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 City Hall   Room  400 1 Dr. Carlton B Goodlett Place   San Francisco, CA   94102

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

Meeting called to order at 5:40 pm.   Comms. Bonilla, Ricci, Hale, were present. Comms. Connolly arrived at 5:48 pm, Chuck at 6:10 pm, Richard at 6:15 pm.



(ACTION) Review and approval of April 23, 2003 meeting minutes 

The minutes of April 23, 2003 were approved as written.  Comm Hale abstaining (absent from meeting)

(public comments)

There were none



(DISCUSSION)  Chief Probation Officer’s Report:  

            a.   Status Report on Juvenile Hall replacement project

                  Chris Bigelow reported that the certificates of participation have been sold.  Now a supplemental appropriation needs to be passed through the Bd of Supes.  This will be heard 6/10 and 6/17.  then they can start construction.   On June 10, MOCJ has scheduled a groundbreaking ceremony at noon.   The construction is estimated to start late June.

               b.  Status Report on FY 03-04 budget process

                    Mark Lui reported that the baseline budget submitted in Feb. remains the same except for the LCR.  The plan presented by the Ad Hoc Comm on LCR, was added back into the budget system, at $2.2 mil.   $358K of that is TANF ranch funds, the rest general funds.  Lui said that due to the 790 negotiations (give backs etc.) this plan was able to be added back in. 

                   There are 10 positions being deleted from the budget (from LCR: 2 cooks, 2 stationary engineers, stationary engineer, utility worker, 5 counselors.?)  The contingency plan has been implemented.  All of the revenue items were taken except for the sale/lease of LCR property.  All non-staffing expense items were accepted, except for the voluntary furloughs.  Finally 3 positions were asked for.  JPD was the only public safety dept asked to cut positions, so they went back and negotiated no cuts.  The Dept is scheduled to present to the Bd of Supes Budget Committee on June 11, and 26.  Right now Harvey Rose has asked for a list of information, including vacancies, list of contracts, org chart, and a detailed description of each line item.

 Comm. Ricci asked if the portion of the report on the LCR plan included what was brought up in a previous meeting, in regards to an increase from some $43K to $160K.  Lui reviewed that that increase, which was added back in after the Ad Hoc Comm. approved the plan “c”, represented the services that were deleted from the LCR budget when an initial plan to keep it open was being thought up.  He said the Mayor’s office allowed them to just keep the current LCR budget minus the 10 staff positions.

                 Comm. Ricci commented that she’d probably have to just meet with M. Lui to just clear up this confusion.

                 The Chief said that based on the City’s negotiations with 790, it allowed the City to add back about $60k of general fund money (on their own initiative, to cover all those OT, and fringe, and those things which had not been covered). The City also agreed that LCR would not be contracted out during the ’03-’04 yr.

                 Comm Hale asked why the Mayor’s office rejected the voluntary furloughs.  Ans.  Bad strategy while the City is negotiating with the unions.  The Chief briefly reviewed that the budget process was moving quickly and that they sometimes don’t get much advance notice for information.

            c.   Status Report of the JDAI (Bieringer)

.                Gary Bieringer reviewed what’s been happening with the JDAI.  Been going on for 18 mons, he has been coordinator for about 6 mos.  There are several overall goals.. reduce unnecessary detention, reduce disproportionate minority confinement, and develop alternative services to incarceration, and create a system wide change in all juvenile justice partners. 

There were originally 5 JDAI sites throughout the country, now there are at least 15.  In all its sites, it concentrates on overall reducing detention.  In some sites, they are looking instead at over representation of minorities in confinement.  In SF and Santa Clara, both are being targeted at the same time.

There are 5 working committees meeting monthly.  One of the successful cornerstones to other JDAI sites is evening reporting centers, and SF will soon be reviewing proposals to operate 2 evening reporting centers here.  Once a contractor(s) are chosen, Bieringer will take reps from them to Chicago to see how a model center works.  The other concrete step SF will take is a home detention program at the point of arrest (for those appropriate cases).  There was a 2-day conference in SJ of all the western states JDAIs to cross-reference.   2 wks ago Damone Hale and Liz J-S visited Santa Clara’s DMC work, an upcoming site visit to Santa Cruz county and another to Portland, Or  will give us further information on how they are doing their work.

Comm Dupre asked where funds were from for the evening reporting centers.  Ans: State reg (JJCPA), and JBAG?

