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   MINUTES Of MARCH 12, 2003  SPECIAL MEETING of the JUVENILE PROBATION COMMISSION

held at Youth Guidance Center Cafeteria 375 Woodside Ave   San Francisco, CA   94127

The Minutes of this meeting set forth all actions taken by the Commission on the matters stated, but not necessarily the chronological sequence in which the matters were taken up


(ACTION)  Roll Call

The President called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.  All commissioners were present at the gavel, except for Comm. Richard, who arrived at 6:17 pm.



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

Since this was a continuation of the March 11 meeting, this portion was dispensed with.



(ACTION) Election of Commission Officers

The Elections were tabled to the March 26 meeting of the full Commission.

(Public Comment)  There was none.



(ACTION) Possible continued review and action to approve the Juvenile Probation Department’s FY 2003-04 contingency 10% reduction plan.

#18, Deliberations continued with #18 and 19.  M. Lui explained that of the 4 utility workers in the Dept now, one has been vacant for most of this current FY.  Once reduced to 2 positions, shuffling around of duties will allow custodians to take up some of the remaining work to be done, and vice versa.

Comm. Ricci asked how many custodians are in the Dept.   Ans.  4 plus 1 supervisor.

Comm. Chuck moved, 2nd by Comm. Dupre for both 18&19.  The question was called and upon voice vote, carried 7-0.

#20, M. Lui said they proposed to contract out the laundry services rather than have staff onboard to do that.  Laguna Honda is trying to outsource its laundry services also.  The Dept hopes to use the same contractor as Laguna Honda might contract with, for services (possibly reducing the cost of services). But if Laguna Honda is not allowed to contract out its services, the Dept will still try to contract with the vendor of choice for Laguna Honda.  Lui further said that when they first proposed this, such a scenario was possible, but now it may not be (ie, the SF Bd of Supervisors had vetoed Laguna Honda’s outsourcing plan).

The Chief further clarified that the Dept’s plan was to piggyback on Laguna Honda’s contract, enlisting their same vendor to service the Dept’s laundry.  But if Laguna Honda’s plan does not materialize, the Dept will still try to contract with that vendor to service just the Dept’s needs.

Comm. Bonilla moved, 2nd by Comm. Ricci.  The question was called and upon voice vote, carried 7-0.

#21, Comm. Chuck moved, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla.  The question was called and upon voice vote, carried 7-0.

#22, M. Lui said they were working on reassigning tasks to available staff, and trying to implement some scheduling software.  Other Juvenile Hall staff can assume some of the work, assuming that the Dept does get approval to fill one of the two vacant Asst Director positions.  They think there may be an impact on meeting Bd of Corrections standards for supervision levels. Supervising counselors are an important part of the emergency response teams.

Comm. Hale reviewed that one possible scenario is when an Asst Director is filled. He asked how that would affect the budget.  The Chief said they are considering it, but it hasn’t been approved yet by the Mayor’s office.  It is one of the vacant positions in the Dept’s budget, being carried forward into the next fiscal year.

G. Fierro asked to speak on this issue, citing the Sunshine Ordinance. Comm Hale refused his request.

The Chief said that their plan was to replace 2 positions with one higher-level position (Asst Dir) that could help to offset the work of those two positions that would be lost.

Comm Hale asked if the Mayor’s office does release one of the Asst. Dir. positions, does that create a deficit for the Dept.  The Chief said no. There’s no guarantee that would be approved by the Mayor.  The Commission has the authority to exclude that language altogether.

Comm. Bonilla recommended that #22-25 be rejected and the Dept be directed to find other options for cutting.  These are direct line staff, the ones that work with young people. He felt that they are important to keep.  The Chief said that none of these positions are line counselors (JH) or considered part of the staffing ratios for counselor to youth, standards for Bd of Corrections.  

