San Francisco Youth Commission
Minutes
Monday, November 15, 2010
5:30-8:00pm
City Hall, Room 416
There will be public comment on each item.
1. Call to Order
Chair LaCroix called the meeting to order at 5:33pm.
Commissioners present: Zukerman, Marshall-Fricker, Sun, Perez, Hirano, Beaulac, Yang, Herzstein, Kaminsky, Chan, LaCroix.
Commissioners absent: Liang, Hewitt, Fierro, Benezra, Lin.
Commissioners tardy: Nauer (arrived 5:36pm).
Staff present: Jay, Yedidia.
2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)
Commissioner Kaminsky, seconded by commissioner Hirano, moved to approve the agenda. This motion was approved unanimously by acclamation.
3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)
Documents A, B, C
Commissioner Hirano, seconded by commissioner Marshall-Fricker, moved to approve the minutes to the meetings of October 18, 2010 and October 27, 2010, as well as the Youth Commission Fall 2010 Survey Outreach Plan and Report Writing Timeline (the latter of which was initially adopted on October 27, 2010).
4. Public Comment on Items not on Agenda
There was none.
5. Executive Committee & Staff Report
Chair LaCroix congratulated her colleagues on soliciting, over the course of the past two weeks, hundreds of surveys of targeted youth populations that are not normally reached by the most common surveys of San Francisco’s young people.
Chair LaCroix then summarized a conference call in which she and staff member Mario Yedidia participated the past Saturday, November 13, with young people from New Orleans who are seeking to establish an advisory body similar to the Youth Commission that would provide comment and recommendation on policy and law to the municipal government in New Orleans; Chair LaCroix mentioned that members of youth government advisory bodies from Portland, OR and Boise, ID also participated in this conference call.
Furthermore, Chair LaCroix invited Youth Commissioners and the public to the Neighborhood Empowerment Network 2010 Awards ceremony, set for 6pm on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 in the North Light Court of City Hall.
Finally, Chair LaCroix solicited her colleagues’ interest in and support for two potential upcoming hearings to be sponsored by the Youth Commission, one regarding bullying of LGBTQ young people and the other concerning the implementation of Clipper cards among young MUNI riders and the Youth Lifeline hearings.
Subsequently, commissioners Sun and Chan updated their colleagues on a leadership retreat that had been held the past Saturday, November 13 with members of the Youth Advisory Council (YAC). The YAC is a Department of Children, Youth and Their Families-sponsored institution comprised of Youth Commissioners and youth members of the Student Advisory Council, the Youth Empowerment Fund Advisory Board and the Transitional Age Youth Initiative. Commissioners Sun and Chan vowed to keep their Youth Commission colleagues regularly updated and informed as to the possible collaborations—with respect to policy, research and other advisory activities—between the Youth Commission and the YAC.
6. Legislation Referred from the Board of Supervisors
A. File no. 101094: Child Care Centers for City Projects and City-Funded Private Projects (Supervisor Dufty; Alioto-Pier)
Presenters: Todd David, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Dufty; Mardi Lucich, Citywide Child Care Administrator, Department of Children, Youth and Their Families
Documents D, E
Mr. David of Supervisor Dufty’s office argued that, in broad strokes, this proposed ordinance—which would amend the Planning Code by requiring City departments and developers of City-supported construction projects to undertake a study on the feasibility of providing a childcare center in any new structure—was a first step in addressing the unmet need for high quality childcare throughout the City.
Ms. Lucich then provided an overview of the need for and availability of (or rather, the lack thereof) childcare in San Francisco. She explained that in 2006 Mayor Newsom directed DCYF to engage the city’s private sector in addressing the manifest need for childcare; this directive precipitated the publication of a childcare Economic Impact Study, a report which demonstrated that the business of childcare in the Bay Area is a multimillion dollar industry in its own right. A subsequent report by the Bay Area Council argued that high quality early childcare is critical for the health and productivity of the region’s future workforce. Ms. Lucich repeatedly underscored the statistic that 57% of working families in San Francisco who need child care are unable to access it.
Commissioners LaCroix and Kaminsky asked clarifying questions.
Public Comment:
Sharen Hewitt, the Executive Director of the CLEAR Project, urged the Youth Commission to support the proposed ordinance; she also encouraged the Youth Commission to launch an investigation into the recent killing of a three year old child in Potrero Hill.
