tv [untitled] August 13, 2010 11:30am-12:00pm PST
>> good morning. thank you for hearing this matter today as well as for the civil grand jury for their report, and the ongoing work of the mayor's office. the council felt, due to the circumstances for disabled people in the city of san francisco, we had a little bit different response than they do. predominantly, we agree with their findings and response to the items. the only thing that i would like to call your attention to would- be we agree with the grievance decision. it really needs to have some substance behind it. that is how disability rights are usually in adjudicated. i have been very proud working on the council.
there has been a lot of pro active effort for inclusion for people with disabilities. that is wonderful, but of course, in these economic times, certain cuts are made. we agree with the reinstatement of a full-time grievance staff addressing title ii issues. in regards to -- we have different perspective on title iii. you heard about the woman with the taxi. title ii and iii are interrelated. as much as the city could pursue that, it would be a wonderful effort, but we are also aware of funding efforts. i would request universal sidewalk and curved ramp accessibility.
it is almost 20 years. we do not wish that funding to be taken from health and human services, public works. we do not want to prioritize physical disability over programmatic and access. finally, one of the most striking things i noticed from the council members was in regards to the training. there was a mention of online training. each person i spoke to a grade that need to -- there needs to be more interaction between people with the bill -- disability and people without this ability. that is an effective way to focus your attention on the matter. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker.
>> hello, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to respond to the report from the seven grand jury. i am the other co-chair of the mayor's disability council. as ms. parsons outlined, we are in agreement with many of -- most facets that the grand jury reported on hand with recommendations. you also have the recommendation from the mayor's disability council as well in your packet. one thing that i wanted to highlight further was the matter of training of the municipal
transit association as well as for the police department, and other city employees, interacting with people with disabilities. as ms. parsons also alluded to, we were concerned about online training, that it was not enough to have a facts-based primer to give to the employee is on an ongoing basis. the context of the actual interaction with someone with disabilities seems to make more of a human factor out of this. we are talking about one out of five san franciscans who identified themselves as a person with this ability. it may be seen, like blindness for myself, or they could be hidden disabilities. if they could see these people
and in direct them, ask questions, make it a human issue, it would be better. for the last four years i have been working with the mta on training of new operators. it is amazing the routes that i go on with these drivers. they recognize me. they realize they need to put this into practice. i am not only trying to teach them but i am also a user of the services, a citizen in the county of san francisco. we applaud the grand jury for their work on this. the conclusions that they came to in the report were good. waybill continue to speak about this. we definitely want to move
forward in a very personal, human-based effort to educate these people on this 20-year- old-now a piece of legislation. it is definitely time to implement. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker? >> good morning. i have lived my whole life in san francisco. i want to thank the civil grand jury for working on this item. all the work of the civil grand jury is worthy, although, in my opinion, the city does not implement many of the recommendations. in regards to finding two, ada
grievance procedures, my own story as a city employee is relevant. when i tried to go through the grievance procedure, in my opinion, the city retaliated against me by putting me on mandatory sicklied. i thought that was an interesting response. -- sick leave. also, i had requested numerous times that san francisco general be investigated for suspicious activities. in my opinion, for the record, the three supervisors still oppose any inquiry into san francisco general hospital, including the ada situation. i felt i've applied to all lead to requests -- i replied to all
the requests that were made at the time. i feel like he and i were shortchanged by somebody up the ladder. if you are applying for an ada process, how the city can put you on mandatory sick leave, to me, nobody was asking for sick leave. i was only inquiring what the a daada could do to help me with y back problems. i feel like the process was this used for whatever purposes the city needed. in my opinion, the ada is there to help people who really need help. people like me are looking to them for guidance. it seems strange that instead of
giving me guidance, they basically short circuit the system and, in my opinion, ending the system. ada compliance need to be seriously considered, especially at the board level. in my opinion, this committee is even weaker than the ethics commission. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else that would like to speak? please come forward. >> hello. i am also a member of the mayor's disability council. i am in that category of having a hit in disability. i also want to start by thanking the civil grand jury and you all for giving this the attention that you are. we appreciate it. i wanted to reiterate something that we mentioned, which is, if
finances were not an issue, as the community would want every suggestion that the community suggested, but seeing the situation is not that, we want to make sure architectural access is not prioritized over other disability access needs. particularly, public health needs ,ihh, ihhs, making sure tt funding is not taken away from those critical categories. thank you. we appreciate it. supervisor mar: susan has another comment. >> thank you. i did want to clarify, because it is not transparent to the public and perhaps not to you,
that the employee process for ada issues as a separate process from the process of human resources. items covered at this done on men had the experience that he had. that is not the procedure that is of a grand jury refers to or what our office worked on. if you would allow me to summarize, the disability community is not a homogenous community. there are different interests, different needs, different priorities. so it is the unenviable job of decision makers, like ourselves, how we distribute the resources available. i believe that is the message we have been trying to convey. the mayor's disability council had a robust conversation about
this. every one of the recommendations would be wonderful to implement, but we are concerned, as a community, about the availability of resources continuing. the budget that you have passed looks like that will happen. the need for health services, human services, ihhs, independent living has always been a high priority and we want to protect those services and would not want them to be reduced at the expense of architectural access, which is expensive. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else from the public that would lead to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor chu, do you have supervisor chu: thank you. i want to thank the civil grand jury for your work on this issue, and in addition, i want
to thank the mayor's office of disability, the disability council, and all the departments to have taken the time to review and respond to the document as well. at this time, we do have item two, also, which has been called. it is the response of the board of supervisors to the 2009-2010 grand jury report. if we look at the actual underlying document, there actually is no response to findings yet from the board of supervisors, so if we take a look at page four of the legislation, beginning on line 18, is really just sort of a place holder for us to put in our findings as well. mr. share, after hearing from the departments, if i could make a motion -- mr. chair, we are responding to items one, two, four, five, and 6. i would make a motion that we adopt the city attorney response
to finding number 1 and to recommendation on the one -- recommendation number 1. i also recommend we adopt the mayor's department of responsibility's response to finding two, four, and six, as well as their response to the recommendations for items two, four, and six, and also make a motion to adopt the department of public works' response to recommendation 5 and finding five. supervisor mar: thank you. any objections? then we have adopted those responses to the findings and recommendations. supervisor chu: i will make a motion to send this out, to send item two out, as amended, to the full board with recommendation, and to file item one. supervisor mar: without objection, so moved.
is there anything else on this item, supervisor chu? thank you. thank you, everyone, for coming up, and the activism around complying with the 88. could you call the next item? >> item 3, motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to audit the department of children, youth, and their families. supervisor mar: item 3 is also called by supervisor alioto-per. is there someone from her office -- supervisor alioto-pier. is there someone from her office? no one is here from the office. let me just say that this is a motion that direct the budget and when it -- and legislative analyst's office to audit the department of children, youth, and their families. is there someone from the budget
and legislative analyst's office? thank you, ms. newman. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm here to discuss this motion. however, i would note that we have had discussions with supervisor alioto-pier's office, regarding this audit, and we had prepared with them if an amendment that is to my understanding they were going to approve this morning to narrow the focus of that audit, to not do really an audit of dcyf, but rather to revise it to a direct and more interdepartmental audit of the cd's program to provide early childhood care and education services. i do have one version of what i
understood they were going to be presenting this morning. i could go over that, but i have understood that they were going to be submitting it and presenting a this morning. i will take your direction on how to proceed on this. my understanding is that it was a more narrow focus, and to work with the early childhood programs. we had prepared a report to the committee today on the revised scope. and i can go over that if you want. supervisor chu: if i could make a recommendation, my understanding is that supervisor alioto-pier's office would be coming to make a presentation to also explain what the change in scope would be, the limited scope would be, so maybe if we could do for this item to later in the agenda so we could allow for supervisor alioto-pier's
legislative aide to come by, and maybe we could ask the clerk. supervisor mar: great. we will delay action on this item. can you call item four? >> item four, motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to conduct a review of police practices -- of aging in place practices and resources. supervisor mar: this is an item from my office urging the budget -- requesting the budget and legislative analyst's office to further delve into the issue of aging in place practices and resources in the city to implement the proposed additional research. legislative analyst would determine the approximate number of aging adults on affordable housing and public housing, collective summarized demographic information about aging adults in san francisco, review independent living programs and models, including shared housing programs, volunteer health advocacy
programs, and the nonprofit retirement village models. that is aging in place retirement village models. also provide legislative recommendations for incentives that encourage property owners to make residential upgrades that increase accessibility and safety for aging adults. that is the proposal. i would like to ask ms. newman to also make some comments. >> certainly. again, debra newman from the budget analysts office. let me give -- let me step back and maybe just give a little overview of where we are on our audit program. as you know, as part of our budget and legislative analyst contract, one of the functions that we do provide for the board of supervisors is audit services. these generally, as requests from the members of the board. to date this year, we have
conducted the mta, the first phase analysis of that, the revenue analysis, and concluded the small business audit. we have approximately 4500 hours each year to dedicate to audit services. we have expended to date about 1500 hours on the, so this applies to both this audit and the earlier one that i will not go into detail right now, but we have more than sufficient capacity currently between now and the rest of the year to all the audit assignments that are before us. this is within the scope of our existing contract. in fact, even if both of these audits were assigned to us, we still have sufficient capacity to move forward with other audits. i would encourage you to move
forward would definitely the audit of supervisor mar pose a presenting on the seniors in place. we have done some additional work -- initial work for the office that has brought us to this place that we realize that the elderly community is growing at a faster rate in san francisco, and we are attempting to look at some of the demographics about that aging community in terms of income, ethnicity, languages, and to look at independent living options to be able to encourage the aging in place that the elderly will be able to stay in their homes, live more independently, say as members of the community, so that we will also be looking at best practices that are currently in
use in san francisco as well as other communities and coming foard with legislative recommendations for incentives that would encourage property owners to make this necessary residential upgrades to increase accessibility and safety for aging adults. we estimate that this audit will require approximately 255 hours to complete and that we could complete this audit and present it to you in september. as you know, the board is going on recess in the near future, and much of our legislative work does slowdown in, and is a perfect opportunity to begin work on an audit such as this. supervisor mar: thank you. let me give a bit further background. there has been a group of senior organizations and add it -- advocates and activists that have been working with my office, so a lot of the
questions and framing of the previous report by the budget analyst office and then these new questions and research issues and areas have been driven by activism of senior organizations, but also people like me that our baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, the 72 million people in the u.s. that came about after the end of world war ii and that will be entering a very rapidly the senior ranks and demographic group within the city and around the country. the data that the previous report shows that 20% of the city put the population as people over 65 years old, but i think within 20 years, the population will increase, i think, 60%. the senior population will increase by about 60%. that is why it is critical to understand the housing needs and to develop stronger policies and
to implement other task force recommendations of different offices of the mayor and task forces from previous years so that we become an aging friendly city in the future. but 255 hours to do this work by september, and this information should be very valuable for the task force an alliance of individuals that are working for stronger the gene-friendly city legislation for the future, so i urge support by my colleagues. -- the aging-friendly city legislation. supervisor chu: in our package, i see the motion on the legislation, but i do not have with me what the scope of the work might be. do you happen to have a copy of that anywhere? >> we did prepare a report for today's meeting. hopefully, you received that. we are now electronically sending all reports, so i am sure it will be sent to you.
i can get a copy of that to you this afternoon, and there are a number of bullet points there that identify what the scope of services would be. supervisor chu: thank you. i would be happy to support this going forward, but if i could in the intervening week asked the budget analyst to send the document to me that has the scope of work as well as the hours. >> absolutely. supervisor mar: other questions? ok, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak out in support of this measure. i count myself as part of that aging baby boomer population, and i expect to live in san
francisco and see the final demise of this once great city. i'm expecting to be proven wrong, but most of the information i have seen over the last four years indicates that i may be wrong or right. i think that i'm right. anyway, back to the subject matter, one of the recommendations as part of the listing here on the page mentions of the seniors getting proper services as they age. since so many seniors have to go to san francisco general hospital for necessary care, i would like to reiterate my request that san francisco general the audited financially based on the financial recommendations of the 2003 report which was issued by the board of supervisors. i'm still confused as to why a request to reexamine those recommendations is still meeting
opposition on the board level because i think, realistically, if an audit was done of general hospital, it would make seniors feel more comfortable using the services there. as everyone knows, there was a recent horrible incident involving a disabled chinese man at san francisco general hospital, who was, in my opinion, traded very maliciously by the staff. as far as i can see, there has been a follow-up public report to explain why this victim lay bleeding in his bed and was ignored allegedly by the staff until the wife came later that night. things like that are an indication that there are problems at the hospital, so one would suspect that that needs to be checked out if seniors like myself have to go to general hospital and -- in the future for care, so i think if we are
going to support this item, we need to examine closely services that need to be used by seniors as they get older. most of us seniors by the time we get to be 70, 80, and maybe 90 years old -- we are not going to have a choice as to where to go for service. most likely, most of us will be taken to general hospital, and then, i kind of hope that it is going to treat me and the others fairly rather than have that unfortunate incident happened to that disabled chinese man who incidently could not speak english. thank you. supervisor mar: 90. is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion on this item? so move, without objection. why don't we go back to item three? on the dcyf of it -- audit.
i do not see supervisor alioto- pier. by their recommendations? should we continue this to the call of the chair? >> the clerk has just advised me that she has just heard from alioto-pier's office. >> bill barnes is recommending that you put it forward. supervisor mar: can you give a brief overview of how the scope has been narrowed significantly sell it is not a full audit of dcyf but as a very narrow one? >> certainly i can explain. our conversations with supervisor alioto-pier's office and her staff, and i do have, which i can submit to the clark, are our language on the rewording of the motion that is before you