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 406 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

President Ricci called the meeting to order at 5:40pm. All commissioners were present at the gavel, except for Comm Hale, who arrived at 5:45pm


(ACTION) Review and approval of April 18, and 27, 2005 meeting minutes.

The minutes of both 4/18 and 4/27 were approved as written.

(public comments)  There were none.


Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission, that is not on this meeting’s agenda.
There were none.


(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Review of proposed Dept FY ‘05-‘06 budget, with possibility of modifications. 

Chief Siffermann said that his vision for the new Dept, included a change in orientation and behavior to emphasize quality accountable service, and rehabilitation. He will be seeking to restore levels of supervision in the dept and with outside groups so that accountability is assured. For details of how the budget will address these things, he deferred to Mark Lui to explain.

Lui referred to the one page summary. The first line, which named technical adjustments, he said were very technical and doubted the commission would understand what they were. He said he wasn’t sure he understood it.

He mentioned that the Dept did not have to reduce the budget –midyear—as all other depts were asked to do. We only had to balance our budget.

In the new budget (the one page summary) they are asking to add one counselor position at LCRS, while cutting 4 positions..  currently they have 15 counselors on payroll but are only budgeted for 10.

Comm Hale opposed any lay offs.

The budget submission deadline is May 18.

Comm Hale said that “the Mayor’s budget folks have got to be losing their minds… “

Comm. Fetiçō commented that he was insulted that the Dept only gave a single page summary for the commission to consider in making decision about the budget. He began to ask about the Executive Secretary position requested.  Chief Siffermann said that was to expand the use of the secretary to provide supervision to the support staff.  Comm. Fetiçō raised the question of why supervision of admin staff in YGC was not provided by the Director of Finance and Administration?  He understood that the salary to that position was raised $10K a couple years back because they said it was responsible for supervising staff.

Question raised was, is it legal to have an executive secretary that serves less than the Dept head (a lesser position eg.  Asst. CPO). A dept head can hire a confidential secretary outside of, exempt from, the civil service process (testing).  This issue needs to be cleared up.

Comm Stiglich returned to the issue of LCRS counselors.  She stood her position that it is wasteful to keep LCRS open for only 15 kids. She said she would support the Chief in such tough decisions.

Chief Siffermann said that it was tough but it appears that some sort of lay offs would be necessary.

Comm Hale said there is a group wanting to privatize LCRS, working on the “blue ribbon committee.”

Comm Stiglich asked if there were any analysis about the savings from shutting down LCRS. M. Lui said 2 yrs ago, the initial savings was about $1 million.

Chief Siffermann said that we are mixing the population at LCRS and are not doing justice to either types. He said that as for counselors, he’d like to see them play the roles of re entry facilitators for youth back to their communities.

Comm. Fetiçō said that the Director of LCRS needs to take the lead on making LCRS work.  He further asked who was responsible for making the program there only 7 months, which he was opposed to.

Donald Sanders said the last chief decided to cut it to 7 mons. He said it was not appropriately cut to 7 mons.  He said it was recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee to return to the longer stay, but he didn’t know what happened to that.

Comm. Fetiçō asked who’s responsibility was it to make that decision. Sanders said it was the Commission’s. Chief Siffermann said that he wasn’t aware of the length of time youth were committed to LCRS, but will take a look at that and if he had the authority, he would act on it.

Comm Hale commented that they had looked at the types of reimbursable activities so they could increase revenues.  He referred to a certain job title (but couldn’t remember the exact name).  This needs to be re visited.

Comm Stiglich said it would be hard pressed to find a court that would commit a youth for 18 mons. The best possible term might be 12 mon. 

Comm Queen said it was concluded in the Ad Hoc committee work that Title IV-e needed to be explored as a funding stream, and also the claim that bed rental could generate revenues. He asked D. Sanders what happened to his report that there were interested counties.

Sanders was not clear in his response, but said he didn’t want to say anything until he got to know the chief better.

Comm Queen reiterated that he was concerned about the discussions that had been had, tentative conclusions reached, about Title IV-e, about the length of time for the program at LCRS, and about the bed rental possibilities.  And why these hadn’t gotten much attention since.  Especially when it was reported that there was interest in renting beds from us.

D. Sanders said he submitted that report to Gwen Tucker and it sits on her desk. Comm Queen noted that it was now on Chief Siffermann’s desk.  Siffermann said this was the first he had heard of that, but said that he will look into it.  He said that he hadn’t seen any data on outcome measures for youth leaving LCRS.

