(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review and possible recommendations to the full Commission, on the following items.
a. Department’s clarification of Prop. 86 funds from BOC.
Norm Cole presented a short document, which described where Prop 86 funds came from. The Chief said that the last of the funds were spent around 1996-97. N. Cole simply reported that the proposition provided funds for various projects to improve and correct deficiencies in Juvenile Hall. He said the entire amount of the bond act was expended in California.
Comm. Hale asked if there was a need to have an explanation? He said he was satisfied that there are no funds available from this. Cole said the Dept received all its allocations in 3 cycles of the bond act and all projects were completed in 1998.
Comm. Bonilla asked for the record, that all the Prop 86 funds that were in the Dept have all been spent? Cole said yes.
Comm. Ricci asked if there were any leftover funds. Cole said that all the funds in the bond act were spent.
Comm. Ricci asked if there were any leftover, would the Dept be able to utilize these funds? Cole said that the bond act expired. She asked again if all funds from that proposition were utilized. Cole said yes.
The Chief said that the funding was only for capital improvement, all that was spent, and there was no re authorization of funding.
Comm. Hale asked if there was any other information about this from those who thought this was a viable option. He was curious how this topic came up. Who raised this issue?
Comm. Ricci said that she did. She came across a recycled document that mentioned this fund and that there was a remainder of $22K in the fund. So he asked the Secretary to look into it.
b. Clarification and reconciliation of difference in CBO contract amounts (between $1.2 and $1.6 mil)
M. Lui explained that the $1.6 that is referred to in the ’02-’03 budget is the total contract amount for general fund funded CBOs, with a little TANF included. The difference in that and the current year budget is that the amount is broken down into $1.2 in general funds with $400K in TANF funds. The only other difference between the 02-03 budget to the 03-04 budget is the $120K reduction to the Huckleberry Youth Programs contract.
Comm. Bonilla asked what the status of TANF for next year. The Chief said they expect a refunding at the same level as this year, ($3.2 million), but that could change.
Comm Ricci asked about the JJCC. The Chief said that the law requires that the plan be approved by the JJCC, not the Commission. The presentation to the Commission is an informational presentation, because by law the body that approves the plan is the JJCC.
Question: what impact on CBO contracts if TANF doesn’t come through. Ans: the COLAs given over the years to CBOs came from TANF dollars. Without it, the contracts would shrink automatically.
It was mentioned that the Dept would have to look at (in fact has been looking at) prioritizing the services, which may be met with reduced dollars. L J-Simpson mentioned the planning being done around the “system of care” partners to address this issue.
c. Department’s recommendations for the $420K budget cut (deficit from the contingency reduction plan)
The Chief reviewed that the $420K revenue projected had to be resolved between the Dept and the Mayor’s office. The result was that the Mayor’s office approved it but credited it to the current year’s deficit, leaving that amount as a deficit in the reductions for the ’03-04 budget.
M. Lui recapitulated each line item as it was written in the document passed out at the meeting.
Some anticipated revenues were raised (#2 and #9).
#24 is a reduction in temporary probation officers’ salaries (retired PO’s working on population management)
#25 is a reduction of a manager position, (Dir of communications), which he said would impact the Dept’s ability to respond to the media and the Bd of Supervisors in a timely and effective manner, and the Dept’s ability to share information with its staff and other depts.
Comm. Ricci asked about the amount, $93,000. The Chief said that represented $45K in general funds, the balance in TANF funds. There is an additional $20K for that position that comes from the Children’s System of Care. This totals about $113K in salary and fringe for the position.
Clarification: since the $20K that would have come from Children’s Mental Health Services for this position (included in the budget this and last year) would not come for the next year, that deficit was made up for in the increase in #2.
#26 is to cut the Juvenile Probation Commission’s secretary position and allow the Dept’s other secretaries take up the work. They said that the other dept work such as scheduling other meetings, providing telephone reception, email, written correspondence and filing activities would be impacted.