  (public comments)

Comm Dupre instructed the public that they would only have one opportunity to address the Commission, as he understands the Sunshine Ordinance.

Ray Balberan wanted to make some comments about PrIDE, and was told that this was not the proper place to do so (item#3), but he wanted to also make comments about item #3.  He was asked to make his comments under item#4.


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

Raymond James Ali Balberan, Prog. Director of Calles program, asked the Commission to see what it could do include at risk youth (and youth on probation) on the construction crews doing the JH replacement project.

He spoke in support and favor of the JDAI.  He opposed putting funds in LCR and encouraged moving the money to community based organizations.  He also emphasized that high crime areas should get needed services in proportion to their problems.  He opposed giving more money to an already expensive evaluation program.  He said there were far cheaper programs that would serve the purpose.  Finally, he asked what could be done to make the hiring process for the new Chief a more open process including the community.

Rev. Floyd Tremel, of 3rd Baptist Church?.  Spoke in support of Lonnie Holmes’ application for CPO.

Somalia Smith, Resident Service Coordinator  Bayview Hunters Point housing,  spoke in support of Lonnie Holmes.

Kamila, Mimi’s House of Empowerment, a residential facility in SF, spoke in support of Lonnie Holmes.

Algernon Damone, 4th, spoke in support of Lonnie Holmes.

Sululagi Palega, President of the Housing Commission, thanked the Chief for the work in bringing the PI community into the system of services.  He encouraged the Commission to study hard in order to make the best choice in the new Chief.  He asked them to consider Lonnie Holmes (who he is very familiar with) as a good candidate for the position.

He echoed Balberan’s feelings that money should follow the areas of highest crime.  He said the new Chief needs to be sensitive to the diversity of the City and able to work with all neighborhoods.

Richard Warren, case mgr in Methadone clinic, SFGH, spoke in support of Lonnie Holmes.

Joyce Sewar,  SF Boys and Girls Club, supports Lonnie Holmes.

William Otaro, (All Hollows Garden Apts, in BYHP) supported Lonnie Holmes.

Roger Gainey, PO, praised the Chief for his work, and gave his support to Lonnie Holmes.

Norbert Taylor, PO, thanked the Chief and wished him well in his future work, and then gave his support to Lonnie Holmes.

Thi-Bay Miradoli.asked about the PrIDE contract.  She said that to date there hasn’t been any results that they can see from that program.  She said that if you ask directly the clientele (and agencies) what is best, you could get more ready answers.  Finally, she gave her support to Lonnie Holmes.

































































































































































































































(ACTION) Possible motion to add accounting software to the JPC office computer to allow the Commission to review financial records of the Dept, via FAMIS screens.             

Comm. Bonilla said that this was a miscommunication.  In a discussion he had with Comm. Dupre, this was brought up as a possible means for the Finance Committee to get information, but that they decided (after this was posted) to come back to discuss with the Dept administration all the other concerns related to having access to the information.  So he asked to have this tabled until further notice.

The Chief offered to make available any reports the Finance Committee would like.

He said there was a host of concerns in the Dept and the Controller’s office about providing that access to someone or to an entity who’s operational responsibilities do not include specific budgetary information.  To his knowledge, no other commission or commission secretary has access to that information at this point.  The job classifications of those individuals who may want to access that information (thought incomplete).  Comm. Bonilla asked to have this discussion with the Administration at another time.

Comm. Ricci asked to move the item to another date.

(pubic comments)

There was none

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review of TANF spending plan and clarification of final authority for expending funds        (Ricci)  

Comm Ricci said that there is a question of whether the Commission has any authority to approve TANF fund expenditures.  What she is told is that whatever the JJCC has approved, the Commission has no say in how those funds are spent.  But she understands that Dept expenditures (contracts) are the authority of the Commission.  So, aren’t TANF funds revenues to this Dept, which get expended from its budget? 

The Chief said that TANF funds are not expended through the Dept. Expenditures result when the TANF plan is approved, and then there’s subsequent contracts or other financial obligations, and in fact the Commission does have review authority over contracts.  So the spending authority embodied in those contracts does come before the Commission.  Contracts come to the Commission for approval. 

Comm. Ricci asked then for anything with TANF funds, it doesn’t have to come before the Commission for approval?

