with what is going to be an exciting park. >> good morning, today is october 8, 2015, and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco, board of supervisors and my name is john alex howes and the chair of the committee and to my right is vice chair katie tang and to my left is cohen. >> silence all cell phones and electronic devices completed speaker cards should be submitted items today will appear on the october 20th, board of supervisor's agenda. unless otherwise stated. >> today meeting is broadcast today, by sfgtv staff, jessy

larson and jim smith and thank you for your service, madam clerk, could you call the first item. >> ordinance amending the administrative code to extend the sunset date of the public utilities revenue bond oversight committee for an additional three years to january, 1, 2019. >> good morning, welcome. >> good morning. >> and nice to see you all. this is holly, and wearing my san francisco public utilities commission, oversight hat and i am here today to speak very briefly about the extension. and as you are probably aware, the revenue bond committee provides, independent oversight of the bond expenditures for the puc capitol project and includes, the repair and replacement and the expansion of the seismic up grades of the city, water power and waste water. in fact my street on the road is being dug up for the pipe replacement as we speak.

it insures that the bond proceeds are spent efficiently. >> it was created by an ordinance, proposition, p in 2002 and it was set to expire, january 1 of 2013, the board of supervisors passed an ordinance in december of 2012 to extend the provisions until january 1, 2016, which is just a few months from now. >> supervisor mark farrell sponsored that extension as well as the current proposed extension which is the subject of this item today. the san francisco public utilities commission expects that bonding for the multibillion-dollar, capitol improvement program for our waste water enterprise will continue through 2020. and one of the main reasons, that the supervisor farrell and the sfpuc, supervisor farrell is sponsoring the current ordinance to extend it for

another three years, is because of this major bonding project for the waste water program. just very recently, on september, 8 of 2015, the san francisco public utilities commission passed a resolution, supporting the extension until january of 2019 and i have a copy of that for your record as well as a copy of the general manager letter in support of the extension. >> i am happy to answer any questions for you, and the other members of the sfpuc here who can help with that. >> thank you. >> thank you for your presentation and just a quick question. the waste water they are not reviewing the capitol work, but more of the financing aspects of it. >> yes, most of that work is funded through bonds that the

puc left and so our charge is to act as an independent, oversight body to make sure that the bond proceeds are spent according to law and efficiently as possible for the city of san francisco and so we are looking at the bond expenditure and not overseeing the planning and engineering per se. just the expenditures for those. >> and so, by 2020, we expect that all of the expenditures will be made for the current project bonds? that are paying for the complete waste water program? and we are going to be seeing, another issue, that will extend the oversight committee for it at that time. >> let con sult to make sure that answer is answer, mike? >> if you want to come to the, thank you. >> hi, i am mike brown with the pc finance. the waste water capitol program

that has been adopted has plans for the bond issuances and over the next ten years, to rebuild the waste water system. >> great. so we will see the further extensions of the oversight committee at those times. >> yes. >> thank you. >> that was my main question. >> great. >> do you have any other questions? >> i do not and anyone else on the committee either. and so thank you for your presentation and your service on the committee as well. we are going to open this up for public comment, any member of the public that would like to comment, come forward. >> (inaudible) >> any other member of the public that would like to comment.

>> the chair? >> i just wanted to give our clerk, the two documents that i spoke of. >> great, thank you. >> okay, colleagues. and this will be closed on the public comment. and item one is closed for public comment. and lies before us. tang? >> thank you i do agree with the extension of this and so at this moment i would like to make a motion to forward this out for the recommendation of the full board. >> i will second that motion. >> colleagues we will take that without objection. >> item two, please? >> hearing to consider the quarterly reports of the shelter monitoring committee. >> >> we are here to present the two quarters for the sheltering monitoring committee and this

is the background, and the committee initiative, established the standard care for the homeless shelter and also, established the shelter monitoring committee to monitor the individual shelter's progress towards the standards and it is submitted to the department of public health and hsa, and the resource centers, the monitoring committee consists of 13. and the mayor, and of which, out of that three, one is representative from the human service agency and one is a representative from the department of public health. >> and four seats are appointed by the local homeless coordinating board and then, 6 seats are appointed by the board of supervisors. and in compliance of the standards of care for the homeless shelters are initiated in two main ways, the shelter monitoring committee conducts the site visits to monitor the standards of care, and there were eight, and there is approximately, a target of 18

sites, per quarter, as the target goal. and then, the other function, the main function is that the clients can file a complaint and which we have the individual, appointments. there are two staff that support the committees which includes, the data collection, the surveys, and the support for meetings and trainings and the coordination the surveys, and personal interviews with the clients, and the clients, in their complaints. and so i just wanted to introduce you so that you knew that these, and the two gentleman, behind, and could you please stand up. >> and justin, and howard, and actually have been very instrumental in working with the shelter and monitoring committee in coordinating all of these efforts between, the

department of public health, and the sheltering monitoring committee and human service, agency and the shelter providers and of course, the clients and so i am going to turn it over, to nick, who is the chair of the shelter monitoring committee for the presentation of the quarterly reports. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we have what? there is three or two reports? from the quarters? >> it is one report of two quarters. >> here is a copies. hi, good morning, or afternoon, my name is nick kinora and i am the chair as they said, we are presenting and just doing our duty of presenting these quarterly reports to the rules committee. as required by the legislation and so these are the third and fourth quarters january through june of 2015. it is that the data is obviously, some what older. we are working on the current reports, these reports in the past have not been so because we have lower staff, and we have not been able and we did

not have many committee members and they are caught up and the staff is working on the current ones, in terms of this one, i think that the important things to point out would be, that we were lagging behind if you look at page 5, in the site visits in the third quarter. we only did 70 percent, 78 percent of what we were supposed to do, however, when we started to gain more membership in the fourth quarter, we exceeded our goal, and throughout both of the quarters we achieved, 97 percent of the required, site visit and so we missed it by un, and that was actually, they were doing construction at one of the shelters so we were caught up and missed it by one. >> and if you look at page nine, the highlight of the complaint and it is a jump from january and we had six complaints. however, in june, of 2015, we had 26 so that is a pretty expo nen shall increase, i don't know or speculate what it is for. why, or what it has to do is that we have better drop in hours and more staff

