of a small number of severely ill revolving door patients who meet the extensive criteria presented in the law. i respect the views of those who believe laura's law has the potential to violate due process but i do not agree with them. it has no enforcement mechanism when the patient chooses not to comply with treatment. failure to comply with aot is not a basis for involuntary commitment. there's no question if laura's law goes to the ballot it will pass overwhelmingly and for all the wrong reasons. i think a public discussion of this issue will be devicive. i thank supervisor campos for his moral courage in supporting this law. although it is not on today's agenda, i urge the board to continue to create more supportive housing. without such housing

to provide stability for the homeless individuals receiving assisted outpatient treatment, your efforts today to provide treatment will be for naught. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, lisa marie from the coalition on homelessness. and sort of the most disturbing piece that i want to touch on, because i think that one of the hardest parts about this hearing is you are hearing both ends of the spectrum about how people feel how we should respond to mental health, the people that is most striking to me is this is not an alternative to incarceration. i think that is actually the emotional piece that we're really experiencing here. folks don't want their loved ones to have to go through more trauma to stand in front of a judge to be demoralized, to have to be arrested,

when things don't actually result in real healing and getting to people's basic needs and sustainability being met. so i think in terms of the criminal justice sector in our city and the moves we have been making to make sure we continue to lead the state and lead the country in alternatives to incarceration, that we continue to come up with slueptions to real issues we have been talking a lot about mental aelt and the way our criminal justice system is used to respond to mental health and in a way this sets back the progress we have been making in recent years. that's a real concern, that it's going to reduce the amount of money we are going to spend on our jails, and instead think we will actually respond to the real issues we are facing here that many people before me have aptly pointed out. i

urge you to think creatively how we can respond to a real mental health need. i think we all agree the need is increased accessible, afifrpling and harm reduction based services. thank you. >> thank you. (calling names) i want it offer miss wilcox the ability to speak at the end at the end. >> my name is sandra larson and i've been an advocate in san francisco for mental health clients, having been one myself since 1986. i appreciate all the work people have made to try to assist people, but what helps is love and kindness. >> excuse me, is -- can we

get the sheriff's office? is the lady okay? >> love and kindness. outreach. respite services, the use of peers. treatment services as they now exist as i know them don't have a lot of the capacity they need to be able to help people that have this intensive problem and they don't have the linkistic and cultural language and cultural knowledge incorporated in them. i am very concerned, i know i have a family member you would have to drag kicking and screaming from home and tie them down to it be medicaidd

-- medicated to be treated. these programs we have developed with the aha, these need to be put in the forefront and i feel that it discourages people when they receive treatment, i received treatment that was considered the best for me and was not. and it just turns the whole idea of healing around and in the wrong direction. i don't think you can force people to be healed. you have to love them. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is julian plumbador, i am the community advocate for the mental aelt association of san francisco. i have experienced over 30 years of mental health challenges and i

oppose ab 1421. i oppose it for many reasons but one of the most important reasons i oppose it is because almost by definition, ab 1421 is a matter of people without mental health challenges making life choices for people with them. the power differential in that cannot be ignored and yet throughout this conversation i have not seen any of the people holding the power even willing to acknowledge it, let alone address it. people with mental health challenges have been involved in this conversation from the beginning. we're here. you've been hearing some extremely powerful and compelling comments from people with lived experiences today. please show us that you are hearing us when we tell you how this affects us and what we think of this. for myself, my own story, as i said, mental health challenges for 30 years. i've been homeless, i've experienced

severe symptoms of schizophrenia, for years i had people trying to make decisions for me and every time they made a decision that they thought was right for me, it pushed me further away from recovery. the reason i am here before you today is not because of coercive treatment, is not because of forced treatment, it is because of recovery oriented options, options like peer counseling, peer outreach, the wellness recovery action plan. these are the things that empowered me to make positive choices in my own life. today i am employed full-time, i am a powerful advocate for my community, i am a passionate advocate and this is because of recovery oriented treatment options in the community. recovery is real and it happens when we are empowered to take charge of our lives and given the power to choose for ourselves. i urge you to vote no on ab 1421. >> thank you, next speaker