Comm Ricci also echoed that direct service positions such as the POs in item #24 and 25 are important to keep. The Chief wanted asked for clarity on this, if it was the Commission’s desire to not cut the positions in #22-25, and substitute other positions instead.  Comm. Ricci said yes (totaling the amount of savings listed on the proposed plan)  The Chief said if the Commission wanted to substitute specific positions for those proposed by the Dept, they could do so, but if they wanted the Dept to come up with alternative choices, they were not prepared to do so at this time.

Comm Ricci referred to recommendations about certain positions, about which she said she would like to have a dialog with the Chief, to see what impact they would have on the Dept, although she personally felt that those suggested position cuts were for less essential positions than the ones proposed by the Dept.

Comm. Hale said that if Comm. Ricci had other positions to suggest, that they begin the dialog on that now.  Comm. Ricci referred to the full Dept. line item budget (p. 415)

Comm. Hale reviewed his position on the issue of public comment, that he closed public comments on line item #4.  He said that at the close of the discussion on this item, he would allow public comments, but that those comments would be restricted to items not on the agenda.

Comm. Ricci asked Comm. Connolly to comment. 

Comm. Connolly suggested that items #22, 23 be separated from #24 and 25.  He moved to approve the first two and refer the latter two back to the Chief to find other positions/cuts in lieu of the positions proposed. 

Comm. Richard referred to some other positions within Admin; Principal Analyst, Project Director, Personnel Tech, Personnel Analyst, and asked if there was any way of eliminating those (for a savings of over $344K).

The Chief said that cutting the Project Director would eliminate no more monthly commission reports, no annual reports, no monthly or quarterly Bd of Corrections reports, no school data extraction from JJIS, no tracking of active cases by POs, no more data request responses, no more statistical reports or research studies, and no more data analysis from the JJIS.  Also, all the current JJIS projects that they have will be put on hold because it is the responsibility of this Director to manage those projects and move them forward. No more office automation in the Dept and the only work done by IT will be user support and network support.

Principal analyst: this is Mark Lui. He is currently in that position. If it is cut, Mark disappears.   Personnel technician and Sr. Personnel Analyst:  there are 4 professional positions in the personnel unit.  All the work done at Gough St. for Citywide positions is done here for certain select positions.  Those are the ones that are not citywide—namely juvenile counselors and probation officers.  Security clearances, background checks, testing, disciplinary procedures all would have to be handled by one professional staff person and one personnel technician.  So, there’s no way to consider cutting those positions for the reasons given by the Chief.

The Chief reviewed that the recommendations on the Dept’s plan were reached after a 2-day deliberation by 5 executive staff. He again reminded the Commission that they were invited to participate in those deliberations. He said that while there were other positions that could be considered for cuts, these were decided against.  The ones suggested by the Commission were essentially “one of a kind” whose work could not be spread to anyone else. 

Question:  do supervising POs carry caseloads?  Ans: no. 

Comm. Connolly moved for #22, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla.  The question was called and upon roll call vote it carried, 5-1, one absent (Comm. Dupre).  Comm. Richard voting nay.

Comm. Chuck moved for #23. 2nd by Comm. Connolly. The question was called and upon voice vote, carried 6-0.

#24, Comm. Connolly stated that in an effort to save important vital staff, he was moving to consolidate items #24, and 25, and ask the Chief to find alternative ways to save those positions, and find cost savings elsewhere.

The Chief reviewed the motion: that these positions not be cut and alternative savings of approx. $427K be found, and or other revenues to make up this amount.

Comm. Hale said that it was his own understanding that the motion is to not approve these two items (#24, 25).  He said he didn’t think it was the Commission’s intent to put any restriction or restraint on the Chief for doing this.  He said the Chief might come back to the Commission at the next meeting and say that after trying he couldn’t do it, but Comm. Hale said he was confident the Chief would do whatever it takes with the staff to figure out an alternative.

The Chief asked again, if items #24,25 were not being approved and in lieu of those position cuts, the Dept is directed, at the Chief’s discretion to identify other cuts in the amount of $427K, either through other positions or other revenue generations.  Correct?  Ans:  yes.  The question was called, and upon roll call vote, carried, 6-0, one absent (Comm. Dupre).