The Chief said that the Comprehensive Youth Services Act, which is the authorization…. The legislation, which establishes TANF funds, requires that there be a local planning body, a local planning council. And in this county that’s the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council.  That legislation also advises as to how that council is structured, and the Chief Probation Officer is designated as Chair of that planning body.  The bylaws that were passed by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council in 1995 and approved by the Bd of Supervisors authorized that body as the body that approves the TANF funding.  So to that extent, the requirement to monitor the development of the plan, and the approval of the plan consistent with the legislation is with the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and not with the Commission.  That’s the way the law was written and that the way the bylaws were fashioned after the law. 

Comm. Ricci asked who on the JPC sits on that council.  The Chief said that two members of the Commission sit on it.  One is Chair of the Probation Commission and the other is Chair of the Juvenile Justice Commission.  It is an 18-member group, as mandated by the legislation.

There are resultant Raps out.  “all of the contracts that result from our portion of that will come before this Commission, likely around the end of June, so at that point the Commission can decide whether you vote any of those contracts up or down, and would be advised as to any pluses or minuses with an up or down vote.  That is the Commission’s authority, that is the process, and that’s essentially how it’s been carried out for since we began getting TANF funding, in ’99 I think it was.”

Comm Ricci: so if it’s TANF funding, and it’s contracted through the Probation Dept, then the Commission will act on it?

The Chief said that the Commission doesn’t just see TANF contracts, it also sees general fund contracts.  Yes, TANF contracts that result from the RFQs that were issued for 03—04 will come before this commission, likely at the end of June.

Comm. Hale said that TANF dollars were originally designed to expand beyond the scope of responsibilities of the Dept alone.  In San Francisco there is a wide level of representation on the committee, and it is a process that is not duplicated by many other jurisdictions in the state.  Others have used their TANF dollars for probation services principally.  In SF, the agenda has focused on community response to juvenile justice prevention and intervention matters.  In his (Comm. Hale’s) role as Chair of the JJC, he has the responsibility of sitting on that committee (JJCC).

Comm Ricci commented that it would be helpful if those individual Commissioners who attend meetings of various initiatives would report back to the rest to keep them updated on what’s going on, and also it would be helpful if notices of all such meetings were routinely given to Commissioners so that they could attend if they were able.

The Chief said that is possible.

Comm Hale said that without exception the TANF spending plan has come before the Commission. It has received input from the Commission in past years. It is up to individual commissioners to pursue whatever information they are interested in.  In the case of the TANF spending plan, it is presented by the Chief every year.  He commented that he was miffed at the comments of the Commissioner regarding not knowing the information around this.

He said the spending plan is consistent with the policies and goals and objectives that the Commission has laid out, so it is part and parcel to what they are doing.  He said if others were interested, then you show up at the meetings like other public citizens and you participate if you like.  He repeated he was miffed at Comm. Ricci’s comments.

Comm Bonilla asked what would happen if the Commission disapproved any contracts that had TANF dollars.

The Chief that for any of the contracts that will come to the Commission in June, the Commission has the option of approving or not approving those contracts, as it has had every year contracts come before the Commission.  For contracts that are in progress right now, or in operation right now and subject to renewal, the Commission would be bound by whatever that individual solicitation was that resulted in the contract, whatever the contract language is, and whatever the performance of the contract has been.  That is when the Commission has blanket authority and can exercise that authority.  Once a contract is executed then the Commission is bound by whatever the conditions of that RFQ was, and are bound by the conditions and specifications in that contract.  If the Commission decides that it doesn’t want to approve any contracts for TANF in the next fiscal year, the issue then becomes how they will reconcile that with the JJCC, who has legislative authority to authorize certain expenditures to TANF funding. It would be a problem, but technically the Commission has the authority to approve and disapprove contracts.  The Commission does not have according to law the authority to dictate to JJCC what is in the spending plan.

Comm. Bonilla asked if there was a disagreement in priority between the Commission and the JJCC.

The Chief said that the Commission has two representatives, one official representative as the Juvenile Probation Commission representative, and this year an additional Commission member who sits as a representative of another commission.  So basically there are two people on this Commission who are on that council.  Whether there is one person or two persons, this Commission’s official access to and voice on the council is through your designated representative, who has been the President of the Commission.  That’s been the history.  The President has sat, the President has the option to designate someone else if he or she so chose in the past. But historically the President has sat and that’s the way that this Commission along with all of the other depts. and commissions that are represented on the council, that’s how their voices are heard, that’s how the input happens. That input goes into a process that has numerous other representatives.  There’s discussion, there’s some consensus and then there’s a vote. So, no single agency in that configuration, not the Commission, not juvenile justice, not defender, DA, police, no single agency can necessarily dictate to the council, anything because it has to be an approval by the council of the action that would happen.  This Commission has a voice as do other agencies mandated by the law.

