Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retirement And Health Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee forwards charter amendment on city retirement and health benefits to full Board after extensive public comment
Summary
After about a dozen public commenters raised concerns ranging from alleged past budgeting shortfalls to calls to separate health‑service governance changes, the Rules Committee agreed to place a charter amendment on retirement and health benefits on the Board agenda as a committee report; no committee vote was taken.
SAN FRANCISCO — The Board of Supervisors' Rules Committee on Thursday agreed to forward a proposed charter amendment to Appendix A — covering city retirement benefits and health-care governance — to the full Board as a committee report after extended public comment, with no committee vote held at the meeting.
Supervisor Jane Kim, chair of the Rules Committee, opened the special meeting and said the committee would move straight to public comment because a presentation had been heard at a previous meeting. The clerk read Item 1 as a "charter amendment to amend the provisions of Appendix A regarding city retirement benefits and health care benefits." Public commenters were given two minutes each.
Public speakers included retirees, union representatives and former city staff who offered sharply contrasting views. Ray Hartz, identified himself as director of San Francisco Open Government, asked why residents should expect officials to honor commitments on retirement and benefits given prior boards’ budgeting that he said failed to set aside funds for accrued liabilities: "Why should we, the citizens of this city, expect our representatives... to do any more to live up to this agreement than you have in the past?" Hartz said.
Steve Zeltzer of United Public Workers for Action urged opposition, calling it a "sham agreement" and saying the measure would "attack city workers" and retirees. He characterized the proposal as backed by wealthy private donors and argued it would shift costs onto public employees.
Other retirees who addressed the committee offered both caution and qualified support. John Madden, a retired controller's office employee, reviewed the Health Service System's governance history and noted aspects of the proposal he viewed as protective of retirees, including continued parity for premium rates and a 50% pickup for out-of-pocket costs. Lois Scott, immediate past president of IFPTE Local 21, urged that changes affecting the health service trust fund be separated from retirement changes to allow broader disclosure and participation by all affected employers and beneficiaries.
Several commenters raised procedural and legal questions. Richard Rothman said a city attorney memorandum about the supplemental cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) had been prepared but not publicly shared, and he questioned whether language referring to a "majority of the board" meant three or four votes for certain Health Service Board actions.
After public comment closed, a Rules Committee member moved to forward the item to the full Board as a committee report so it could be placed on the full agenda and receive additional input. The chair stated there would be no committee vote that day; the item could be heard by the full Board on July 12, and if amended then, continued to a July 19 meeting for further public comment and action.
The committee did not adopt or reject the charter amendment at the meeting; members directed that the item be scheduled for the full Board, where further amendments and a formal vote may occur.