#3, the language of this item was discussed and the Chief offered the wording to be:  the sale or lease of HVR and or underdeveloped parcels of land at LCR. 

The Commission approved of this wording. Comm. Ricci moved, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla,  item #3 with the new language.  The question was called and upon voice vote, carried 6-0, one absent (Comm. Dupre)

Comm. Hale commended the staff and Commission for all the hard work in dealing with the budget.


(public comments)

Jim Fithian beseeched the Commission to make it known to the Bd of Supervisors how hurtful this action will be on young people.

Rich Perino, Pres of the POA, reviewed the Sunshine Ordinance, § 67.15(b) that affords the public the ability to comment on any item before an action is taken. He suggested cutting the PrIDE contract ($225K) as a potential cost savings.  He referred to juvenile hall overtime.  For years 8444 positions have been held vacant because of the out of control overtime.  He said there are available individuals who can work on call, and POs have also offered to work on an as needed basis (rejected by the Dept).  They have asked for information regarding juvenile hall overtime this year and have been denied the information.  He asked for an investigation to be done here to find savings.

He further stated that there were 14 positions (8444) funded but vacant.  He said they could only account for 4 of those positions.  10 others seem to have been used up (“tx’d” –traded across) to some other non civil service positions.  There’s no reason a PO can’t do the Public Information Officer job, or the background checks (personnel work). This occurs in other departments –eg. Police. 

Look at CARC, it’s duplication of services.

Frank Del Campo, SEIU, said that the needs expressed by the youth should guide the Commission’s work, and that they should do as other departments have done, and just said that it was unacceptable to cut services.

Henrietta Lee, said that the Dept claims that with the shuffling of the clerical staff reports would be delayed, She noted that court filings are time sensitive, under the penalty of the court for delinquencies.  She also commented that she was appalled to hear that the cashier, whose position is being cut, was called at home by the Dept, on a Sunday evening and told this. She said this was not professional.

Gonzalo Fierro expressed his commitment to see LCR stay open.

Henrietta Lee said that the idea of cutting the laundry worker won’t work, since the Bd of Supervisors have already rejected Laguna Honda’s proposal to outsource their laundry.  Ms. Lee said that this was a meet and confer issue with the union and couldn’t just be proposed by the Dept.

Comm. Hale asked the Chief whether he was aware of any staff calling anyone on the list and giving a statement from the Dept that someone was going to be laid off.  The Chief said that he knew that all division directors either met with their staff or called them to let them know that the proposed reduction plan may affect them.  He believed it was on a Friday, subsequent to the Exec Team’s meeting, so it is conceivable that if the person wasn’t working that Friday, that s/he got a call at home.  And given the option of hearing out of the blue vs having advanced information that was going to be presented publicly, he thought it was better for someone to get a call at home on a Saturday or Sunday, as opposed to walking into work on Monday and finding out in a public meeting, with documents being distributed with positions on it which affects them.  No employee has been told they will be laid off.  He defended the action.

Roger Gainey, PO, said he understood that the Project Director referred to earlier in the meeting, was someone who had filled that position had retired and the gentleman who is currently working in that capacity is on an acting basis, and that the claim that that work cannot be disbursed to other people, he does not believe to be true.

Joe Berkowitz, counselor LCR, handed out his alternative proposal for the first round of cuts, which would allow LCR to stay open. He said that he didn’t understand why no action was taken on #3a (he wasn’t aware that it came up).  He also cited the Sunshine Ordinance and said that by not allowing public comment on each item, the Commission was in violation of the ordinance.

Berkowitz reviewed the numbers for LCRS’s plan, and said that the City stands to save $860K from closing LCRS.  He said his proposal is for LCRS to cut $302K of its operations, leaving about $560K, which could be made up by renting 10 out of county beds.  He hoped the Dept would come up with a way to keep LCRS open for the next year while other means can be found to keep it open permanently.



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

Made a part of agenda item #4.



(ACTION) Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm.