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 

MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 MEETING of the Ad Hoc Committee  of the Juvenile Probation Commission   held at Youth Guidance Center  Room 238    375 Woodside Ave    San Francisco, CA  94127

                                                                                                                                 Ad Hoc Committee

Rebecca Woodson, Chair

Hully Fetico

Lidia Stiglich



(ACTION)  Roll Call
The Chair, Comm Woodson, called the meeting to order at 6:19pm.  Comm. Fetico was present at the gavel. Comm Stiglich stepped away and returned soon afterward.



(ACTION) Review and approve meeting minutes of August 7, 2007

The minutes were approved as written.

(public comments)




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

There were none.



(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Continued discussion and proposal of protocol for performance reviews of the Chief Probation Officer, and Commission Secretary.

The discussion centered on the Comm. Secretary, as the Chief was away. 

Comm Woodson asked if the form provided by the Secretary, along with the categories for performance evaluation, as provided and completed by the Secretary met with his approval.  He explained that these were categories that were developed in a former iteration of the Ad Hoc committee and he was willing to go with it.  She asked about the timeline for the evaluation process, and he said that it could be started at any time, with a mid year and year end point for review.

Comm Woodson said she seemed to remember they were shooting for completing this by Oct. to meet with a clause in the labor agreement between the City and Local 21.  The Secretary reviewed that a clause in that agreement made available to eligible represented employees, “exemplary” pay consideration, if certain conditions were met.  Deadline to notify DHR was Sept 1.  He did not know if DHR would be strict on this deadline or would give consideration beyond that date. 
Comm Woodson said she wasn’t familiar with that process, but if the Secretary would draft up a letter they could possibly send it to DHR to see.

In reviewing it for the rest of the Committee, he referred to the labor agreement clause (previously sent to the members) that set certain conditions, which he has met, and he wanted to be considered for it, but the deadline for giving this notification to DHR was Sept. 1  but he was hoping the Committee would be willing to draft a letter asking consideration.  Comm Stiglich opposed this and said it should go to the full commission.

Comm Woodson said she’d defer to the President. Ask his guidance.  Send out the relevant information to the rest of the Commission regarding this.

Comm Stiglich wanted to add a category #5 in the evaluation form, specifically dealing with the dept.; how effective the communication is between the Secretary and the Dept. (dealing tactfully and effectively with Juvenile Departmental officials, staff, and the like).

Comm Stiglich also wasn’t clear on what their responsibility is in this task.  Is the Committee only setting up the process, or is it doing the evaluation?  Comm Fetico said his understanding is the Committee will do the evaluation and inform the full Commission of its results.  Comm Woodson also had this understanding.

Comm Woodson asked the Secretary to include:interfacing tactfully and effectively with juvenile probation dept officials and staff.

Comm Fetico asked about the numerical scores. How will they do it?

Comm Stiglich said it would be workable.

Comm Fetico asked if this was also the process for the Chief, so that he could get a bonus. Comm Stiglich said she wasn’t aware of that. 

Comm Stiglich asked if the self evaluation provided by the Secretary was done on his own and not asked for by the Committee.  It was done on his own initiative.

He was asked to re-do the self evaluation, point by point on the form and re-submit it to the Committee.

Before the next meeting, a blank form will be given to the Committee members for their individual comments, along with the Secretary’s self evaluation comments.

Regarding the Chief’s evaluation:  Comm Stliglich referred to the document/manual the Secretary provided them for use in this evaluation.

Comm Woodson referred to the points she summarized at the last meeting, as possible criteria for evaluating the Chief.  Since the Commission hasn’t set up expectations and goals, this needs to be done now, specifically.  Comm. Stiglich said they should set the goals for the Chief in Jan. She said they should ask him to evaluate himself against the goals he set out for himself (those listed on his ‘to do’ list), for the ‘short term’ evaluation.

They agreed to use the form/manual provided to them by the Secretary. They will use the 2005 list for the initial review, and will set up goals/objectives that the Commission wants for him, to be used from Jan. 08.

Comm Stiglich said that for the “current review” of the Chief, they have to find those things that they (the commission) had asked of the Chief.

Comm Woodson summarized: the committee has agreed to the form the Secretary submitted for his review. He will do his self evaluation to each point, in appropriate spaces.

The form /manual submitted by the Secretary for use in reviewing the Chief has been accepted.

The scope of the Chief’s evaluation has been agreed upon, (Comm Woodson will send around the revised list) and at the next meeting they will go through each objective within each area of evaluation, using p. 39 to prepare a master worksheet, to be taken to the full commission.

The next meeting will be Oct 23 at 6:15pm

Send out an email reminder to complete the objectives (one week prior to meeting)

For the next meeting the committee will review the Secretary’s self evaluation, discuss in closed session their own perspective, then have a discussion with the Secretary regarding their evaluation and finally report their results to the full commission.

(public comment)        

there were none.



(ACTION) Adjournment

a closed session will be set for the next committee meeting.

there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:32pm.