investigators, but we're willing to do that to make sure that san francisco remain a sanctuary city. it's crucial this legislation support the people in this city. we're all residents. we all need protection. thank you. >> ing thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor. my name is andy stone, the director of advocacy pangea services one of the organizations currently funded by the city of san francisco that provide legal services to immigrants and we're one of the three nonprofits that provides detained representation. detention, in fact, impacts entire families and communities. we have arrived a moment of great moral urgency and it's imperative take a lead and according to a new york study, 50% have lived in u.s. for over ten years. the fact of the matter is

that the detention actually has severe economic impacts and financial impacts for the family, and for the entire community. one study from the new york family unity project report clearly states that the program would generate nearly $1.9 million in annual savings to new york city by reducing spending on public health insurance programs and foster care services and capturing tax revenues that would otherwise be lost; right? we have to realize the impact of these raids is rippling through our communities and the people are afraid, afraid to go to school and afraid to would go to work and these ripple effects are real. according to a study in san francisco area, we had an ongoing gap in services for detained immigrants and to decrease this the community-based organizations worked with the public

defender's office to champion this initiative along with support of supervisor fewer. thank you so much for championing this initiative. it's extremely important, and we have to be bold and make a strong statement. we live in a very urgent moment. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor, thank you for giving this me this opportunity to speak. my name is trevor martin a proud husband of a beautiful colombian immigrant and record amounts of families sought sanctuary from their homelands -- these dockets move on expedited pace and efforts to process these deportation as quickly as possible.

we have a xenophobe there office and i.c.e. agents showing up at centers and checking ids on domestic flights out of san francisco. this community is threatened. their due process rights are threatened by the ability to find attorneys and properly present their cases in court and family and children suffering from these traumatic experiences and having little resources to obtain counsel. since late 2016 the sf immigration court has seen the highest number of families on these. statistics show that immigrants with representation have a better chance in court and supervisor fewer mentioned the study saying seven times. i found a study saying 14 times more successful. we need to protect those who

cannot afford or don't understand that they need representation. we cannot only provide sanctuary, but we must provide legal representation. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> translator: my name is mariam. we urge you to support the budget request to increase funding for legal support to immigrants in the city. as a city, we cannot just

say that we are say sanctuary city and not provide the support that we need. that we need to be able to take the real action, the right action to support immigrants all over the city. i also think as god says, we're born here. we grow up on these lands and we all have a right to live here on this land. we don't have -- we're not all fortunate to be born in golden cribs.

some of us have to migrate to other lands where we're not born to be able to survive and to live and thrive. and i think this is the right proposal to be able to support everybody and give everybody equal rights. thank you. >> hi everybody, my name is carolina morales and here as the harvey milk lgbt club with support of this legislation and think it's important to be we are sanctuary and not just say we're sanctuary in particular

for queer and transgender immigrants who come here seeking safety, not only from other countries, but also from other cities in the united states. it's very important that when especially queer and transpeople of color interfaith with the police at higher rates and that puts them at higher risk to be in deportation proceedings, and we need the public defender to be able oto have the resources to do their job and provide due process to erving. thank you. >> lelo supervisors. tom, a member of the city college board of trustees and here on behalf of all six my colleagues, all of us have endorsed and supported the legislation before you today. and more importantly, i am here on behalf of all of our undocumented students and their families. at city college, we have

over 600 ab540 students, those are students who through state legislation have been able to, despite being undocumented take advantage of in-state tuition here in california. our undocumented students are scared. they are scared that they or their family or someone that they love may end up as one of the 1500 people being held here in san francisco for detention without legal representation. that has a tremendous, tremendous impact on their daily lives, not to mention their academic performance. at city college, we're proud to be a sanctuary campus for our students. as a san franciscan, i am proud to live in a sanctuary city, and as an elected representative here in san francisco i was proud to stand with each and every

one of you on the steps of city hall after the election of our president, and to say, and to hold cardss saying we stand as one. i want to remind you we all stood there and said that and it's an opportunity to do more than speak, but to stand with them. i want to thank the mayor's office, and our philanthropic partners for finding additional funding, but to remind the board of supervisors, there is a difference between philanthropic interests having your back and the city of san francisco and public defender of san francisco having your back. so please support this legislation today. thank you. . >> good morning. thank you again for the opportunity to speak in front of this committee. my name is claire and i'm the managing director of a private foundation here in san francisco, half of our portfolio is legal services,.

in addition, i'm one of the founders of the legal service funder network, which brings together over 60 organizations in the bay area, all who fund legal services. so why do we do it? because we believe we actually know legal services is the most effective poverty-alleviation strategy dollar-for-dollar for every one dollar that goes into legal service funding, $7 is recouped. i brought with me social return on investment reports that document this advantage. legal service invests outweigh the investments in micro finance, early childhood education, shelters, food, you name it, legal services gets you more bang for your buck. how does to do it? it cancels debt. it sets up support payments. it recovers property. it helps avoid people being terminated from jobs and from homes. so for every dollar that you invest in this project, the city will not only save that

money in materials terms of people not come back for government fund buck i will see the money in the hands of the individuals. why is there proposal the right proposal? it's very simple. this is the proposal that will afford the people who are currently being detained the best possible opportunity for representation. these are complex cases. they take expertise. they take time. so pro bono is not the avenue to meet this need. why are the cbos not in the position to do this? as you heard before, there are only three legal services agencies in this community that work with the detainee population and have that expertise. [ inaudible ] >> i'm sorry, claire, your

