who riskings falling deeply
12:00 am
in debt when families fall ill. this is so much around us, not just at the airport, but it's our whole economy that's impacted and it has huge implications for our city and as such we felt this miles merited can know that there is ha tentative agreement that's already been acknowledged to me, but i think hearing your stories and voices is critical, but the you can do your best to be sus

16 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on