Meeting Information

2.

(ACTION) Review and approval of Minutes of Nov. 18, 2004 meetings.

Since there wasn’t a quorum of members present who were at the meeting, the minutes were moved to the full commission for action.

(public comment)

there were none.

3.

(Public Comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Finance Committee of the Juvenile Probation Commission)

There were none.

4.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) possible procedures and schedules for conducting Finance Comm. Mtgs, along with establishment of monthly “audit” of progress along fiscal lines.

It was decided not to set up monthly meeting schedules for now. The next meeting will be Sept 26.  the committee should set up some form of audit for major aspects of the Dept’s operations that can be reviewed each month.  Lui said that the Controller produces periodic projections, but because this Dept doesn’t have a staff to do inter-office mail runs, we haven’t been picking up those in a timely manner.

The budget process will begin again in Nov, with budget instructions from the Mayor’s office coming sometime in Dec.

(public comment)                                                     

5.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review of the adopted ’05-’06 Dept budget.

Comm Fetiçō thanked M. Lui for providing him with the budget docs.  He said that what he wanted to do was gain some clarity on the various budget items that have been a problem in the dept, as well as the fiscal practices in general –are we a cost efficient operation--, so that the Commission can begin to have an organized and measured way to deal with ongoing budget matters rather than be crisis oriented and reactive, so while he will question many details, he is not going to micro manage affairs.

Comm Stiglich asked what level of expenditure comes under the Commission’s radar.  The Commission Secretary stated that the Dept had established a $75K threshold, under which it would not come to the Commission for approval.  M Lui said that contracts of over $50K had to go out to bid.  Under $50k it could be an “informal” bid.  The Dept has the power to do up to $10k contracts without the purchaser having to review it. He said that there is only one person doing purchasing for the Dept.

He mentioned one contract (the food contract) was 30% more expensive than before.. the contract is now closed and another vendor (SISCO) is onboard.

Comm Stiglich commented that there needs to be a mechanism in place where over-, or unreasonable charges could be caught before a contract ends and we have to find out we’ve paid too much after the fact.

Item: profess/spcl servcs: $123K?, broken out to psych evals for hires, computer repairs, hearing officer service, title 4e claims service, fire alarm maintenance.   Ques: is this the same as in previous years?  Ans: no.  increased by $20K for the title 4e claims service.  Been using them for the past 4 yrs but did not pay them before.  None of the dept staff (on WC or not) are qualified to do any of the work of these contractors.  Eg. the fire alarm system is proprietary so only they know how to work on it.

Re:cell phones, how many are in the dept.  ans: 50-80. Who has them.  Ans:  directors, 1^st and 2^nd line supervisors, staff out in the field, the Chief and Asst. Chief.  In the past a Commission president and vice president had one.

Comm Lingad Ricci clarified that it wasn’t a policy of the Commission to give a cell phone to its President and Vice President.  This only happened with two individuals.

Comm Stiglich also asked about the communications problems for some POs out in the field. Lui said that radios were being looked into, either car mounted or mobile ($20K set aside for it).  Ques: will this reduce cell phone costs?  Ans: not all POs get cell phones.  Ques: landlines?  Ans: most desk phones are limited use.. no long distance access. Lui has looked at the usage and hasn’t found any abuse.  In the cell phones, he has found some, so some have been cut off.  The annual cost of cell phones has been approx. $60K/yr. He said he has recently seen some that were more than a couple of hundred in a month.  Comm Lingad Ricci said she had seen bills of a couple of thousand a month in the past.

Cell phone costs are now about $36k/yr.

Ques: can anyone on WC be used to look at any of these items, to keep an eye on them? Lui said no one on WC is trained and capable of doing this clerical work.

Lui said that while some figures may look high, it’s better to over budget than to under budget and come up short at the end of the year.  He said that the avg of about $1K/yr/employee /phone is not unreasonable.

Item: $402K, is cost for the CYA commitments.

Ques: are we paying for the Sheriffs at the front door.  Ans. No.

Status of WC? Ans.: has been reduced by about $500K.  in yr 03-04 to 04-05, number of new cases were cut in half.

There is an increase of $100K in facilities maintenance from last year.   $40K for elevator repair. There is an increase to maintenance for LCRS, to fix the road to Mindago Creek.

Ques: are there staff who are also working with and being paid by CBOs that are contracted by the Dept?  Lui said there are some regulations regarding city employees getting outside employment, but he didn’t have details.

What’s the policy in this regards? No answer.

Ques: 2 executive secretary III, isn’t this in violation of civil service rules that restrict an executive secretary to serving only the head of a dept, and not any other lower position.  Comm Stiglich commented that dept heads are allowed to have a confidential secretary and an executive assistant.  These are at-will, exempt positions.

Ques: how are program services monitored?  Ans: Liz Jackson-Simpson said that they do 2 site visits a year. Monthly the CBOs give self-assessment reports. The Comm. Programs Division has 4 staff, down from 8.

Last year they personalized the CMS data system used by DCYF, to serve the purposes of our Dept’s CBO contracts.  This will make data collection computerized, as well as contract processes.

Their system requires more data input than the PrIDE program, but the Dept’s CBOs have already been introduced to it, so they are used to it and are using it.

Liz Jackson-Simpson said they will be able to capture the raw data on service results but will not be able to analyze it.  They will not be able to see how the programs have affected the youth’s school bonding, or family bonding, or any number of other indicators of change.

Ques: who pays for out of home placements.  Ans: didn’t know.  Ques: how many Dept youth served end up re committing?  Ans: 25-30% have new sustained petitions. 

To be put on the full commission agenda… discussion on continuing the evaluative/analytical piece in data collection on how CBO services/youth are doing.

Ques: how is OT being looked at?  Ans: there’s a committee looking at the status every other week. Juvenile Hall produces about 90% of the entire Dept’s OT.

Ques: how far along are we in the combining of those two classes for juvenile hall and Log Cabin? Ans: only have one 1844 in personnel, so this is not a high priority, there is no timeline for completing it.

Ques: what process is there to get someone who has been on WC longterm (years) off WC? Ans: if a doctor determines their condition is permanent and stable, they can be moved off WC to a permanent disability status. If they couldn’t be accommodate in this dept or elsewhere in the city, then the city would move to medically separate them from service.

Comm Lingad Ricci suggested that (following protocols) Comm Fetiçō stay in touch with Mark Lui and get monthly updates from him (with copies of those updates given to the committee members), so that they can stay on top of issues as they develop, rather than playing catch up.
(public comments)

there were none.

6.

(DISCUSSION) review of the CBO contracts preparation, timelines, processes and its role and place under the auspices of District based planning strategies for juvenile justice issues.

This item was not directly discussed.  Liz Jackson-Simpson’s presentation covered some aspects of the topic of CBO contracts, vis a vis the CMS system.

(public comments)
there were none.

7.

(ACTION) Adjournment

there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:24pm.