Comm Hale restated his support of the PrIDE program.

Chief Siffermann said that this was discussed with Liz Jackson-Simpson and the Admin felt that they had adequate information from the last large PriDE report from which to digest and draw ideas for future steps, so rather than put more into developing another large report, when data from the last has yet to be used to its max, would not be effective use of funds.

Comm Queen used this as an example of why he asked the Dept for a written explanation to why any decision was made.  The one page summary doesn’t give that level of clarity so anyone can understand why.  He asked for the kind of explanation such as was given in answering the question about the PrIDE contract, for all decisions.

M. Lui said the total of those revised reductions is $764K, leaving the dept short $90K. So, even if all the other things on the page were accepted, they would still be short. They are coming to the Commission for leadership and guidance to give them some ideas for where they can cut.

Lui went to the second half of that one sheet summary and described each item.

1)      changing the job title from Asst. Chief Probation Officer to Deputy Director 4, increasing the cost approx. $44K.

2)      hire 1823, replace one that left.  This was important for coordinating the girls services program. It is vacant in the current budget and they want to fund it for the next year.

3)      re install 3 /sr. supervising POs .

4)      add an exec. Secretary 3 .  he said the dept had 2 of them, and during the mid year lay offs, one of those positions was deleted. The incumbent was to be laid off.  But due to some technical issues about how this occurred, they were not able to do that, so now there are two exec secretaries working, but we’re only budgeted for one.  Adding this back into the budget will then match the number of employees we have.

Comm Fetiçō questioned why another position was needed to manage employees, when the Manager of Finance and Admin should be responsible for managing staff in the Admin building.  

Lui replied that the dept lost many management staff so management staff have less time to devote to managing clerical staff. They manage professional staff.  Approx. 50% of the clerical staff has been lost.  They are talking about a clerical pool now and you need a coordinated approach to managing that pool.

Comm Queen asked if it was possible to just ask existing staff to assume those responsibilities of supervision.  Lui said you’d have to add another position, or substitute an existing position, and if you did (‘tx’d’) you’d have to have a candidate with the new qualifications, if you wanted to bump somebody up. There’d be no guarantee that the one you wanted to bump up would qualify and get the job.

Comm Hale asked the Chief to look at this position to see if it fits the efficiency for the new operations.

Chief Siffermann said he hoped to be able to create systems that would reward and encourage staff with opportunities for professional advancement.  There was a discussion regarding other efficiencies, such as possibly using elderly or other volunteers to help staff the front counter. Or pay CBOs who work with clients that could be given some $ for training to staff the front.

(public comments)
James Bryant, SEIU 790, said that the commission/dept were in violation of their labor contract.

He spoke in opposition to the stand of closing LCRS.

Comm Queen asked Bryant how long it will take for the union to have that discussion with the dept before they can come back to the Commission to give their input.  He encouraged everyone to let go of their emotions and be clear about how we can all work together to get the budget where we want it.

Bryant said they were set to meet with the Chief on the 17th.


(DISCUSSION) The Commission’s position on district based planning and its actions in regards to recommendations from the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. 

Comm Queen reviewed that he had been asked to be the representative to the JJCC, and during one meeting he had introduced the statement of utilizing district based planning, which was adopted by the workgroup. At a subsequent JJCC meeting (the steering committee) this statement was removed from the list of principles adopted, and that action was supported by the JPC representative (Comm Stiglich).  His concern about this were unresponded to by anyone, so he wanted to clarify how  such things would be dealt with in the future, to avoid confusion.

Comm Ricci said that while she would have been the JPC rep on the JJCC, she wanted to give other commissioners the chance to participate, so asked Comm Queen to represent the commission. She wanted others to get this experience also so she did appoint another commissioner to rotate on. She sent an email memo about this.  As to not responding to Comm Queen’s queries, she said that upon advice of the City Attorney, she should not, in order to avoid violating open meeting rules.  Also, she was out of the country on personal family matters so communication was not easy.

There was disagreement about whether clear communication was given about the appointment of Comm Stiglich to the JJCC, or whether effective and appropriate means of inquiring into this and resolving the question were used. Both Comms Ricci and Queen had different views about what had occurred and why.