time is up. supervisor yee has a question for you. >> you made a comment about -- there is a couple of questions that i have: one of them being maybe you already stated it, but earlier there was a presentation of the mayor's office trying to create with other donors private funding to support our efforts in the city. were you are part of that? and the other question i have, when you talk about the savings for every dollar spent, it almost sounds like a head start study for every dollar we spend on early education, we save $7 on the back-end. can you explain that? >> absolutely. first your question in terms of engagement, we have been part

of meeting since november, addressing this issue. because we extremely strongly believe that the two primary issues here to think about are partnership and capacity. we are eager to be partners in this project and work with the city in order to meet these need. and we're also aware of the capacity, which is something that every time i look at a grantee application, i'm always looking at the capacity for them to do their work and to achieve their outcomes. we know that the public defender's offices has the capacity to do this work at multiplier-level much higher than the ngo organizations. they can handle twice the number of twices that an ngo attorney can handle. in terms of the number you asked for before, when it comes to how do we know this? i have brought with me an example. this was done by the bayview-hunters point organization and based on

the metric created by the robin hood foundation in new york and able to show direct dollars saving and deferred dollar savings from savings that would occur from other clients not going through the same process. >> i'm sorry, i'm going to cut this off, this is public comment and not an opportunity to make' presentation and it's in repect to the other folks in line. supervisor yee, your last one. >> this is my last one. i will make it good. so when you looked at the capacity of the cbos, versus the public defenders and you funded cbos, have you? >> absolutely. >> have you funded the public defender's office? >> we as an entity are not allowed to provide funding directly to the government. so as a private foundation, we have to give money to

other private 501(c)(3)s. >> how did you come to the conclusion then in terms of them being able to serve twice as many people? >> so in terms of why our engagement is here because of the grantee organizations that we do work with. as you saw before, their interest in partnering with the public defender's office is why our organization got involved and there terms of numbers we're relying on the public defender's office for that information. >> thank you. we'll have to continue with public comment. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is ian figurosi and i'm here with evolve california, also a board member of the latina young democrats of san francisco. both organizations have signed on to this letter in support of this ordinance. and i believe this is such

an incredibly important opportunity right now for us to not just in san francisco, but in the struggle for the soul of our nation to prove here in san francisco that we truly stand for the values that we espouse. i am very grateful to hear about the philanthropic efforts that the mayor's office is making, and i think that will be a great supplement to this legislation. but it's not a substitute. and i think it's very important that we remember that we must defer to who is most qualified? and will be most effective at defending these immigrants? and that is clearly the public defender's office. so i urge you to support this legislation and really take a stand for what we believe in in san francisco. this is is an incredibly

important moment and thank you, supervisor fewer, for putting forward this ordinance. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jennifer worley and i'm here as vice president of american federation of teachers local 2121 and we represent the faculty at city college of san francisco. and our union fully supports this measure. we believe that it's vital to protect so many of our students, who are now living -- they are living in terror for their family members, for their friends, for their communities. and the day after the election last november i went in to teach my evening class, and i asked my students, do you want to talk about it? and they wanted to talk about it. and my students were crying. they had tears running down their faces.

they were terrified for their families, for themselves. and we made a commitment and i know all of you stood up a few days after the election and said, san francisco is here to stand up for our residents. we really need today to put our money where our mouth, is and to protect the people, those people who are live in terror. so please urge you to support this and my students. thank you thank you, next speaker, please. >> >> thank you chair cohen for ensuring public comment. my name is vanessa and i too with the organization and young latina democrats of san francisco. before i begin, something that i heard recently and you think all of my life, whether it's television or film, if you do not have a lawyer, one will be provided for you.

something we're recognizing here is that there aren't enough lawyers or folks to represent people of our own public defender's office and our county city-level. while we have a lot of philanthropic folks coming to defend this, it's really up to us and our county to kind of further these efforts. we're recognizing here that i recently looked at our own san francisco board of supervisors' website and our 20,000 -- 23,000 clients that the board actually the public defenders office is predominantly 51% african american and we have also other communities that it serves with all of these lawyers, really serving over 60 hours a week to really serve their already caseloads before we dedicate additional

units to the immigrant defense fund. so we need to recognize it's really all ben sugar that these communities are served, well-represented, and that we go ahead and put our monies where our mouth is. thank you so much. i agree with supervisor fewer, that i don't think any of us here are anti-immigrant, and we should really just make sure we can give the public defender's office sufficient resources to do the job they are advocating for. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dave roarec and constituent of district 1. i am proud that my city is a sanctuary city and i think this is the time when we can set an example for all of california and even the rest

of the country with the city defending immigrants who do not have direct access to counsel. an op-ed this week compared the immigration service with its expanded expedited removal playing great power in the hands of agents and abu ghraib occurred as the op-ed pointed out is poor leadership and now more than ever you need lawyers for immigrants as people as i understand it in the constitution, there is due process for every person in the country, and yet, i immigrants are not guaranteed that legal help.

i spent 30 years placing cases in pro bono and know what a difference the lawyers make. thank you. >> thank you for taking the time, my name is angel villas and i'm an immigrant and my entire family is immigrants and i can tell you firsthand, immigrants documented or undocumented come with one goal, to achieve the american dream. they seem refuge and come to work hard. immigrants contribute to our economy; they pay taxes. so there comes a time where you have to stand and be counted. supervisors, this is one of those of times. it is an immigration issue. therefore, it's a human rights issue. so please support this legislation. without representation, this particular segment of our

community are the most vulnerable. they need your support and i hope you provide that legal support and provide the funds. thank you. >> supervisors, ian lewis, restaurant workers and 80% of us were born overseas and our union pulled resources for a legal fund, but those of us in the private sector can't do this work alone. it's not just a matter of justice and humanitarianism and the money we're talking about is a drop in the bucket compared to the disruption of industries that depend on i am grant workers. immigrant workers. please support this.

