Seal of the City and County of San Francisco

To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Immigrant Rights Commission

Meeting Information



Full Commission

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 

San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission

2005 RETREAT AGENDA

Saturday, February 26, 2005, 8:45AM to 1:00PM

American Legion in Chinatown, San Francisco
1524 Powell Street.   Vallejo & Green

Facilitator: Dr. Jay Gonzalez
Minutes of Meeting on February 26, 2005

 

I. Review & Assessment of last retreat goals (2002)

  1. Effective working IRC-getting a quorum-not enough commissioners attending meeting
  2. Increase visibility –             Given out certificate (get more exposure)

Name out there

Media contact

Resolution 

  1. EAS-implementation –Community awareness
  2. Good Referral source

 

Report Card

A very good

B good

C average  -IRC commission at this level.  We have room to improve.
D poor

 

  • What should we do to improve the performance?
  • We need to strengthen the EAS ordinance & elect officials & dept head.
  • Need to strengthen the commission & Increase visibility. 
  • Need to do outreach in the community. 
  • Increase more citizenship classes.
  • Help other immigrants to obtain better opportunity.
  • Providing & referring services for immigrants
  • Limited Staff.  How can we increase staff?
  • Establishing & implementing a procedure of investigation for complaint.  Many people don’t know about us to file a complaint. 
  • No language bank.

 

 

II. Specific Issues

A. Equal Access Ordinance Implementation 

1. Implement EAS/Issues   (lack of resources)

a.       Not clear-lack of client implement law

b.      Resistant to change –IRC not important

c.       Lack of outreach  }

d.      Lack of procedure} Lack of Capacity

e.       Working w/dept    }

f.        History/context   token/symbolic

g.       Tapping into what exists-resources

 

2.  Guest speaker: Willie Nguyen, Staff Attorney from The Legal Aid Society.

Deborah invited Mr. Nguyen to talk about language access.

He came to the commission to give a brief summary of the main federal law to improve language access to LEP residents. 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-prevents discrimination of race & national origin by recipients of federal funding.

Private right of action: if you feel you have been discriminated against you, you can sue the agency/agent in court.

Executive order 13166: this ensures that LEP persons have meaningful access to federally funded & federally conducted programs & activities.

For example: hospital, law enforcement, DMV & transportation

 

CA State Laws: The govt. agency that distributes the federal funds must issue guidance to their recipient on how they need to provide language access to LEP individuals.   What level of service you are providing?

  1. Number of portion –how many people are you serving?
  2. How often are you interacting w/ them on a regular basis
  3. Nature & importance of the program
  4. Resources available

Website-for more information: LEP.GOV

Language ID flash cards are used

 

We need more tools to enforce the ordinance-many state ordinance are the same. There are not enough teeth to force the departments to comply. 

The Commission should have the BOS to amend the ordinance to make it stronger. 

11135: Programs or activities funded by state; prohibits discrimination on basis of race & national origin

 

1259: Language assistance services; interpreters; notice; review

 

7290: Dymally-Alatorre Act: There is no bite at this point-sets up a good provision to follow-no enforcement procedures.

 

State agency: there are guidelines-5% or more of people served by the local offices or facility of a state agency

Local agency: there are no set guidelines-bilingual staff & interpreters for contact position at the agency, which interact with the public. 

Should hire a bilingual staff if there is an opening-no need to fire a staff. 

Need to translate materials that are necessary for the services.

 

 

3. Strategy/Action

  1. Credibility –Enforcement-compliance plan
  2. EAS expertise of commission
  3. Political visibility/Public relations/ an event IRC summit/invite the media
  4. Embarrassment of non-compliance
  5. Highlighted the ones who’s compliance is the best
  6. Work w/ other commissioners
  7. Notice –issue a report card
  8. Commission meeting, hearing, EAS Dept update} update w/ the BOS/Mayor
  9. Media attention/Campaign

 

B. Monitor Day Labor Program

  1. Implementation issues

a. IRC’s involvement } issues?

b. Where are the resources to monitor DLP? Resources?

c. Legal issues/lawsuit?

d. Highly political program

 

2. Strategy /Action

a.       Clarify w/ Mayor & BOS/ role of commission

b.      No unless there is additional resources}staff

c.       Yes-given existing staff-commissioner cannot get involved w/ the program due to conflict of interest

d.      Next meeting to invite city attorney to give guidance.  What is the responsibility for the DLP contract? How is our Commission going to monitor the contract? Exactly what is our function so we are clear on how to monitor the DLP.

 

C. Citizenship & Initiatives /attainment

  1. Mayor believes IRC should get involved in citizenship
  2. Problems w/ funding
  3. Directly-Documentation/study needs to be done
  4. CBET $ exist CA money
  5. Prop 227  there is a pot of money

 

III. IRC Summit (end of 2005 or beginning of 2006)

  1. Lots of pros
  2. Question funding
  3. Partner w/ other organization}collaboration/reaching out to different organization
  4. Create committee-access feasibility/cost $30K-$40K appox/fund raise
  5. Commissioners/Volunteers/Staff support critical

 

IV. Committee IRC structure-Review the work of the committee

  1. Amendment-ad hoc committee to explore
  2. Task to existing committees-Assign work to the committee & keep the existing committee
  3. Adhoc{ Amend                       
               {Task
  4. Expand committee membership-increase size of the committee by inviting CBO’s to join