#27 is to cut another person from the clerical pool. They say there will be no long-term impact. In the short term they expect increased delays in filing reports, and other clerical tasks such as filing, may be delayed.
#28 is a half time clerk typist.
#29 is a Jr. Management Asst., which supervises the Storekeeper and Sr. Clerk.
(document read from is available from M. Lui’s office)
Comm. Ricci opposed cutting the Commission Secretary. Comm. Hale supported the proposed cut, saying the Commission did not need a Secretary. He said the full Commission needs to discuss this. He can’t justify one position over another in this list.
Comm. Bonilla also opposed cutting the Commission’s Secretary. Comm. Hale repeated his approval of cutting the Commission’s Secretary.
Comm. Ricci commented that if Comm. Hale was concerned for the best utilization of staff and funds, then maybe the Commission should take up the question of whether the position of Asst. Chief Probation Officer was really needed. Comm. Hale said he had a problem with the conversation being conducted, that there are some who would like to see the Commission Secretary remain for reasons other than the legitimacy of the service the position provides. There hasn’t been provided an argument that the services cannot be provided by any other structure.
Comm. Ricci said that apparently Comm. Hale has never had to utilize the Commission Secretary, but she has and she is opposed to cutting it. The Chief said that the question of how to provide the services without the position is the same the Dept asks about all the proposed cuts. He said that the needs of the Commission could be met without this position, without compromise.
Comm. Hale said for the record that he was not going to approve the Comm. Secretary’s position for justification that is not required of any of the other positions.
Comm. Bonilla asked what the 0922 position did. The Chief read from a description of tasks done by the incumbent.
Comm. Ricci commented that maybe Comm. Hale doesn’t think any one else looks at the budget like he does, but he’s wrong. She believes the Commission’s function is very important, and one of those functions is to look into the finances of the Dept and its contracting processes, to make sure that all CBOs have an equal chance to offer services, and that funds are expended appropriately. And the Commission needs staff support in getting this done.
It was decided to cast votes on a line-by-line basis for those revisions to the original plan, only.
Comm. Hale moved to approve the new amounts for items #2 and 9. Comm. Ricci 2nd. Upon voice vote, motion carried 3-0.
Comm. Bonilla asked if there was a motion to take items 24 through 29 on a line-by-line basis, with those items approved to be moved on for consideration by the full Commission, those rejected to remain in committee and no longer be considered for cutting.
The Chief asked that the Committee submit all items, approved or disapproved, to the full Commission with that notation.
Comm Hale suggested moving all these items, excepting #26, to the full Commission without recommendations. He revisited that the Dept had originally had proposed a set of position cuts, which they arrived at themselves. And now there is another set reached after discussion with this Commission. He said that he was struggling with his own integrity, whether he could justify this group of lay-offs vs. those the Commission “saved”. A lot has to do with the comments made at this meeting regarding the ability to provide services, and who is in the best position to provide the Commission with that information. He is not confident that the agreed upon recommendations (the previous ones) that the Commission made, were justified. He said he was struggling now with his own justifications for these positions over the other 7 positions a few weeks back
Comm. Ricci said that the Dept was asked from the last Finance Committee meeting to look into other ways to identify funding to possibly support LCR so that it would not fail, and also to look at contracts to see if there were any funds there that might be re allocated.
Comm. Hale said he was not prepared to make a decision on these positions, including item #26. He asked if he could have a couple of weeks so they could sit down and ask questions about why these cuts won’t impact our service delivery. He just wanted to know what the rationale is and how we got to these particular positions.
He said he understood what the justifications were for the first recommended cuts because they came from the Dept, but the Commission did something that required the Dept to come back with a new set of recommended cuts, and he doesn’t know what the justification for this is.
Comm Bonilla announced that public comment would be taken before each vote.
Public comment on item #24.
