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 in Rm. 400, City Hall, at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place,  San Francisco


1.   (ACTION)  Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by Comm. Julian at 5:38 pm.  Comms. Aramburo, Shimko, Chuck were present at the gavel.  Comm. Hale and Jackson-Drake arrived at 5:44 pm.  Comm. Dupre was absent. 

Comm. Julian began the meeting by wishing all present a happy, healthy and prosperous new millennium.  

2.      (ACTION)  Review of October 27, and November 17, 1999  meeting  minutes

As there was no quorum of Commissioners present who were in attendance at the Oct. 27 meeting, action on the minutes was deferred.  On motion, seconded and carried, the minutes of Nov. 17, 1999 were approved as written.

3.   (DISCUSSION) Chief Probation Officer's Report:                        

a.      Status reports

b.     Highlights of Nov/Dec 1999

c.      Emerging Issues/upcoming events

Chief Williams reported that because of the passage of Prop. G, topics to be covered in reports by the CPO need to be much more specifically noted on the agenda, so it would not be advisable to speak about things now that were not agendized for tonight's meeting.  He stated that he would come up with a list of items that he might touch on at each meeting and have the Commission review it to note what they would like included.  For tonight, he only mentioned that there would be a status report on the ProDes project.

Comm. Shimko noted with approval that the numbers (admission, referrals to CYA, detentions, etc.) for year 1999 were all generally lower than those for 1998, which indicates an improved situation.

Deputy City Attorney John Kennedy commented that the monthly report was part of the materials made available to the public.  He reviewed the specific language from Prop. G, to clarify the parameters for presenting and discussing topics at meetings.

Comm. Shimko asked if the monthly report is a regular item, is it within the parameters for discussion?  Answer: yes. If specific months are mentioned.

Comm. Arámburo asked about incident reports for the hall and what the character of the contraband was.  J. Medina did not have the specific information asked, but said that most of those incidents occurred at admission.

3.             a. (ACTION) Presentation of commendation to former Commissioner Terry Landini-Brennan. 

Comm. Julian stated that Ms. Landini-Brennan was unfortunately unable to be here for the presentation, due to personal, and health reasons.  Supervisor Leland Yee had also expressed a desire to attend if she had been here.  Comm. Shimko read the language of the resolution into the record (attached to minutes).  The original resolution was passed in August of 1999.  Comm. Julian directed the Commission Secretary to make sure the certificate reached Ms. Landini-Brennan.

        b. (ACTION) Consideration of, and possible action on Program Committee's recommendation to contract with the American Justice Institute in the amount of  $179,000 for the continued implementation of ProDes.                

        Comm. Hale corrected the amount stated for the contract.  The correct amount is $197,000.  He yielded to Dr. T. Oberweis for a report.  Oberweis reviewed that the project is moving along very well, with no serious problems. They are on schedule. They hope to do a test of the evaluation instrument, using 8 to 10 programs, in April, and be able to do a total data collection process beginning in July.  Chief Williams stated that this coming Monday, the Executive Steering Committee will be meeting to review the progress and make sure the course is set appropriately.  He noted that Comm.Dupre is a member of that committee.  He further reported that they are looking to hire a research associate, to be a liaison between the Juvenile Probation Department and Dr. Oberweis, in preparing for the incorporation of ProDes into the intrinsic department operations.  Dr. Oberweis again offered to include the concerns of the Commission in the development of the process.  Comm. Chuck  reiterated that he wanted the Commissioners to be surveyed about this issue.

        It was stated that TANF contractors are included in the population of participating CBOs for the evaluation.

        On motion by Comm. Hale, seconded by Comm. Chuck and carried, the Commission approved the $ 197,000 contract with the American Justice Institute, 6-0.             

           c.  (DISCUSSION)  Discusssion on the "Criminalization of Youth."  For example, Prop 21

           (the Wilson juvenile crime initiative).                                                                  

Comm. Julian stated that upon advice of counsel, any discussion must be done in a balanced manner, without a position being taken by the Commission.  He noted that the Bd of Supervisors passed a resolution in opposition to Prop. 21. 

He asked the Commissioners to comment on what he felt was a trend in society toward the harsher treatment of youth offenders.Deputy City Attorney John Kennedy said that if the Commission wanted to refer to a case of a 10 year old in Michigan, brought up previously in past discussions, it would be okay, but to steer away from using the topic to advance a position on an election or ballot measure. 