availability and more site visits. the availability of our services is highlighted more in the community and so they are aware of it. that is one of the causes. and then in terms of complaints, as usual, on page, eight, it sort of goes into how staff, and you can see the start, and the committee and last two or three years and the complaints are around the staff and facility and access and, it was around the staff, and as you can see on page 8, it is sort of, reiterates it a little bit on how the majority of the complaints were inequitable treatment of staff and, that is what we are supposed to enforce in shelters. that is all that i have to say on that. we are doing the work with supervisor tang and her office on addressing what is called, what we called the imminent

danger policy to besinger explain it, it is when if there is an incident of domestic violence at a shelter, a homeless family shelter, the perpetrater is denied service and asked to leave, and the victim or the survivor of the finance is denied services as well. and actually denied service from every family homeless shelter, it used to be 30 days, they changed it to 15 days and that if it happens after the 7:30 i believe at night, and they can stay that night, but will be asked for 15 days, and not be able to access the emergency, homeless family shelter system for that 15-day period. >> that effects the perpetrater, >> for violence or threats of violence and the victim is denied services because the rationale is that it is not, it is a public address so the people know where the shelter is, and the perpetrater knows that the victim is staying there he or she will be living

there. and so it is not a safe house. so the rationale is that they cannot protect that client, and if someone pursues them, they are putting the health of the facility at risk and ask them to leave that facility. >> and i guess because the other family shelters are public addresses too they are denied services from there as well. >> is there any place, where either of the victim or the perpetrater does get referred to either services or compliance behavior or shelter? >> so, we are, in the process of really trying to revamp this policy and we met with the domestic violence providers and hsa and shelters and we are trying to meet with the people in the shelter which is easy because we can go to the community meetings, but the people who perhaps have been involved in domestic violence or victims trying to get their input on it and to answer your question, the perpetrater can access the single adult system as can the victim, however if they have children, neither one

will be eligible for the adult system. and they will not be and the victim will not be able to go to the family system either. >> sort of puts and they can go to the dv shelter, but those are full every night. >> so the victim i was thinking more of a shelter and services for protection and the perpetrater, you know, ways that person will be held accountable. and receive services to help with their behavior. and currently, they are denied services and they have the right to appeal it through the external and internal appeal process. i think that if depending on the shelter in my day job i work with them through that process. and so you know, it is some shelters that you can work it out with them and maybe they will be able to work out a dv plan to go to the parenting classes or counseling, but it depends on the shelter f they were sticking to the policy they will deny that person services >> all right.

>> supervisor tang. >> thank you for your up date and it really great working with you, and some of the other city staff to trying to address this policy. clearly i think that as you can hear from some of supervisor avalos questions, there is a clear gap, when the victim of domestic violence and it came up in one of the meetings that it causes many people to not want to report these, because then they will actually lose their place in that shelter. i think that is dangerous, and i was glad to hear that it was the beginning of october that this policy changed a little bit so that it went down from 30 days of denial of services to 15. i still think that that is not good. and i would like for us to figure out ways to get that even to the lower or figuring out a way that they can access service or shelter. in some of the other format, and i don't know why it was that we were able to reduce it down to 15 days. but not further.

and so i do look forward to continuing working with all of you on the change in policy and seeing how we can help the potential victims. because i do think that it is wrong that if you are potentially the victim that you are also denied services. even if it is in the name of saying that you may be harming others, who are in the shelter, there are other ways that we can deal with that. >> i agree, 100 percent. and we definitely look forward to working with your office as well. >> great, thank you. >> supervisor cohen. what was your name, >> nick. >> a couple of questions for you. on the shelter monitoring committee, the hand out and the summary that you gave. on page 5, of ten, at the bottom, where it says united counciler mother brown, it says third quarter visits there is one and in the second column there are two visits and in the third, it says two, i just want to make sure that is a typo and it should be three.

>> it is a typo it should be three. >> no problem, you turnover to page number 6, now, the number of complaints. the number of complaints, i take that a little bit with a grain of salt. certainly, people complain about our offices and >> sure. >> and the council. >> but, next door it seems like there is 25 of them. which compared to the other shelters that is, that number is extremely large. 23 of those, 23 of the 25 come from clients. can you talk to me, a little bit about what the nature of these complaints are? and then the second half of my question is, then, it looks like the action item, is there are complaints that are forwarded to hsa and my follow up question is, what has hsa

doing, what do they do once they get these complaints? >> so in terms of the next question, the nature of the complaints i don't know off the top of my head. but we have monthly reports where we go over each complaint and what it was about, but they were about, treatment or alleged disrespect by the staff since that is what the majority of the complaints are. >> if the majority of the complaints that are by your customers clients are making a staff person, do you track to see, which staff person is receiving the majority? and then is there an investigation, because there might actually be something there, if it is, and if you see and if you are able to establish and see a pattern. >> so yeah, if we get name, and the problem is that sometimes, people don't wear that i name badges and the staff will not disclose the name and sometimes they don't know the name >> that is in violation. everyone should be wearing an id badge. >> yes. >> what do do you to enforce

the rules? >> the staff is not following the rules, how do you expect the clients to follow the rules? >> that is a great question, part of this complaint, process, and so it kind of makes a complaint if they are not satisfied with the response, we launch an investigation, and that is when we forward it to dph and that really, involves things like you know, facilities and the conditions of the shelter. but, the thing is, that is a great question, if the shelters are not following the standards of care, what sanctions are there? if you look in the legislation, really the ultimate sanction is to fine them and that is obviously, counter intuitive and sort of --. >> has it ever been, has anyone ever before? >> not since i have been here. >> how many investigations have been launcher *f launched in the last three years. >> three years, investigations, probably like 15, or more than