Commissioners Nauer, Hirano and Kaminsky led a subsequent discussion about the potential benefits of the proposed ordinance. It was agreed that, given both the Youth Commission’s Chartered duty to advise the City on the “unmet needs” of San Francisco’s youth and the evident lack thereof, the proposed ordinance seemed like a good idea. Commissioner Hirano, seconded by commissioner Kaminsky, moved to have the Youth Commission support the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Herzstein hazarded that, despite the fact that the intentions behind the ordinance were uncontroversially worthy of praise, the possibility existed that the ordinance’s effect would be not the production of more child care facilities, but, rather, just another bureaucratic report clogging up the City’s system. “Is this progressive enough? Are we doing enough to meet [young people’s] unmet needs? But this is definitely a step in the right direction,” commissioner Herzstein said. Chair LaCroix concurred with commissioner Herzstein’s comments; “there’s not much teeth” in this ordinance, she commented.
Ultimately, the motion to support the proposed ordinance was adopted by the following unanimous roll call vote: Ayes—Zukerman, Marshall-Fricker, Sun, Perez, Hirano, Beaulac, Nauer, Yang, Herzstein, Kaminsky, Chan, LaCroix.
4. Public Comment on Items not on Agenda
Chair LaCroix reopened public comment.
Josh Arce, a self-described civil rights attorney by training, thanked the Youth Commission for their work on the occasion of his first visit to the commission.
B. File no. 101311: Administrative Code Amendment—San Francisco Local Hiring Policy for Construction (Supervisor Avalos)
Presenters: Supervisor John Avalos; Guillermo Rodriguez, Director, CityBuild, Office of Economic and Workforce Development
Documents F, G, H
Supervisor Avalos introduced this proposed ordinance by remarking on the presence of a member of the public at the meeting—activist Sharen Hewitt. Supervisor Avalos asserted that through her work to create the First Source hiring program with the City’s Human Services Agency some 12 years ago, Hewitt could reasonably be considered to have initiated the local hiring policy that his proposed ordinance-in-question. The goal of both the First Source program and the proposed ordinance before the Youth Commission was one in the same: to hire San Franciscans on the billions of dollars worth of public works construction projects that the City undertakes.
Supervisor Avalos made mention of two recent studies, cited in the ordinance, which show that contractors on San Francisco public works projects are failing to hire locally for at least 50% of their workforce—the studies show the numbers are closer to 24% and 20%. The Supervisor observed that the City will spend some $30 billion on capital projects over the next 10 years, and that such projects will inevitably produce a vast number of jobs. The aim of his ordinance, then, is to assure that these jobs go to native San Franciscans, especially those from low-income communities.
The Supervisor explained that the proposed ordinance would, over the course of three years, phase in a requirement (as opposed to the “good faith effort” that currently exists) that ultimately 50% of all construction workers on public works projects be San Franciscans. Supervisor Avalos conceded that three years was an aggressive timeline for such a sweeping requirement. At the same time, the Supervisor explained that the proposed ordinance took much time to craft, and that it was borne of numerous conversations with stakeholders—in communities of concerned citizens, among contractors and others in the construction industry, with union representatives from the Building Trades Council. Supervisor Avalos went on to say that he would be introducing an amended version of the ordinance—and amendment of the whole—at the next full meeting of the Board of Supervisors; though the precise details of the amendments which would be included in this new version were unclear, Supervisor Avalos suggested that the new version would probably lower the number of mandated local hires and decelerate the phase-in timeline.
The Supervisor concluded his introductory remarks by highlighting certain features of the proposed ordinance: the law would require contractors to hire disadvantaged workers (that is, San Franciscans from low-income communities), and thus he argued that the law could properly be considered “an anti-poverty program;” the ordinance provides incentives for contractors who exceed the local mandates in addition to the damages and penalties required from those who flout the law.
Supervisor Avalos asked the Youth Commission to support this law.
