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 NOTICE Of MARCH 11, 2003 SPECIAL MEETING of the JUVENILE PROBATION COMMISSION  with a portion to be held in CLOSED SESSION 

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 6:15 pm.  All commissioners were present at the gavel.  Comm. Hale introduced and welcomed the new appointment to the Commission, Sean F. Connolly.



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

Comm. Hale reminded all that this was not the time to speak on any agendized item, but other issues regarding juvenile justice that are not agendized tonight.

There was none.


(DISCUSSION) Report from the Finance Committee on contingency cut plan.  (JL Ricci)

There was no specific report out from committee.


(ACTION) Review and action to approve the Juvenile Probation Department’s FY 2003-04 contingency 10% reduction plans.          

  Comm. Hale began by saying that they would take public comment on this item first.

Two representatives from the Boys and Girls Home read a letter from Kent Eagleson that encouraged not cutting 15% of the CBO contracts.  A former graduate from the Boys and Girls Home spoke in support of their program.

A young woman spoke in opposition to closing LCR.

Alfredo Bojorquez also gave a vignette of life on the streets, and spoke in opposition to closing LCR and cutting CBO contracts.

Office of Samoan Affairs echoed what the previous speakers said. The communities are underserved and the CBO contracts can’t afford to be cut.

James Bryant, local 790, stated that there are outstanding contractual agreements between the City and unions in the matter of LCR, which need to be discussed before any action is taken to close it.  He said that 790 is opposed to all the cuts being proposed.  He went through the list of cuts and said that if these continue he suspects that the Dept would border on violating statutes that govern the operation of our facilities.  He asked the Commission to consider the alternatives presented to the Finance Committee.

Jack Jacqua said that discussions with judges have shown him that without LCR, many of the youth would be referred directly to CYA.  He said that in the last 3 referrals to LCR, the Dept had asked for CYA commitment.  He raised a question of the propriety of the new Commissioner voting on tonight’s proposals, being new to the Commission.  He further questioned whether it was a conflict of interest when someone votes on an issue, which in effect benefits his/her employer. He said that there are people in the community who want LCR closed because they can financially benefit.

Comm. Hale stated that all Commissioners have to vote, without abstention, unless there is a legal conflict of interest.

Rich Perino, POA, said that there are 14 PO positions in the YGC budget that are funded, but they are not fired into. He asked if those were kept vacant for salary savings or are they being used to support non civil service positions.  He asked about the wisdom of going forward with a larger new juvenile hall, when the money could be used to keep LCR open.

Rev. Toni Dunbar asked where the people should go to influence the higher powers to release the money for the Dept to keep operating. 

Gonzalo Fierro, of LCR and JH, again repeated his opposition to LCR’s closing.

Joe Berkowitz, LCR, recounted that he had submitted an alternative budget that can allow LCR to remain open, and hoped the Commission had looked at it.  He read a section from the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the union that disallowed the contracting out of city employee performed activities.   He further said that it is unbelievable that only last October the Dept came down to LCR and reached a positive understanding of its mission and goals (eg. ‘to model and trusting and respectful community’) but today, the staff of LCR is having to fight the Dept to keep LCR open and operating.

Barbara Ross also opposed LCR closing and cutting POs.  She asked how much money could be saved on airfare and hotels if we didn’t refer so many youth to out of state placements.  And utilize the inter-state compacts to deal with out of county /non-resident youth for transportation.

Why can’t the City run a ranch like San Mateo county does.  She said that there needs to be more study done on how the courts are detaining youth in the hall (she knows of one youth who was committed to the hall for 6 mos. as a “program”—and this is not the right thing to do).

Kaile Pool, a former counselor at LCR, spoke in favor of more CBO programs not less.

Howard Chaves, PO, said that the last PO hired was in 2000.  Since then, there have been 12 positions lost, and 3 others out on workers comp.    One reason the count is down in JH is that the POs are really working with the youth and their parents.  If the Dept wants to cut 4.4 PO positions, then they should also cut the same from administration. 

John Radogno, Sr. Counselor JH, said that that many staff are taking on extra work since they are short on middle management staff.  He opposed the proposed cuts.

Jim Fithian, asst. Principal at LCR, asked the Commission to look at the priorities, keep the direct services and cut the support services.

Heidi Isaacs, PO, said that there were 260 Special Assistants that should be looked at if cuts are made.  She said that the proposed cuts don’t give her any feeling of support from the Administration for their work.  She said that we are the only county in the State with 2 separate probation chiefs, paid higher than many others in the state, and 2 assistant chiefs.  She said that rather than looking at CBOs and line staff, there needs to be a re arrangement of administration.

Roger Gainey, PO, referred to a document (which he passed to the Commission) which showed alternative cuts in staff, and asked the Commission to take a hard look at it to make the cuts that would have the least impact on the young people being served.

Comm. Hale closed public comment.  He asked the Finance Committee Chair to make any opening comments she had.