15 probably. >> more than one should come on up. and shed a little light. >> so, the site visits and that may be due to the physical client complaint and part of the process is that there is a one and one interview done with the client and so part of it as you mentioned earlier is to try to see what is the validity of the complaint too. and if it appears that it looks further investigation, then what they will do is they will record it and also, notify the shelter provider and see what allow them to see the complaint. and do a response and so we try to get a date and a time and a staff. also, it is forwarded over with hsa. to take a look at it. >> once it gets to hsa then what happens? >> they will have to comment on that. what we are attempting to do, is in our dialogue with hsa and shelter monitoring in our department is to take a look at

if there are certain trends or people. >> right. >> we will highlight that so that we can increase their chance on the investigation. >> because one of the difficulties of the standard of care, for example, is if it usually falls under something like, being treated with respect. and which is, and it is very, difficult if you have an incident of whether it happened or didn't happen. and so what we are, and we are recording who, and when and when we start seeing trends. and it is making sure. >> and how long have you been recording that information? >> well, for the last, at least the last year and a half. >> so this, this may be a little bit of a stretch n terms of a parallel. but when i think about the police department, for example, if we now are request the legislation that will require the officers to track a little bit more data on who is stopping whom. and if there is a trend, related to a badge number and we will begin to dive deeper. that is what i am wondering, if

i have before me, 25 complaints from just next door alone, is it one or two of the same staff persons, if that is, and --. >> there is a lot and, there has been instances where the shelter providers have taken care of that themselves. and have done the, there has been firings that have occurred on that. >> have they happened at next door. >> next door is going to have, you know, the larger agencies are going to have more complaints. >> believe me, just like the larger district has more. >> and more population. so i understand that. and i am not making the comparison against each other. a woman's place is a smaller shelter. >> yeah. >> and i think that the length of stay makes a difference. >> fair enough. what i still don't have a clear understanding is, what sort of hsa what happens next? >> oh, and i mean, joyce.

>> yeah. >> hsa. >> good morning, good morning. >> good morning, supervisors joyce, human services agency. and so, just a little better background. next door, has 334 shelter beds. >> okay. >> as you mentioned larger district more complaints. msc south is the next one, 334. and so, all shelter, and all complaints about shelters are forwarded from the shelter committee to the shelter. and they have a limited amount of time to respond. so they respond to the complaint back to the shelter monitoring committee. if in fact the client is not satisfied with that response from the shelter, then hsa does another level of investigation. and if it is proven that there are certain staff members who get more complaints than the

others, our recommendation to the shelter is that they do a more indepth investigation of that particular staff member either provide more training or follow their personnel procedures, and if it warrants, a termination, then they terminate. but we don't provide that information to the client because it is personnel information. >> i understand. >> that basically is how we follow through. >> so one of the things you said that is really struck me, on this list i recognized that next door is one of the larger once and then the msc south, and you said 324 beds, and >> msc, also has the drop in center, the 24-hour, drop in center where there are 70 chairs in which people utilize over night. >> but, with next door, has or

having, 23 client-driven complaints, whereas msc south only has 9. and there are probably most come parable in the number of beds that they have. >> that is right. >> significant. >> those are between of two. and you know, i am just, i don't know, i am just trying to dig deeper to better understand the numbers. >> sure. well, i can say that there are two different methologies in which the shelters operate. if you hear from complaints msc south is more strict. >> i see, >> with making sure that individuals follow through with the rules. so they are not apt to break the rules. and be denied services. >> whereas with -- plus, msc south has a drop in center, so they have two different dynamics and so they have to be consistent across the board with both populations. whereas next door probably not

as strict in restrictive, if you want to compare the two different shelters. >> where is this located? >> 1001 polk street. >> i thought that was the one. >> yes, correct. and then msc south is 5th and bryant. >> okay. so, i don't know, we might need to look closely and in what is going on at next door and it could be a management tweak. and empowering the management that is managing the site to feel empowered to be consistent and to be even handed in applying and enforcing the rules that is just what it sounds like. i don't know that much, or all of the details. >> believe me we have had that conversation with them before. >> that is good. >> i have a couple more questions. i don't know really who to direct them to. we will just. >> okay just try.

>> okay. >> for the inspections, are they are the inspections random? and unschedule? >> i am going to, that is dpa. >> okay. >> investigations, you are asking about ma'am. >> the inspections. >> those are about half are announce and half are unannounced and some are surprised. >> in the last two, quarters. >> that i am looking at it looks like, some there was a maximum of three inspections given for those that are kind of offenders. and there were violations in the third quaut and her then you went back and looked at them twice in the fourth quarter. and so, what i am just trying to understand is it can't be half if it is three. but, random, i am just, i am trying to better understand the culture and the methodology. >> according to the legislation, we have to perform four visits at each site.

half have to be announced and half. >> across an entire calendar year. >> yeah. >> basically once a quarter. >> yes. >> so some of these, some of these like sandwich shop is a small quarter, there were two because we were playing catch up. in the second and third quarters we were not and we did not have a committee and a lot of vacancy and one staff and so we were far behind on the site visits. so that is why the sites like that will be, and saint joseph and like they had two, and really those are just small shelters, and no problems come out of there. and so, i mean that is numbers probably are not for --. >> basically the code determines all shelters equally will get four site visits a year, large or small. >> but we will target the larger one, like the next door because we have a lot of complaint and target them and probably go more than four times. >> bear with me. two of my shelters are on this list. and i want to talk more about. >> just a question before that.

>> related. >> so we as appointed several members this year to the committee, and we have the full committee now. >> yes one seat. >> two seats. >> and there we are looking at that and trying to look at it and looking at what the seats are and one because of them is a woman, but a person who is homeless with a child under 18 and it is like, that is sort of hard to find. >> and staffing. >> full of staffing. >> yes. >> and when we the committee presented, and it was around the same time that we were making appointment and that was talked about as to why we were kind of behind and now we are caught up. >> yes. >> great. >> thank you. >> just real quick about next door, sperp cohen, it is a 24-hour, shelter and that may account, that you can go there in the daytime, and msc, they leave at 7 and back at 4:00 >> we are comparing apple and oranges. >> i get that part.

