San Francisco Youth Commission
Minutes
**Special Inaugural Meeting**
Monday, September 9, 2013
6:00pm-9:00pm
City Hall, Room 416
1. Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl.
San Francisco, CA 94102

There will be public comment on each item.

Jina Bae, Anna Bernick, Joshua Cardenas, Monica Flores, Ramon Gomez, Michelle Kong, DeAsia Landrum, Michel Li, Lily Marshall-Fricker, Nicholas Persky, Luisa Sicairos, Angel Van Stark, Eric Wu, Joyce Wu, Ariel Yu

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 6:11 pm by acting chair, Eric Wu.

Commissioners Present: Bae, Bernick, Edelhart, Cardenas, Flores, Gomez, Kong, Landrum, Li, Marshall-Fricker, Persky, Sicairos, Van Stark, Joyce Wu, Eric Wu, Yu

Commissioners Absent: none.

There was quorum.

2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)

Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, seconded by Commissioner Gomez, moved to approve the agenda. The motion was approved by acclamation. There was no public comment.

3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)

There were no minutes to approve. There was no public comment.

4. Public Comment on Items not on Agenda (Discussion Only)

Mario Yedidia, former Youth Commission staff, shared congratulations with commissioners. He encouraged commissioners to be accountable to other young people and impressed the importance of their work and the fact that young people truly can understand and provide useful insight on policy issues.

Anglea Chan, senior staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus, congratulated new and returning commissioners. She thanked them for their history of work and recommendations to SFPD and on Deferred Action. She impressed that she looked forward to working with and meeting commissioners.

5. Legislation Referred from the Board of Supervisors (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)

A. [BOS file no. 130764] Administrative Code – Due Process Ordinance on Immigration Detainers (Primary Sponsor: Supervisor John Avalos)
Presenter: Staff; Member of the Immigrant Rights Defense Committee
(Document A)

Supervisor Avalos congratulated youth commissioners and explained the importance of having a youth body to ensure that supervisors are doing their diligence in consulting youth voice when legislating. He remarked on the multiple achievements of the Youth Commission, including Free MUNI for Youth and congratulated commissioners on choosing this leadership position. He also thanked commissioners for their past work on juvenile justice issues, including advocating against the arming of juvenile probation officers.

Supervisor Avalos explained that the ordinance before commissioners was currently being called the “Due Process for All Ordinance.” It is based on a key constitutional right, which is that we do not take away due process against any arbitrary denial of liberty. We want to ensure that everyone has this right, regardless of immigration status. The Secure communities program has meant fingerprints collected by local law enforcement are checked against federal immigration databases, based on their own evidence, the federal immigration enforcement authorities can decide to detain an individual. There is no judicial oversight. Immigrants are not being given due process.

Supervisor Avalos explained: In San Francisco, we have a criminal justice system. We believe that the criminal justice system should be separate from the federal immigration enforcement system. This ordinance makes a statement that our local law enforcement officials will not be detaining people for deportation. Already 784 people have been deported from San Francisco county through the secure communities program. Twelve youth have been deported through our local juvenile probation department. These numbers do not include those currently in detention. This practice creates a drag net for those reporting crimes, and undermines trust between immigrant communities and the police department. We need people to be able to call the police without fear that they could be turned over to ICE. This is legislation is a public safety measure.

Supervisor Avalos explained the proposed ordinance is the strongest legislation in the whole country on this issue and can serve as an example with the rest of the country.

Commissioner Persky asked about potential carve outs proposed by the police department that would leave certain cases up to the sheriff’s discretion.

Supervisor Avalos explained that there were not yet any details on a proposed amendment, but that when the legislation was in committee, the police chief was the only one to speak out against ordinance as is. Chief Suhr suggested a carve out for violent felony convicts and sexual offenders. He explained that when someone has been convicted, they will be serving probation or a jail sentence and asserted that there should be no separate standard for immigrants. He explained that ICE detainers are served more often to Latinos than any other immigrant group. We want one standard in one place. Our constitution is clear on the treatment people should receive.

