|
3
|
(ACTION) Vote to approve or disapprove “Plan C” of FY 2003-04 operations for Log Cabin Ranch.
(public comment)
Jack Jacqua expressed his continuing concerns for the ranch, and his commitment to see it succeed. He repeated that in times of budget crises, priorities should be set for the benefit of our young people. He supported increasing the number of youth at Log Cabin Ranch beyond 15.
Vicky Rega, photography teacher at Log Cabin Ranch, also said that Log Cabin Ranch was able to serve more kids, and asked that at the first review of its progress consideration be given to increasing the number of youth there.
Elizabeth Siggins, Volunteer Auxiliary, thanked everyone who worked so hard on the issue and kept it alive. She repeated the commitment of the Vol. Auxiliary to Log Cabin Ranch, and said they would continue to identify resources that could be applied there, and also called for increasing the number of youth there.
Joe Berkowitz repeated his concern that the plan calls for a limit to the number of youth at 15, saying that the staffing allowed for up to 45. He also expressed concern for the absence of; language which made it clear that any OT, premium pay, etc. would be determined by labor MOUs, no secretary for the ranch, and no mention of use of temp salaries for an on call cook.
Tracy Haynes said it made no sense to keep the population so low, when more kids need it and they could serve more.
Jim Fithian, asked the Commission, and/or Dept to meet with and explain what was going to happen to the kids who are currently there, since the anxiety regarding their future is on their minds.
Nicole Salgado, SLUG, asked for the continued support of the Commission in seeing this plan through.
Comm Richard asked the Chief if 15 beds was a hard limit. The Chief said that this was the best option in their estimation, without placing the Dept in a difficult financial situation, demanded by a larger population.
Comm. Connolly asked what the total annual population was currently. The Chief did no have information. He said that the average daily population is from 26-28, so the annualized number may be a little over that number.
Comm. Richard asked if the staffing would change with an increase in population. The Chief said that in reference to the missing line item for the secretary, that was an oversight.
Comm. Connolly commented that he understood the plan presented to be the result of a cooperative process, but now it seems there’s a call for more than the 15 youth proposed. What were other population levels proposed? The Chief said that this plan was the culmination of meetings and discussions and represents the best thinking from those meeting. He thought this was a reasonable number.
Comm. Bonilla agreed with Jack Jacqua and said that we don’t want to short change the youth, if they’re in need of the service. He proposed amending the plan by inserting language saying that the initial population of 15 (explained by the current rationale) is only the opening, with a target of 45 being served in a year, conditioned on a positive evaluation and review at the 6 mos point of operations.
The Chief said that the current population is being served with 7 staff—the only ones available—and this is causing increases in OT over the past few months. With the plan to use 10 staff, he is concerned that OT and other costs will get out of control if population is increased.
The Chief began his statement here (not picked up on tape, the remaining is verbatim off the remainder of tape). ”…the risks that are inherent in this process, as has been indicated, the current budget contains no identified dollar amounts for overtime, temporary salaries, premium pay, or holiday pay. As we have represented, those things will be dictated by new labor management agreements that as yet need to be settled on, yet to be signed, consequently, this doesn’t’ contain those dollar amounts. Yes, we are obligated to pay those dollar amounts and yes we do need to delete the language in here that talks about those, ah, the current language that’s in here, because it is different from what we stated publicly before, and different from the reality that we’ll have to deal with. Any language that’s in there should simply indicate that those costs will be driven by labor management agreements. That reality also points out the fact that somehow within its total resources the Dept would have to find a way to meet those costs. Unless the revenue generation pays off and hopefully it will. Whatever those costs are that are identified and become reality as a result of labor management agreements are going to have to be covered in the Dept’s overall 03-04 allocations. They’re not identified here because we don’t know what they’re going to be at this point.
The other thing that is a risk in this document is that the current document, which totals $1.6 mil in terms of the total budget, does in fact anticipate higher TANF ranch revenues than the previous version of this. We were urged to consider doing that, in follow up discussions, we decided to take that risk and identify the full potential amount with the understanding that we are going to try to over the course of time we will be serving at least 30 young men, and over the course of the year and beyond would hope that we could go beyond that point. Given that, we are taking the risk of including in this document, the full TANF amount that we have had budgeted for the current fiscal year. That too is a risk. Finally a couple of unknowns. As I indicated, this process has at least two more steps in it, that have to be negotiated and passed successfully. 1) the Mayor’s budget office and the second is with the Bd of Supervisors. I think we have a plan that is reasonable, that does contain some risks, as does any plan, but that is something that is doable, if we have the full commitment of Commission Log Cabin Ranch staff, Dept and well wishers to make it work. But those are two other points in the process at which the plan could go away. Even though we agree here today, and if this Commission approves this option as presented, it can go away either at the Mayor’s Budget Office, or at the Bd of Supervisors. This is not the end of the process, as you well know. There are further steps before we have a green light and a clear sailing to implementing this plan for fiscal year 03-04. So I would urge those who have, who are supporters and who are advocates, to continue to support and advocate at both of those points in the process to increase the likelihood that this plan will be approved and we will in fact have an opportunity to implement it. So if there are those who have had dialog, or can have dialog with individual members of the Bd of Supervisors in support of Log Cabin Ranch, if there are those who would like to send letters of support for this plan to Log Cabin Ranch, to the Bd, ah, to the Bd of Supervisors or the Mayor’s Budget office I certainly hope that all the energy that went into attending all of our meetings