>> hello committee members, amy aguilar with my co-workers -- listing co-workers. a lot has happened in the last two weeks. we see the new administration further attacking our immigrant communities and the definition of "criminal" has become very, very loose. we'll start to see priorities deportations forpeople of shoplifting and entering illegally, as well as not complying with the final orders of removal. we know that a lot of times that means family separation and returning to countries where people's lives are at-risk. and so for this reason, i also want to thank you for providing funding to various immigration legal organizations and community groups to continue to do the immigrant rights protection and work in the city.

but also, we think it's really important now that criminals is being defined very loosely, that we continue to support the public defender's office, who has the expertise and in criminal law and can further support our immigration attorneys in the city of san francisco. they also have the economy of scale; they have the capacity, and they'll be able to provide a lot of support for our immigrant communities. so we hope that you also will support the supplemental funding for the public defender's office. thank you. >> thank you, ladies. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. pablo from community united against violence in the mission district. >> i'm sorry, what is the name of the organization. >> kuus community united against violence. so in my mind i am echoing what has been said already. we work with survivors of

violence and police discrimination and for us it's a moment of intense concern for our clients. the majority of our clients are immigrant, monolingual, with cases of asylum and some undocumented and some had brushs with the law and some have criminal records. we're intensely concerned for our clients and for folks who call our support line asking what to do. we're not lawyers. we may connect you, but we don't have that expertise and i think what the community is asking for the city to bulk that up expertise and basically we're playing catch up. we're playing catch-up with what the previous presidential -- the previous president did of creating a system, and smoothing out that system that trump has now inherented.

n inherited our clients sometimes don't have a clue what their next steps are. we're not legal experts, but we're in the moment providing support to survivors who are also at-risk of potentially -- not being able to go and do a police report for domestic violence for fear that they are going to be picked up. this is where we're, playing catch-up and we hope this will pass. thank you, supervisor fewer. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. supervisors, and chairwoman cohen, i first want to thank you for supporting our sanctuary city and supervisor cohen's recent legislation regarding muslim registry. my name is laurel, i'm the secretary of the san francisco latina democratic

club, one of the 96 organizations that signed on in sunday of this funding. in support of this funding. i'm here today as a mother and grandmother and care deeply about the individuals being ripped from their familis and communities. i'm here to urge support for the public defender's office to provide counsel. you may be saying let's wait and see what happens? but there is no time to wait. approximately 1500 individuals are being held in detention today. we're not a sanctuary city if we continue to allow this to happen. let's send a strong message to washington, d.c., that we will not look the other way, when members of our community are detained. please send this budget request to the board with

your full support. to delay this request puts human lives at-risk. we're better than this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor. any name is josé munuz and that was my wife who just spoke to you. i want to talk to you about a simple issue here. it's a human rights issue, plain and simple. if we don't support the people here that are here either legally or illegally, it makes no difference. i hold here the universal declaration of human rights. and if there it says you have to have lawyers representing you, if you an immigrant, plain and simple and the mayor trying to get funding from the businesses you could have start a gofundme and would have easily gotten the money for immigrants.

so i urge support and i hope it passes the board of supervisors. >> next speaker. >> thank you for this public comment. my name is tammy bryant, resident of district 5, and i took the time off from work today, because this is that important. as a private citizen, who was once married to of a salvadoran who fled the civil war, and as someone who works with primarily spanish-speaking immigrants and know how deeply there is is impacting the community. they are fleeing death in their homelands that they love and we owe it to them to give them legal representation and protection. i'm here in full support of fully funding universal representation and i'm so heartbroken it's already march and this is still not settled. every day that we delay, theplore people will suffer

devastating consequences. so please support universal preparation and thank you, supervisor fewer for this legislation. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i'm here to strongly urge support for this funding legislation. have you guys ever stepped into an immigration courtroom? i have and i have done it several times for different family friends and loved ones. it's a terrifying experience when your family or your friends or loved ones are on the line and you don't know if they are going to make it back after that proceeding? for me, sorry -- -- i realize my friends and familis and loved ones were in a position of privilege,

because they had attorneys. whether when i was in the courtroom, i realized the majority of folks didn't have legal representation and i was heartbroken. please support this legislation and everyone person in this proceeding should have representation and please realized that every dollar that you add or cut to this legislation means life-and-death to some of our most vulnerable. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is laura sanchez and i'm the legal director of the central american center located in heart of mission. i am here to request and support the public defenders funding. just to give you some information, every day at the office, if you go by cesar chavez and mission there is a line of people waiting for our consultations and this line begins at 9:00 a.m.

i have gone in earlier and it's there at 8:00 a.m. and what these individuals are looking for is representation and looking for other types of benefit, but the majority are representation. these are individuals that are afraid of what ifs? they come to my door also looking for representation of those loved ones currently detained and the expertise of public defenders 's office will allow support and we urge you to support this increased funding for the public defenders officer. thank you so much. >> thank you i'm here in duel capacity as legal director for gender studies at hastings and a member of execute committee of the bernal heights democratic club and both rassing in full support of the maximum amount of funding for the public defender. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. supervisor tang, supervisor fewer, who is in my district and supervisor cohen and supervisor yee, my name is michelle tong and work with the san francisco public defender's office. and this issue touches every aspect of my life essentially. i'm a child of immigrant parents as supervisor tang. i was a paralegal for immigrants rights project and i was the one with the support staff. i met with people's family members and did intakes and prepared voluminous packages to be submitted to the immigration court and anyone in immigration laws know we're talking about filings this thick, inches and that is what support staff did and we were on the front lines.