Rich Perino identified one of the 2 positions as a FT court officer, which gets reimbursed by Title 4e. The other one is used as an administrative asst., which he does not believe, is reimbursable by 4e. That one will not have to be replaced, but the court officer would have to be, but at a higher cost. If the objective is to reduce personnel cost, this is a false economy.
Comm. Ricci asked about this. Perino repeated that cutting the court officer position would demand replacing it with a more expensive individual and not result in any savings.
Ques: would this cut result in a loss of Title 4e funds. The Chief said he really didn’t know, but if it did, it would not be a significant amount that would prohibit cutting the position. He said that Perino may have a point well taken, but he doesn’t know that to be a fact.
He said that this (the 2 hires) was done because they had the money, it was a good idea, and there were retired POs who could do it. This was a couple of years ago.
Comm. Ricci moved to approve item #24, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla. Upon voice vote, motion carried 2-1 (Hale opposing).
Comm. Ricci moved to approve item #25, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla. Upon voice vote, motion carried 2-1 (Hale opposing).
Public comment on #26.
J. Berkowitz expressed his appreciation for the work done by the Commission Secretary for keeping the matters of the Commission in order. It has helped him keep informed and able to participate in the recent deliberations. He said that the SF Charter established the Commission and its Secretary and he wasn’t convinced that the Commission could do the serious work it was doing without a staff dedicated to it alone. He opposed the proposed cutting of the position.
Comm. Ricci moved to reject #26, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla. Upon voice vote, motion carried 2-1 (Hale opposing).
Public comment on #27
Henrietta Lee said that the 8 1426’s in the division will now be reduced to 5, which will cripple the work already being impacted now. One of the positions doesn’t even work in the admin building, so that is even less people doing the required reports.
Comm Ricci asked the Chief how many positions were in the dept currently. The Chief said 8. This reduction is part of the 50% contingency reduction plan, which hasn’t yet been implemented, but may well be.
The Chief said that M. Lui informed him there are an additional 4 secretarial (1444) positions in the Probation Services division.
Comm. Hale said that he knew what these positions mean, and its impact on the work. He said that the fat is in middle management. They’re the ones that don’t deal with the kids or make the system work. That’s why he has a problem with these positions, because they are the glue of the Dept. He has problems with the recommendations for #24, 27, 28, 29.
Comm. Ricci moved to reject #27, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla. Upon voice vote, motion carried 2-1 (Hale opposing).
There was no public comment on item #28.
Bill Johnston, Dir of Probation Services, described the position as a part time records clerk. There are 2 other FTE staff in that office.
Comm. Ricci moved to reject #28, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla. Upon voice vote, motion carried 2-1 (Hale opposing).
Comm Bonilla asked for clarification on the 1840 position. M. Lui described it as a coder for incoming invoices, handling some orders (assisting storekeeper in this function). Assist in contracting processing.
Comm. Ricci asked where this position was placed, in accounting or finance? M. Lui didn’t make a distinction between the two.
Comm. Bonilla moved to reject item #29. 2nd by Comm. Ricci. Upon voice vote, motion carried 2-1 (Hale opposing).
d. Department’s suggested cuts in Executive staff and other non-mandated positions (for another $300K).
The Chief read a statement explaining why this wasn’t done (statement available from the JPC office).
Comm. Ricci commented that the Ad Hoc Committee was given a task to come up with a plan for LCR, but it did not allow her to look at the entire Dept’s budget in this consideration. The timing given to the Finance Committee to try and understand the entire budget situation left them trying to make rationale decisions on the spot. This was undoable. She felt that even after submitting budgets to the Mayor’s office, she needed to look further into the budget, and she is glad she did, because it did give her the chance to see other options (special assistant positions, other unnecessary positions). She compared our Dept to Alameda County’s much larger operation. She repeated that she wanted to review contracts to reconcile amounts, that she wanted to make sure LCR had the resources it needed to succeed. This is her responsibility.
