that every person that's living like that is not acceptable to me. i want them to be able to get well enough to make good choices for themselves. so i just wanted to say that. >> thank you, officer. >> did you guys have any questions? because i do deal with that stuff. thank you. >> thank you. so at this point we're going to open this up to public comment. i'm going to call a number of speaker cards up and please line up on the side here once i call your name. first i'm going to invite mr. wilcox up. next speaker cards, marty halloran, steven jaffey, martin fox. mr. wilcox i apologize, i did call mr. wilcox out of order, mr. wilcox is laura's father and has been a tireless advocate for laura's law. >> thank you very much for the

honor. for the record, my name is nick wilcox, i live in penn valley in california here with my wife amanda who because of the crowded conditions is in the overflow room, she's also put in a speaker card and would like to reserve the right to speak at the end if she deems that necessary. i would like to thank supervisor farrell and mayor lee for your steadfast support of laura's law. as supervisor farrell said, amanda and i are the parents of laura wilcox, laura when she was 19 in 2001 died in a rampage shooting while she was trying to help people with severe mental illness. she was working at the behavioral mental health clinic, i man named scott thorpe came in and shot her pointblank 4 times and she died instantly.

since that time we have come to realize, actually we came to realize rather early on in the process, that there are significant gaps in the mental health services system. we became involved with assembly mental helen thompson in ab 1421 which was eventually signed by the governor and is now known as laura's law. specifically we realized that there was a gap in the continuum of mental health services, specifically, as dr. leery pointed out, there are many individuals have severe mental illness who, because of their condition, are unable to recognize their condition. in other words, they do not realize that they are mentally ill.

am i --. >> no, please keep going. >> okay, i will attempt to be a little quicker. there are people who suffer from anasdiagnosia, the inability to recognize their condition and therefore will not seek services voluntarily. and it is this population laura's law is attempting to address by using a court order to get people into assisted outpatient treatment. curiously, as dr. leery also pointed out, there are very few requirements in laura's law as to forcing medication and enforcing people to engage in treatment. laura's law actually works because it relies on what's called the black robe effect. people, most people, are law-abiding and when faced with a court order will tend to

engage in treatment. laura's law has been implemented fully in nevada county since the year 2008 and i would like just to run down some of the results that we have seen in nevada county and they have been stunningly successful. of those who are faced with court orders, actually over 50 percent engage in treatment voluntarily through an iterative judge. the judge works with them, they get somewhat better, they engage in a higher level of treatment and get even better so there's a feedback loop with the judge to help people get well. in nevada county since 2008 we have experienced many fewer days of rehospitalization. rehospitalization has gone down 64 percent.

there has been a decline in incarceration of the people who are involved, that's gone down 27 percent. there are much higher employment rates, there is a decline in homelessness among this population, that's down 33 percent, and overall there is a cost savings in nevada county. for every dollar spent on assisted outpatient treatment in nevada county, we have been able to document in our county $1.81 in avoidd costs. we are very pleased that san francisco county is embarking on this project. we believe that you will have the same success that we have. i would like to thank supervisor campos for his willingness to engage in this dialogue on these --. >> point of order (inaudible)

commentary. >> one more sentence and i will be finished, thank you. i would like to thank supervisor campos and we believe that the amendments that have been agreed upon are very beneficial and we believe it will make this work much better in san francisco county. thank you. >> thank you, mr. wilcox, and thank you for all your leadership on this issue. mr. halloran. >> good morning, supervisors, thank you for your time. my name is martin halloran, i am the president of the san francisco police officer association. as police officers of san francisco we have a duty and responsibility to protect all the residents of this city. our duties often require us to respond to medical needs including those who are homeless and those who may be

suffering from untreatmented mental illness. for many of these individuals it is not the first time that they have had contact with the san francisco police officer. in fact, many of them are not only victims of their own mental illness but they are also victims of the revolving door cycle here in the city with repeated transfers in and out of san francisco general hospital or in and out of the county jail. this cycle is not only detrimental to those individuals who are suffering from mental illness, but it also diverts vital police resources. the poa strongly supports the implementation of laura's law because the services provided once this is implemented it will see greater community policing that this department is committed to and it will allow us more tools in the toolbox, that's been said a couple times already, to provide services to some of the most vulnerable members of our community. we