at the lawyer committee for civil rights has been doing this work for over 30 years and things have not changed 20 years ago and even know. like the young lady before me asked, do you have a lawyer to go to immigration court for me because the families get a lawyer from ins saying that you have an appointment to face removal proceedings. so they need a lawyer and we have been giving the one page same piece of paper calling these people and it's the same 10-20 people that immigrants have been calling for the last 10-20 years and i am asking that you push this budget proposal through. the public defender's office, my office, we are the best law firm that money cannot buy. and francisco, he -- he cannot do it all himself. we need lawyers. we need support staff. because he has to drive to richmond and kearney street and as a paralegal in my office as well -- we need

all of these services. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is leila, and i'm a board member of the san francisco women's political committee and i'm here today representing mission neighborhood centers and we urge you to support full funding of legal immigrant defense through the public defenders office. we have eleven sites across san francisco, and as an actively engaged community center nonprofit and having a long standing relationship with the immigrant community and compels the board of supervisors to protect these individuals. san francisco has a long history of welcoming these individualss and these residents have enriched our community as our neighbors.

the students, working professionals, religious and other leaders that shape san francisco in the city that we know and love. we have a moral imperative and rejects unjust policies you will immigrants should be awarded rights to a fair, speedy and public trail. trial. the san francisco public 13:01:57 trial. defender's office is best speedy and public trail. 13:01:57 trial. speedy and public trail. 13:01:57 trial. 13:01:59 the san francisco public 13:02:04 defender's office is best defender's office is best defender's office is best defender's office is best defender's office is best defender's office is best

(speaker not understood) >> thank you sandy for putting forth this legislation and urge to support funding and believe that the public defender's office has the experience and know-how. it's a human rights issue and i believe every immigrant should have representation. if we have the public defender's office doing this now, we should continue doing it and not stopping in in way. san francisco is a sanctuary city. we all voted for that. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is maria guien and by way of honoring the previous speakers that were so eloquent, i will keep my comments very simple. the sanctuary movement is

growing. thank you san francisco for being in the forefront of you have shown your best side and inspired others by your leadership, but you now being challenged to show the depth of your humanity? does your generosity stop at the most critical moment? do your principles for protecting immigrant families take an abrut stop with budget constraints? especially when we have a sound proposal to fund the sf public defender's office to provide scales of justice we hope not, because who wins if we fail ourselves? only those who want to impose barriers, build walls and deny a just world.

>> thank you. anyone else wishing for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ] . >> supervisor yee. >> clarification, supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer. >> what i have in front of me, is this yours? >> that is from the controller's office. it's from me though, but from the controller's office. >> okay. i thought earlier, when we started this item, you had suggested that you wanted to allow for whatever savings the public deferreds office public defenders office to

allow them to staff up to the numbers this year, which are eight? >> yes. >> which includes the attorney, four other attorneys and legal assistant and one senior legal process person. >> that is correct, supervisor. >> and the other part, you eliminated the supplemental, is that what you said? >> that is correct, supervisor. >> i would like to make a motion to accept the suggestion by supervisor fewer of staffing pattern that i'm seeing here, that could be paid out of the savings that the public defender's office has already identified for this year, and to get rid of the supplemental piece. that is my motion. >> all right. there is a motion. is there a second to that motion?

motion fails [ gavel ] supervisor tang. >> thank you. i didn't want to second yet because i wanted to say a few words first. i want to extend my huge gratitude to everyone who came out, the public defender's office and the organizations and the pioneers of this work in san francisco in terms of the legal representation, now bringing that forth to the public defender's office. i have so much respect for everything that you do, because you have to exercise so much compassion to serve a community, when a lot of other people probably wouldn't care so much for them. and you know, immigration courts, although they are a civil -- it's a civil setting, it's feels like a criminal setting. and so of course, sitting in there, we want people to have representation. and i think everything that everyone came up here to say, i absolutely agree with. in my opinion, i heard a lot of comments about we need to put our money where our mouth is, and i actually do

believe that san francisco has done that. we spend more per capita, compared to any other city in the united states to help support our immigrant communities, whether it's regarding legal defense, other education outreach services. we're doing that and as i mentioned at the last hearing, spending $6.8 million on ongoing basis, $6.8 million on ongoing basis to support our immigrant community is something that our board of supervisors supported unanimously, and i mentioned this time and time again, i don't support supplementals, but i supported that. the other thing is that i heard comments about we don't want to delay this. actually, my issue is not with what the public defender's office because i agree and we didn't even need the aso amendment. so i want to put that very clear on the record, that we could have done that. i know there is a bit of

consternation not to delay the funding and our budget season around the corner and to give the public defender's office to get your units up and running until the end of the fiscal year, but and budget deliberations will begin. 90 days per chair cohen. i support the public defender's office and what you were trying to do and were other ways to approach this from a budgeting perspective. the other thing that i want to bring up is that based on the budget analyst's analysis of the other counties they were contracting out for the work and we're here taking you astand to say i want to staff up the office and i don't care that we're going

to represent people from outside of san francisco. i did not have a disagreement with that. i simply wanted to know the data and the accuracy of the facts presented. so all that to say that we're very much in agreement. we're puting our money where our mouth is. we're not trying to delay anything. i want to give you the staff right now to begin, and of course, i would like to also go to the mayor's office, and get their commitment on record. but my idea was to give your office right now two attorneys and one legal assistant to carry through for the duration of this current fiscal year and then when we have our budget deliberations in about 90 days, we can discuss how we want is to staff up permanently your department. that is all i'm saying. we were talking a lot about the mayor's office -- i know that there was some public comment reaction to oh, we need to see what other things will come down from the federal government from our trump administration?

