Its just now reinforced by state law or state code. The threepart test is broken down here. The worker is free from company control. And the second is that any person that is performing work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entity. And the third part is that the person is putting themselves out in a market and offering their services to other than to the hiring entity that they test, like, do they advertise for their services. And do they are they truly an independent business and are they more directly an employee of that company. So workers are considered to be employees unless they fail this test. And unless all of these conditions apply. And put a caveat there that as a. B. 5 was working towards the Legislature Many exemptions were added to the bill. Gig workers were explicitly not exempted and as we said explicitly many times unless theyre targeting this particular sector. So that brings us to enforcement which is a little bit less clear. There are basically four theyre all labeled one but there are four avenues for enforcement. And the first is the courts through private action that is already, you know, there are already many litigations in process. The second one which was added to the last minute is that now that the attorney general or the City Attorneys and jurisdictions with greater than 750,000 residents can bring can bring on behalf of the people of california actions against the companies for misclassification. The third one is that the e. D. D. , if it determines that companies are misclassifying their employees and, therefore, evading Workers Compensation payments, they have audit powers and they can enforce penalties and restitution. And then finally the California LaborCommissioners Office and the San Francisco office of labor standards enforcement can likewise do investigations as to whether companies are misclassifying their employees and they can also assess penalties, restitution and fin fines. So since 85 passed just a week ago theres been since a. B. 5 passed and theres a number of movements and some are significant in their own right and some are indicators of the things that well be looking at in the future and Going Forward. And a driver from pittsburg filed a suit in Federal DistrictCourt Last Week citing misclassification and using the standard which is the court case that first stepped that standard. And then also invoking a. B. 5. And the City Attorney this week brought a suit against incitycart and interesting that she is suing for retroactive pay. So thats one element of this is, you know, these companies have now been in operation since 2011 and that could be a they could be on the hook for a lot of back pay. Lyft and uber have publicly the chief legal officer for uber gave a press conference shortly after the passage of a. B. 5 and says that uber doesnt believe that their workers would qualify as employees under the a. B. C. Test, that has previously that argument is previously not held up well in court. But, you know, obviously theyre getting out ahead, you know, trying to influence public opinion. And a late piece of legislation made it to the legislature, giving a oneyear exemption for newspaper carriers to the a. B. 5 test or the abc test. And thats an interesting possible avenue that gig Work Companies might take is trying to win some sort of stay for a period of time through the legislature that. Would be one avenue that we might see them contesting this. And lyft has also been messaging its drivers and this is cited as potentially illegal under legal code 96k and 98. 6 and theyre trying to enlist driver support for an exemption or writing campaigns and things. And lyft and uber and door dash have each contributed 30 million towards a Ballot Initiative for the 2020 fall election. That would that would, you know, directly go to voters to ask for an exemption or to ask for some special package that would apply. You know, third classification of employers or of workers or something. And one aspect of when Governor Newsom signed the a. B. 5 bill and he included a message and the final part of his message had language as to suggesting, you know, im willing to continue negotiating with labor organizations, with the companies the companies, and, you know, to work out something. So that indication is kind of perhaps indicative of what we might see when, you know, the Legislature Reconvenes and as this goes into effect next year. But another aspect of that which is something along the lines of i want california to step up where the federal government has not and provide these provide workers a right to collective bargaining. Kind of an interesting statement because if the workers were classified as employees they would have that right. So its unclear what is kind of being indicated there. So unrelated, but relevant last week in new york city, lyft and uber both began putting restrict jobs when drivers could log on into their apps and saying its because of the new taxi and limousine rules, so thats something that were going to see absolutely in california and in San Francisco where the Companies Start to put restrictions or or, you know, challenges for their workers and then blame it on the new laws and say, you know, write in if you dont like this. So its the kind of diname that i can we can expect to see. Dynamic that you can expect to see. And the u. S. House of representatives passed a bill that would invalidate arbitration clauses. Probably not going to pass the senate. But uber currently in its s1 filing claimed they had 60,000 ongoing arbitrations with their drivers and arbitration is a way they have avoided classaction suit coming from their drivers. So movement on that at the state level, and nancy pelosi did not vote on it but it did pass the house this morning. So just an interesting added