Comm Stiglich was troubled that this issue was brought up at a meeting she was not present at. She said she is very open and willing to deal with such questions face to face. She felt this problem is more a matter of misunderstanding of what happened at the JJCC steering committee mtg.  She said she has not misrepresented the commission, nor spoken against the policy of district based planning (as adopted by the commission).  It was not her that brought up the issue at the meeting, nor her that questioned the appropriateness of the statement in the document.  While she agreed with the opinion of the others who did raise it, she did make an effort to amend the document to include the principle (district based planning) somewhere else in it. So other language was included (eg. working with commissioners, faith based, community orgs.) while remaining true to the spirit of what the JJCC was.

David Onek, Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, recapped the history of this issue, pointing out that the original approval of the statement submitted by Comm Queen occurred in violation of the protocols set up by the JJCC, but got carried to the steering committee despite this.  At the steering committee meeting in question, Gary Bieringer questioned why it was in the document, and why not statements from other commissions or groups.  Why only the JPC’s statement.

Comm Hale commented that the JPD should take the lead in this process as it is the only body held responsible for the direction of juvenile justice policy in the county (he said legislatively it is recognized as the lead).

Comm Queen reiterated his concern for the role of the commission vis a vis the JJCC and being the policy maker for the Probation Dept. 

There were disagreements over whether the workgroup fully understood and supported the statement presented by Comm Queen or just went along with him.  Comm Queen felt that those chairing the JJCC should have acted to endorse the statements and input of the commission (as the primary policy directors in the City), in this case where the statement was very positive.  He asked that this question be addressed in the commission retreat so a clear protocol can be set up.

Onek commented that his role and that of Liz Jackson-Simpson was of facilitator and not advocate of one side over another.   Comm Queen said there needs to be a clear understanding of what  the roles of others are when the commission makes policy and how they will respond to it (whether in the JJCC, JDAI, etc.) We need to be speaking with a single voice.

Comm Stiglich reiterated her offense to the statements in the minutes saying she misrepresented the commission and spoke against a policy adopted by the commission. She said she hadn’t and reiterated what transpired. Comm Hale continued to say she had, by not opposing removal of the statement.

Onek also said it was not a rejection of the principle.

Comm Stiglich said, it was not a rejection of the concept or principle, just an opinion that it did not belong in that spot in the document, but was incorporated elsewhere. Comm Ricci said that it behooves the commission to have full reports from commissioners who attend meetings on behalf of the commission, so that all commissioners know what is transpiring in those efforts.

(public comments)

Murlene Randle, MOCJ Director, commented about individual commissioners representing the commission. She was confused about what the commission had wanted, when the selection process for the new chief was going on.  She was given the understanding from Comm Queen that the African American Relations Board would pick the people the Mayor would ask for public input, and that he further gave her a list of people that she was only to speak to about this. She said this was represented as the Commission’s position. She said that Comm Ricci did not corrobate this, so it was further confusing when she was questioned by Comm Queen why she hadn’t used those listed names.  She said the Commission needed to follow a clear policy on its external communications.

Comm Queen took exception to that impression of his message to Randle.  The submission of the list was approved by the Commission, and it was not an exclusive list of African American orgs, but a cross section of CBOs from various communities.

Comm Ricci said that while she did ask Comm Queen for a copy of the communication he was giving to MOCJ, she never received one.

Comm Stiglich said there appears to be a great amount of suspicion all around, from the Mayor’s office, to the Commission. There needs to be better communication all around.

Comm Stiglich repeated that she felt the way it was brought up was not in the best form, that she should have been there to receive the questions directly, which she would have gladly done.

There was an outstanding difference of opinions as to the nature of the list given M. Randle, whether it was meant as an “exclusive” list.  Comm Hale repeated that this list was the result of the Commission asking Comm Queen to come up with a suggested process.

Comm Queen strenuously objected to that characterization, and felt M. Randle was being disingenuous about wanting wide community input, when originally he (Comm Queen) was told by her and Steve Kawa to back off of the request to have community input into the selection process, because of “confidentiality” issues.   He said that when he brought this up with the Commission, it was agreed that he could come up with a list to give to the Mayor, of community based orgs that he could involve in the community process.  And at a previous meeting where M. Randle said this list could not be an exclusive list, he of course agreed.  Comm Queen further said that subsequently, M Randle came to a meeting of the African American police relations board, with minister Christopher Mohamed and Dr. Amos Brown, where they expressed their desire to have the African American community represented in this process.

M. Randle said she did go to that meeting, and they agreed to give input.  She was surprised when Comm Queen said to her the list was supposed to be the exclusive list.

  Comm Hale emphasized why it was important to keep the concept of community based planning on the forefront.

