Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Initiative 09 0015 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco audit committee goes into closed session on potential litigation over initiative 09-0015; asks agencies to study impacts
Summary
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee convened a closed session to receive a city‑attorney briefing on potential litigation tied to proposed state constitutional amendment 09‑0015 (a two‑thirds vote requirement for local public electricity providers). After returning, the committee asked the Public Utilities Commission and Office of Legislative Analyst to assist with an impact study and voted to keep the closed deliberation confidential.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee of San Francisco County convened a special meeting and moved into closed session to receive a city‑attorney briefing on potential litigation related to proposed state constitutional amendment number 09‑0015, a measure the chair summarized as a “new 2 thirds vote requirement for local public electricity providers.” Chair Ross Merkurimi made the motion to convene the closed session and the committee approved it.
After returning to open session, Merkurimi moved that the committee ask the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Office of the Legislative Analyst to assist in a public study of the impacts of the proposed initiative. The committee approved the request for agency assistance.
Merkurimi also moved that the committee find, in the public interest, that the committee should not disclose the closed‑session deliberation at this time; that motion was put forward as a formal committee finding. The clerk recorded no further items and the committee adjourned.
The transcript records the motions and the committee’s procedural steps but does not include a recorded roll‑call vote on the post‑closed‑session motions; the minutes state the motions were approved without a detailed tally in the provided text. The committee cited the city‑attorney briefing and potential litigation as the reason for the closed session and subsequently sought technical assistance from PUC and the Office of Legislative Analyst to analyze potential legal and operational impacts of the proposed amendment.
What’s next: the transcript does not specify deadlines or a timeline for the requested study. The committee’s request to PUC and the Office of Legislative Analyst was made on the record and the closed‑session deliberation was withheld per the committee finding.