thing. How does this in fact our study . On one hand it makes us study a lot more Time Critical and crucial. As i said in the governors signing message, he said that he wanted to work with labor organizations and he said that he wanted to work with the companies. But, you know, its important that the voices of the drivers themselves are present in those conversations Going Forward and in our study, you know, we will capture those voices. Also, you know, even if ab5 will not immediately make all of the drivers workers or employees, rather. So even if they were to become employees though, there would still be plenty of opportunity for these companies to mistreat their employees. Theres still amounts of information between, well, the drivers and the companies, you know, moreover the companies have a very privileged and direct line of communication on each driver, and they could message different drivers. They have many potential means of continuing to treat these workers less than as what they should. And then also just because of the timing, we might believe able to collect Realtime Data on how these companies are making adjustments based on the bill coming into effect. And as it comes into effect our phase two or our survey will still be ongoing and so we might see some realtime changes in, you know, the Labor Conditions that these people are working under. Thats it. Thank you. Chair fewer wow. Comments, questions . Yes, commissioner haney. Let me turn my mike on. So are we the first jurisdiction to have a law like this or it sounds like new york has something similar . You mean a. B. 5 . Well, its a new york city rule that instituted a minimum wage before and has put certain caps on how much persentage of a drivers time they can be deadheading or driving without a passenger. And theyre trying to bring that down. And its not drivers are not classified as employees in new york city and they have certain protections that were written by the taxi and Limousine Commission and are a rule but theyre not considered employees. So i know that, obviously, theres a role for a lot of different bodies to provide the regulation. But is there in terms of the City Attorney or our own sort of office of labor standards, is there a plan to have a more proactive oversight in regulation . And a related question to that is, does this at all you mentioned a minimum wage in new york, has there been a conversation or does a. B. 5 allow for any sort of opportunities for us under our minimum Wage Ordinance to provide more enforcement . Yeah, i mean the labor standards enforcement would be able to, you know, to investigate whether these drivers were not being paid a minimum wage and if they were misclassified as independent contractors. You know, if theyre being misclassified that means they are due the San Francisco minimum wage if they drive in San Francisco. And theyre due, you know, parental leave. Theyre due paid sick leave. Theyre due you know, all of the protections that employees are due. So both the state and the city labor standards enforcement could investigate claims and assess penalties. But it is mostly complaint driven. Theres not as of right now like a clear proactive avenue. Have we heard about any of these companies that have said, all right, were going to come forward and make all of our folks employees . [laughter]. No, no, in fact, were not likely well, obviously not uber and lyft but there are smaller ones. In the past there was a Company Called sprig that made all of its drivers employees in the past. And there have been a few others. A couple of them are currently out of business. And, actually, thats part of our survey and im hoping to include case studies of how when they did that, how they did it. Because its not its not necessarily clear what kind of employees there are. And theres different wage orders for transportation employees and theres a specific wage order in the state of california. Would they apply for that . And they say theyre not transportation companies, so, i dont know. So, yeah. Sorry. Chair fewer commissioner. Yes, i think that commissioner haney asked most of my questions but i just wanted some clarity on from my understanding from the remarks from ubers chief legal officer, whatever his title is, is that theyre just going to pretend that it doesnt exist as far as they will pretend so i guess what im commenting on is the fact that i doubt that theyre going to make any changes at all during the lifetime of the survey, probably not. Do you know do you have any thoughts about any who might . This is purely conjecture . Companies that might . Companies where we might actually see potential changes in their treatment of workers over the course of this study. Speculative. The Smaller Companies when they see because uber and lyft and door dash are going to be fighting this as and its kind of their bread and butter. I mean, they do this really well. Theyre going to be fighting for the future against, you know, the bureaucrats and stuff and theyre going to cast themselves as gated. So, you know, they like to do that. But also theyre in a place of real financial desperation now and, i mean, they never made a profit and theyre now public companies. So theres going to be other companies that will see that fight and how that fight is going for them and say were not going i can see that happening. Thats just speculation. Yeah. And the only other thing that i wanted to flag to you is that as far as theres still a lot of ambiguity and just speculation around door dash has changed its tipping policy and i know that were still looking into that. So i would be interested to see they havent really responded to the fairly large amount of public backlash they had gotten for pocketing tips. Now theyre saying that they changed it. But that remains to be seen