The important difference, she says, is that comments during committee meetings will have to be specific to the jurisdiction of that meeting -- land-use, rules, public safety, budget matters, etc.
So if a speaker goes off on "sunbathing at the beach" (Alioto-Pier's example of inanity during public comment), the committee chair will have the ability to politely cut him or her off. Of course, a creative waster of the city's time could somehow connect his or her tale of alien abduction, masonic conspiracies, or other such flights of fancy to San Francisco land-use or budgetary matters -- but Alioto-Pier thinks the benefits of her proposal outweigh the detriments.
Her proposed amendment will get its hearing during Rules Committee in the first week of October before passing on to the full board. Amendments to Board rules require a supermajority of eight votes to pass -- though Alioto-Pier told SF Weekly "I don't know why anyone wouldn't support this."
If, however, four of her colleagues do not deign to support the proposal, she could re-submit essentially the same legislation as an ordinance, which would require only six votes to pass. Or she could piggyback this material onto a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ballot measure during a forthcoming election.
In the meantime, the city's rambling class is advised to find good ways to connect its inane drivel to the specific functions of the Board's committees -- or just rant during full Board meetings like everyone else.