Commissioner Flores asked a question regarding whether people subjected to detainers have already served time.

Supervisor Avalos explained that ICE requests a hold after someone’s time is served. This legislation would disallow the sheriff from honoring detainer requests. If ICE wants to pick an individual up, they would then do that without the sheriff.

Commissioner Bernick asked whether this would apply to death row inmates.

Supervisor explained that people on death row would be in state custody and the proposed legislation was effective at the local level only.

Commissioner Van Stark asked whether ICE would be able to come in prior to the end of sentence?

Supervisor Avalos explained that based on the sanctuary city policy, local law enforcement is not allowed to directly share information about who is in detention with ICE, but that this information is currently being passed on via fingerprint sharing.

Commissioner Yu asked whether any similar ordinance is in use in other cities?

Supervisor Avalos explained that Santa Clara county has one based on the idea that honoring ICE detention requests happens at the expense of local law enforcement. The proposed legislation in San Francisco is based on the principle of due process for everyone. New York City has done something similar to San Francisco’s, though with a carve out for serious violent felons. Cook County and Berkeley have similar ordinances.

Eric Wu asked whether there was any rationale behind the fear of undocumented immigrants committing crimes.

Supervisor Avalos explained that he thinks the rationale for Secure Communities is based on the federal government stepping up efforts to deport people, whether there is a high standard of evidence against the person, or whether the person came in contact with law enforcement as a witness, victim, or by other means. He explained that Secure Communities is an aggressive program which makes it hard for immigrants to live in the country without living in fear. San Francisco is a city of immigrants. In District 11, 50% of residents are foreign-born. Often they come to the U.S. because the U.S. has had a role disrupting their lives, militarily or otherwise. Our economy is founded on the labor of immigrants. It is hypocritical to take people’s labor but not let them stay in the country. We need immigration reform that meets the needs of working immigrants and San Francisco has an opportunity to set a strong standard here.

Commissioner Bernick asked what effect this legislation would have for documented immigrants.

Supervisor Avalos explained that many documented immigrants have been caught up in the immigration enforcement system, and that even some citizens have been swept into detention through the Secure Communities program.

Commissioner Kong asked whether there was a fiscal impact to the legislation.

Supervisor Avalos explained that the legislation was not expected to have a great budgetary impact, and that the controller has not given an analysis. Currently law enforcement acts blind to documentation status and will continue to do so.

Raquel Redondiez, legislative aide to Supervisor Avalos explained the ordinance could save money as people would not be detained at the expense of the city, eighty dollars per day for adults or four hundred dollars a day for juveniles.

Commissioner Van Stark commented that immigrants pay taxes.

Ms. Redondiez highlighted the impacts of the ordinance on children and youth. The domestic violence consortium, a collaborative of 15 women’s advocacy and children’s youths’ rights groups, have been one of biggest advocates of the ordinance. The current concern is that children, youth, or parents do not call and report abuse because they could get caught up in the ICE drag net. This is important for public safety reasons. We need to separate the criminal justice system from the federal immigration system.

Commissioner Van Stark asked how people will be protected if the legislation passes.

Ms. Redondiez explained that the legislation sends a message that immigrants will not be treated differently based on their status. They can call police. To communicate that they can call police would then be up to the city community.

Supervisor Avalos thanked commissioners for their consideration.

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Marshall-Fricker motioned to support the ordinance, seconded by commissioner Bernick.

Commissioner Wu commented that deportation is not the answer to our national debate on immigration. It is detrimental to many families with children who get separated.

Commissioner Cardenas commented the commission should support this ordinance. Secure communities antagonizes and undermines trust, especially in Latino communities. Based on the presentation the Youth Commission received last July, the statistics do not support this program because 80% of those who have been detained are non offenders or are low level offenders. If the goal of the program was to deport criminals, Secure Communities has not accomplished that goal, rather they have been separating families. Commissioner Cardenas also pointed out that other policies meant to prevent crime have been proven to lead to racial profiling and have been ruled unconstitutional, such as Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ in New York. Often these appeals to lower crime are made when crime is already in decline. Commissioner Cardenas asserted that the commission should support the ordinance.