Chief Williams read the statement of the Secretary of State that appears in the voters handbook.

Comm. Arámburo asked if the initiative would do away with 707 hearings.  Counsel advised not to pursue general questioning along these lines.  Comm. Arámburo  said her concern was that the impact of the initiative would be to increase the need for high level, longer term, secure lock up for youth awaiting adult court, and what the Department has to do to prepare for this.  The increased use of gang affiliation charges would possibly impact both the hall and LCR.  Counsel further advised that much more discussion might lead to imbalance in presentation.  Comm. Julian asked if Kennedy could find people to come before the Commission to present both sides.  He responded that he might be able to.   Comm. Hale commented that he believed the Commission directly responsible for knowing what the implications and impact the proposition would have on the running of this Department.  He wondered if the Attorney General could be enlisted to give an analysis to the Commission.  Comm. Julian agreed that what Comm. Hale brought up -the consequences of the bill—are of critical importance to the Commission and Department.  J. Kennedy said that such a discussion might be bettered held after the Nov. ballot.

Comm. Shimko referred to a portion of Kennedy's memo to the Commission, which she interpreted to allow the Commission a discussion to investigate and evaluate the potential impact of the ballot measure on city operations.

Comm. Arámburo said that the bill would surely impact the ultimate design and plan for the new juvenile facility.  Comm. Shimko repeated that possibly under the portion of the memo she read from, the Commission could direct the Department to investigate and present a case for the impact of the bill on the Department.  J. Kennedy emphasized presenting both sides (pro and con) of it.   Comm. Hale said that this was not his intent.  His was to understand the administrative impact on the Department  eg. financial costs, staffing, resources, programming, facilities. etc.

Comm. Julian recalled the case of the 10 yr old who was tried as an adult.  He asked J. Kennedy if he could pose the question for discussion of whether society should treat a 10 yr old as an adult.  Kennedy repeated that such a question should not make reference to the ballot measure.  Comm. Julian asked rhetorically whether trial by peers on juries would allow the involvement of 10 yr olds, adjudged to be adults?  Or maybe a 10 yr old judge?

Comm. Julian asked this topic to be put on a future agenda.

d.  (DISCUSSION) Proposal for revised contracting process.                  

Chief Williams reviewed that in past contracting activities, it became clear that there needed to be a consistent and commonly understood process for contracting (the number of contracts entered into by the Department has jumped five fold).  *** The document discussed is available from the JPC office. But basically: Sandy Brown-Richardson referred to pg 1, explaining  that contract thresholds have been raised to $75K.  On pg.2, for sole source contracts the threshold has been raised to $75K. 

Another condition for contracts is that if the amount is over $50K, then a public hearing is required. Personal services contracts (consultants) over $75K would go before the Commission for approval.    

Comm. Shimko referred to #4 which states that after a panel selects a contractor, it is awarded. This is not so.  The Commission must approve it before an award is made.  On another point, she asked why pg 1, #5 says contracts first come to the Commission for approval, and then contracts are drafted and come to the Commission for approval to enter the contract.  This seems to be the same for sole source contracts (steps 1 and 6).  What is the potential of a consent calendar for such actions?  Can we work with the City Attorney's office to streamline this process?  Comm. Shimko said that it seems unecessary for the Commission to approve contracting with someone, and then having to come back and approve the final contract.

Question: do we need a resolution for such actions?  Or is it adequate to just reflect the action in the Commission minutes.   For sole source contracts, the process should follow established rules.  Having a resolution allowing the Chief to enter into contract with  (x and y) would be adequate, so the Commission wouldn't have to re visit the contract for action at the end of the process.

e.      (DISCUSSION) Discussion of election of officers.         

This was just noted as a reminder that the Commission will hold elections at their February meeting.  There was no further discussion.

4.      (DISCUSSION) Public Comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission.

There was no public comment.

5.      (DISCUSSION) Unfinished business 

Comm. Julian pondered the appropriateness of this unspecific item.  J. Kennedy said that if there were items of unfinished business, they would have to be listed out.                                                                

6.      (DISCUSSION)  New business                                          

Comm. Shimko raised the same question regarding this item, and whether it could be listed as Requests for future agenda items, and announcements.   Kennedy said that without discussion, it would be okay.  And about announcements?  Answer: if they do not entail Commission business, it would be okay. 

8.   (ACTION)  Adjournment   

     The meeting was adjourned at 650 pm.