>> okay. so the providence, emergency family shelter, how would one resolve the issues and i know that all staff does not wear id and i want that enforced. and perp provided two blanket, and a lack of hand dryer and toilet paper in the bathroom, the linen issue remains ongoing but all other violations were resolved. but, how do we resolve the linen issue. >> so that, and i am glad that you brought that up. actually supposed to bring up at the bottom of the executive summary, the majority of the shelters provide two blankets and that was a laundry issue and it is not because we said that it is receiving sufficient funding to purchase, but it has something to do with the laundering that has to launder, the sheets, with sheets, and general or something, with dph, they can speak on it and it is

a logistica problem. >> for those small shelters that do not have washing facilities on site, our big shelters do, so they launder sheets and blanket and towels. our shelters that do not have laundry facilities, are contracted with the department of public health. so they launder every day, all of our blankets. but, sheets are a different story. because sheets are almost cost prohibitive because as nick said they cannot watch them together. so what we opted for were two blankets and not the sheets. so that has been the process probably for the last ten years or when the --. >> and this is in violation and

penalized for that. >> and the reason why they have to note it is because it is still in the legislation. >> sheets and towel and blankets. >> may i make a suggestion that someone, and do that. and as the work committee, we are sitting down with dph. >> and making changes as nick said, and they were short staffed, and without committee members this past year. so, making changes will be a first priority that we will undertake with them. >> and because a lot of things need to be tweaked because it has been almost ten years that this committee was established and there has been no tweaking to the legislation. >> that is the beautiful thing about legislation, it is dynamic and needs to be tweaked. >> i don't want to quibble on this, i don't want the shelter to get penalized unnecessarily when it is actually a problem in the legislation. >> now, no pillows because the

mats that we provide have the pillows attached to them. >> got it. >> and now what happened when the shelter is penalized, over and over again, and does it or do they lose the accreditation or the ability to run? ethe way that the legislation is written if they are found in violation, and that is through, we can recommend a penalty of, of fines, and fining them for a number of reasons. to my knowledge, it has never happened. >> okay. >> because, these incidents occur that could be remedied the next day but when they come back three months later maybe they are short with the paper towels or hand soap at that particular time. >> do they make you, and they, and in the shelters make their

individual, purchases themself and are they in bulk and the city buys it in bulk? >> no, the city does not buy, they have a line item in the contract to purchase. >> okay, thank you. >> and my final topic not question but topic. the site was inspected three times during the reporting period, and the committee noted violations including city and shelter materials not posted in english and spanish and a lack of posted emergency exit plan and no information, posted on where to access tty. and empty hand sanitizer and dispensers and no reasonable accommodation forms available and no toilet paper in the rest rooms and the lack of signage describing the case signage and accessibility and that there were no english or spanish

staff on duty that was a problem. >> at that particular problem is when the committee does not do, when they do a follow up. i am hoping to see, because we take these things very seriously. and i have a program manager that monitors this program. and then, follows behind the report, from the shelter monitoring committee. and makes sure on her site visit that these things are remedied. but when they go out again, some of these same things might be lacking and it just depends on what time they come, because, you know, they, do announce, and unannounce, visit and depending on the flow of the traffic of clients, in there, and those things kind of. >> i know, but i think that the argument carries weight when it comes to hand sanitizer and running out of toilet paper. that i understand. you know the high influx of use, but the city and materials not posted in english and spanish that is a problem. that is not okay.

and that is probably due to lack of oversight at the facility. and alack of appropriate, emergency, exit plans and that has to do with safety, and that is, you know, a critical and it is not the first time, even i know about these violations. and i am going to bring up the shelter committee. to find out what has been corrected if there is a corrective action plan if at all on the united council. and you know, i mean, that we don't and we can be very honest that it is not a shining example of a high functioning shelter. >> it is not a shelter, it is a drop in. >> right. >> they do serve a very, and they do provide a needed service, however i was on that site visit with the united council. yeah, it definitely dropping in, and they definitely needed out there. >> anyone sleep ining chairs?

>> we went at like nine and ten there were people dosing off in their chairs, it was a drop in, and 24, more or less for the people to take showers and do laundry. >> were these violations corrected, and the information posted on where to access the tty and the lack of signage and the case management and accessibility and there was no bi lingual english or spanish staff. these are big violations, not little, missing hand sanitizer, and so somebody come and answer, tell me. >> good afternoon, and so, just working off of our own personal memory. we did conduct another site visit at united council. during not during the period but described in the quarterly report, but the most recent quarter, that ended and they did address several of these violations. >> which ones. >> there is now an emergency, exit plan, and they do now have signage explaining where to

access the tty. and they do have reasonable accommodations in english forms and now getting a spanish version. >> are the forms given or expected to translate it themselves. >> those are not typically provided to them from the shelter monitoring committee. >> was the hsa, do you give them the forms? >> well, we can translate the forms. it is not a cost prohibitive for the united council, it is just lack of a desire to follow the law. >> yes. >> and then united also, addressed the issue of not having the signage and they do now have signage about that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you guys and, thank you for your report and i appreciate it. and that is incredibly important because we have got, fragile human beings, in our care. thank you, nick. >> i think that is it.