what happens when dph over here, hsa gets up in front of us and the homeless department gets in front of us with there are other federal cuts and yes, lives are at take as well for the people that they serve also? we do have to take that into consideration. so in the context of our $350 million current deficit that we're facing at in very movement, moment, i think it's fair to authorize you to have certain positions right now to begin the work immediately. with that i want to get the commitment from the mayor's office that as you are going to approving requisitions, my proposal was two attorneys, one legal assistant, limited tenure positions until, again, the start of our budget deliberations for the next fiscal year.

>> melissa mayor's office budget director and definitely commit to that. i think it's totally reasonable they would also need support staff. so we can commit that we'll approve those positions as they come to my desk today, would be happy to approve them and to explain from a data and policy perspective why that is the right number. last time we had the hearing there was a lot of questions around data and we have gotten a lot of that data. what we have observed there were about 1500 people that are detained that do not have lawyers. of that group, we can't know -- the public defender's office has told us how many san francisco residents and i totally understand that. but the data that we do have has shown that us there was a report done by the budget analyst in 2014 when we were considering unaccompanied minors and the report showed vary of lawyers that found 15% were san francisco residents.

so when we move forward the undocumented minors proposal, that actually also had a similar assumption around 15%. we didn't say cbos you must turn people away if they are not san franciscans, which is not what we're saying today, but to allocate resources to make sure we take care of our community, our residents, people working, living, and going to school and families here first and then try to do everything that we can as we are san francisco to take care of everyone else and why the mayor is supporting the fund and getting the resources you in the door, right now using the public defenders budget today, we'll approve these positions. i want to say that is based on data and policy and it's the right move for today. as we have committed we'll continue to work with the public defender's office and it if there more need or seeing an uptick in the number of people being detained to continue to talk

about that. >> thank you. i want to pivot back to the deputy public defender's office to discuss the motion put forward. >> one question and one clarification on process and my understanding that supervisor yee was to make the -- i just wanted to make sure that is correct. >> that is what i understood him to say. is that correct, supervisorsee? >> on the process point because 3-person committee, no second is required for a motion. so if is supervisor yee's motion is on the floor at some point in the meeting to call for roll call. >> we'll do that. thank you very much for the clarification. i have a few comments that i would like to make and then

go to talking a little bit about the remarks. first of all, again, echoing the comments that we have heard earlier, thank you to the folks that have come out and dedicated their time. and i want to recognize public defender jeff adachi, who went to great lengths to ensure he was here today. he had to leave earlier to honor another commitment. one that he committed to prior to scheduling of this item. and i want to lift up and just recognize a man that i don't know well, but you have come to well in last several year, francisco agarti, thank you for your leadership on everything, sanctuary city, immigration, just exactly what this department needs. supervisor fewer, i want to say thank you to you, being

a newbie taking such an amazing effort on this item and i appreciate you not being afraid to grow in the spotlight. and i also want to recognize your hlc, who has also been just as instrumental and part of this entire conversation. also i want to recognize the aide in my office, yo-yo chan, talking to all the different stakeholders and not to be remiss, supervisor yee and supervisor tang you have incredible aides as well. there is enough aide love to go around. what i heard today from the advocates was very impassioned and thoughtful comments. and i want to -- i'm grateful for supervisor tang and her ability to always

surmise where we are today and how we got there? budget supplementals that we have taken in the previous last year, and that are dealing with immigration. from my perspective as the chair of the budget and finance committee is to take extreme precision when it comes to dealing with the budget. at all costs we need to avoid speaking in broad generalities because when it come downs to it, it's clear and precise language all the way down to the decimal point. and i am, as the chair, uncomfortable committing future dollars when we are such a world of uncertainty. president trump has already demonstrated by virtue of

the statements that we heard today, a willingness to beef up border patrol, i.c.e., immigration raids, and it hasn't even been 100 days yet. so it would be naive of me and this body to take his other threats not seriously. and those other threats are serious, because we're talking around $350 million. in frankly, home health care services, support services, homeless -- our seniors, our homeless community, very, very vulnerable communities. and i want to be cautious that we don't create a conversation that we're often guilty of pitting one against the other. to the advocates, i'm not going to be able to cast a vote to support the entire

request made and put forward by supervisor fewer, and the public defender, jeff adachi. however, i am prepared to move to try to move, because i'm just one vote to move some resources with a sense of urgence to the public defender's office, recognizing the existing backlog and impending sense of urgency. my approach is a little bit different than supervisor tang, what she is suggesting. and it's a little bit of a departure from what supervisor yee is suggesting. i want to put something out for consideration: i would like to table the appropriation ordinance. i would like to -- can i borrow your notes for a second? thanks.

