the majority of it is around supplies and making sure that the shelters is a safe and clean facility in which to live or to stay during their homeless stay. so, i do know that our shelter providers are in conversation now about what they can ask for in this particular budget period to increase their ability to carry forth all of the mandates. i think they're either 31 or 32 mandates across the shelter monitoring committee that they have to abide by. >> is that all? >> yes. [laughter] >> okay. so, do you have any questions of ms. crumb? >> i don't have any. >> okay. >> i would invite the three of

you to go and schedule a visit in our shelter so that you get a firsthand view of the report when it comes before you so you can know the lay of the land. as a matter of fact, our largest shelter is just three blocks away from here at 1 001 polk street. so, if you're so inclined, let me know and i'll make sure we schedule some site visits. >> can you contact my staff to schedule something? >> yes, i will do that. >> it's been several years since i've been in a shelter. >> all right, thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any public comments at this point? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> madam clerk, item 3, please. >> mr. chair, would you like to continue item number 3 to the call of the chair? >> this is item 4.

>> item 4 is to take an action for item number 3. >> okay. is there a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? >> so moved. >> okay. so moved. no objection? >> no objection. >> thank you. item 4, please. >> item number 4, hearing to consider appointing four members, terms ending november 23, 2014, to the shelter monitoring committee. applicant heather-lynn hoc kinds withdrew her name. we now have four seats and six applicants. >> thank you. we will be hearing from the candidates in the order they appear on the agenda. if deborah ann white is here, please approach the microphone. ~ good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is deborah mulse. i just finished up a term on the [speaker not understood] committee. i wasn't aware of the time limit for applying earlier, so, i come to you in front of you now applying for the seat available. >> just for clarification, i asked for deborah ann white. is she here? oh, i'm sorry. >> that's okay. she might not be here. is he she here? no. this is deborah mulse. i'll call john matsui if he's here next. i apologize. so, before i left the shelter monitoring committee, a couple of things that were discussed here today were suggested that i put in front of the committee, which was the staggering of the appointments so that we don't have a turn over every two years at once.

and you do retain some committee members that have some knowledge of what's happening and not bring people in just solely -- just throw them into the water without any swimming lessons. also, one of the things that i suggested were some questions of surveys which were kind of my pet when i was with the committee. and i'd like to make sure that they get implemented because there are some needs for some questions [inaudible]. nick suggested in front of you just a little while ago. i bring to the committee some service on the committee already, a lot of work with the homeless and different field, through feeding the homeless, also sheltering, monitoring sheltering the homeless. i was homeless.

so, if there are any questions. also, one other thing, [speaker not understood] supervisor cohen, is now represented on the committee right now. i would bring that to the committee as well. >> thank you for bringing that to my attention. i have a couple questions. how long did you serve? i served one year. >> one year. i came in on the middle of the term. >> you're a newbie. not as new as some of them. >> i understand. can you talk to me about one year's time some of the projects that you worked on? i don't know if there was enough time for you to accomplish anything, but what did you like most about it? well, like i said, my pet was the surveys. i kind of took over the surveys for all the -- i had over 100% attendance rate for visits, too, and did some investigations as well. but the surveys need some work.

there's a bunch of things that need work. and as far as accomplishing something in that year, there wasn't a whole lot of change in that year. it was a little frustrating, but it also opened my eyes to what need to be changed. so, hopefully we can do that if i get a pointed again. >> and how long are the -- how long are the terms? the terms are two years. >> two-year. so, were you filling out someone else's term? yes. when i came in, it had been -- somebody had left a seat, i think, vacant, and i applied for that and [speaker not understood]. >> okay, thank you very much. good to see you. anybody else? >> seeing no other, thank you. >> thank you. >> heather-lynn, are you here? heather-lynn hotchkin. okay. john mitsui. tony faataui.

manai burgin. hello, supervisor. i am a -- well, i've been in the city for a year and i have like pretty much basically been at the coalition for 10 months now. and i feel -- i mean, i stayed in the shelter, now i no longer stay in the shelter, but i pretty much basically know how it works. i can have some valuable suggestions that can, like, somehow make some kind of change, whatever. anyways, i kind of get nervous. >> take your time.

i've been in the shelter. i've been like low-income and help others that make it be stronger to keep myself grounded to know that this is not where i want to be at. like i said, i really don't know much about the [speaker not understood], but i mean, i know a couple people that been on it. so, i feel basically like the whole -- you know, the whole homeless act of the shelter type thing. so, i mean, i've done a lot of street outreaches and organized and [speaker not understood]. i can't really say. i mean why i feel like i should do it. i mean, it keeps me grounded. >> alrighty. supervisor cohen. >> how do you pronounce your name?