Comm. Ricci reviewed that it has been a difficult time in the Dept trying to come up with 2 separate reduction plans, but that this has also led to a difficult time for the Finance Committee to be able to reasonably consider those proposed cuts, because the documents were received very late by the Committee.  She said she acknowledged all the outrage expressed by community programs, and she shares in their concern, and that is why this proposal came to the full Commission for discussion, without recommendation by the Finance Committee.  Comm. Bonilla said that the situation is being posed as a for or against LCR, community based organizations, and line staff proposition.  He felt that there are other dollars in the Dept that could be looked at (contracts, services) for savings.  He said that some serious money might be getting less than the results we want.  He commented that sometimes we need to look at today to realize that the long haul is today. That at the end of the day, by cutting the workforce, we are perpetuating the very thing we are in business for. We’re in business because of poverty, and poverty exists because there’s no work.  By us cutting our workforce further, we are adding to that cycle.   He said that if we cut POs and counselors, the effects would be felt by CBOs and others, and vice versa.  He said he has no apologies for making any of the suggestions he did (cutting CBOs 15%, etc.) because the responsibility of the Commission is to ask those questions, to look at things closely.

Comm. Dupre wanted to clarify what the Finance Comm. did.  That they are not making any recommendations on the proposed reductions.  That was correct.

Comm. Dupre asked what the timeline was for acting on this proposal.

Comm. Ricci commented that because the due date for submission was the 14th, given the lack of time given to the Finance Committee to digest the budget documents, they felt that it was necessary for the entire Commission to carefully review every aspect of the Dept’s proposal, and not just the Finance Committee.

Com. Richard expressed his support of CBOs.

Comm. Chuck felt that there was no direction given by Finance to the full Commission.  Comm. Ricci replied that the Finance Committee had made public comments during their March 3 meeting that they were considering making alternate recommendations to those of the Dept’s, but when those recommendations were submitted for review, they were told that they could not discuss them at the March 6 meeting.  She had subsequently reviewed the tapes of the March 3 meeting and both she and Comm. Bonilla were clear in their directions about making alternative proposals.  They were not satisfied with the Dept’s proposal on March 6, and did not make recommendations regarding some of those items (previously mentioned), and felt that the entire Commission should look closely at the proposal. She still felt that the alternative recommendations should be considered and strongly urged the Commission to do so. Comm. Bonilla echoed the feelings that Comm. Ricci expressed.

Comm. Dupre asked if the Dept staff had looked over Joe Berkowitz’s proposal for LCR.

Comm. Hale said that this item would be on the agenda of the Ad Hoc Committee for LCR, and is not on tonight’s agenda.

Comm. Hale asked for any comments or questions from Commissioners.  He said he would take discussion among the Commissioners and then take action on each individual item.

The Chief said the document reflects the best thinking of the Dept on how to meet the budget cuts required.  The budget cuts asked for and implemented over the past years has been done across the board. He read off the percentage of each division’s budget that has been affected by cuts. He said that finance and administration has sustained a 26% staff cut.  He said that increases in revenues are a result of work done by finance to increase IVe reimbursables.  Budget reductions have been an ongoing thing for the past few years, not just now.  The Dept’s ability to get through it has been due to the work of administration.  He said he did not want to implement the cuts in the proposed plans, if there were other implementable options.  He said that there has been significant time, effort and energy given to supporting and expanding LCR and community programs.

He said in response to the comments that the timing and availability of documents in this process, which affected the ability to make decisions, that there was less than a month to make difficult decisions.  The entire process was compressed, but he reminded the Finance Committee that they made an open invitation for the Finance Committee to attend the Exec Team’s meetings when the plans were being drawn up.  He urged the approval of the proposal as presented.

He urged the convening of the Ad Hoc committee to explore funding possibilities for LCR, and to discuss a 3rd potential scenario for the use of LCR, which would still save the $1 million the Dept needs to save.  He said that the Mayor’s Budget Office would make the decisions if the Dept/Commission didn’t.

He said that once the budget was submitted, they would have until May to re submit any changes to that budget.

Comm Ricci responded to the Chief’s statement that the Commissioners were invited to participate with the Exec Team’s meetings on the reduction plans, saying that she had considered going to the meetings, but then decided it would be best to leave the staff to do their work without any apparent pressures or intrusions by the Commission.  However, she wanted to emphasize that it is critical to have adequate staffing for the finance division so that there is effective and efficient work done to keep on top of the finances of the Dept.  A lack of staffing results in delayed reporting (as is shown by the current situation), which makes considered decision making difficult if not impossible.

The Chief said that there was an opportunity to fill a vacant position in the finance division, but they chose to leave it empty, because it would have been unfair to fill a critical position when they are asking other divisions to cut. 

#1 of the proposal: fees for services, eg. implementation of record sealing/data requests to the amount of $50K.  Comm. Dupre moved, and 2nd by Comm Chuck.  Upon voice vote it carried 7-0.

#2, Comm. Chuck moved, 2nd by Comm. Dupre.  Comm. Hale asked if this was a conservative estimate.  Ans.  Yes.   Upon voice vote it carried 7-0.