i would like to propose three staff attorneys, and of that three attorneys, one being a head attorney. and two staff attorneys -- excuse me, a total of three attorneys and one legal assistant. this is for a limited tenure position that will be used with salary savings. and also want to recognize supervisor fewer's leadership in heeding my request that we not take supplementals out of line of the entire budget process. so what i'm proposing would allow us to get through this year, this year being the end of june 30th. and allow the public defender's office to make these hires immediately, and begin to ramp-up. i also would like to suggest that we require a report come

back to this body detailing the case load. i just want you to quantify these numbers that we heard in the presentation today are -- what i would consider to be round numbers and estimations. i would love for the public defender's office, when we in the next 90 days, when we begin the budget process, to come back and to be able to quantify your caseload? and i want you to justify your request for more attorneys? >> can i? >> sure, we can hear from melissa on that, miss white house. >> thank you, chair cohen and i have to say that right now, at this moment, the first time i'm hearing this and never has anyone asked me to far to this date, a head attorney verse another attorney and i haven't had a chance to talk to the mayor about this. i would be happy to talk to the mayor about this after committee and if we're not moving forward it's a requisite conversation and

there is no legislation to move forward and i'm happy to have that conversation with you. >> great, thank you. so i want to give supervisor yee an opportunity to share his thoughts. >> just you said three attorneys and one? >> paralegal or staff person, yes. >> first of all, thank you for offering your solution, maybe, to this and keep the dialogue going a little bit here. first of all, we want to have input, of course, from mayor's office staff and it understand the difference and although i think i'm

willing to bend more and me not being a lawyer or familiar with working in a lawyer's office, but what i would hate to see is that the attorneys not having the correct proportion of other staff that they end up doing the other staff's type of work. so i would like to maybe amend yours to suggest there should be two support staff for three attorneys, otherwise it may look a little inefficient. it's like if we didn't have

our legislative aides and what we'd be doing all day long? so to make sure that the people that are in the courtroom are in courtroom and not photocopying things. >> thank you. i can appreciate that. what is unclear to me at this point, what is the exact appropriate ratio? is it 1:1 or one attorney to two paralegals? i don't know, i am putting this to the committee members. and i also wanted to add to my statement, i forget to mention about the appropriation -- excuse me the salary ordinance and to see the public defender hire up to his $218,000 salary savings is that the correct figure?

>> 200,000 in salary savings this year. >> even? >> approximately, i think. >> approximately? >> yes. >> i thought it was a little bit more than $200,000. >> was it $238,000? >> it is, i thought so. >> i'm sorry, it's $238,000. >> that is what i thought. $238,000. so that there is some immediacy there. i see supervisor fewer and then i'm acknowledge supervisor tang. >> yes. so colleagues, i just want to thank you for having this thoughtful conversation and also considering further compromise. i think it really expresses how you have listened, and i think i have demonstrated a willingness also to compromise and also a learning process for me. around procedure and i understand and i want to thank the mayor's office for

their thoughtful comments. i just want to push-back a little bit about the amount, percentage of people that are san francisco residents and i want to say no disrespect, but it's disingenuous to say it's 6%. it ensure our people are taken care of, this is what the beginning of the conversation of dividing us starts. so i just want to push-back on that kind of conversation, and also how we frame the conversation? and also, i just want to emphasize that yes, we do support our san francisco immigrant community, because you know what? we're san francisco and it's what we do best, but we should. we have 44,000 people in san francisco that are undocumented and of course we would support them and i'm so proud that we do, but that support is not legal support

of people in detention facilities and i want to end last night, yesterday was my 60th birthday and this is the conversation i had on my 60th birthday and they spent the day meeting with their family members who are undocumented and the conversations that they have having. make sure that you have money in case you must flee immediately and take nothing with you, so you have a place to stay. make sure that your u.s. born children have identified someone to take care of your u.s. born children and those papers are notarized so no one can take your children away. while you are detained in these prisons. also, save money for bail. because you will have to get out -- get bail to get out of jail, so that you can continue to support your u.s.-born children and i think what we have seen here today is testimony that not

only expresses the economic -- i think, costs, of what happens when people are detained and people are detained and not able to support their u.s.-born familis and also, what happens to our san franciscans what we pick up that cost, too? so in your willingness to compromise, i have to say thank you so much and thank you for your leadership, supervisor cohen. i think i just want to leave you with this, is that i know this is a difficult time, and forgive me for being so passionate about it, but last night, when i saw this -- when i heard these stories issues must say in my 60 years' of life and being in san francisco, i thought would he we would never

come to this point, but yet here we have. i want to thank you for your leadership and thank to my colleagues on the board. >> thank you, supervisor tang. >> thank you. i would be remiss if i didn't thank supervisor fewer for all of your important work on this issue. and again, just reiterating some of the comments made earlier, we're in full agreement with you in your intentions and what you are trying to accomplish. so recognizing what i think i heard on the table here, i wanted to say if there is way to bridge all of the different requests here, and that is to request for three staff attorneys, and one legal assistant, and i just want to confirm, because i wrote down that that would amount to $223,000 in current year with annualized cost of $934,000. and that is not with the head attorney position, but three staff positions -- three

staff attorneys and one legal assistant. i'm just confirming the costs of three attorneys, plus one legal assistant, three staff attorneys. >> thank you, supervisor tang. we're calculating it would be $223,000 in the current year and almost $1 million in the budget year. >> colleagues, i wanted to see if that is a way to get the extra attorney? because i know the head attorney is say cost of $28 6,000 a year including fringe and is amenable to the community members three staff attorneys and one assistant at $223,000 for the year and to talk during the budget about making positions permanent.