please. >> hello, supervisors, my name is claude lambow, i am with the community improvement district. the does support the adoption and implementation of laura's law to aid the improvement of many individuals with mental illness in san francisco. we realize this is a challenge often exacerbated by homelessness and drug addiction. through our ambassador program each day we connect with people in need of housing to many in need often turn down our health. we know individuals' lives are in stake, people like laura

wilcox for whom the law is changed. we believe it can have a significant impact to aid mentally ill individually. what we have noticing in the union square area are people literally decompensating on our sidewalks, meaning they are having breakdowns. the current system is not working. we are seeing an increase in aggressive street behavior, particularly against our ambassadors when they are providing services, trying to do outreach and just to aid toward the solution we are going to be hiring a social service worker to work with the city to help conduct our outreach and get people the services that they need. so we are in favor of laura's law and thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> good morning, i guess it's

still more thaning. my name is amanda wilcox i think there's absolute agreement among all parties that voluntary treatment is by far the preferred model. two, that laura's law, court ordered outpatient treatment, is for a very, very small slice of the spectrum of people with severe mental illness. i would venture to guess out of most people in this room, very few would qualify for laura's law. it's for a specific group of people and by definition of the law, they have had a recent history of hospitalization or incarceration or have made serious threats of violence. and to catch those people and get them into outpatient treatment while they live in their homes in their communities before they are once again incarcerated or hospitalized, that is actually very respectful of civil rights. just to clarify,

laura's law cannot force medication. what we have found in nevada county, it's a very collaborative process. offering the treatments voluntarily as the law requires is getting many people into treatment. the hearing before the judge is have very collaborative. small steps are taken, it actually empowers the individual to take some control over the treatment and agree to a plan. it holds the health department accountable. but individuals in our county who were opposed now are strong supporters because of the rights and the empowerment is does give to those with severe mental illness so thank you for bringing this forward. >> thank you, miss wilcox next speaker please. >> my name is brian sang and i'm a volunteer with the physician's organizing committee. a subcommittee of our psychiatrists and psych nurses and social worker membership

would like to see patient treatment implemented in san francisco. we're looking at this in the context of when physician's organizing committee weren't against a shutdown of the 32 bed psych unit at st. luke's hospital 10 years ago, not only did the county allow them to shut fa facility but we have also lost, we have gone from 88 acute in patient psych beds to 19 in the last decade at sf general hospital. we see nonprofit hospitals like sutter health getting $75 million more a year than the charity care they provide. so when it comes to assist out streeplt, this deals with a small subset of those with mental health issues and we see assisted outpatient treatment keeping people out of the court system and we see that as ultimately being a

benefit to the patients. the numbers speak for themselves in nevada f county. for the 41 patients they have applied it to, it has reduced hospitalization by 47 percent, incarceration by 65 percent, homelessness by 62 percent and emergency contacts by 42 percent. our membership is approaching this in the context of patients' rights. we want people to know when they appear in court it's a civil court, it's not criminal and again this keeps people out of the justice system and we say that with power comes responsibility. we want to see the county take more responsibility, especially with more money coming online at the state level for medical and behavioral health. cheers. >> thank you very much. next speaker please, thank you. >> hello, my name is matt

lobrai, i am a member of the san francisco police department. i have worked for the police department for the last 16 years. as a police officer i have had to respond to countless calls to assist those who have been in crisis. many times to get them the help that they need. there have been times, though, unfortunately, that i have responded to calls to assist people in crisis where it's too late. people have taken their lives, and watched members of our san francisco medical examiner's office call loved ones to inform them their family members are gone. i have watched siblings, parents, friends, feel the complete loss of loved ones. i urge you to pass laura's law. >> if there are any other members of