>> thank you, and thank you for your questions, as well. so we can open this item up for public comment and any member of the public that would like to comment. >> (inaudible)

>> thank you, very much. >> next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to share with you the city and council token policy for the shelters. and resource centers, on the black of it is the allocation, there was information request by the shelter monitoring committee about the token allocation, my name is will, bailey and i am a shelter client, advocate and former member of the shelter monitoring committee. however i am here on my own time as a taxpayer in san francisco. since 1976. so, as you see the policy states that clients in shelters and resource centers can get

tokens for a number of reasons. and what happens is that mta charges hsa for these tokens. so there is a lack of tokens in the system. clients are turned down even sometimes when the shelters do have the tokens. and they are entitled to them. >> and i think that it is absolutely ridiculous that mta has to charge hsa another *f and another thing that happens is that if you look on the back, providence has not gotten tokens for quite a while, yet, the clients who stay there, are entitled to tokens. what happens is the mta enforcement people know this, so when they leave the shelter in the morning, often, they are waiting to give the folks a ticket. it is ridiculous. i want you guys to look into it. we have tried to bring this up with hsa in 2012. and we didn't get anywhere. and it is, we live in a city where we can give millions of

tax breaks to corporations worth billions and we can subsidize a yacht for a billionaire to 210 million dollars and this is the policy of the city that everyone who deserves a token, and get one. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other member of the public who would like to comment? >> okay, we will close the public comment. >> just a question for mr. camero for nick. >> just on the discussion item about tokens. >> yeah. >> and it is that the monitoring committee has --. >> yes. i had forgotten to mention it. we do in your packets there should have been something that looks like this. and and the main findings is that we need to see is that more people are not asking for

token and more are asking for token and more people are unaware that there is a token policy in the shelter. and so, what we have more or less known but what this is sort of pointing to here, is that a lot of people, a, that there is nothing really letting the people know that tokens are available, and the staff a lot of times does not know the policy, and they are unable to explain it and the clients are actually being denied for not having the tokens or, maybe. and i do think that it is ridiculous as well, that the city is paying, the city for their own tokens. and it may make sense to just have these, tokens given by the mta or something, and i don't know how it will operate. and but yeah, we are paying like 24,000 or something, and a quarter or something like that we are paying, i think. >> okay, thank you. >> and yeah, we have been around the block already a few times on different departments

charging each other for services that are rendered to the different departments. and just a question for hsa, and then i will ask miss crumb to come back up. >> >> what do you see that we can actually insure that the people can be well aware that there is a token system and what can they do to help with that. >> that is the first time that i have heard that statement being made but what i can speak to is that they that live in that neighborhood is and not coming from downtown and they are taking the light rail and not saying that all of them are.

and the token, policy, is what it is, because it is cost prohibitive for us. and i know that this discussion, went on probably about five years ago, where we estimated that if we gave, two tokens a day, to 1100, and 24 individuals, every day, for 365 days. and it would be something like 86,000 dollars. a year, just to cover that cost. what, i can say about the tokens at providence, they are available to be picked up. but, a lot of times the, and as nick said the clients are, and their new clients and they are not aware of the policy, or they actually live in the bay view, district in don't utilize the public transportation, and would not need it. >> thank you, well, according to the chart, that was handed

to us, it is not just any one that they could receive the tokens and that the places and for the most part the majority of the places have the people saying that they didn't know that there was a national program. to me, it is like how do we get the information to people. it seems like we could be more intentional about that. >> exactly. what we can do is make sure that there is signage, posted in the shelters saying that if they need tokens and list the reasons why we have the policy, and what they need them for. then they know that it is available and who to ask. >> okay. >> and we will make sure. because we meet with the shelters monthly and, make sure that they have a supply of tokens on hand to pass out when needed. >> great, it soupeds like they do. but it is about the people

being aware of that service, that is available. >> okay. >> the other issue about you know, paying the mta, or this or that. and i guess that is what is most important. is that, both the departments are working well to insure that there is enough, tokens to go around for those who need it who are aware of the program. >> and then, the mta implemented the free passes for the seniors, and the youth, and we made sure, that the shelters were aware and they could help the seniors that are in the shelters and navigate the system in order to get the free pass. >> great. thank you. >> all right. >> any more questions? >> no. okay. so we closed the public comment. and we can probably close out this agenda item. but beforehand, just maybe a message to the shelter committee, just thank you for your service and also, the issue about tokens that it can be good to make sure that we are following up on and i appreciate the chart and informative. but if it is signs that one

things that is needed and make sure that it is in there and your help and insuring that will be great. >> okay? >> thank you. >> so, colleagues, could we go ahead and file this item? >> this is a quarterly, report so it will not be continued to the call of the chair. >> okay. >> to the chair to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> yes and take that without objection. >> item three. >> hearing to consider. appointing seven members, terms ending june 6, to the immigrant rights committee. there are seven seats and seven applicants. >> very good. great. and we are going to go out of order because one of our applicants and members has to leave early and so we will call

melba maldonado. >> hello my name is melba maldonado, and i live in san francisco for years however i now live in the east bay. i have served in the commission and for three years. and this will be my third year. i will stay one more year because for the past two years, we have been and they have it on the issues and our commission has had many hearings, and meetings, and

discussions with san francisco, immigrants from each almost each neighborhood. and we will come out with the support, of you know, the state of the immigrant community in san francisco. and for this year. and i wanted to serve especially now, because there are communities that have been under quite a bit of strain, not only because of the immigration, policies, but also what is happening in the communities in terms of housing, displacement, hel health issues, and recommendation and all of the different and aspects, that effects the, immigrants lives

and so i would like to continue, to continue the work of listening and presenting it in the community at the immigrant commission. >> great, thank you. >> what do you see as the places that you have had the most expertise on and your service on the commission? >> i would say that the commission has excellent members this year. and there is a lot of very, very dedicated and brilliant people at the committee. and we will lose cathy call and she is not coming in this year. however, i personally think that my role is or has been and will continue to be to bring the voice of the community of the (inaudible) immigrants in

san francisco. >> great, thank you. good to see you. >> and any more questions from the committee. okay, thank you. >> and we can go on to our next person, first on the list is edward lee, and i am not sure if mr. lee is here or maybe he is coming forward. mr. lee? >> hi. and good morning, supervisors. and my name is edward lee. and i am a child of immigrants who came to this country about 30 years ago. from south korea. and we came with little resources or connections or networks. but we came with a dream of becoming in this country and pursued that dream and this country gave them this opportunity to succeed. and they achieved their masters degrees, and their phds and are