>> can you clarify to me what is the difference between "staff attorney" and "head attorney?" some assumptions i'm making is head attorney is more senior and more costly. is their job function more. >> matt gonzalez, chief attorney at public defender's office, chiefly someone with more experience, leading a unit or one would be of our top trial lawyers. i must just point out that in terms of ratio, when we have looked at the ratio between head attorneys and staff attorneys in our office, we have always been historically lower than the district attorney and city attorney's offices and there is already that imbalance, frankly in our office. >> supervisor yee has a question >> what i suggested in

looking at your original proposal for attorney versus -- not versus, but number of attorneys that you asked for originally and legal assistants and legal process clerk. so i was suggesting if according to your ratios, that were there attorneys, we could use their time more efficiently if we had -- you had, not me, two non-attorney staff to help the attorneys and i stated i don't know if that is true or false? i'm just going on your original proposal. >> that is correct. >> okay. and one more question: if we were allowed -- if we were to vote on something today that allows us to hire up a few more people, realistically, what is the

soonest date you could think you could actually hire somebody? it's not like next week, is it? >> we can hire very quickly, because it's not civil service as it relates to the attorneys. >> so march 2nd, and i guess we're calculating right now -- what we're calculate right now is we're calculating as if we could hire somebody today? >> right. >> which means if i'm asking for an additional support staff, you wouldn't have enough money to hire everybody today? i guess in my mind, realistically you couldn't hire everybody today, but it would take a liest a month or so? >> think as long as the board gives us position authority, and i understand that the policy decision is that it be with the salary savings that we're able to maintain for the fiscal

year, than we will make it work. we could hire attorneys, i think within ten days or two weeks, but if that wouldn't work numbers-wise, obviously, we would stretch that out. >> so given that, if there is a commitment that would go over to budget this year? >> yes. >> i would still like to suggest to bring one more -- what do they call them? >> i see clerks and i see paralegal s } the request was for paralegals and also request for legal process clerk? >> what is the need? >> i think ideally paralegals. >> okay. >> and the majority of paralegals in our office are trained as lawyers and probably three-quarters of our paralegals have actual lawyer training. >> okay. so if i'm understanding

correctly, one head attorney costs about $286,000. hold on -- hold on . is that the number for the entire year? so this is until june 30th, is that correct? >> i'm sorry, supervisor, chair cohen, that whole year annualized cost of that one position. >> what i'm trying to do here is to develop a bridge between here and now and to get into the budget cycle. so we can have this entire conversation at the appropriate space during the budget process. so my question is there is $283,000 in salary savings that we know -- that has not been spent. so basically and correct me if i'm wrong, from my perspective it seems that the public defender should be able to allocate -- should be able to provide some direction on where or how they would like that money to be allocated?

you can still stand. in terms of the number of attorneys that they want to hire versus number of clerks versus number of paralegals? >> may i comment? >> please. >> a couple of things technically. the first thing i would say any decisions that you are making now from my perspective are likely to be ongoing decisions although we can say we'll revisit [tpwh-upblgts/] process, i have observed that it's difficult to bring on staff and lay them off a month later. another thing to think about is if this public defender's office can hire as quickly as they are saying i was basing numbers on april 1st start-date and supervisor tang's proposal would fit within the $238,000. if it started later or earlier, it to change the estimates. and then i guess i would say -- [speaker not understood]

. >> in the budget legislative analyst report, they actually comment that they have amended their report to reflect figures that would compliment may 1st start-date is that right servin campbell? >> we are working with the public defenders number to show step 1, i believe the mayor talking about step 5 higher cost and we talk our numbers from the public defenders. >> when we put it in the budget system, unless we manually bring it down, which would be a discussion with the public defender's office it will be calculated at top staff, a technicality. >> this is new information and i didn't realize there was a discrepancy. supervisor tang. >> mr. gonzales, in terms of what level you think you are bringing in these attorneys,

what would be most helpful? >> it's going to depend primarily on what their experience is historically? i don't think that we necessarily have a problem with a step 5 theory when you are talking about a situation of 16 steps. it may very well be that we may even find a position that would start at a position below that. however, i know that for the public defender it's important there be a head attorney among this group. because whenever we staff-up, and we always start with those bottom-steps, we just historically fall further and further behind in what is the appropriate ratio between those head attorneys and staff attorneys. >> so my question to ms. towers for the head attorney position based on april 1st start-date, what is that amount then? >> one moment, please.

>> all right. >> head attorney in the current year $68,000. and annually ongoing costs about $286,000. >> thank you. x when you say "ongoing," you are talking into fiscal year 17? >> 17-18, yep. >> and there are a set of assumptions to make with these. i'm of the mind it's not unreasonable to assume that we're going to need to continue our defense for those folks that are in detention centers. >> yes. i mean, we'll obviously see an entirely different

situation with the federal cuts, but to agree it those in the upcoming budget. i think that is why feeling like we really need to pick a number that we think we can afford and we can move forward. >> thank you. . supervisor tang. >> i put out there the proposal for three staff attorneys and one paralegal, but i'm also hearing from committee members the desire for one head attorney, two staff attorneys and two paralegals. i stand by what i proposed earlier, but again, i'm willing to think about, based on any further discussion some of the other ideas on the table? >> supervisor yee? >> so i think what i'm hearing from the discussion is that if -- regardless