Mr. Rodriguez of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) then spoke. He explained that in light of the city’s high unemployment rate, OEWD has been engaged with the issue of job-creation. He reiterated the facts Supervisor Avalos had laid out regarding the context for the law—namely, the two studies of the construction industry and the current “good faith” First Source policy; the massive amount of money that the City spends on and considerable amount of jobs that City creates through public works construction—and concluded by saying that the Mayor supports a workable policy of local hiring, but one that must do just that—i.e., work on the ground
Commissioner Kaminsky then inquired as to whether a mandated local hiring policy would increase the cost of contractor bids. Mr. Rodriguez replied by citing the opinion of the City’s Chief Economist: there would indeed be a 3-5% escalation in the price of contractor bids, but this would be more than outweighed by the revenue collected through taxes through the increased amount of money spent locally by better-compensated San Franciscans newly employed in the construction industry.
Commissioner Yang explained that her uncles are immigrants and aspiring construction workers; she wondered if they would they be able to benefit from this ordinance despite their lack of English-language skills. Supervisor Avalos said that the construction jobs that his proposed ordinance would affect would, presumably and hopefully, be available to competent construction workers with limited English skills.
Commissioner Herzstein suggested that, from the perspective of a contractor (among other employers), the most pressing requirement in a prospective employee is her or his job readiness; wouldn’t the Supervisor’s proposed ordinance make contractors’ jobs impossibly difficult?
Supervisor Avalos countered that this was not necessarily the case. He asserted that most contractors with whom he has been in contact during the drafting of the ordinance—including massive companies that win many City bids like Webcore and Nibbi—are not against the law; the Supervisor asserted that during the three-hour-plus informational hearing at the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee last week, only one member of the public spoke out against the law. From a certain business perspective, the Supervisor said, a local hiring policy is merely another requirement established by the client (in this case, the City), and, as with any industry or enterprise, businesses must meet such requirements in order to successfully service their clients.
Commissioner inquired as to what the current policy of “good faith” amounts to. Supervisor Avalos and Mr. Rodriguez replied by characterizing the current policy as “a term of art.” They said the current local hiring policy is largely ineffective.
Public Comment
Sharen Hewitt encouraged the Youth Commission to encourage Supervisor Avalos to amend the ordinance to include accelerated training for disadvantaged San Franciscans and suggested that the law should also be amended to include specific provisions for people coming out of jail and prison.
Michael Theriault, Secretary-Treasurer for the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council urged the Youth Commission not to support the proposed ordinance; he argued that the unions in the Building Trades Council are comprised by 70% people of color and that the proposed ordinance would in fact be counterproductive.
Josh Arce of the Brightline Defense Project spoke in support of the law, arguing that the Building Trades were almost alone among the city’s organized labor unions in opposing the law; he also suggested that, as per the Congressional Budget Office, every $1 put into the hands of a working person ends up amounting to $1.50 to $2 injection into the local economy
There followed a heated exchange of questions and answers from commissioners Sun, Kaminsky, Herzstein, LaCroix and Zukerman, alternately fielded by Supervisor Avalos and Mr. Theriault. Among the many inquiries involved in this exchange, Chair LaCroix asked Supervisor Avalos, given his present position requesting the support of the Youth Commission, to specify how the proposed ordinance would affect young people in particular. The Supervisor argued that passage of the law would translate directly into numerous well-compensated jobs for young people who wish to work; perhaps, in particular, young people who have completed high school or have had difficulty with their high school studies. The local hiring policy would also provide jobs for young people who have completed the CityBuild program, many of whom leave the program with training without consistent employment. Supervisor Avalos conceded that the legislation as written does not explicitly address the question of the age of the targeted workers. However, he said that should the Youth Commission propose specific amendments on this account, he would be open to considering such amendments.
Commissioner Hirano, seconded by commissioner Herzstein, moved for the Youth Commission to take no position on this ordinance for three reasons: the Supervisor had conceded that the version in front of the commission was not the final version; the economic issues that bear upon the law are too complicated for the Youth Commission to competently take on; and the law is not expressly related to youth.
Supervisor Avalos made a final comment, explaining that he had worked on youth employment issues for some 13 years; he began this work as an intern at Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, where he studied the City’s existing contracts, where he became convinced that employment was a critical tool in violence prevention—and the Supervisor considered his proposed ordinance to be an extension of this work.
There was comment and discussion on this motion from commissioners Zukerman, Nauer,
This motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes—Sun, Perez, Hirano, Nauer, Herzstein, LaCroix; No’s—Zukerman, Marshall-Fricker, Beaulac, Yang, Kaminsky, Chan.
Chair LaCroix called a recess at 7:18pm.