Comm Dupre recounted that Comm Hale served on that council during his Presidency.  Comm Dupre has attended his first council meeting and was going to ask Vice President Ricci to serve as his alternate.  He recounted that Comm. Grossman had requested information regarding those meetings.  He said that if the Commission wanted, he’d be willing to report monthly how that is going.

Comm. Ricci said she recalled Comm. Grossman had asked to be notified of meetings, and for a while the Commissioners were given such notice, but for some reason this did not continue. She said that these questions, as well as many others, would continue to be asked by her so she can be fully informed and not be surprised by things as she has been in the past on the commission.  She requested that commissioners conduct themselves with decorum.

Comm. Hale said he was surprised because information does flow.  He said this was not something that was not known by the commissioners,  he said that commissioners “have a responsibility to do their homework, and that homework is to ask questions, particularly basic foundation questions about any programs, any policy, before commission meetings so they don’t spend an hour dealing with something that could have been answered prior to the meeting.  But it seems that we come here with a particular purpose of running some agenda, asking some questions, for I don’t know what reasons, but I know for the past several months we have been wasting time, in my opinion, on matters that could have been answered prior to.  I don’t mind addressing any of these issues.  If these issues are important to any commissioners, I think we ought to address them.  But what I am asking for, is at least we do some basic homework, some questions, the Chief is available, the staff is available, the Commissioners are available. So that when we come here to a commission meeting, we’re not asking these preliminary questions, and if there’s an action item, cuz there’s an action item listed here, I don’t know if there was one contemplated, you know it commissioners have a particular bent for action, I certainly would have liked to have information prior to today’s meeting, perhaps even 7 days in advance, so that we could have time to review and reflect, and be able to have a fruitful and productive conversation. But that’s up to individual commissioners.”

Comm. Dupre reminded the commissioners of the time.

Comm. Ricci commented that former comm.. Grossman had asked for information in the same timely manner.  She (Ricci) hasn’t gotten them as requested, which is why she is asking.  She said it seemed not only a problem on the Commission but in the Dept, that her asking upsets people.  She said that it felt like people were not supposed to ask when they thought something needed speaking out on.  She encouraged people in the Dept to keep doing so, and she will also keep exercising her right to speak out and ask questions.

Comm. Dupre asked Chief Williams if it “would be possible that either Mr. Bieringer or Ms Coleman email Commissioners when the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council will be meeting, and if we could resume the minutes to the commissioners, the minutes as well as the dates.”  From this point on.

The Chief said yes.  Liz Jackson-Simpson will be the point person for the JJCC information.  He said his recollection of Commissioner Grossman’s request that it was for JDAI minutes and updates.

(public comment)

There was one.

(DISCUSSION) Committee Reports

      a. President’s comments: protocols for Commission and its committees, and planning for

          Commission retreat.

                Comm. Dupre asked commissioners to begin thinking about the retreat, and come up with ideas in the next meeting.  As for protocols for the Commission and committees, he said that in the last 4 months there have been two ad hoc committees formed. (for LCRS, and hiring the new CPO).  He said that he will never try to prevent anyone (commissioner) from having information or infringing on any right of any Commissioner, or anyone in the public, (stated for the record). When an ad hoc committee has completed its charge, then it is dissolved.  This commission voted to have an ad hoc committee under the Chairmanship of Comm. Connolly.  Comm. Dupre doesn’t believe in micro managing, or usurping people’s responsibility and authority.  As Commissioners, “we” have a right to pick up the phone, go the our secretary  and request any information we need or desire from any Commissioner on this commission. Therefore, the same respect we give to one another on certain issues should be all the time. Pick up the phone, call a commissioner, go through our secretary and request what you want, but this commission should not micro manage an ad hoc committee if we have agreed to have the committee.  He encouraged the commissioners to try to work together.

 Conflict of interest issue

          Comm Dupre reported that this and the alleged timesheet tampering issue have been turned over to the City Attorney for appropriate review.