now, professors in pharmacy and computer science. and as a child of both of these professor and these parents, i believe that and i know that immigrants have a resilience and an important value to the country and especially to the city and i want to be a part of this commission, because i would like to be a part of insuring that the next generation of immigrants get the same opportunities to succeed as they did. and to talk about my experience, i worked for two years at the u.s. department of education working to insure that all students, all children have the opportunity to access the world class education. especially children of immigrants. that are known as dreamers. i have and there after i worked at the u.s. white house. and serving in the office of public engagement as the liaison for the agent, and on the community and in that role i served as a bridge between

the obama administration and asian americans across the country and listened to the stories of the communities, especially the vietnamese workers who are breathing in toxic chemicals and the fisherman who are affected by the bp oil spill and the grossers and the laundry mat, owners and the business owners and i believe that in my experience, to be able to serve, the immigrants here in this city. i also believe in telling the stories of those that are marginalized. and with company, telling the stories of young people who are bullied and sex trafficking. and talking about the stories of education, and then, the importance of education. and specifically i will talk about the stories of immigrants and refugees who are very valuable part of our social fabric and these videos have received over 35 million views on you tube. i recently moved to san

francisco about a year ago because i have heard of the services and the organization here in san francisco called city impact. that serves the marginalized and the low income in the tender loin district of san francisco. and it was start td over 30 years ago, by an immigrant named roger wong who came to this country from taiwan and he believed in serving the marginalized and the voiceless by giving them services, and suches education and food services and i believe in what he was doing and so i came here to volunteer for the organization and it was through that experience that i got to learn more about the plight of the people that are living in the tender loin and the homeless, and the immigrant communities such as those that came from camboida, and so with all that have said, i believe that these experiences as well as my passion to help the immigrant community will be a valuable part and contribution to this committee. and i would like to be a part

of this. and really highlighting the stories of the immigrants and insuring that their voices are heard. thank you very much for this time. >> thank you, have you actually been to any of the commission meetings yourself? >>vy not been. >> okay. >> and i think that it will be good to do. not to say you know, i am interested in denying you because you haven't, but before you actually serve. >> yeah, a couple of weeks before that happens. >> absolutely. >> any questions here? >> okay. thank you. mr. lee. next person is andrei romanenko. good afternoon, supervisors. good afternoon. >> my name is andrei romanenko and i am applying for a seat on the immigrant rights commission and a couple of words about myself and my background, i arrived in the united states in

2001 from belarus and as a first generation immigrant a took (inaudible) to the nationalized citizen, and i have been a resident of san francisco for the past 13 years and i have graduated from the city college and the san francisco state university. i am a california license attorney since 2011 and i practice immigration law in the city. i do removal defense, family and business immigration. i want (inaudible) san francisco immigration court and asian caucus. this is my second time applying for this seat on the immigrant rights commission. last year, the district supervisors encouraged me to reapply. and i am here today because the russian speaking community of san francisco does not have a representative on the commission. the russians in the community it is unofficially, about 8 percent of the population of the city and the county of san francisco. and the official census data showed in 2010, that the

population and the russian population, is at 4.2 percent and the richmond district alone, is consists of 6.5 percent, speaking russian. and the community, new comers in san francisco do have some support but it is very limited. and there is a russian center that was a preschool and previously there was a library. and there was a jewish community center providing some legal help, and the esl class and low income housing information to russian speakers and those services are limited and have a (inaudible) membership and some russian churches have esl classes and provide housing. our community needs more social workers who speak russian at the schools and hospitals. my clients have told me that they have waited for hours for an interpreter in a hospital and they were not offered the interpretation. and also, (inaudible) providers do not (inaudible) notices in russian although it is possible

to request a interpreter over the phone they are not available, and no free help in the nationalization in the russian language. and speaking in san francisco is growing and i have noticed in my practice that the work (inaudible) is brought here and way for the seekers from the ukraine and from russia. and these people need help today, because they don't speak english and don't have access to jobs, affordable legal help and housing and medical care. and i held the russian speaking community of the city, for provide the legal help for the languages and do i referrals. proficient in russian and ukraine, and when the clients need the care, i refer them to the office of city engagement (inaudible) city hall. and the appointments to the immigrant rights commission will help me learn of the other service and opportunities available to russian speaking community in the city.

and i will be able to better serve my clients and to voice the needs at the commission meetings. >> thank you. >> no questions here, and thank you for your interest, and for coming back again. when you should reapply, i like the persist ans. >> thank you. >> okay, mario paz? >> we are an organization that has 120 year history. of supporting the successful immigration of the immigrant families. i am here in san francisco we

enencourage our bishop to support the rights not just locally but nationally, and we are tied to the national, policy network and we are really having a presence in washington, d.c. in trying to push forward come prehinive immigration reform. i first would like to also, really, highly support, the reappointment of my colleagues i think that they are great leaders and in the community and have worked hard to insure that we have a very ininclusive community in san francisco for all of the immigrants communities. is what we have really worked hard in the last year is a couple of issues and one that i feel and one of the reasons that i seek to reappointment is because i think that we are in the critical juncture here, in the locally and in the city. the sanctionary policy has been under attack and it has been

mischaracterized. and i think that it is san francisco has been the leader both locally and nationally on this issue. i believe that every, wave of immigrants, and throughout our history has experienced the phobia and been scapegoated at the end of the day, every wave and generation, immigrants have been able to be vin indicated because of the contributions locally and to the country to make it a better place. my hope is that the city will show, courage under fire and continue to say, that, this is the right thing to do. and that, i think, is the spirit that we have in our commission. and locally, we have also worked hard, to insure, language, access, and immigrant, immigration and continue to monitor and make sure that all of our cities sources are ininclusive and can really be open to all of the immigrant communities.