if they actually did. It doesnt seem like it. Right. And San Francisco oalc has an Ongoing Investigation into that. So that will be interesting. Chair fewer great. And my question is, that if we would able to use any of our survey findings as any kind of evidence . I cant imagine why not but its just whether we have yet released those findings. Chair fewer well, thank you very much. Thanks for your work. Public comment . please stand by . We would be able to make sure as many of the workers are as local as possible. We would plug it into the plan and in that way, we would be able to basically get rid of everyone left and run it by the city program. So lets plug that in as a potential and if it requires legislation, meaning if fact that this bill just passed shows us we can pass legislation that uber doesnt like. So we can get senator or either of our Assembly Members to put forward legislation that would allow the city of San Francisco to create its own Municipal Program and that would not only give all the workers everything they deserve, but we could also make sure that the program is scaled to the idea of making sure that people are mostly taking transit and riding bikes and walking in their communities. Thanks. Thank you mr. Brooks. Yeah, i think the goal would be for people to take Public Transportation after billions of dollars of investment. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] thank you very much. We dont need an action item on this. Madam clerk, will you please call item number 5. To approve the New California association of local Agency Formation commissions dues structure and appoint the executive officer as a voting delegate at the upcoming annual calafco conference. On the structure change for calafco, the new due structure is based on population. It use to be based on urban, suburban, and rural, but this provides a reliable source of income for calafco, which operates with a structural deficit. It mean as 2,300 increase in our dues each year. It would become effective in the next fiscal year. I do want to let you know that not every lafco, especially medium sized lafco are supportive of this structure because some will be hit harder than others and they think the calculation is unfair. Its a rather complicated issue. I do believe however that its important to support calafco. A lot of the issues it works on doesnt directly relate to our work, they did step in a big way during our transition and during my on boarding. They are also on the front lines in sacramento when there are continuous efforts to curtail local control. I also learned a great deal from pamela, not a full time employee. Im supportive of the increase. I think calafco does a great job of advocating on behalf of all lafcos in california. I was going to ask you to appoint me as a delegate to attend the calafco conference, but we have been made that the Hyatt Regency in sacramento is on an active boycott list by unite here. For that reason, and its not in my memo, i recommend that we honor the boycott and not attend the conference. Pamela miller did talk here and explain to the membership that the conference was booked several years ago and it would be very expensive for calafco to change it. We already paid the registration fee. Its about 500, but were eligible for a refund. So instead of attending the conference, i am asking you to go on record in support of the new due structure, but we will not get to vote on that because im recommending that we not attend the conference because of the boycott. Okay. So, youre requesting today that we approve the new corrals association of local Agency Formation due structure. Thats right. So we have a motion . Moved. Great, i second it. We need to take Public Comment first. Oh, Public Comment. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] we can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Madam clerk, can you please call item number 6. Item number 6, authorization to amend the 2019 lafco regular meeting schedule. Commissioners, this item would amend the regular meeting schedule so all future meetings begin at 10 00 a. M. Instead of 11 30 a. M. We only had two meetings left this year, october 18th, november 15th. At our next meeting, i will be bringing you a proposed schedule for 2020, and also recommending that the meetings next year begin at 10 00 a. M. This was with the input from the chair. I recommend your approval. Thank you very much. Making a motion to approve the meeting schedule. Public comment. Oh, im sorry, Public Comment. Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. We take it without objection. Thank you very much. [gavel] madam clerk, can you call item number 8. Item number 8, an update on the request for qualifications for a Renewable Energy expert. Thank you madam chair. Im happy to say that our request was finally posted last month. I outlined the potential scope of work in my memo to you. The consultant or consultants will bring in, that well bring in, that will support our oversight work with cleanpowersf and make recommendations on a local build out of Renewable Energy projects, and also work to identify proposed programs for communities of concern. The deadline to submit is next friday. I already have three firms that i know are submitting proposals. I may very likely extend the deadline because it was a very short turn around and ill continue to do more outreach so we get more proposals. I am hoping we have this process wrapped up by our november 15th meeting and at that time, bring a contract or contracts to you for approval and also to consider the exact scope of work that you would like to see from this consultant. Great, thank you mr. Goebel. No action is required. Public comment on this item . Good afternoon again commissioners, eric brooks, cleanpowersf advocate. I