public who wish to comment please line up here on the side. >> i am deedee (inaudible) with the san francisco chamber of commerce. we support laura's law because it will help the most vulnerable members of our society get the help they need but for whatever reason do not access. it provides highly trained mobile mental health teams to those who repeatedly fail the treatment plans offered to them. assisted outpatient treatment helps individuals who is mental condition is substantially deteriorating to recover and stabilize, preventing potential grave disability or serious harm to themselves or others. the san francisco chamber of commerce supports the use of laura's law and urges the board of supervisors to pass this law legislatively. thank you. >> any other members of the

public wish to comment? chair yee >> thank you. public hearing is now closed. supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank all the members of the public who have come out and spoken and this certainly has been a very difficult hearing for me and i certainly share the concern, the passion, that everyone has. this is one of those things where as a legislator it's really hard to figure out how we can legislatively address the very complicated issues that are before us. but for me this is about trying to minimize the bad choices that can be made here. and for me the

worst thing that can happen to this issue and to the thousands of people that are impacted by it is to have something as sensitive and complicated as this issue decided through the ballot. i really believe that that would be a huge mistake for a number of reasons. and even though i still have questions about the compulsory nature of the treatment that's embedded in this legislation and i continue to believe that voluntary treatment is the solution, i do believe that i have a responsibility to make sure that whatever is done is done legislatively here at the board of supervisors and not through the ballot box. and it is for that reason and that reason only that i will be supporting this legislation with the amendments that have been outlined. it is

not an easy thing for me but i believe that in the end the patients and their families will be better served through a legislative solution rather than taking this matter to a political campaign that by nature of it being a campaign raises a whole set of issues and problems that quite frankly in the end do not serve anyone. so i want to thank again all the members of the public who have come out and spoken on both sides. i do believe that the changes that have been made address a number of the concerns and if we are going to have implementation of laura's law that at least those changes will address some of the more fundamental issues that have been raised as concerns. thank you. >> supervisor farrell.

>> thank you, supervisor yee, chairman yee, i want to thank all the members of the public that came out to speak today both in favor and opposed to this ordinance. i know it's emotional on many sides and want to make sure that i recognize that and i want to thank everyone for taking the time to be out here today. and obviously in matters like this there are differences of opinion and a number of things i want to talk about, i think miss wilcox spoke about at the end, what laura's law does and does not do. to me this is all about helping those who are most vulnerable in san francisco, those suffering from mental illness who can't get the help they need and especially their families. there are other benefits such

as saving resources and serving san francisco, but for me it's the family's stories that are most compelling. i appreciate there are many that came out today that have been able to get well on their own and i think those stories need to be high lighted and celebrated. every doctor i've talked to, everything i've read, says that's the exception and not the rule. i believe our city residents deserve better and deserve to have this as a resource. i'm proud to have the support and co-sponsors from mayor ed lee, i want to thank supervisor tang, supervisor yee and supervisor wiener. other members such as our

district attorney, george gascon, our police chief and fire chiefs who came out today. i think to me it's been really compelling during the course of looking at this, the numerous doctors and public health professionals and organizations that are supportive of this going forward throughout the state our california hospital association, our psychiatric association, nami, the suicide prevention association all of which sent letters of support. certain homeless supporters, the st. vincent de paul society, if possible we'd like to pass this to the board of supervisors. i think

legislation is better when done through the board and i want to thank supervisor campos for understanding some of these issues are challenging for all of us but i want to thank supervisor campos for your continued willingness to have open dialogue now on this issue among many others and similarly believe that your heart is in the right place here and in terms of wanting to improve what we can if possible. i do believe the amendments that are here that we circulated around, but we have here members of the committee to make sure what we have in front of us strengthen what we already have, keeps laura's law in place here in san francisco and really bolsters the implementation so as the wilcox family themselves mention and i think we all believe, voluntary -- if we can get patients into voluntary treatment, that is the best outcome. so we want to make sure we do that if possible and put those protections in place and at the same time have the back stop of

