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

Skip to page body

Meeting Information


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 


held at 1305 Evans St.  San Francisco, Ca 94124


(ACTION) Roll Call

President Queen called the meeting to order at 11:15am

Comms Chuck, Fetico, Hale, Rodriguez were present at the gavel. Comms. Stiglich, Ricci were excused.  Deputy City Attorney David Carillo was also present.



Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission

There were none.


(DISCUSSION/ACTION) City Attorney’s review of protocols, procedures, roles and responsibilities of the Commission, in regards to:

·         conducting commission meetings

·         Interaction with the Chief Probation Officer and the probation dept

·         |nternal and external communications

·         Roles and relationships with external govt and non govt agencies.

Main points presented in this discussion were that all regulations governing the conduct (scheduling) of meetings were prescribed by Brown and Sunshine. There are ways to establish “regular” meetings off site of city hall, where a 72 hr advance notice will suffice, otherwise, they would have to be noted 15 days advance.  Possibly have to set up a master schedule of meetings as part of the Commission’s annual plan.

Carillo commented on the authority of the commission to set policy vs being able to direct and undertake actions of the Dept.  He mentioned the question of the City’s liability if actions of the Dept’s staff were or were not directly the result of policy decisions made by the Commission.

Number of commissioners able to attend the same meeting is also governed by Brown and Sunshine, so different thoughts about which particular commissioners could/would attend meetings in the community (called by others) was discussed.

No more than 3 at a time, with no more than 1 from the same committee can be at the same meeting. Likewise, discussion between commissioners regarding commission/dept business, cannot be held in a series where a majority manage to carry out discussion, outside of a publicly noted meeting.  Ad Hoc committees can be created to do specific things like “fact finding”.

Communications and directions to the Dept for action can only be addressed to the Chief.  But perhaps to have division directors be part of commission committee meetings so that any information needed by the Commission can be brought to the commission via that procedure.

The official spokesperson for the Commission is the President (in the commission’s rules).  Only official positions/actions of the commission can be represented by the President..  while any commissioner can express their own personal opinions, these need to be clearly differentiated from the commission’s official positions.

D. Carillo will further research the legal relationships between the commission and external bodies (govt especially) and report back. And also what potential restrictions or proscriptions may exist that prohibit Commission members from attending meetings in the community, representing the Commission.

This question grew out of recent events where the roles and responsibilities of the Commission seemed to be sidestepped or overruled by other entities, leaving confusion and uncomfortable feelings among affected individuals.  Re: the LCRS committee, Carillo said he believed Amy Ackerman is the person from his office, involved in this topic.

(public comments)


(DISCUSSION) short term and long term goals for the commission:                   

·         Protocols, functions of commission standing committees.

Comm Queen referred to the materials he had prepared for the meeting, outlining what he thought the committees needed to address. Committees have to be on top of all aspects of the Dept’s operations. Comm Queen mentioned the possibility of the commission participating in the public safety “cluster” of groups that meet and discuss citywide issues concerning public safety, including funding streams.  The Commission should be an intrinsic part of the processes that occur or should occur that will assure direct involvement and maximal accountability of stakeholders for any activity or plan for juvenile justice in the city.

Part of the objective of the process should be to assure that all those receiving funds from the Dept, participate in district based planning. 

Emphasis was given to the committees holding regular meetings and performing frequent reviews of program and financial audits of ongoing activities, both within the Dept and outside.  The Commission also needs to help set outcomes/goals for the programs and services, against which they will be evaluated.

There was the thought that funds utilized for juvenile justice, at risk youth populations be merged into one fund and administered through one primary authority, the Probation Dept.  It was mentioned that 80% of MOCJ grants goes to addressing juvenile justice programs. Comm Queen asked that this item be on the agenda for the July Commission meeting for discussion and adoption.

Comm Hale raised the question of where the opposition might come from, and why the Dept should be the one to control this fund.

·         District based planning.

The issue of district based planning was reviewed, vis a vis the City’s ordinance that requires a similar system for the entire City’s operations, and the need for accountability of services and outcomes in contracts for outside services –CBO and otherwise. Scheduling of District Commission meetings (discussed in #3)

·         Log Cabin Ranch School/Hidden Valley Ranch

This item was not directly addressed.

(public comments)
There were none.


Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission
There were none.


(ACTION)  Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:20pm