Alleged timesheet tampering

At this point, he turned over the Chair to Vice President Ricci, and excused himself from the meeting.        

      b. Program Committee meeting of May 27, 2003   (Richard)

Comm Richard said that the CBOs that were supposed to be there, due to a miscommunication, did not show up.

La France Associates gave a short report about Morrisania West’s Youth Employment Readiness Program.  He commended Morrisania West for being cooperative with LaFrance’s efforts in collecting data.

Comm Richard also mentioned the discussion regarding renewal of the PrIDE contract and asked R. Sanchez for her opinion regarding wanting to refer this to the Finance Committee before going to the full Commission.  R. Sanchez said that the current Commission Rules do not clearly state that process, so that if this is the process the Commission wants to adopt, it will have to change its rules. For now, it has to follow the process set, and that is from one committee to the full Commission.

Comm. Hale asked Comm Richard if they were just asking for a review of the PrIDE contract in respect to finances only or to programmatic issues. Comm. Richard said just finances.

Comm. Hale said that such a process would entail a Commission Rules change, as well as the consideration of a consent calendar to the agendas.  He would be in agreement with exploring this.

Comm. Richard asked about the funding behind the PrIDE contract.  Should it be the Programs Committee or Finance that approves that contract.

The Chief said that historically the Programs Committee has made the recommendations on general fund contracts and TANF contracts.   He recalled that “the current contract with LaFrance was the result of a solicitation the Dept issued (an RFP or RFQ) for someone to operate the PrIDE contract after the decision was made that AJI would not operate it anymore.  So that solicitation came before the Commission for its approval before it went out on the street.  Subsequent to that there was a process to determine who the successful bidder was.  The successful bidder turned out to be LaFrance and Associates (sic).  When that contract was ready to be implemented, that contract also came before the Commission for approval.  So at two points in the process there was engagement of, discussion with, and approval of the Commission regarding the PrIDE contract.  The solicitation, when it came before the Commission, indicated that it would be for a multi-year period, I think, two or three years? Three years, and that the award in subsequent years would be made based on two criteria; #1, availability of funding and #2 successful performance based on the contract requirements. So, the RFQ came to the Commission.  There were specifics in that that said this would be a three-year contract, subsequent years would be awarded if the successful bidder does what they’re supposed to do and if there’s money to pay them. The first contract that came before this commission was approved after that RFQ process unfolded.  So, and again, to the best of my recollection that probably came before the Program Committee and then to the full Commission, and historically what the Commission has done is have community service providers report to programs and programs makes recommendations to the full Commission. That’s been the history.”

L. Jackson-Simpson spoke to Comm. Richard, saying that the Community Programs division has historically been submitting PrIDE reports to the Program Committee, because Comm Richard has the most knowledge regarding the contractor’s performance.

Comm Chuck asked whether having consecutive meetings (on the tail of each other), would expedite matters.  R. Sanchez commented that joint committee meetings wouldn’t work.

Comm Hale said having consecutive meetings wouldn’t meet the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance.  He suggested that the Commission review its rules.

He suggested sending this issue of reviewing finances of things be sent to the Finance Committee for their opinions.

Comm. Bonilla agreed that this should be something to consider as a better process.

The Chief encouraged the Commission to put in writing how their “new” process would work, so the Dept staff has a clear idea of what they’ll be required to do.

If the Commission can also work up a master calendar for meetings, that would be beneficial.

Who will have the final approval? Which committee? What’s the reconciliation.

Comm. Hale said there are a lot of questions to be answered.  Depts are different.  DPH is heavily staffed and can respond to their commission better than our dept.   It wasn’t his intent to wholesale change the processes in this year, but looking at budgetary items by Finance before they go forth is worth exploring.

      c. Ad Hoc Committee of May 8, 2003                  (Connolly)

Comm. Connolly said that this should be the meeting of May 28 (typo). The Ad Hoc committee has a recommendation to make resulting from today’s meeting. 

1st. each Commissioner receives a copy of all materials submitted by candidates for CPO, and keeps them in confidence.

2nd the Ad Hoc committee recommends the Personnel Committee meet tomorrow night (already noticed) in closed session to review all the applicants to establish all minimally qualified individuals.

3rd. interviews be noted next Monday and Tuesday, following this schedule:  6/2  12 noon-1:15 pm

6/2, 5:30pm, 6/3  12 noon-2pm, &  5:30pm 

The Personnel Committee will use these times to interview the candidates, which of course is the full commission.  As to the closed session tonight, he would suggest using that to flesh out any details of the process.