#4, to collect 10% fees on contracts, Liz Jackson-Simpson explained for example, community programs contracts from the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, like the girls’ services contracts, some of the resources for IHBS, case managers for Beacon Ctrs.  She estimated there was about $1.5 mil that was contracted out without any admin support given to the Dept.

Comm. Dupre moved, 2nd by Comm. Ricci. Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0.

#5, moved by Comm. Bonilla, 2nd by Comm. Dupre. Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0.

#6, moved by Comm. Bonilla, 2nd by Comm Chuck. Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0.

#7, moved by Comm Chuck, 2nd by Comm. Dupre.  Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0.

#8, moved by Comm. Dupre, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla. Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0.

#9, moved by Comm. Chuck, 2nd by Comm. Ricci.  Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0

#10, moved by Comm. Chuck, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla.  Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0

#11, Comm. Bonilla asked if the DPH has already agreed to this.  The Chief said they hope to be able to convince DPH to agree, but nothing was in writing as of yet.

Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0.

#12, moved by Comm. Chuck, 2nd by Comm. Dupre.  Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0

#14, moved by Comm. Chuck, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla. Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0

Upon voice vote, it carried 7-0

#3, there was a short discussion about the language, implication of the projected figures.  Comm. Hale asked the Ad Hoc Committee look into the creation of an S2 account (a sort of trust). The Chief said there was conversation regarding contracting, with Walden House, and Associated Marine Institute, but nothing serious on the table.

Comm Hale asked the Ad Hoc Comm. to review this issue (sale/lease) and report back to the full Commission at the April meeting.

The Commission was concerned for the language, which included sale of property.  The Chief said this document is for one fiscal year.  Any revenues it targets to generate are only for the 03-04 FY.  Comm. Hale tabled this discussion for a possible amendment of the language. He opened discussion on item #13.

Comm Hale reviewed the first round of cuts passed on Feb. 19.  He noted the Finance Committee’s request for CBO testimony as to the impact of a 15% cut in their grants.  The Chief said that among the responses, generally it was felt that they could not survive a 15% cut, neither could they take this cut from admin since their grants did not cover administrative costs.

The total general funds being considered for this 10% cut is $1.1 million. 

Comm. Dupre asked about possibly a 5% cut rather than 10%. 

Comm. Bonilla asked if this would be made up with cuts elsewhere, including staffing?  Yes.

Comm. Chuck moved, 2nd by Comm. Bonilla to approve the 10% cut.  Comm. Chuck said this was not an easy action to take.   Comm. Ricci wanted to make sure the community partners know that if another fiscal picture reveals itself in the future, then the Commission would certainly revisit this action.

Comm Hale agreed.  The question was called and upon roll call vote the motion carried 4-3 (Comms. Dupre, Ricci, Richard voting nay).

#15-25, Comm. Hale asked the Dept to give their rationale for each of the items. The Chief referred to the document as self-explanatory but had Mark Lui re capitulate each.

#15,M. Lui said that the Dept was going to create a clerical pool, so that they go where the work is in each division.  They anticipate no long-term impact on the work, but in the short term there might be delays in getting reports done.

Comm. Bonilla commented that he was against cuts to line staff as they are the front line people that impact the youth in the Dept. and the quality of the experience between staff and youth can determine the outcome for the youth.

Comm. Chuck moved, 2nd by Comm Dupre. The question was called and upon roll call vote, carried 6-1 (Comm. Richard voting nay).

Comm Hale asked about voluntary furloughs. The Chief said that they couldn’t guarantee any more than those offered in this plan.

#16, These positions are currently filled by employees. Comm. Bonilla moved, 2nd by Comm. Dupre. 

The question was called, and upon voice vote, carried, 7-0.

#17, this single position would be totally eliminated.  Comm. Dupre asked the Chief about the vacant accountant position. The Chief said originally they were going to cut the cashier position and use the hire into that other position to take up some of the cashier’s tasks, but now they are not hiring to fill that vacancy either, so they’ll be two positions shy in the Finance division.  Comm. Dupre asked what the current cashier was doing if she was no longer doing the cashiering tasks.  The Chief said that taking remittances from traffic court was not the bulk of her duties. The question was called, and upon voice vote, carried, 7-0

Comm. Ricci asked about ability of the Finance division to continue to perform all the work with the remaining staff, vis a vis the need to maintain the effectiveness of that division.  The Chief admitted that the Finance division is understaffed.

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



(ACTION)  Convene in CLOSED SESSION  pursuant to Govt. Code § 54957, and San Francisco Administrative Code § 67.10(b):


                   Positions:  Chief Juvenile Probation Officer, Jesse E. Williams

                   Executive Secretary, Juvenile Probation Commission,  Don Chan

(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)

 Items #5 and #6 were tabled until the March 26th meeting of the full Commission.



(ACTION)  Report on any action taken with respect to employee, in closed session.  (SF Admin Code § 67.12(b).



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

There was none



(ACTION) Adjournment  

Comm. Hale commented that tomorrow’s meeting would take up from item #17, so they will not repeat public comment before that.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 pm, until tomorrow, 5:30 pm.