support the implementation of laura's law, we thank supervisor farrell for carrying it, we recommend the committee forward this to the full board. it has proven successful, as the previous speaker mentioned, it has proved successful in nevada county. it has also proved successful in los angeles county, we believe it will reduce violence here in our county. thank you for your time. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is tom o'connor, i am president of the local san francisco fire fighters local 778 and i am speaking here today to express our full support for the implementation of laura's law. as fire fighters in san francisco we have a duty and responsibility to protect our duties from fire and other emergencies but our duties also require us to respond to the medical needs of

others, both homeless and other individuals. for some of these individuals when our ambulances assist them, it is not the first time. we see them day in and day out. we get to know them by their first name, we see what street corners they hang out on and too many times watch them slowly decline in health and self-respect. it's almost as if you are watching them commit suicide slowly because they can't get into a facility that can help them out. this cycle that i speak of is not only a detriment to the resources of the department but more importantly a detriment to the individuals we are watching slowly fall into greater and grader disrepair. our union supports the implementation of laura's law because these services free up the resources of the fire department but also will help provide a community based individualized treatment that is needed by these individuals and mental illness is a very serious topic and many of us wouldn't, we

wouldn't go past an injured animal without reaching out to help them and too often many of us are going past injured human beings without reaching out to help them and if they can't help themselves, it is incumbent upon us to help them get the care they need. so local 798 supports laura's law implementation and urge you to bring it before the full board. >> before the next speaker our district attorney has arrived so i want to give him the microphone. >> thank you, good morning, committee members. i want to say i am in support and our office is in support of this legislation. no. 1, i think we are talking about human treatment of people that need different level of services and i think what we have done for too long is that we have incarcerated, we have dealt with people that really need medical support, we have dealt

with them through the criminal justice system. and i believe that it is now the preferable way. so for that reason we support it. but i think there are also many other reasons. in addition to the human part of it, i think there are economic reasons that make sense as well. i think that we can treat this population in a much more thoughtful, much more economical way, by having the ability to provide treatment when we can. i believe you heard other speakers already talking about the success of this thing in other counties and we believe the science around this legislation supports this. i think it's also important to recognize it's just another tool and i know people talked about a tool in the box so i will take the box out of my comment, but it's just another tool. it's not going to cover all the problems but it's certainly another piece of a puzzle in order for us to deliver human as much ass to a population that needs it sorely. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. gascon,

thank you for being here. next speaker, please come on up. ketara salani, bob bennett and sheila ganz >> hello, my name is steven jaffey, i am a lawyer here in san francisco, tomorrow is the 43rd anniversary of me being sworn in. i am also the father of a consumer for almost 20 years of mental health services. you are going to hear a lot of thought about beliefs and opinions. i would like to stick to what are undisputed facts and i'm going to make two points because i know my time is very short. you are going to hear laura's law criminalizes mental illness. that is false. there is nothing in laura's law with any tinge of any criminalization

of any conduct. it is no more criminal than our conservatorship laws. you don't here people with dementia or their families arguing alzheimer's or dementia is criminalized because the courts get involved in creating or enforcing conservatorships. laura's law is no different. it operates the same way. the second point i want to make, and this has to do with civil rights versus medical necessity, you are going to hear mentally ill people have a right to refuse treatment and medication. competent people have a right to refuse it. you heard a big word thrown around here, anasdiagnosia in order

to refuse treatment you have to be competent to do it and the people we are seeking to help with laura's law are not competent to refuse treatment because they don't know they are sick or they don't how sick they are. so obviously i could talk for days on this, if you have any questions i'd be glad to answer any. >> thank you very much. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, honorable supervisors, i am a member of the veteran's coalition. please recommend the board to vote to implement laura's law and don't leave our veterans to suffer and die on the streets. please place a veteran on your team. they speak their own language. there will be 100,000 fewer female and male soldiers on active duty before the end of this year as afghanistan winds down. the department of veterans affairs scheduling scandal clearly shows that it is not ready for the return