and so with that said, if that is sort of the passion that i bring to this work. and thank you for your consideration. >> >> thank you, just a follow up question, i appreciate you mentioning the recent attack, and the scapegoating that is happening at the national level and the effecting of the local level as well. could you be more specific about what you see as the threats to the sanctionary policy that is happening. >> i think that there is a lot of issues, there is legislation that is pending, you know, many other communities are sort of backtracking and looking deeply at the legislation, and i think that one of the issues is locally is really, going back to the spirit of how the sanctionary policy was created here in san francisco and it was really, insure that there was trusting relationships, between immigrant community and our city government and law enforcement. i think that it is, and it is a difficult, issue to put our local police officers in the roles of enforcing immigration policy. i think that is a federal issue. and i think that is the spirit

and the other spirit of it was to show that we are ininclusive and we know that we are a better place when everyone feels that they can be included and contribute to our great city. and i think that is, that is the issue. so in terms of how it is the attacks for the locally, is to put in measure,s that may be puts our law enforcement in a different role. and i think that we need to stand firm and say that no we want to have the trusting relationships between the law enforcement and the immigrant communities and i think that is the important message that we need to convey. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. >> next up is celine kennelly. >> good afternoon, and thank you, and i think that we have built it in the afternoon. and so my name is celine kennelly, and i am the executive director of the irish immigration center which is an advice and referral service for immigrant and i have been

working for the iapc since a riefd in the united states in 1999. and so i am starting to go into the seasoned, bracket. and i have served on the commission since 2012. and in the last and, in 2013, he served as vice chair, and in 2015, i took the role of chair of the commission. and it has been a privilege and an honor to serve the commission in all of those roles. in terms of my own background, i have designed and implemented and developed health human service and education employment programs, for those living in the bay area. and it has been, an interesting, role, and it has been, an expensive role and it has been, a non-, to serve our immigrant community and many who are undocumented and face the same challenges that, they spoke of. and in the difficult time span

on undocumented immigrants in this country, and the (inaudible) city is coming under fire and we need to have a strong voice, and a strong commission to make sure that we are represented and that our immigrant communities are represented. the commission is working and i am pleased to say, as a very, cohesive unit. and it is, a very diverse, knowledgeable, articulate, and (inaudible) commission and this year alone, we have held, three hearings and policy of life issues and addressing the housing and affordability, and economy and education, and the healthcare, access and civic engagement and we have schedule to have a district hearing in district eight in november, and i know that we have been, in it, and with the supervisor cohen to come to district ten and i think that she will be with the visit and supervisor tang you might be on the list for next year. i think that all five

candidates that are up for reappointment, and i would also have to extend this to the two candidates who are up for a new appointment, bring a level of experience, and knowledge and to the commission. i think the most important thing that we can be is open, and eninclusive. responsive, and collaborative with the community to bring immigrant issues to the board, and to the mayor. and that is what the commission has worked very hard to do in this past year and we continue to do for future. i think that is most of what i have to say. i would appreciate the opportunity to serve for another year. and if you so wish. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and thank you for your service and you have been very good resource as has the commission on a number of our issues that are before us or on the rights and language access. and affordability and so i appreciate your service.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, next up, felix fuentes. >> good morning, and good afternoon. supervisors avalos and tang, cohen i am felix fuentes and i am the senior (inaudible) of civic engagement and also the field operator (inaudible) district ten and eleven and, especially the (inaudible) communities that leave in those neighborhoods. as you know there were some kind of tension in the beginning in the district ten for the show (inaudible) for the cultural issues. and we are focusing on try to help all of those, and the community. trying to provide information all of the time either on

languages, or try to advice about what is out there. to be helped, and that can be part of the civic life of san francisco. and a little bit on my background, my colleagues have explained for the future and what we are working on. but let me tell you about my background. and immigrant, who came (inaudible) to this country in 1982. and my first job in this country was in the hospitality industry and specifically in the hotel industry. and right away, i noticed that the immigrants workers, and the need of the representation and the need to be educated about their rights and that is what got me involved in that immigrants are rights movement. and after working in the (inaudible) and restaurants and representative and dealing with the diverse workforce and especially the immigrant workers and the san francisco, label council and me as a candidate to represent, the organized labor in the

committee in 2007, and i have been a commission, ever since, and as a commissioner, i have served as a vice chair and a couple of terms, and also, chair with the committee and now, i am serving in the executive committee. also, i have been a member of various immigrant rights groups such as san francisco immigrant rights community and the national alliance of latino americans, and the communities, and the immigrant workers rights committee. and i am also, participated in the conference, of the immigration and the balance on immigration in the country and internationally. and also, in that conference and organized for the national immigration center and the california labor federation. as a person who came from (inaudible) in 1982, i now a citizen of this country and i have experience all of the (inaudible) immigrants. and for 25 years. i had dedicated my time to help

and fight for justice for immigrant communities. that is the reason. because i am here this morning in front of you. and to (inaudible) interest to continue serving or immigrant community. so something that i (inaudible) do with passion, and with education. because i will never forget my roots. and because i know that there is a lot of people out there that need to be helped reach the american dream and the reason that i would like to continue the commission. because i have been witnessing the progress of the commission in the last years. and in the last 3 years, we have become a very, solid body that have achieved a lot of goals and we need to keep fighting together for justice for immigrants. >> i just saw this morning, previous to this presentation, that there was (inaudible) in the shelter. for the language, access, and violations. and that is something that we are really focusing on. i have to say. >> very good. thank you. >> thank you. >> no questions. >> okay.