>> manai. >> burgin? yes, ma'am. >> good to see you. are you from san francisco? no, ma'am. >> are you are you originally from? [speaker not understood]. >> what brought you here to san francisco? well, i was looking for life changes pretty much. >> did you find it? um, well, [speaker not understood]. i'm succeeding. >> okay. i'm not where i need to be at, but, you know, a little more work i'll get there. >> how long have you been here? i've been here a year. >> okay. and how did you find out about this committee? well, i belong to the coalition. >> which coalition? the homeless coalition. >> okay. yes. and i know a couple people that did it and they've been -- they're like [speaker not understood] work with homeless people and they thought it would be a good idea for me to do this as well. i tried to do it before, but i had like a document. i was [speaker not understood]. >> so, are you currently living in one of the shelters now?

no, ma'am, i used to. >> which one were you in? i state at [speaker not understood]. >> okay. what are you doing now? i am like going between place to place, shelter things. it's not working for me. >> do you have ideas and things you'd like to change about the shelter? i have a lot of ideas i'd like to change about the shelter. >> okay. tell me one idea. well, like the staff attitudes, the way they treat us, like, you know, we're always down and out and they treat us like we're just nothing. >> really? yeah. like trash, like they walk on and it's ridiculous. >> okay. so, how long do you plan to stay in san francisco? until i set some goals that i have. i'd like to get stable. >> so, you want to make san francisco your home? yes. >> all right. okay, i have no further questions. >> any other questions?

okay, thank you. next speaker, raija freeman, are you here? good afternoon, supervisors. my name is raija freeman, and i am applying for seat number 6 for the shelter monitoring committee. i'm applying because i've worked in the field of social serve is he the last 15 years. most recently i actually was a manager at one of the shelters here in san francisco for hospitality house. i'm currently still with the agency managing the drop-in center, still working with the homeless population. i'm interested in being a part of the [speaker not understood]. i'm interested in being part of the monitoring committee because i had the opportunity for a little over two years,

been on the receiving end of all of the inspections and policies. so, i'm interested in working with the committee to better some of the goals and policies that the shelters actually have in place with minimal funding. so, with my experience, i'm interested in bringing that to the table, but also bettering some of the standards that are there currently. >> okay. any questions? supervisor cohen. >> thank you. ms. freeman, good to see you. good afternoon. good afternoon. >> i see, too, you have a residency waiver requirement. what city do you live in? i live in the city of vallejo currently. i have been a resident of san francisco for over 30-year. i recently moved out of the city. >> okay. and you said you've been working in social service here

for 15 years, worked with the homeless population. can you talk to me a little bit about the work you've done in the homeless population? yes. so, i've worked in the field of corrections. also i was a social worker within the corrections department. i also worked with probation. i worked with mental health and substance abuse, substance users. also within the shelter system of placing clients directly into treatment. i've done primarily mental health and then the last few years direct services with the homeless population for housing, treatment of all natures. >> and are you currently sitting on this body? no. >> okay. tell me why you're interested in being appointed. i'm interested because, like i said before, i managed a shelter. it is a very different experience on the receiving end of the complaint process and implementation of all of the

standards of care. so, i'm interested in being part of the body that monitors that and have a different perspective as a person and individual who had to manage that from the agency perspective versus an individual who is kind of coming into shelters and not understanding what all the work entails. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? speak to us. you have two minutes and please indicate if you support the appointment or not. great, i'm here to voice my support for ray a freeman. as she said she was a long-term resident here. and the reason i think she'd be great i worked with her when she was the shelter provider. i worked with her in my day job as shelter advocate. it is a long laborious search

to try and get people to fill the shelter monitoring committee seats so i think it would be -- the fact that she's actually asking to be seated would be great. like she said she has a great perspective being a service provider. she is a long time community advocate, hospitality house who we work with closely. they still own the shelter -- still run the shelter, i should say. i think it's important to have people of color. as single-family [speaker not understood], however the single adult shelter side, their perspective is definitely necessary on the shelter monitoring committee. i would definitely recommend her for seat 6 and also support deborah mulse as a candidate for seat number 2. thank you. i'm joyce crumb, human services agency. i'd like to speak to the nomination of raija freeman.