of treatment-resistant, treatment noncompliant female and male service members who are trained to be violent like me. the united states department of justice approved assistant outpatient treatment, laura's law, as an effective and efficient hospitalization reduction program in march of 2012 and that is another fact that cannot be ignored. too many california public mental health officials, however, continue to throw money down so-called mental health wellness rat holes which rely on the brutality of the treats to modify the behavior of people living with mental illness who are insight deficient that results in increased recidivism that is immoral and deadly for mental aelt persons like 34-year-old arrol

chong while we have the opportunity to do the right thing and care for those who have unselfishly serve our nation and need our help now. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors, john baisceros, san francisco travel association bt and here in support of this measure that would fully implement laura's law in the city and county of san francisco. we hear from our visitors that encountering individuals suffering from untreated mental health is often their most disturbing aspect of their visit here in san francisco and many ask why isn't the city doing more to help those individuals most in need here in san francisco. i think we all can agree that san francisco can do more to help residents facing acute mental health issues. these individuals deserve a better and more human solution than a life on

the streets. the measure before you today offers a compassionate and caring approach that provides families with an avenue for securing help for their loved ones facing mental health issues until they can care for themselves. so we encourage, we appreciate the leadership of supervisor farrell and the leadership of supervisor campos in finding a way to move forward and we encourage this committee to favorably recommend the measure to the full board. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> hello, my name is dale milfe and i think you all know me. i consider laura's law a right to treatment for those who meet its very stringent criteria and i have been advocating for this since 2003, before any of you were active in politics. to those opposed, before

voting no, please read the entire legislation so that you can at least make an informed decision. if you read it you will see all of the civil rights protections built into the law and understand that it will take nothing away from anyone capable of assessing voluntary services. it may be now too late for my own son. for the past 20 years he has been failed by the system. he suffers from severe and persistent scizo effective disorder. he is not getting effective care, his needs are nurse stabilized and is costing a fortune. he has cost medicare over $40,000 between april 3rd of this year and today and close to one million in total. he has accepted voluntary treatment but has never been able to consistently adhere to a treatment plan. i believe laura's law might have

helped him regain some quality of life. he now has stage 4 mental illness. his brain has suffered 79 acute instances of psychosis. he has repeatedly either run away or been refused admission. so i have been called hysterical and angry and yes, i am, my son has been denied the right to get better care and i don't want this to happen to anyone else and i want you to vote for implementation of laura's law. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good morning, board of supervisors, my name is katera timplan and i thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. i know that emotions are high on both sides. and we all care deeply so i think that's something that we're all on the same page of. and we all agree on improving

access and increasing opportunities to care for individuals. i think what this boils down to, the controversy that we all need to be fully aware of, is that laura's law, ab 1421, is about loosening the criteria of committing someone into treatment. right now under our current law for lps, you have be gravely disabled or a danger to self or others. that's when we invoke taking your rights away to force you into treatment. so you have to be gravely disabled. so any stories, horrible stories we're hearing, when it sounds like someone is gravely disabled, we have a current law that commits them into treatment. if they are a danger to self or others, the current law commits them to treatment and in fact that goes into the community also like the community conservatorship program.

the current issue is that we are discussing loosening up the criteria of when we take someone's rights away and basing it on past history and problemistic pessimism, that someone says that someone will be, another person will relapse in the future and if i can read just one quote from the jeff ry swan sun, professor of psychiatry at duke university, who gets a lot of questions if they can predict violence or not and whether we should take their rights away and basically they come down to the psychiatrists and psychologists are not good at predicting violence in the future. so facing taking our rights away on a prediction of the future is a huge civil liberties issue. so i hope that we do not implement laura's law. >> thank you. next speaker

please (applause). >> good morning, supervisors, my name is sheila ganz thank you so much supervisor farrell for introducing this bill, thank you supervisor campos for your amendments and supervisor tang, i live in the sunset. i am here today to strongly urge you to vote yes for laura's law, the right for treatment for severely mentally ill or assisted outpatient treatment. i am a member of nami my sister has schizophrenia and if her illness became so severe that she ended up on the street with no treatment, i would have devastated. she is a senior citizen