Comm Bonilla echoed that he felt the charge of the Ad Hoc Committee did not give them the latitude to fully seek out funding opportunities, and so therefore, he took it up in the Finance Committee. He said that it is a matter of re allocation of dollars. And his desire is to see that LCR is given a realistic chance to prove it can succeed. Comm. Hale said he wasn’t turning anything over to the staff at LCR. He said if they are able to secure the program there for an additional year, it is “our” problem, not “their” (LCR) problem. People have ignored LCR, to the point that it is a viable issue on the table. He said it should be a model program and it isn’t. It is nowhere near where it ought to be, and it’s in that condition because Commissions like “ours”, Bd of Supervisors, Mayors, Chiefs, have all used it as a political pawn. As a result, we lose Hidden Valley, and, it’s our doing. There’s no way that he would be sitting back and saying he’s going to give the staff there a year and in the next year we’re in the same situation. He wanted to be clear that when he established the Ad Hoc Comm that every possible revenue area would be open to discussion and specifically said that we’d go through this budget line by line because one of the speakers said they had an alternative proposal. So in establishing the Ad Hoc Comm it was always contemplated that you would have the authority as vested by the Commission to look into all of these areas. From the comments made in the last Finance Committee meeting, it was clear that there was a difference of understanding of what the charge was. He has a problem with the attempt to bolster the $1.4 mil amount reached in the Ad Hoc Comm with another $ .2 mil that the other Finance Committee members seem to want to do.
The Chief said that the Dept came up with the option “c” and the Ad Hoc Comm. reached a decision based on this. He cannot now suggest any other cuts to the Commission because they potentially create significant liabilities for the Commission.
Public comment:
J. Berkowitz commented that he has worked all along to come up with a workable budget to keep LCR open. But the current proposal ignores certain labor laws (OT, holidays, etc.). He said they were willing to do their part, but certain parts of the proposed plan are not workable. This proposal is setting up the Ranch to fail.
R. Perino recounted that in the mid 90s they used Hidden Valley Ranch as a Juvenile Hall annex. Maybe LCR could be seen in the same way, so that JH staff could be assigned down there. Currently the hall has only 5 units, but still staff for 7 units. This is ‘rich’ staffing. There could be creative use of those staff.
The Chief said that Berkowitz’s comments do not reflect the opinions of LCR as articulated by its Director. The issues of wages, these things are all to be determined through the labor contract negotiations currently underway.
Comm. Bonilla commented that if what he heard these past months from people saying they have a commitment to LCR, to the kids, to saving lives, then the last things he wants to hear are complaints about holiday pay, OT. These are important, but the Ranch is in a very tenuous position. Through the work of the Commission, the Admin, LCR, a plan crafted at $1.4 mil is now in hand. It is going to demand the staff at LCR to go above and beyond the call of duty to make this work. The amount is not enough, but they are going to have to step up and do what needs to be done. (he gave an example of speaking to one LCR staff out on disability, telling him that if he wanted LCR to remain open, he’d better get back to work)
Comm. Hale said that when the Dept responds to concerns raised by the public, he listens very carefully. And when the issues raised legally can in no way not be honored, he is satisfied. He believes that politics should be kept out of juvenile justice. He is satisfied with the Chief’s response, staff response, and he is absolutely sure that the public’s concerns are secure, legally.
Comm. Ricci stated that she has no agenda other than for the youth of San Francisco. As a mother she has strong feelings for those who cannot speak out for themselves. She is not doing this for any political gain. She said she understands the Chief’s feeling that it is problematic to tell the Mayor that the Dept cannot afford further cuts, and then to look further for cuts. She is willing to go to the Bd of Supervisors and the Mayor to explain to them that we are not looking to cut our budget, but to re allocate our resources for the benefit of the children.
e. Finance committee-identified positions to consider for reduction.
Comm. Bonilla tabled this item as it derived from the previous item, which was dealt with
Rich Perino said that if savings was being sought, then why doesn’t the Dept allow its probation officers work in Juvenile Hall at the entry-level rate, rather than paying OT. Other counties to this, but this Dept refuses to use the same strategy.
|