i think raija bring a world view to the shelter monitoring committee. she's degreed, she's professional, and i think she looks at it in a different manner because she's on the giving side of services that individuals are receiving. i think one of the things that nick said was that we need more diversity. we certainly do. 65% of the shelter population is african-american and we currently -- i think we might have one african-american that sits on that committee. so, i think the mere fact that when someone goes out to a shelter to conduct a site visit and they can connect with someone that looks like them, opens them up to being real honest about what they feel about the shelter and the things that are going on in the shelter. so, i do definitely support raija's nomination even with the residency requirement. thank you.

>> thank you, ms. crumb. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, any thoughts? supervisor breed. >> thank you. i did review ms. freeman's application and i found -- i was interested in hearing from her and i'm glad that i was able to. i think that she is -- a uncomfortable as i am with residency waiver requirements, i'm happy to take a chance on moving forward with this recommendation and i'm happy to support a residency requirement because of her work in the shelter community, because of -- i'm familiar with hospitality house and the work that they've done. and clearly we know this is a different environment.

and i really would -- i want someone who has the ability -- someone who has a history with this, who has an understanding and who has a life commitment to this particular cause. and clearly from her resume, from her letters of support, it's clear that she will bring that to the table. and she definitely has a history with san francisco, which i really respect. so, i'm happy to support moving her name forward for seat 6. and also ms. deborah mulse, i'd like to recommend that we move her name forward for seat 2. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i wanted just to give a little discussion about the reason why i'm interested in supporting ms. freeman and the residency waiver requirement. throughout the course of my

questioning, i'm trying to extrapolate the breadth and depth of the candidates' experience as well as ascertain their commitment to san francisco. and although mr. burgin lives in san francisco, like you heard in his discussion, just moved here from atlanta and has been in san francisco one year and he's working to find himself, whereas ms. freeman has been working, has been a former san francisco resident for 30 years and just recently moved out of san francisco. and also i think was able to articulate her position and her desire as opposed to in the previous items with ms. hernandez, who was also considered for residency waiver requirement. i am going to support the motion that supervisor breed is discussing and support ms. deborah mulse for seat number 2. and ms. ms. raija freeman for seat number 6. thank you.

>> before we make a -- finalize a motion, i'd like to see if we can accommodate all four of the people who came today. i feel like all four of them have qualifications that could be fairly positive for this committee. and -- because i realize if you look at what they apply for, it didn't work out. if you look at seats 4, 5, and 6, they're identical qualifications. so, if it's a matter of saying whether or not we want to move to a different seat -- i'm sorry, supervisor. ms. wong informed me that those item would not be heard today, seats 4 and 5, because they had not been posted on the web for sfgov for 10 days. so, i told applicants that because you had to submit your application within a certain

time period, i understood miss wong -- unless i misunderstood her -- because the vacancy notification wasn't on the web 10 days -- >> can you speak on the mic? >> yes, sorry. because the agency notification wasn't on the web 10 days prior to today's date, which is the 18th, so, wasn't there on the eighth, that people weren't eligible to apply for seats 4 and 5. >> ms. wong? >> mr. chair, the vacancy notice was posted on march 28, 2013, and it was my understanding that it was communicated to ms. casey. >> the notifications were quite a while, but that was only for seats 2 and 6. the first time that i saw it up was on april 9th and that's when i circulated it. i'm not opposing the candidate, but i'm just letting you know -- usually this item there are several people applying. but the committee specifically told people that the only seats

that would be heard were seats 2 and 6. >> okay, thank you. here's my thoughts for the four people that spoke today. there's four openings and i feel comfortable with all four. so, it's a matter whether we want to accommodate them for a particular seat. i think what we have to do if we wanted to is to ask ms. raija freeman whether she'd be interested in seat 5. and [speaker not understood] and there is strong recommendations for seat 4 ~ tony faataui [speaker not understood]. and [speaker not understood] for seat 6. i'm throwing it out there for a