>> thank you for your service. >> last candidate is toye moses, mr. moses welcome. >> good afternoon. supervisors. it is nice to see all of you. my name is toye moses and i am talking to please support my reappointment. i have been commissioner for many, many years. i really enjoy what i am doing. and mostly, immigrant from nigeria. and i came to san francisco in 1974. and i have seen a lot of changes. and i have a very solid background in public health. and very knowledgeable, in public, confronting to the immigrants. and in san francisco.

like, probably like language barrier and employment, and health and housing and more importantly the stigma of being an immigrant. because like i said, i came here when i was 17. especially, you know, i had a lot of problems when i was going to school. you know? with them. and especially in the south. and also, colorado. so, i know since that was in san francisco, and it was for them and some of my ideas to helping the immigrants. and it happen to be a member of the african american. and i happen to be, you know, just to be able to help the people who are having problems. with a lot in the community and we also have it in the -- and it has been able to help the people who really need my help. and in the jail in the unit and

can see how some of the immigrants have been treated because of their language barrier. and so i want to continue doing what i am doing and we have some good, i mean, excellent, commissioners that have been working with now. and who have incredible staff who really, really care, and who really, and really enjoy, you know, what we are doing and we, we still have the good support and so it is always nice to work with the supervisors and with the mayor's office, and to be sure that the immigrants, they also (inaudible). and so, i am asking you to support my reappointment. so i can continue to help people who are, you know, really, need some help. >> we appreciate all of your support that you have been giving us and we want you to continue that. >> so, thank you. supervisors. >> thank you. mr. moses and thank you for your service on the commission. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> the next up i want to call up, the director of the civic and immigrant affairs, adrian pond i am sorry that i did not see you until i called the first person and i thought that we would have you come at the end, but welcome. >> thank you, chair avalos. good afternoon, supervisors and adrian pond, the office of civic engagement and this is a critical time as you know for our immigrants and not only in san francisco, but across the country, and because our population is over a third immigrant, and we know that san francisco is home to over 50,000 undocumented individuals, many of whom work in the service industry and help to support, the infrastructure of the city. and it is critical, that we have committed, knowledgeable and hard working, commissionerers, on the immigrant, rights commission and we, and the five incumbents and i would love to have them, be reappointed and they work very hard and they are probably

the most active members of our commission right now. and we have been working together as chair stated on the quality of life issues on immigrants, and particularly housing and affordability and we have been looking at some of the issues of immigrants who live in the public housing, and then, of course, working together, to defeat, the senate bill, 1814, which is an effort to eliminate the federal funding to the sanctionary cities by san francisco. we don't think that this is going to pass, we have to fight it all of the time, with the good commissioners and we are familiar with mr. andrei romanenko because he has volunteered at many of our citizenship workshops. they have lasted to up to ten hours, and he has helped with interpreter services when they need ited for emergency purposes, we are not familiar with mr. lee, but we will

welcome him on the commission. thank you, just the one question that i have is the composition of the commission, relative to, the, south asian, and the middle east, community, and the community, and i know the commission has been very, very diverse as i know that we have members, representing that part of the world who

>> i just want to be sure that is something that you are aware that the board is going to be weighing in on and have the commission involved. >> that would be great. >> and the commission has been supportive of the good legislation for the due process and we are also, encouraging the federal government, particularly, to engage with

the community, and because i don't think that you can develop good policy, unless you talk to the people that it effects, and that is rule, that the commission is definitely putting the lead on. >> thank you and now we have the new version of scom and that is that, and also, to widle away on the protection and so having your support is great. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> okay, the other questions for the committee, go on to public comment. >> i have two cards as well. so, linda richardson, and alma robinson. >> and anyone else who does not have a card can come in after them, okay, thank you. >> good afternoon. supervisors, avalos and tang and supervisor, cohen and thank you for your service. to the city and county of san francisco. and i am here today to advocate, and to ask for your

support for the reconfirmation of toye moses and has lived in san francisco and has heard about him and you know about his, and in the community. and in the asian american, community and definitely the african american community and he is an individual that has created many organizations and always, willing to be, a bridge, builder and always trying to make things, you know, happen. and you need someone, that can be a leader, in the immigrant, community and someone that understands your institutions and fairly well and that person that has served in that role, over and over for all of these years, is no one that has done it better than dr. moses. and you mentioned earlier about his medical, and you know, background and he did not tell you. but you know, to even

(inaudible) from that and moses for years has been working very closely with the ucsf and all of the medical institutions in san francisco, and you know, on the interns and we have a lot of the young of the doctors that have graduated and they are going to graduate and the medical don't the experiences. >> and they have said that taking this job it will be beyond the call of duty and always, reaching out. and so, hoping that you will reconfirm him, so that he can continue his leadership role and his services to the city, and county of san francisco and again, thank you for this opportunity for speaking. before you all. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, it is a pleasure to be before you, and thank you for your service to the city of san francisco. my name is alma robinson, and i

am the director of california, lawyers for the arts. and i am also speaking here on behalf of my husband, toye moses. and i don't want to repeat everything, that linda richardson just said but i would like to under score it and if his passion for service to this community. and he has so many linkages, across the country, and to africa, and he just got back from a celebration, of 25 years, of the rain of the king of his town ship, in nigeria and so he remains, connected to politics in nigeria, as well as here. and i think that he, he is a great asset to this commission. i know that he enjoys very much working with the director of the commission and the other commissioners. >> and i also want to speak very briefly and support your effort to maintain san francisco as a becon in our country and the rights of

immigrants. and the procession of due process, and for making us an example of how, on treat everyone as hum mainly as possible and i listen to supervisor cohen's concern about the quality of our shelters and the services that the people get. and it is how each week that the most disadvantaged of our community. and that showed kind of what a city and a community that we are. thank you for all of your work and for making this a better city, and a better home for all of us, thank you. >> thank you. miss robinson, thank you very much. >> the next speaker please? >> thank you, chair, as of good morning, and i am here, obviously, to first of all, come mend, the director on once again, putting towing, a great, fight and getting the size of the task for the commissioners to serve again. and also, two new ones, and to have 16 commissioners, and i

don't know if there is any other director out there who has to work as hard and it is a very difficult job to get the quality people and we have believed that the fundamentals are bringing in these commissioners is serving the long terms and because as an immigrant is the issues something that can't be done.