Dep City Attorney Rosa Sanchez said that if they simply wanted to discuss the process, that would have to be done in open session, that discussing the candidates could be done in closed.

Comm Connolly said that another meeting scheduled for Friday night, the 6th, would be canceled.

      d. Ad Hoc Committee on LCRS, follow up.          (Comm Chuck)

Comm Chuck explained that this is not a report from the committee, but rather an update from the Real Estate dept and PUC.

The Chief did not have a report about the PUC.  He said the Real Estate Dept has executed a contract with an appraisal firm that contracts with the City.  It will cost $5-7K , which will come out of the Dept’s current fiscal year budget.  They will appraise 4 of the 5 parcels of land at LCRS, by mid to late June. 

Cassie Coleman, had a report about the PUC’s visit to LCRS, and found it not a very promising site for solar/wind alternative energy projects.  They did say that it would be cheaper to use Hetch Hetchy rather than PGE and will work with the Dept to convert over. 

(public comments)

  there was none.

(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review and possible action on recommendation of Program Committee on the renewal of the PrIDE contract with LaFrance Associates in the amount of $225K.    (Dupre)

Comm. Hale asked that this be tabled until the next meeting.  Comm. Bonilla 2nd.

Comm Richard said that yesterday L. Jackson-Simpson said there were deadlines.  L. Jackson-Simpson said that there are other steps that need completing before it can be executed by July 1.

Comm. Richard asked the Chief, given the funds are TANF, if the Commission rejects this, what would happen. The Chief said that “the JJCC has overall dominion over the expenditure plan.  The Commission has authority over individual contracts, however as I indicated earlier, the RFQ that was used as a solicitation for this contract, came to the Commission, was approved by the Commission.  That solicitation authorized a 3-year contract contingent on availability of funds and the meeting of the contract requirements by the successful bidder. At this point, the request being made is for the approval to move to ’03-’04, for contract consistent with the three year time period that was approved in the solicitation.  The qualifiers would be a) has the provider met all of the mandated particulars in the contract, which they have, and b) are there funds available, and there are because TANF funds were approved in the TANF expenditure plan by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. So, this is a little different ‘cuz’ it’s like in mid stride so to speak.  The original solicitation came to the Commission, the original contract came to the Commission, in that process there were things that said if this provider does what it’s supposed to do, and if we have money, they’ll get a second contract, oh, another contract for another year.  So what we’re asking is, based on that, that the contract be approved for another year.  The Commission can decide not to approve that contract, but there would be liability based on the previous approval of the RFQ and of the first contract.

Comm. Richard asked what liability.

The Chief said, “basically, what we said to, we’re bound by the particulars of an RFQ and the particulars in a contract and if we say to a provider as we’ve said in this instance, we will continue to fund you if you do what you’re supposed to do, and if there’s money to do it, and in this instance, both of those qualifications are met.  So if we decide not to do this, then we are liable because the provider could turn around and say, city, there’s a breach of contract.  Now, that doesn’t mean it has to be approved tonight. And if the Finance Committee has additional questions that need additional information, then fine, that is the Finance Committee’s responsibility and the Dept’s to answer any questions that are out there. But in fact, the solicitation and the contract have been approved by the Commission before.

Comm. Richard asked Comm Bonilla as chair of Finance, if he had any questions and if not, to deal with this tonight.

Comm Chuck reminded the Chair that there was a motion and second to table this issue.  Technically there should be no discussion at all until that is dealt with.

Comm. Hale said he was willing to withdraw his motion.  Comm. Bonilla withdrew his second.

Comm Hale moved to approve the PrIDE contract, 2nd by Comm Bonilla.

Comm. Ricci asked if there are additional expenses to this program above the $225K of this contract.  Comm Bonilla said that there are additional costs being paid by the Dept.  example: rent of the office, cost of office operations.  L. Jackson-Simpson said that the purpose of this, as directed by the Commission, was to figure out how to integrate the PrIDE system into the Dept.  So the project resides in YGC, side by side in the IT building.  She noted that this contract is for a lesser amount than last year’s, and will diminish even more in ensuing years because it will ultimately become an in-house operation.