laura's law here in the city and county of san francisco. i want to thank my colleagues for sitting through this hearing, for their varying levels of support and help to move this forward. thank you. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you supervisor farrell and every single individual who came out here today. thank you too mr. and mrs. wilcox as well. i want to appreciate that my colleagues are willing to bring this to the board of supervisors as an ordinance instead of a ballot measure. as i was deciding whether to sign on to this measure and to support it, i really had to fully understand how this was supposed to work and i would have to say i will not pretend to understand what it's like to be in the shoes of someone who suffers from mental illness or who is a family member who is dealing with it, but i do want to emphasize that some of the i guess misconceptions that i have heard out there, i want to restate what

is in the ordinance which is that failure by the subject to comply with aot san basis for involuntary civil commitment or contempt of court. so that is something that i really want to make sure that i emphasize to the community out there. so again with the understanding that we are going to continue this conversation at the board of supervisors i am willing to support that. i also believe that as we move forward i really hope that members of the community, especially those who came out to testify today, really work with us as we implement a program like this if san francisco so we can make it better and we can support the community as much as possible and family members. so i would like to make a motion to send it to the full board with recommendation after supervisor campos's comments. >> thank you, supervisor. before that happens i think it's important for us to proceed to accept the amendments that have been outlined and so i make a

motion to amend the ordinance along the lines that were discussed during the presentation and specifically the idea of requiring that the department set up a team that actually provides specific services to individuals that also requires that the individual be provided services, even if there is no specific meeting of the criteria, and also makes it clear that there are very specific instances that limit the involvement of a peace, probation or parole officer and then no underscore the very important principle that the services have to be provided in the

least restrictive setting. so i make that motion. >> so there's a motion to introduce the amendments. supervisor farrell. >> thank you, chairman yee, i just want to first of all thank you again supervisor campos, i just want to make sure my colleagues are fully supportive of these amendments, i think it's the right thing to do to strengthen this, and i want to thank jeff montehano who spent countless amounts of time on this matter. >> any objection? seeing none, motion passes. so before -- supervisor tank, are you making a motion to -- let me make my comments.

i also want to thank everyone that's come out to speak on this issue. as i can see it's a very tough issue that needs a solution. evidently it's one of these situations where it's a problem and to do nothing is not acceptable. so i really appreciate supervisor farrell's attempt to try to do something. i also appreciate supervisor campos's amendments to this. it makes it a lot more palatable to myself. there's more than just getting a horse to the water here and i guess what i've heard today is part of the nonsolution that we have is not having enough services. and certainly what i do like about

this legislation is that at least there's a promise to get more services. i am not totally convinced, i see this as a mandate. i'm not too sure, i know the federal government and city government always have unfunded mandates. i would like to feel a little more comfortable there's going to be resources for this because without it we're back to where we started. there's a lot of mention of a solution to homelessness for this, and i don't think this is a solution to homelessness. i think when we talk about mental health we're really looking for the small percentage of people that really need this. we can't just have all these speakers come up and talk about the homeless population when there's actually a broader spectrum of people that really can benefit. i mentioned already my concerns about potential abuse for this,

especially for those who don't speak english. in the past the systems have shown that it can be abusive when you are pretty limited. i've heard of stories where you have a husband, wife, and you have a dominant somebody, either husband or wife, who speaks english and doesn't like their non-speaking spouse and all of a sudden this person is caught in a psych ward where they have no resources to defend themselves. so i'm really hoping this is not one of these situations. my preference really is to send it out to committee with no recommendation, actually speak to a few more people about those concerns that i have before we take it for a full vote by the board of supervisors. i guess there's two motions here.

supervisor tang? >> i second the motion to amend and also to send it on to the full board, item 8. >> so you are the tie breaker. >> as i said, i don't believe that this is the ideal situation and if i had a choice, we wouldn't be talking about this. but if we are going to implement laura's law, as i think is going to happen here, i would rather do it with the amendments. with the amendments i will support it. >> so the motion -- i will withdraw my motion. supervisor tang would like to -- motion is to pass it out of committee with a positive recommendation. so without any objection, motion passes. thank you. (applause). >> mr.