Commissioner Gomez explained that at first he was unclear on the legislation, but now he understands that people will serve their time under due process and that Secure Communities was adding more time to their detention.

Commissioner Li explained the legislation should be supported because of how it effects youth. Young people’s views on law enforcement are shaped from early on. It is important that young people develop trust in law enforcement and come to believe they can participate in government.

Commissioner Sicairos explained that it would be necessary to have a multi-lingual outreach effort to let communities know they are safe when contacting law enforcement.

Commissioner Persky explained it was important to highlight potential exceptions to the ordinance. If the point of this legislation is to separate the criminal justice system and the immigration enforcement system, then the place to deal with violent offenses is within the criminal justice system. Carve outs should not be supported.

Commissioner Persky motioned that the Youth Commission should urge the BOS not to include exceptions, or carve outs, in the ordinance. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Stark.

Chairman Wu called for public comment.

Mohan Kanungo, who works with the Mission Asset fund helping undocumented youth to apply for deferred action and connecting to scholarships and zero fee loans. He explained his own step father was deported because of a domestic violence incident. As a result, his step father was removed from the country and Mr. Kanungo’s brother and sister went into foster care. This is an issue that impacts youth when it comes to education, profiling, and law enforcement. He urged the commission to think proactively about how those issues are going to come up. For instance, when the police or sheriff ask about how to address issues of violence that the commission can have creative ideas and solutions.

Commissioner Sicairos suggested that the YC recommend that there be extra support for immigrants who end up in detention, letting them know their rights in their native language.

Commissioner Van Stark asked a clarifying question about whether Mr. Kanungo’s siblings were still in foster care.

Commissioner Kong suggested that the Board of Supervisors prepare a report after one year to see the ordinance is having the intended impact in restoring trust in law enforcement. Commissioner Marshall-Fricker voiced her agreement.

Chairman Wu thanked Mr. Kanungo for telling a personal story. He asked Commissioner Sicairos and Kong to clarify whether their previous comments were meant to be motions.

Commissioner Sicairos said yes, it was meant as a motion. Commissioner Li seconded Commissioner Sicairos’ motion.

Commissioner Kong confirmed she meant the suggestion as a motion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Stark.

The chair called for a roll call vote on the motion put forward by Commissioner Kong, seconded by Commissioner Van Stark, to request that the Board of Supervisor request or prepare a report following one year after the ordinance takes effect to see how the program has worked, how the ordinance has worked, and how trust is being restored between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. The motion was passed unanimously in a roll call vote.

The chair called for a roll call vote on the motion put forward by Commissioner Sicairos and seconded by Commissioner Li to request extra support for people being detained in county jails and local facilities and to provide resources in multiple languages so that they know their rights in the criminal justice system.

Commissioner Van Stark made a substitute motion to include those that are outside of the criminal justice system also be aware of their rights. Commissioner Marshall-Fricker seconded.

Commissioner Gomez asked a clarifying question about how people would be informed of their rights.

Commissioner Van Stark suggested that a multi-media outreach campaign may be necessary and that the Youth Commission not suggest what form the campaign will take, but that the Youth Commission suggest an outreach campaign happen.

Commissioner Landrum gave suggestions on effective outreach strategies.

Commissioner Kong clarified who would distribute the information.

Staff clarified that the content of the recommendations are up to Youth Commissioners.

Commissioner Van Stark suggested a bus ad campaign.

Staff, Adele Carpenter, read the substitute motion language put forward by Commissioner Van Stark and seconded by Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, adding to the motion put forward by Commission Sicairos: that the City additionally provide information about rights with local law enforcement to immigrant communities not in detention through an outreach campaign including a possible poster, bus ad, and/or pamphlet distribution campaign in public spaces and through community-based organizations.