now gets directed to those other points in the process, because the simple fact is, it ain’t over, til it’s over, and it ain’t over yet. Couple of other points and I’ll close. As I’ve indicated, a critical piece of this will be the availability of staff at Log Cabin Ranch, and again there are people who have been there day and night, on endless hours, putting together this plan and day to day keeping the ranch operational, and I want to thank them. There are those who have not. The pool of people who will have to implement this option is the exact same pool of people who are currently available now. It is not realistic to assume that the people who have been carrying this burden can continue to do so by themselves. That means that those staff who have not been in work status, need to return to work status and need to be there routinely and consistently in order for this to work and for us not to get into fiscal trouble. And not to have this continuing upward trend in overtime and leave usage. As a practical matter, that will kill this plan. So this is going to require more than lip service on everybody’s part for this plan to work. And I guess my final point is, a note of caution. If this Commission believes that inspite of our best efforts, that the document before you today is in fact unworkable, and unrealistic as it’s characterized by some of the public comments, then clearly you understand your obligations not to approve this document, if that is your view of it. Secondly, if over the course of the fiscal year, assuming that we pass these other points of negotiations, at the Mayor’s office and the Bd successfully, if at any point in the course of the fiscal year, it becomes clear that the plan is not working according to the standards as outlined here, and we would, try to be pretty specific about what the particulars were, as accountability measures and monitoring measures, both fiscally and programmatically, if it becomes clear that the plan is not working, then the Dept and the Commission must act decisively to terminate option “c” and to implement either option “a” or option “b” or some other option that does have the likelihood of success and does have the likelihood of continuing a program that produces positive results for young men. I thank the Commission for your support up to this point. I know we can count on you for continued support during the remaining steps in this cycle, and I trust that we can also rely on the support of those who testified so passionately on behalf of keeping Log Cabin Ranch open. Thank you.”
Comm. Ricci asked about the need for a 2nd cook. Will it be a problem to insert that in this budget, as was discussed in the Ad Hoc? The Chief said that the plan proposes to operate with only the staff listed herein. “If experience shows that that’s a problem, at that point in time, we’d have to hire a temporary as needed cook and find the money to pay that temporary as needed cook. At this point, what this plan assumes and what I think is not unrealistic is that we can do what we need to do with the staff as outlined here.” It would be possible in include a temp cook later, but not as a permanently budgeted position. Comm. Ricci referred to an amount of $36.5K in this plan which was not included in the previous version discussed in Ad Hoc. She asked for a clarification: services of other depts., mental health. The Chief said that this line item was added for the presentation today. This is for a substance abuse counselor who is provided to us, who is onsite at Log Cabin and does substance abuse counseling for the residents at Log Cabin. It wasn’t previously included, but wanting to make sure we don’t leave any services, the dollar amount was put in. Additionally, the anticipated increase in TANF funds would allow the continuation of other TANF funded services there now. This and the higher amount of TANF funds is to try to maintain the same level of service that is there right now. Comm. Ricci asked who provides the substance abuse counselor. M. Lui said that is provided through a work order with our mental health dept. They coordinate the services. Ques: is that a CBO? Lui said he’d have to check on that. Comm. Ricci referred to the line item of professional and specialized services, which saw a dramatic increase from the previous version ($5k to $163K). M.Lui said that that they decided to take the risk to include the entire current TANF amount, which is $158k more than previous estimated. So this was added to that line item, to provide the direct services to the kids. It is CBOs and individual service providers as the Dept sees fit in terms of budgeting this money. There are no specific amounts budgeted for each of those different services.. Comm. Ricci asked for a list of those CBOs and individuals providing services. She also asked for documents related to the mental health services ($36.5k) and who will be providing the service.
Comm. Chuck moved to approve the plan as presented. Comm Richard 2nd. Comm. Bonilla proposed an amendment to include an increase in daily population of youth at Log Cabin, dependent on a positive evaluation of the operation of Log Cabin, up from 15 to 25. He felt that that level is a reachable target.
Comm. Connolly asked for a procedural clarification. John Kennedy (Dep. City Attorney) explained.
Comm. Chuck asked if such a change would hamper those who had to present it to the Mayor.
The Chief said that it would be reasonable when they do monthly discussions or quarterly reviews of whatever, then they could consider whether they increase the population or not. His concern that stating any number other than an annual avg of at least 30 may take away some flexibility that they’ll need in the process. He thinks an avg daily of 15 and avg annual of at least 30 is not unreasonable at all. Comm. Ricci asked if language could be included that said the numbers of youth served would increase depending upon increasing the funding there? Would this hamper his negotiations. The Chief asked if that language was that generating additional revenues would lead to enhancing the staff and expand the capacity at Log Cabin, then that’s reasonable. That would also provide a primary focus so that any additional revenue would first go to the Log Cabin staff to enhance their capacity.
Comm. Bonilla withdrew his amendment.
Comm. Bonilla took the Chair, so that Comm. Ricci could make her motion. The Chief offered the following language. To follow the first sentence….”This allows for an annual capacity of at least 30 youth under ‘scenario c.’ [add here] “Based on the availability of additional revenues, the Juvenile Probation Dept will employ additional staff and expand the population at Log Cabin Ranch, if all other areas of fiscal and programmatic accountability are in compliance.” The question was called, and upon voice vote, the amendment carried 5-0.
Comm. Ricci called the original question for approval of the proposed plan. Upon voice vote, the motion carried 5-0.
|