and of small stature. i would fear great harm would come to her. i love living in san francisco. it's a beautiful city, it is enlightened in many ways. it's time to lift our city out of the dark ages when the severely mentally ill went untreated. approving laura's law which assures the right of treatment far outways in my opinion the right to live on the street, starve, possibly be attacked or murdered or do harm to others. please help the women and men on the streets of san francisco with severe mental illness by voting yes for laura's law today. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> supervisors, my name is bob bennett, i'm ceo of family service agency of san francisco and the selton institute. our agency recently won the science to service award from the national

behavioral health council for our treatment, our voluntary treatment, of people with schizophrenia, many of whom are very reluctant to get into treatment. it's possible with the right services to get people into treatment, to diagnose them effectively and to remit their illness. before i was ceo of fsa i was a family member. we raised my sister-in-law's daughter, we had her diagnosed, she was diagnosed with adhd bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, psychosis nos and effective disregulation. she was prescribed antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilized, antiaxialitics, stimulants and depressants and when the doctors say, well, all she needs to do is comply with her treatment regimen and she will be fine, the answer is which

treatment regimen. mental health, even though it is improving dramatically, does not have the capacity to effectively diagnose prognosis for people in order to get them into treatment. secondly there's been a lot of talk about the science behind this. the science does not support assisted outpatient treatment. and there are two components to laura's law. there is the treatment component and there is the compulsory treatment component. the only study that i know that separated those two things found that compulsion requires over 80 civil commitments to reduce one hospitalization and over 250 civil commitments to reduce one arrest. we all agree that there should be a focus on these individuals but a voluntary focus will work and not take away anybody's civil liberties. >> thank you, next speaker

please. >> hello, my name is sally zinman. i am the executive director of the california peer run organization, it's a statewide organization for consumers, people who have been through the mental health system or diagnosed with mental illness. i am strongly opposed to ab 1421. you know, i am representing people who have been diagnosed with mental health issues. we are the loved ones and we are saying no to ab 1421. i think you have to listen to the people who will be directly affected by this

statute. it's one of the few times that i know of or maybe the only time that the customer is not right. secondly, i am always so overwhelmed by this it's hard to talk about it, about the scapegoating of people diagnosed with mental illness for the vial nrepbs our country. we are not a risk factor. repeatedly throughout my activism, which has been 30 or 40 years, every research study keeps coming up with the same findings that mental illness alone does not increase a risk for violence. we are not a violence risk factor. also in terms of incompetence it's just not accurate and research backs it up that 50 percent of up do not know we are suffering and want help and support. that is pk, this has been propeled by those two myths. it's a matter of stigma

discrimination but is so difficult to fight. as the last speaker spoke, there is an answer and the answer is committing ourselves to comprehensive voluntary services and doing the kind of outreach that would help people get into these services. every study that has been done that --. >> thank you, ma'am. we have only two minutes of public speaking per person. thank you very much. next speaker please. i have some more speaker cards. tim snarr, edwardo vega, who filled out two cards so really wants to speak here, david farillo, virginia lewis and marty english. >> good afternoon, i would like to have edwardo vega, the executive director of the mental health association, take my place and i will take his. thank you.

>> thank you. sorry to see one of the supervisors gone. my job here today is to try to (inaudible) something which i think is a big source of the problem here. at the association we are a consumer advocacy organization, we do not generally oppose treatment, we don't oppose services, we work very hard to provide good services to our community. what you are seeing here today is actually something that we should all be concerned about is talking about what we need to do to improve services in our communities. the mayor's task force brought together a care advisory task force, that task force did not recommend implementing laura's law, although we did, out of our 36 recommendations, look at examining the pros and cons. put briefly, and i think mr. bennett referred to it, the problem

with ab 1421 is being focused on as laura's law is not that it doesn't provide good services. the model for services is one we all would support, i think most of us in this room would support, positive engagement, the ability for families to be involved. i am also a family member. the court order process is the linchpin and the problem is regardless of the findings to the contrary about services and programs based on the laura's law format, the court order in itself has never been shown in several studies to have a positive effect on treatment. so do we want to do good things for our community? yes. do we want to waste public resources and time and energy fighting with each other about an unproven bureaucratic process to um pell people to services that are not working for them now? no, i say no, we do not need this, we've turned it back twice already in san