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 Visitacion Valley Community Development Center   1099 Sunnydale Avenue  San Francisco, CA 94134


                                                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

The President called the meeting to order at 5:40pm.  He welcomed the audience and asked the secretary to review what efforts were made to do community outreach for the meeting.  A brief description of all outreach was given.  Sharon Hewitt, Director of C.L.A.E.R. also gave an introduction to the building and what her organization does for the community and welcomed everyone.



(ACTION) Review and approval of September 11, 2007 meeting minutes

Corrections were pointed out (Comm Woodson excused from meeting, the completion of the adjourning statement in memory of victims of 9/11, and Alvester Ellis.  With these, the minutes were approved.

(public comments)
There were none.



Public comment on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Juvenile Probation Commission
There were none.



(DISCUSSION) Chief’s report.

The Chief reported that the Dept would be exercising extra efforts to assure probationers not get involved in any activities during Halloween that would jeopardize their situation with the Dept. 

Regarding the reorganization of the DJJ (implications of AB 191 and SB 81), he said they are still waiting details.  They are expecting about 2 to be returned to SF when discharged from CYA.  They will report more on this at a Program Comm. mtg.  Comm Fetico asked that a report be also given to the Finance Comm.

President Queen asked the Chief to get a copy of the “Blue Ribbon Committee report on LCRS”.  He said he is looking for a final report.

(public comment)

There were none.



(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Presentation by community representatives on issues of community needs, and community-driven, district based planning strategies, with possible recommendations for future actions.

(public comments)

Roberto Gonzalez, CARECEN, asked the Commission to take a stand against the gang injunction due to its negative impact on the “dept youth” that are participating in their programs/services.  Their organization and services operate within the area restricted by the injunction and this (along with threats from police) has deterred many from continuing to receive their services.  He passed out a copy of the Justice Policy Institute report on the failures of similar gang injunctions elsewhere. 

Jesus Yanez, Instituto, also asked the Commission to take a stand opposing the injunction. He related personal experiences where POs have discouraged dept youth from going into the “zone” and receiving services.

Joseph Robles, outreach coordinator, Mission CRN, also related the difficulty of getting youth to come for services within the “zone”. He has personally been pulled over by police and told he cannot have more than 2 people in his car within the “zone”.. His past contact with the legal system has also brought attention and potential threat of police action to him when he is in “the zone” doing his work.

Marie Harrison, BVHP, said that the injunction already in effect in the Bayview Hunters Point has not worked. But it has torn families apart.

President Queen referred this item back to the Program Comm for further discussion.

Com Fetico asked if anything could be done in the meantime. President Queen asked the Chief to comment on this.  Comm Stiglich commented that it was not appropriate to discuss it here.



(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Proposed statement in support of the SFUSD’s resolution on Lennar Corporation’s development in Bayview Hunter’s Point.

Comm Beijen commented that he felt this issue is not within the purview of the Commission, and that the Commission has no power to influence it.  He said that he would not vote for any issue that does not help the kids of the Dept. 

President Queen said that since the SFUSD did not have a representative at the meeting, he would not entertain any action on the issue, but would allow a couple of speakers Pro and Con on the topic.

(public comments)

Al Norman, BVHP, spoke in opposition to the SFUSD resolution.  He said their responsibility is to help people get jobs.  He didn’t believe this issue should be before the Commission.

Marie Harrison, favored the resolution. She raised the issue of the health concerns that this project is causing. There is a question of the safety from toxics in the dust.  They want an independent audit/testing of the dust and its impact.  She felt that this issue was splitting the community. She asked the Commission to exercise a moral position on this.

Aurellious Walker, Pres African American Revitalization Consortium, passed out a leaflet that reported that there are no health risks arising from the dust.  There is no toxic pollution in parcel A where the development is going on now.  He asked the Commission to accept the scientific findings and oppose the school district’s resolution.

Archbishop King said that there is no desire to stop people from working.

Dr Mitch Katz, Dir DPH, said there is no significant risks to people from the construction in parcel A. There were soil testings from city, state and federal authorities.  He said that those symptoms of asthma or other respiratory illnesses do not find their origins in the dust. They are pre existing conditions just aggravated by dust.  The level of other “dangerous” materials are very small.  Asbestos is not a big problem.  He said the fears being spread about children being affected are unfounded.

Eric Mar, SFUSD school board member, recounted that the school board heard many accounts of school staff and students in schools in the area, who complained of physical illness and other symptoms of illness from the construction dust.  He questioned the level of monitoring claimed by those promoting the development and said the school board’s resolution was not radical; it was just a call for an independent testing of kids and families of those who have had health impacts.

Comm Beijen commented again that this is not an item of business relevant to the Commission.

Comm Stiglich agreed with Comm. Beijen, but said that since people came out to speak on the issue, she thought everyone should be heard.

Donny (  ) a man from ABU, spoke against the SFUSD resolution. He commented that the muslims were out for themselves.

Angelo King, questioned why Lennar was being targeted.  He said there is no health risks from the project.

A woman spoke against the resolution.