Commissioner Kong suggested that the outreach campaign include announcements at schools.

Commissioner Van Stark clarified that school outreach should be added to his proposed motion.

There was no further public comment.

A roll call vote was called for the substitute motion put forward by Commissioner Van Stark, seconded by Commissioner Marshall-Fricker to undertake an outreach campaign to reach immigrant communities throughout San Francisco, as well as people detained. The motion was passed unanimously by a roll call vote.

A roll call vote was called on Commissioner Persky’s motion, seconded by Commissioner Van Stark: The Youth Commission urges the Board of Supervisors to not add exceptions to the ordinance as proposed. The motion was passed unanimously by a roll call vote.

The original motion, made by Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, seconded by Commissioner Bernick to support the Due Process for All Ordinance was passed unanimously by a roll call vote.

6. Youth Commission Business (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)

A. Adoption of 2013-2014 Youth Commission Bylaws
(Document B)

Chairman Wu and Commissioner Marshall-Fricker made general comments about the importance of bylaws. They both stressed the importance of attendance.

Commissioners Yu, Van Stark, Bernick, Landrum, Sicairos, Joyce Wu, Bae, Flores, Li, Edelhart, Eric Wu read the proposed 13-14 bylaws into the public record.

Chairman Wu called a recess at 7:52 pm. The meeting was called back to order 8:03 pm.

There was no public comment before the vote on any of the articles.

Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, seconded by Commissioner Bernick, moved to approve article one of the 13-14 bylaws. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Van Stark, seconded by Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, moved to approve article two of the 13-14 bylaws. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Bernick, seconded by Commissioner Landrum, moved to approve article three of the 13-14 bylaws. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Van Stark motioned to amend article four to require an accountability essay from commissioners after they have missed a meeting. Commissioner Bernick seconded the motion to amend.

Commissioner Sicairos asked clarifying questions about the motion to amend.

Commissioner Landrum added that while intervening on the snowball effect of absences is important, that everyone has different personal and familial situations to attend to and that perhaps an in-person explanation would be more appropriate than an essay.

Commissioner Yu explained the purpose of attendance reviews in past years.

Commissioner Flores asked how much the commission would want to hear about one absence, as a parent, it might be pretty straightforward. She suggested that the policy inquire into consecutive absences but not single absences.

Commissioner Persky suggested that despite his strong feelings about attendance, these types of policies have not worked in past. He suggested that values about attendance and interpersonal support be added to the core values section of article seven of the bylaws.

Commissioner Kong suggested adding a non-action item attendance review to the agenda and lent support to the idea of checking in after two consecutive absences, as one absence is outside of someone’s control.

Commissioner Gomez explained that usually reasons for absences involved work conflicts or sickness.

Commissioner Van Stark amended his original motion to have a standing item on the agenda to include “general comments on attendance” where commissioner can give comment on the reason for their unauthorized absence and how they will prevent future absences.

Commissioners Kong and Persky clarified that the absence review item should have commissioners’ names, but that commissioners should have the right to pass on providing an explanation.

Commissioners voted on the motion as amended, made by Commissioner Van Stark and seconded by Commissioner Persky, to amend article four of the bylaws to make a standing agenda item dedicated to attendance review allowing for general comments on attendance where commissioners can explain past unauthorized absences and offer each other suggestions on preventing future absences, but in which commissioners will have the right to pass if they do not wish to state the reason for absence due to personal reasons. The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Bae, Bernick, Cardenas, Edelhart, Flores, Gomez, Kong, Landrum, Persky, Sicairos, Van Stark, Eric Wu, Joyce Wu, Ariel; Nayes: Li, Marshall-Fricker

Commissioner Marshall-Fricker motioned to amend article four of the bylaws to include the caveat: “Because the commission will not meet to approve absence authorizations in September, commissioners can seek approval of a planned absence for the October 7, 2013 meeting by informing staff of the planned absence by Monday, September 30th. Staff will, in turn, request commissioners to place the absence under consideration for approval at the upcoming meeting.” The motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Stark. This motion was passed by acclamation.