Comm Bonilla just wanted to review for his own understanding.  Essentially the Dept has told the Commission that we entered into a 3 yr contract, we are in the 2nd year of the contract, and for purposes of the budget and the overall process, this is no protocol?  To push the contract forward,  if we were to end the contract tonight, then we would be held liable because essentially we had entered into a 3-year deal.  Is that correct?

Comm Hale said that we could exit the contract under certain conditions.  If they did not meet the contract requirements, and that’s what this report reflects is that they did. Absent their failure to comply with the requirements, we are subject to liability, for breach.

Comm Ricci asked if anyone had consulted with the City Attorney to see what the liability would be. Just to get an opinion from our City Attorney.  R. Sanchez said that no one had consulted with her.

Sanchez spoke off mike and was not picked up.

Comm. Chuck commented that because they had been so under the gun about finances, they may be looking for ways to cut expenses, and may be hasty.  He said that the PrIDE reports have been very easy to read and gives him an understanding of what we are about.  He said that the reports are extremely fascinating and helpful.

Comm Ricci asked: is this program set up to help the community programs?  L. Jackson-Simpson  said that it was set up to help everyone.  Comm. Ricci asked if the CBOs had been asked if it had been helpful to them.  L. Jackson-Simpson said that response was mixed.  The more “savy” organizations that understand the value of evaluations have used them to leverage other resources.  Others have used the evaluations to “tweak” their programs.  Some others still don’t understand how this helps. LaFrance has been working with them.   Jackson-Simpson said that LaFrance has done large-scale changes to the instruments so they weren’t so cumbersome, and labor intensive, and more user friendly. 

She said that they were attempting to get others (eg. MOCJ) to use the PrIDE system to evaluate their programs.  She said that if we back away now and don’t support it, no one else will and we’ll never know how we’re doing across the board, and how the programs are faring.

Comm. Richard said that his review of some CBOs showed the varying responses that Jackson-Simpson mentioned.

Comm Chuck moved the previous question.

Comm. Ricci said she would like to have a consultation with the City Attorney about this.

She said that in light of what the City Attorney stated (off mike, not picked up), asked what the commission would like.

Comm. Chuck said there was a motion to move the previous motion and that needed acting on. Comm Ricci said she didn’t realize that the speaker would make such  a  motion when discussion was still being held as she wanted to still ask questions.  Given that one commissioner did so move, then it would be voted on.

Upon voice vote, the motion passed 5-1, Comm. Ricci dissenting.

On the original motion, to approve the contract, roll call vote was taken:  the motion carried 5-1, with Comm. Ricci voting no.

(public comments)

Stephen LaFrance thanked the Commission for approving the contract.  He said that others had expressed interest in the PrIDE system (Gang Free Initiative, MOCJ, Girls Justice Initiative). 

(ACTION) Convene in closed session per Admin. Code § 67.10(b), and SF Charter § 3.100. to review applications for Chief Probation Officer, and set interview schedule.

This item and #10 were removed from the agenda (also moved to table to Thursday, May 29, 2003)

(public comments)
there was none








(ACTION) Reconvene in open session and vote whether any or all of the discussion held in closed session will be disclosed. (SF. Admin. Code § 67.12(a)

(public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission.)

Seth Stewart, Director of the Small Business Council, City/County of San Francisco.  He commended the Chief for his role modeling and his involvement with the African American Interest Free Loan Association, and then gave high praise and his support for Lonnie Holmes as the next Chief Probation Officer.

Norm Keeling, former PO, spoke in support of L. Holmes’s application for the CPO position.



(ACTION)  Adjournment

Comm Hale commented that he recognized the role the Chief played outside of the Dept.  He said that this Chief has always been inclusive, and has endeavored to make the Dept a more efficient and effective agency for the communities, and young people.  There’s more people with input to how this Dept runs because of Jesse Williams’s leadership. He extended his appreciation to the Chief for being an outstanding African American leader.  He said he doesn’t think the City will ever let the Dept be controlled again by small special interests.  He said the communities now have a voice up here.

Comm. Ricci also extended her appreciation to the Chief for his professionalism, and thanked him from the bottom of her heart.  Comm. Bonilla said it has been a privilege to work with him (for the short time he has), and respects the example he has set.  He wished him well in his future work in Florida.  Comm. Chuck called the Chief a visionary, a mentor and a class act.  Comm. Connolly joined all the previous comments.

L. Holmes also commended the Chief for his work and applauded him for it.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm, in honor of Jesse E. Williams, Jr.