A woman said there was no direct relation between the asthma and bloody noses and the project.

She was against the resolution.

A man spoke against the muslims

Marcellus Prentiss, YCD Dir of construction talked about the training they give to the workers who do the work so that they can protect against hazardous conditions. They’ve put 80-90 people into remediation work, 6 project engineers.

Pastor Joesiah Bell spoke in opposition to the resolution, and the muslims.

Jeffrey Windham, one of the dust monitors at the project, opposed the resolution.  He described some of the training he received in hazardous waste.  He said the community needed more education on this issue because there is misinformation out there.

Franklin from Double Rock, spoke in opposition to the resolution and asked that more support be given to making jobs available.

Comm Lingad Ricci asked if this agenda was sent to the City Attorney for review before posting.  She said that in the past, just to protect themselves so they “don’t look like fools in public”, items such as this should be sent to the City Attorney to be reviewed.  She said she thinks it’s the position of the President to make sure agendas are sent to the City Attorney for approval so that the Commission doesn’t “go across the line”.  She moved to have the item removed from the agenda.

Comm Stiglich 2nd. 

President Queen commented that the board of education took serious consideration of testimony and that is why they passed the resolution asking for the health testing of kids and families in the area.  These are the same kids that may become involved in this dept, so that is why he asked it to be placed on the agenda, to support the recommendation for testing.  If the Commission doesn’t wish to consider it, then they can so vote.

Comm Fetico stated that he was very grateful that all the public came to speak up at the commission meeting, related to this issue.  He said that such community involvement is essential to get effective policies that impact kids made. He encouraged their continued attendance.

Comm Woodson also echoed her appreciation for their presence and their advocacy for their community.

The motion to remove the item from the agenda was called.  Upon roll call vote, the motion carried 5-1, with President Queen opposing.



(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Committee reports:

  • Finance
  • Ad Hoc

Comm Fetico reported that some of the items talked about were: upcoming budget planning for 08-09. He said M. Lui said the Dept would wait til they get budget directives from the mayor.  This process should be started early and they will see what the dept does by the next finance comm. mtg. The current finances were looked at and there is still some concern for use of OT/WC, use of cars, cell phones.  Additional hirings at LCRS will strengthen their ability to work with those residents, and reduce OT. A. Magee said that 3 hires will be added but that will be at a later date.  All new hires in this budget year are budgeted at 75% FTE so they can’t be hired till after Oct. 1.    President Queen asked about the progress of staffing the community projects division.  The Chief said 2 have been interviewed but there are some issues the dept has to deal with before they can make a selection. That would occur before the first of the year.

Comm Woodson reported on the progress made; deciding on the forms to use for both evaluations (Chief, Secretary) and agreement on the criteria of the evaluation, for both.  There was a short discussion regarding the scope of the Ad Hoc’s responsibility.  It was brought up that in the past, performance reviews were done by the full commission (as the personnel committee), and that approval of forms and criteria were done as a full body.  Comm Beijen said he thought the Ad Hoc committee would be bringing back their recommendations for the full commission to approve.  Comm Lingad Ricci said that the City Attorney should be present at the evaluation.

Comm Woodson said that if the other members wanted to see the forms that were chosen, she could easily make those available.  As for criteria for evauation, the request was made of the other commissioners to give any input on the criteria chosen, but none was received.

Comm Stiglich said she thought the Ad Hoc was supposed to finalize a format to use and bring it back for approval.

R. Katz was asked if there was an “established” protocol. She said that she thought the past  practice of the commission has been to send a committee off with a task to come up with recommendations, whether it was commendations or what the format would look like, come back to the full commission and say this is what the committee came up with and would like the commission’s approval.  Her understanding is that this is a question about procedure and not about duties or tasks. If the committee is to be tasked with the full evaluation then the full commission should vote this.

The Chief said that he thought he would have the opportunity to address the question of format with the Ad Hoc Committee.  He hopes this can still happen before the issue goes before the full commission.

There was a question of whether responding to requests (from the secretary) for input (in this case, on the evaluation criteria) was a violation of “sunshine”.  R. Katz said that if individuals responded without making those thoughts available to other individual commissioners, and that all such input would be brought out in public discussion during a meeting, that would suffice.

(public comments)

There were none.



Public Comment on all matters pertaining to Closed Session.

There were none.

Vote on whether to hold Closed Session.  (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10)

Comm. Stiglich moved, Comm Lingad Ricci 2nd.



Pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b): (DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Juvenile Probation Commission Secretary


(Reconvene to Open Session)


Vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion held in closed session (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.12(a)) (ACTION ITEM)  Comm . Stiglich moved, Comm Beijen 2nd to not disclose any part of the discussion.  Upon voice vote, the motion carried 6-0.



(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Request from Commission Secretary for letter requesting Dept of Human Resources include him in the provision for exemplary pay, per labor agreement with Local 21.


(public comments)  



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

There were none.



(DISCUSSION/ACTION) Requests for future agenda items.  Comm Beijen asked for an update with the Controller on the audit.  With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10pm.