discussion matter. >> clearly we've heard from candidates that were applying for seat number 2 and seat number 6. i think that's what we should opine on. if there was discrepancy and misinformation on seat number 4 and 5, we can continue those items and allow them an opportunity to come before this body so that we can more, you know, more fair and judicious way hear whether or not they should be appointed. that's my thinking. >> i guess my thought is when you look at the qualification for 4, 5 and 6, they're the same. >> i understand they're the same. but for example, tony fa tau aloe, he's not here because he was under the impression it wasn't going to be heard. he may be as qualified on paper allowing him to come to -- dais, microphone, talk to us about why he's a valid candidate.

i think we shouldn't rob him of that opportunity. ~ i don't know, supervisor breed. do you have any thoughts? >> i agree with you, supervisor cohen. i think my desire is to move the names forward that i originally mentioned and to continue seats 4 and 5 to the call of the chair, and that will allow for more time for the positions to be posted. and at that time, if there are any other members on this list whose names have not been moved forward, they can apply for other seat positions and we will hear this again at a later date. >> okay. in making a motion, would you like to also waive -- motion to include waiving the residency requirement for seat 6? >> yes, i would. >> okay. >> second. >> second? >> um-hm. >> with no objection, then, motion passes. [gavel] >> so --

>> we're continuing seats -- >> 4 and 5. >> 4 and 5. >> that was part of supervisor breed's motion to continue those seats as well. >> just want to make sure that it's clear. thank you. thank you for people coming and choosing to serve the city. and we're -- i guess, madam clerk, item 4, 5 through 8? >> yes, mr. chair. item 5 through 8 are regarding litigation. would you like to adopt a motion to move into closed session?

>> is there a motion? >> before adopting a motion to go into closed session, the committee should invite public comment on whether to go into closed session on the substance of any of the settlements that the committee will be considering in closed session as well as on whether to disclose confidential information. >> thanks for reminding me. before we entertain a motion to convene into closed session, is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on items 5 through 8? if there are, please come on up and you have two minutes. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is harry lehman. i've worked as a trial lawyer. i've done a lot of 42 usc 1983 work, for example, for 35 years. i've been deeply involved in

the issue with regard to cell phone hazards because of the deaths of four kliegsclose friends. one was particularly close, from [speaker not understood] of west some a. so i've pretty much devoted my life to this at this point. i in substance have seen that this committee is interested in objective study before taking action. i think you should be aware that there have been startling new developments in the area of peer reviewed science in this area that dramatically affect the whole fees motion in terms of the application of 42 u.s.c. 1988. and my job here to you today is to give you straight answer to any question. and in addition to that, point out to you that the general accounting office has directed the f-c-c to conduct a new study because of these indications which is underway now, which drastically affects the whole underlying scientific body of data with regard to this. furthermore, i am going to tender for you for your attention a copy and i have several here of the february

8th, 2013 letter from a board certified pediatric neurologist at the harvard medical school, strongly showing, which is not the previously perceived science, that nonthermal severe damage does occur. i have here a july 12, 2012 letter from the american academy of pediatrics. i have here a december 12, 2012 letter from the american academy of pediatrics and copy. and i have here the full harvard 60-page study. my request is first that i do think that this should be disclosed, but most importantly i think that this should be continued, just continued because there's been such a development in the peer review data that i believe that it would be improper for this thing to be approved at this point. that's all i have to say. i'll answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. any questions? thank you very much. [speaker not understood] cards here. arthur davis, are you here? and leslie [speaker not understood] is next, and james

johnson after that. thank you. i'm a scientist. i'm the writer on this book on cell phone safety. i was a professor at mount sinai. [speaker not understood]. i won the nobel prize with al gore and a group of scientists and i'm here today to tell you as the president of the environmental health trust why i believe that this law that you passed is very important. it has already had a major impact. the law being considered environmental health trust work with the supervisors with harry lehman who just spoke, distinguished attorney, ellie [speaker not understood]. it should send a message to you this is an important public health measure. last week i testified before the d.c. city council on the same issue. you actually have inspired the world. i have met with mayors in helsinki alone and people are taking up the message that people have a right to know about cell phone safety.