At this point, Comm Ricci closed the discussion as it was reaching far from the agenda item.  She just reminded everyone that when external communications are made from the Commission, that copies should be given to the President and Secretary, so that clear records are kept.

Public Comments: James Bryant, SEIU 790, suggested such a discussion should be done in private.

Denise Coleman, clarified the process of the JJCC, and said that most of the people in the workgroup were unfamiliar with the concept he presented, and justifiably voted against it.  She felt that the final vote that approved it, was more because they were influenced by the Commissioner, rather than because they fully understood and supported it.

Amin  Abu al Amin, African American Police Relations Bd, felt that Comm Queen was being besmirched by the allegations of the nature of that list. He suggested that the list be produced to see if recollections are accurate.

George Smith, Ella Hill Hutch also felt Comm Queen was being attacked. He expressed gratitude for Comm Queen’s work with his community.

Comm Chuck asked for a point of order and opinion from the attending City Attorney.  M. Baumgartner spoke off mike and was not clearly picked up.

Comm. Fetiçō responding to George Smith’s comments were that it is their primary responsibility to work with the youth.  G. Smith said that he would take that back and work harder on his end, but encouraged the Commission to open up ways for youth to access them to participate more in public government.

Comm Chuck expressed concern for the polarization on the board.  He said there needs to be consensus.

Comm Stiglich, as a final comment on the list, said her recollection was that it was permitted to go forward not as an exclusive list, just advisory, to the Mayor.

Comm Ricci, on the leadership question, said that when she took on the role of the President, there were many people clamoring for changes that were long needed.  She said it was not a question of the leadership but the question of individual acts of individuals on the commission, some who may not have wanted those changes, and had their own agendas.  She has always been focused on what changes were needed in the Dept to better serve the youth, and wanted people to treat each other with mutual respect in carrying out the common work.


(ACTION) Election of Commission Officers

Comm. Fetiçō asked about the commission’s practice of having officers serve two terms for consistency’s sake.  Comm Hale reviewed that it was a practice begun before he came on the commission, but he endorsed it because it made sense, having had two terms as president, himself, and others after him also having this opportunity.

Nominations were taken for the office of President.  Comm Chuck nominated Comm Hale. 

Comm Ricci asked M. Baumgarten if there needed to be any changes made to the commission rules in order to continue with the process.  A short discussion ensued, off mike, and then nominations continued.  Comm. Fetiçō nominated Comm Ricci.  Comm Rodriguez nominated Comm Queen.

Comm Stiglich asked, in light of what Comm Hale had said about two terms, what is the intent of nominating others.  There was a short discussion regarding how many terms Comm Ricci had already served, but there was no confirmation reached.

Comm Chuck asked the commission to agree on a process.

Comm Hale withdrew his name from the pool.

Comm Stiglich felt that continuity was important, especially now, in a transitioning dept.  Retaining the leadership on the commission now is important.

Comm Hale advocated for a leadership reflecting the racial/ethnic background of the kids in the Dept.

Comm. Fetiçō expressed his feeling that such an outlook is narrower than what the commission needs to be.  He said we need to look beyond merely race or gender, and serve everyone equally well.

Comm Rodriguez said it was a matter of fact that African American and Latino youth are heavily represented in the system.  He said that he has listened to the community in considering the election, and he was very impressed with the comments regarding Comm Queen. 

Comm Ricci withdrew her name from the pool, citing demands of developing her new non profit organization.  She thanked the commission for their support of her.

The nominations were closed and upon roll call vote, Comm Queen was elected, 4-3; Comms. Fetiçō, Stiglich, Ricci voting nay.

Nominations were taken for the office of Vice President.

Comm Chuck nominated Comm Rodriguez.  Comm Ricci nominated Comm Stiglich. Comm Rodriguez nominated Comm Hale.  He declined.

Nominations were closed and upon roll call vote, Comm Rodriguez was elected, 4-3, Comms. Ricci,  Fetiçō, Stiglich voting nay.

Comm Hale commented that the biggest issue is the role that the Mayor’s office has played with various commissioners, and hopes that we can move forward from this.

M. Randle said that the Mayor has every right to talk to each commissioner, but did not do that. She said that she expected the commission to serve him proudly.

Comm Rodriguez and Comm Rodriguez had to be excused from the rest of the meeting.

(public comments)

Nora Rios Reddick, Exec. Director, Horizons Unlimited of SF, spoke in support of Comm Queen’s nomination.

James Bryant, SEIU 790, expressed frustration by the discussion.


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


(ACTION)  Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05pm