Chair LaCroix resumed the meeting at 7:36pm. She reminded her colleagues of their chartered duty to identify the unmet needs of San Francisco’s young people. Given the fact of persistent unemployment among young people in San Francisco, Chair LaCroix, seconded by Marshall-Fricker, moved to support the proposed ordinance.
This motion failed by the following roll call vote. Ayes—Sun, Beaulac, Yang, Kaminsky, Chang, LaCroix. No’s—Perez, Hirano, Nauer, Herzstein.
Commissioner Kaminsky, seconded by commissioner, moved to continue this item to the next meeting. This motion was adopted on the following roll call vote. Ayes—Sun, Perez, Hirano, Beaulac, Nauer, Yang, Herzstein, Kaminsky, Chan, LaCroix. No’s—Marshall-Fricker.
7. Presentations
8. Youth Commission Business (All Items below Action Items)
A. Resolution 1011—AL02: Supporting the First Annual Know Your Rights Event at Lick-Wilmerding High School in San Francisco (Commissioner Kaminsky)
Presenter: Commissioner Kaminsky
Document I
Commissioner Kaminsky read the resolution into the public record.
There was a brief discussion of the logistics of the Know Your Rights Event, which did not bear upon the resolution itself.
9. Attendance Review (Action Item)
A. Absences: Commissioners Liang, Fierro, Beaulac, Herzstein, Lin—October 27, 2010
Commissioners Beaulac and Herzstein provided brief explanations for their absences at the previous meeting.
Chair LaCroix, seconded by commissioner Kaminsky, moved to authorize both absences. This motion was approved unanimously by acclamation.
B. Absence: Commissioner Fierro—October 4, 2010
This item was needlessly calendared, as this absence had already been authorized by the full Youth Commission at the meeting of October 18, 2010.
B. Absence by 2 significant tardies (Bylaws, Section VI.1(c)): Commissioner Liang—October 4, October 18
This item was continued given commissioner Liang’s absence.
10. Announcements (This includes Community Events)
Chair LaCroix encouraged her colleagues to attend the upcoming vocal jazz concert, to be held Tuesday, November 16 at 8pm, in the auditorium of San Francisco State.
Commissioner Chan encouraged her colleagues to attend a piano recital at the School of the Arts, set for 7:30pm on Friday, December 3.
Commissioner Kaminsky congratulated the San Francisco Giants for winning the World Series.
Commissioner Yang encouraged her colleagues to help her in doing outreach to the Mission YMCA. Commissioner Beaulac agreed to help.
11. Adjournment
Chair LaCroix adjourned the meeting at 8:02pm.
Supplemental documents for agenda items are available for review at City Hall Room 345. Minutes are also available on the Youth Commission Website at www.sfgov.org/youth_commission.
ACCESSIBLE MEETING POLICY
The Youth Commission meeting will be held in City Hall Room 416. The formal address of City Hall is 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA. The closest accessible BART station is the Civic Center Station at the United Nations Plaza and Market Street. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: MUNI Metro Lines J-Church, K-Ingleside, L-Taraval, M-Oceanview, N-Judah, and T-Third Street at Van Ness and Civic Center Stations; 9-San Bruno, 19-Polk, 47-VanNess, and 71-Haight Noriega. For information about MUNI accessible services call 923-6142.
The Commission meeting room is wheelchair accessible. Accessible curbside parking spaces have been designated on the corners of McAllister and Polk, and Grove and Polk. There is accessible parking available within the Civic Center Underground Parking Garage at the corner of McAllister and Polk Streets, and within the Performing Arts Parking Garage at Grove and Franklin Streets.
If you require the use of an American sign language interpreter, a sound enhancement system, or a reader during the meeting, calendars and minutes of the meeting in alternative formats; such arrangements can be made by calling Mario Yedidia at (415) 554-6446, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Late requests will be honored if possible.
Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities should call our accessibility hotline at (415) 554-8925 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order to assist the City’s efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to accommodate these individuals.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE
(Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code)
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s review.
For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance, or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact by mail: Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, City Hall Room 224, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102; by phone at (415) 554-7724; by fax at (415) 554-7854; or by e-mail at sotf@sfgov.org.
Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from the Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force or by printing Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code on the internet, at http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=4459.
The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers, and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic device. (Admin. Code § 67A.1).
In order to assist the City’s efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical- based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals.