Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 10, 2013 6:00pm-6:31pm PST

6:00 pm
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
[gavel] >> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, december the 10th, 2013. madam clerk, could you call the roll? >> thank you, mr. president.
6:04 pm
supervisor avalos? avalos present. supervisor breed? >> here. >> breed present. supervisor campos? >> present. >> campos present. president chiu? >> he present. >> president chiu present. supervisor cohen? cohen present. supervisor farrell? farrell present. supervisor kim? kim present. supervisor mar? mar present. supervisor tang? tang present. supervisor wiener? wiener present. supervisor yee? yee present. mr. president, all members are present. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> colleagues, we have our october 29th and november 5th, 2013 board meeting minutes. could i have a motion to approve those minutes? motion by supervisor campos, seconded by supervisor breed.
6:05 pm
without objection, those meeting minutes are approved. [gavel] >> madam clerk, any communications? >> there are 2340 communications, mr. president. >> then can you read the consent agenda? >> yes, items 1 through 10 are considered routine. if a member objects you an item can be removed and considered separately. >> colleagues, would anyone like to sever any of these items? if not, roll call on the consent agenda. >> supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> those ordinances are finally passed. [gavel] >> next item. >> item 11 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the sheriff's department to amend the existing contract with global*tellink for inmate telephone services from june 1,
6:06 pm
2010, to may 31, 2013, to june 1, 2010, to may 31, 2014, with an additional one-year option to extend the term remaining, which will result in an anticipated commission to the inmate welfare fund of more than $3 million over the four-year contract term. may may 21st, 2014 ~. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i know we continued this item from the last meeting, and after reviewing the information i did have a question which i needed clarity before agreeing to move forward on this item. specifically, from my understanding because we're looking at retroactively allowing for one of the one-year options in this particular case, and i just wanted clarity with the city attorney based on the resolution, does this allow for the sheriff's department the authority to extend the additional one-year option for the next fiscal year? which is how i read the resolution.
6:07 pm
>> do we have someone from the sheriff's department here? >> hi, my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm the cfo of the sheriff's department. good afternoon, supervisors and chair. the item that you see before you is a request to extend our contract with gtl for one additional year. at the conclusion of this extension, we would have one additional year on the contract to extend to the full term. there have been a number of questions from board members about the revenue and how we allocate it. so, i brought with me a brief summary -- >> can we go back to your comment about the exercising of the additional one-year option? according to the resolution -- and which is why i needed clarity from the city attorney -- once the current year term expires, the sheriff's department has the authority without the board of
6:08 pm
supervisors to approve an additional one-year extension. so, that was my understanding. so, just wanted clarity that that is actually accurate. >> my understanding is we would need to return to the board next year for the additional -- for the additional year. >> mr. givner, can you clarify whether or not that's the case? because the resolution doesn't appear to read that way. or did you need a little bit more time? >> yeah, just give me one minute. >> okay, i'll let her -- if you don't mind, you finish your presentation and then maybe the city attorney can let us know. >> sure, happy to. so, i'll just verbally go through. we have budgeted every year about $7 45,000 in staff salaries that are used to provide services inside the
6:09 pm
jails. one staff member is someone who manages our legal services. one person is a farmer who does the farming for gardening at c.j. side. we have a senior administrative analyst who oversees the services provided for women, and three re-- four rehabilitative services coordinators who coordinate the programming inside the jails. in addition, we spend -- we have budgeted $70,000 for professional services which include translation for people who don't -- who need translation to other languages, and subscriptions for items such as legal books that go into the inmates' library. we also spend $540,000 on the in-jail programs, among which is the very popular one family program which provides parenting classes and contact visiting for parents -- for children whose parents are incarcerated in the jail system.
6:10 pm
and we also spend $56,000 on materials and supplies, the largest item which is a video conferencing system which allows inmates who are at cj5 to communicate with their defenders downtown and to participate in a legal -- participate in their legal defense. we've had a number of requests from members of the board to allocate funds towards phone cards to reduce the cost of calls to inmates who are making calls. and, so, by changing some of our encumbrances and reducing spending and professional fees and services of other departments, we've identified $22,000 for purchasing phone cards for inmates and those have been encumbered in pobsh 14 00 389 for phone cards. we're still working on the add mitch details on how we would manage the phone cards and ensure that they're distributed
6:11 pm
in a way that is safe for the inmates and for staff. but we're committed to moving forward with that before the end of the fiscal year. and city attorney, if you have an answer. >> deputy city attorney john give more. on supervisor breed's question about the one-year extension, yes, this resolution would authorize the sheriff's department to enter into the retroactive contract for one year, and also to exercise the one-year option to extend. >> okay. so, basically my assessment of the resolution is correct? >> that's right. >> okay. so, i thank you. were you done? i'm sorry. >> um-hm. >> okay. so, i have a problem with this and i want to potentially change the resolution to allow for the retroactive extension which i think in march of 2014
6:12 pm
would mean that it would expire, which would give the sheriff's department a lot more time to work out making potentially some recommended amendments to the contract. although i appreciate the services being provided, i have a problem with the fact that many of the persons who are paying for these telephone services are people who are mostly poor, and the fees that they're being charged are ridiculous rates. and what i am trying to understand is if the jail population has declined significantly from over 2000 inmates to about 1400 inmates now, and the revenues from this particular program have increased by 293%, what is going on? and are the rates continuing to be driven up? and also whether or not some of
6:13 pm
these programs, if they're required to be provided by the city, why are they being paid on the backs of the visitors to the inmates? so, i have a number of issues and i'm not -- i would not like to relinquish authority to -- for the second one-year extension option. so, i'd like to possibly amend that particular part of the resolution. i do understand that this service is currently being provided and we're looking at a retroactive contract, which i understand, but i do think that some changes need to be made, some extreme changes, especially if we're looking at increasing the amount of the sheriff's department receives from 60% to 65% ~ and we're talking about an increase of over $60,000 to the department. and so, the 20 -- over $20,000
6:14 pm
of cards for telephone calls is just not sufficient. so, i'm just trying to understand the increases, the impacts, and whether or not, you know, this is good business for the city in general as it relates to the fact that we are spending dollars and trying to support a population and robbing them on another end. so, i have a real problem with this and i just wanted to express my concerns and maybe hear from my colleagues about what their thoughts are on this as well. thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i do want to thank the sheriff's department for contacting and reaching out to our office after a number of the questions we had asked them, actually answered a lot of my questions. i get it that there was a gap in staffing which led to the retroactivity of the contract that is before us today. i do have overall issues with retroactive contracts. we don't get a huge amount, but we do get a significant amount, and i think in the future we
6:15 pm
really need to examine that on the board. i'm actually thinking about just starting to vote no on all retroactive contracts in the future, which is the big issue on the board of education as well. i think ultimately, while all of my questions were answered by the sheriff's department on the contract, i am still [speaker not understood] against the contract of charging our inmates to pay -- fund for their own services. and i think we can have a larger conversation about that in the long term, but i think overcharging our inmates to be able to speak to their friends and family which is a key factor in rehabilitating our inmates so that it can -- they can pay for -- actually it's a really great program. i have nothing against how the fund is being allocated. just to me doesn't feel right. i'm open to a continuing conversation about that, but at this point i'm not ready to support this contract. but the sheriff's department did answer all the questions i had i think to the best of its ability, but i think as a basic
6:16 pm
kind of -- my basic fundamental opposition is not to kind of like how the fund is being spent much although i do want the fund get to start getting spent down. i think the phone cards are great. i just ultimately don't know if this is the way we should be funding our rehab services for inmates. >> any further discussion? supervisor campos. >> thank you. thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the sheriff's department for all the information and i do want to associate myself with the comments from both supervisor breed and supervisor kim. i think, i think there is something fundamentally wrong with overcharging inmates. the question, though, for me is given that this contract is currently in place, i would imagine that we have an obligation to meet those obligations up to now. and, so, in that sense i can see why supporting an extension of the existing contract may
6:17 pm
seem -- may be appropriate. but i think that i would be inclined to support the idea of simply -- of not providing the additional extension so that between now and the time that this contract term ends, which is may, there is an opportunity to reexamine the issue and see if there is a different way of providing the service in a reasonably priced [inaudible]. >> so, i will assume at this point there are no amendments to this contract amendment? >> yes, i'd like to make an amendment that we -- so, the current one-year extension option is until may 31st of 2014. so, my desire is that we strike
6:18 pm
-- i guess i would want the appropriate language because i don't know if it should be that we add, that it would need to return to the board prior to the additional -- the ability to exercise the additional one-year option, return to the board, or if we should strike the particular line that gives the department authority to implement that one year. so, mr. city attorney, i don't know which option would be the better option in order to make sure that prior to the expiration of the current year extension, retroactive extension, which is the better way to go. >> deputy city attorney john give more. i'd actually recommend both, that you strike the language on page 2 lines 14 to 15 that provide that you are approving an additional one-year option exercisable by the sheriff's department and add a new resolved clause indicating that
6:19 pm
the contract provides that there is a one-year option exercisable by the city, that the board is not authorizing the sheriff's department to exercise that option in this resolution, and the sheriff's department will return to the board for authority to exercise that option if it chooses. >> so, that would be my recommendation to amend the resolution. and if mr. president would ask for a second -- >> second. >> okay. so, colleagues, on the amendment, is there any further discussion? >> supervisor chiu, if i may, could i address some of your concerns, supervisor breed? >> oh, definitely. >> i think that sheriff mirkarimi is just as concerned as you all are about the real dish what we agree to be egregious calling rates. these rates were established through an rfp process in 2009 that we've done well before this administration. and as you mention, we have ~ if this amendment is to pass,
6:20 pm
we have one additional year. our plan is to actually re-rfp the services this spring and require more reasonable calling rates. and we would be using that last year of the contract to potentially transition to a new vendor should a new vendor win the contract because of all of the infrastructure is actually owned by the phone company. so, it could conceivably take six months to a year to reinstall new phone lines. so, we are actually thinking a year in advance and planning to rfp these services out this spring and hoping to use this last year of the contract to transition to something more reasonable. >> okay, that's fine with me. and then next year, before the need to renew or extend the option, you'll have an opportunity to come before the board and provide us with the status of that and whether or not we need to exercise that second option. >> correct. >> so -- >> i hope to have the rfp out this spring and be in process before we return to the board so that we can show you that we're moving in the right direction.
6:21 pm
>> great, thank you. >> any further discussion? i want to just recognize our sheriff who is here as well, if you have any comments you'd like to make on this topic. >> thank you. what little i heard of our cfo, she did a spot-on job in exploiting i think the situation we're in. good afternoon, honorable supervisors, mr. president. until recently, this has been an unregulated industry completely. there has been no regulations on a national level and/or on a state level. so, it has been the motive of many of these companies to establish the rate lines that many sheriffs, county sheriffs around the country have been vying for and the profit of that is spent however it's spent. so, for san francisco sheriff's department, it goes into the inmate welfare fund. and without there being any general fund increase on programming, that's exactly how
6:22 pm
programming would be best supported for in-custody needs. any notion of us not supplying those programs because they would -- there would be something i think counter intuitive inmates through the use of the rate cards not going to fund those, then i would certainly welcome an increase in the general fund that would obviate that particular need. but from a state sheriff's perspective, it's a great lobbying effort to make sure that these rate structures do not become regulated. i stand on the minority of that thinking and believe that there should be true regulation of this industry. and i think this country and the state has some room to grow. i welcome the idea that we rfp this in the next round to see what that competitive rate structure, you know, will yield. but the results, whatever those results will be, will still pose the same outcome. and that will be whatever,
6:23 pm
hopefully a more affordable rate for the inmate, still does not necessarily answer the question of the programs that are reliant on the funding from the inmate welfare fund that goes to what are some of our landmark programs inside the jail system. and i look forward to any kind of remedying solutions from this body. thank you. >> supervisor breed? okay. colleagues, any further discussion on supervisor breed's amendment? can we take the amendment without objection? without objection, that shall be the case. [gavel] >> and any further discussion on the underlying resolution? can we take the underlying resolution and adopt it as amended? same house same call? >> can we take roll call? >> roll call vote. >> on item 11 as amended, supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen no. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim. kim no.
6:24 pm
supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are nine ayes and two no's. >> the resolution is adopted as amended [gavel] >> colleagues, it is now 2:30. what i'd like to do is go to our 2:30 special commendations. we have a number today. i'd like to first acknowledge supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i appreciate the opportunity, and i am excited today to bring together a group of incredible san franciscans, incredible employees and members of the community who have worked together in creating a very historic document, and that's the san francisco health care services master plan. and if i may have those individuals please come
6:25 pm
forward. as you may recall in the fall of 2010, i authored first of its kind legislation directing the department of public health and the planning department to create a healthier services master plan that would serve as a comprehensive policy document that identifies both the health care services that are currently in place in our city, including any gaps in those services. this master plan is a tool that will help this board and other policy makers in the city and county to be smart, informed -- to make smart informed decisions about the critical health care needs of the city. the legislation also created a consistency determination process so that future medical uses seeking to open or expand in san francisco must show that they are meeting the health needs of the city before they receive any kind of land use approval. at the time this legislation was passed, the city was
6:26 pm
facing, if you may recall, pretty significant deficits, and we, in fact, did not have any money designated to fund this effort. and i am grateful to the department of public health and to the planning department for undertaking the very enormous effort in putting together a master plan without any additional funding. i want to especially thank and recognize director hes barbara garcia and john ram ~ for embracing this legislation and for directing their very talented staff to run a robust process to create the draft of this document. the group started the endeavor by forming a 41% task force, you know, san francisco way of doing it. 41% task force headed by dr. tomas arragon and rome a guy one of my incredible constituents who dedicated her time and energy ~ to make this
6:27 pm
happen. and this task force worked closely with both departments. it held 10 meetings between july 2011 and may 2012. more than a hundred san francisco residents provided input on the plan at these meetings. and i also want to thank all of the 41 members of this task force. the result of this work is a 182-page document that compiles a wealth of data and sets forth a series of recommendations that will help our city to continue to improve the health care needs -- health care access of our residents. if my colleagues have not seen the document, i would encourage you to take the time to actually read it and to see all the data that outlines the specific health care needs, not only city-wide, but neighborhood by neighborhood, and you will be amazed at what you learn about your individual district and the individual neighborhoods.
6:28 pm
next week this board will vote on a resolution that i've introduced approving the health care services master plan and i encourage you again to read this document. and my hope is that this document will be used by all the city agencies to inform decisions that clearly, you know, can benefit from the information that's provided and the recommendations that are out liedv here. so, i specifically want to acknowledge the following individuals who are here. ~ outlined including director barbara garcia who could not be here. you know, at a prior commitment. of course, deputy director collene [speaker not understood] who went out of her way to be here. i don't see collene, and heading this up on behalf of the department of public health. loraine [speaker not understood]. dr. tomas arragon. we have our director director john ram. we also have claudia flores, elizabeth waddy, [speaker not
6:29 pm
understood], don lewis, [speaker not understood] olson. and then a very special person from the community and someone who was instrumental not only in making it happen so once the legislation was passed, but actually just, you know, even working on the concept. you know, the idea that, that we in san francisco are the first city in this country that actually has a master plan that outlines the health care needs of all of our residents is something that would not have happened without the leadership and the tremendous work of roma guy. and i'm very proud that a district 9 resident was responsible for that. so, i want to acknowledge these individuals. i want to thank them and i see that collene [speaker not understood] who is the deputy director of the department of public health is here. so, i have certificates for each one of you. and, so, i don't know if any of you would like to say a few words. don't be shy. director ram. >> thank you, supervisor.
6:30 pm
on behalf of both departments it's -- it has been an interesting effort. i appreciate your leadership in moving this forward and helping guide us into thinking on this. as i think both director garcia and myself have said several times, this effort really helped us learn each other's line of work. and it was an interesting effort that way, if nothing else, to kind of understand how the public health department works and for them to understand how the planning department works and for us to understand the needs of the community around health care. so, we really appreciate your recognition of this. i just want to thank the staff of both departments who have done -- who have spent so much time on this and i think this will be a wonderful guide for us in the future as we review projects coming down the pike. so, thank you very much. >> thank you, director. thank you to your staff. from department of public health, our deputy director. >> thank you, supervisors, and thank you supervisor compass in particular for sponsoring this really important legislation. director garcia apologizes sh

32 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on