Commissioner Kong moved to include an amendment that commissioners have a chance to explain their absences to fellow commissioners before a resignation is certified. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Landrum. The motion was passed by acclamation.

Commissioner Kong, seconded by Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, moved to approve article four of the bylaws. This motion was passed by acclamation.

Commissioner Yu, seconded by Commissioner Van Stark, moved to approve article five of the bylaws. This motion as passed by acclamation.

Commissioner Bernick, seconded by Commissioner Kong, moved to approve article six of the bylaws. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Edelhart, seconded by Commissioner Sicairos, moved to approve article seven of the bylaws. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Van Stark, seconded by Commissioner Wu, moved to approve article nine of the bylaws. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Van Stark, seconded by Commissioner Sicairos, moved to approve article ten of the bylaws.

Commissioner Gomez, seconded by Commissioner Sicairos, moved to approve the 13-14 bylaws, as amended, as a whole document. This motion as approved by acclamation.

B. Election of the 2013-2014 Youth Commission Executive Officers

Commissioner Yu stepped in as acting chair for the election process and explained the election process.
Commissioner Yu opened the floor for nominations for chairperson.

Commissioner Gomez nominated Commissioner Persky for chairperson. Commissioner Sicairos nominated Commissioner Landrum. Commissioner Bernick nominated Commissioner Wu. Commissioner Wu declined the nomination

There was no public comment.

Acting chair Yu called for a vote by name. Commissioner Landrum received three votes. Commissioner Persky was elected chair by thirteen votes.

Commissioner Yu opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair.

Commissioner Gomez nominated Commissioner Landrum for Vice Chair. Commissioner Van Stark nominated Commissioner Cardenas. Commissioner Kong nominated herself. Commissioner Sicairos nominated Commissioner Eric Wu. Commissioners Cardenas, Landrum, and Eric Wu declined the nominations.

There was no public comment.

There were no further nominations. Commissioner Kong was selected as vice chair by elimination.

Commissioner Yu opened the floor for nominations for Legislative Affairs Officer.

Commissioner Landrum nominated Commissioner Cardenas. Commissioner Gomez nominated Commissioner Yu. Commissioner Persky nominated Commissioner Eric Wu. Commissioner Yu withdrew her nomination. Commissioner Eric Wu withdrew his nomination.

There was no public comment.

There were no further nominations. Commissioner Cardenas was selected at Legislative Affairs Officer by elimination.

Commissioner Yu opened the floor for nominations for Communications and Outreach officer. Commissioner Van Stark nominated Commissioner Landrum. Commissioner Sicairos nominated Commissioner Van Stark. Commissioner Van Stark withdrew his nomination.

There was no public comment.

There being no further nominations, Commissioner Landrum was selected as Communications and Outreach officer.

Commissioner Yu opened the floor for nominations for Media and Public Relations officer. Commissioner Bernick nominated Commissioner Van Stark. Commissioner Sicairos nominated Commissioner Flores. Commissioner Flores declined the nomination.

There was no public comment.

There being no further nominations, Commissioner Van Stark was selected as the Media and Public Relations officer.

7. Staff Report (Discussion Only)

A. Youth Commission Program Updates & Reminders

Phimy Truong reminded commissioners to check their weekly internal updates each Friday. She gave an update on committee formation. She reminded commissioners to look over the City Attorney’s statement of incompatible activities. She explained the Youth Advisory Council to Youth Commissioners and invited Youth Commissioners to apply. Adele Carpenter handed out materials from Dennis MacKenzie, a member of the public. Staff asked commissioners to welcome Sophie Edelhart, a new appointment to the Youth Commission.

8. Announcements (This Includes Community Events)

Commissioner Gomez spoke about the Youth in Government program at YMCA Buchanan.

Staff member, Allen Lu reminded commissioners that if they do not have an unlimited text plan, to please let staff know.

9. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.