of which numbers we're talking about, if it's the 3/2, 3/1 and i'm also hearing from the public defender's office that they will not, for this year anyways, go over whatever monies they have. and they and do by scaffolding hiring and so i understand that piece. if they hired everybody in ten days they wouldn't have enough money. so it sounds like they know how to manage that. by hiring certain people a little bit later, so they can actually be within their budget. so that shouldn't be a concern in terms of having them go over their budget. they made the commitment not to go over their budget. so i come back to again correct

me if i'm wrong, mr. gonzalez? when i look at the ratios of attorneys to support staff, is this -- would it be better or more efficient use of the attorneys with these support staff in place? and in the 3:1 seems to be lower than what you are asking for in terms of support staff? >> my answer would be yes, just to be totally candid though, the typical ratio between attorneys and paralegals would not be -- it would not look like that. it wouldn't be 3:2. it probably be more like 3:1 or maybe even 4:1. however, those efficiencies, i don't think you would get with such a small unit. so i think the analysis that you applied earlier of how much you can get from those paralegals in such a small unit would be very

successful. i don't want to undermine the position that i support here, but candidly, in a larger unit, those ratios would be different. >> and then i guess i was also thinking the senior legal process clerk -- what function does that person have in terms of efficiency? >> that position is not going to be doing direct legal or quasi-legal work. it's going to be more of perhaps serving documents and that kind of work, more clerical work. we had obviously made that request because as you build up a unit, you'll have those things and it would be better not to have paralegals or lawyers doing that work. you know, in the universe of choices we would always prefer paralegals with a unit that is just starting out, because we'll be able to get

more out of them. >> i'm going to step in for a section. second. seraphin? >> somebody sent me the budgets documents from june and in terms of staffing ratios in their budget right now they have 12 head attorneys to 80 staff attorneys. so it's a ratio of 7:1. just to put that in perspective and in terms of looking at the paralegals as legal assistants to attorneys it's ratio of 5 attorneys to paralegal. >> thank you for that clarification. we have gotten a little messy. we have got a couple motions that we need to take votes on. i want to take supervisor yee's motion first. because it came to the board first. i would ask that we have a roll-call vote. i think we're all on the same page on what that motion is. >> chair cohen? >> yes. >> i'm withdrawing my motion. >> okay.

>> what i want to do is be supportive of the compromises. >> okay. >> and >> in particular yours and to suggest to add that one more support person to make it a lot more palatable. >> based on the information ms. campbell has just suggested that the staffing levels are 7:1 and what we're proposing to have 3 attorneys and to me it doesn't make sense that we step outside of that already established model and we should be consistent. so if we're going to be allocating three attorneys, then i think we should be allocating one paralegal to that. so ms. campbell's information was helpful in helping me get clarity and i don't know in supervisor tang wanted to add anything to that? >> i do agree with that

based on information and it because 5:1 ratio to staff attorneys to paralegals and i think the other question was in terms of three attorneys, whether there is agreement or disagreement on three staff attorneys. i originally proposed three staff attorneys, but we can maybe decide on that separately >> i'm most comfortable with one head attorney, two staff attorney and one paralegal. supervisor tang? supervisor yee? so i would like to backup for a moment. supervisor tang, you believe i made a motion as well. would you like to withdraw it or would you like it to go for a vote? >> through the chair, i guess i would like to hear if supervisor yee has a preference for one head

attorney or three staff attorneys? >> if they could fit it within their budget, there is some logical argument that you would start with a head attorney, and if they were to build the unit, you wouldn't need another head attorney. so for the sake of coordination and everything else, i would support a head attorney. >> point of clarification, mr. agarte, are you considered a head attorney? >> no. >> you are not, really? [laughter ] >> okay >> i was the pilot program. >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear you? >> mr. gonzalez, i wanted to address the question about the ratio of paralegals. >> sure. >> i think it's important. we have about 90, 95 lawyers in the department and we have entire staff of 180. so arguably you could say it's 1:1 ratio between

attorneys and other employees. when i give you the ratio, i'm giving you what is happen in a felony trial situation because we're including attorneys that have assignments and units that are outside of the a trial unit. so the support staff in the analysis around that is still very much, i think, what i heard earlier. i certainly don't want you to think that we're trying to suggest that the ratio, if you are looking at the entire department, you could argue it's 1:1. it's one lawyer for one support person. >> supervisor tang has some thoughts. >> this is just to get us across the line through the nexfiscal year. so i am okay with one head attorney, two staff attorneys, one paralegal, based on april 1st start-date. so we want you to be able to hire immediately.

and then have the two items tabled. so you can again have the requisitions approved immediately by the mayor's office as was committed earlier. sorry, i take that back, you committed to two positions and we're saying three. so that would be my motion then. >> okay. >> can i make one more comment? >> yes. >> which is that even though i never worked in a law firm, my wife was a legal something -- i don't know what they call them. it was earlier on in her career, and what she had were two lawyers that she supported; so what i'm talking about is not that out of whack and what mr. gonzalez is talking about seems to confirm what i remember of my wife. >> okay. thank you. so supervisor tang, i think you still had an original motion out . >> so i will withdraw the original motion and my amended motion then is to

approve one head attorney, two staff attorneys, one paralegal, april 1st, start-date and tabling the two items before us, because these can be funded through the current salary savings. >> i would like to amend that to require a report be made to the budget and finance committee on the case load and this is for the public defender to come back. >> madam chair, we're tabling item 6 and item 7. >> through the chair i thought tabling both because they are temporary positions and we'll discuss it during the regular budget season? >> is that a motion to table items no. 6 and 7? >> that is correct. >> no, supervisor tang, that is not how i understand it. we need to make a motion to table 6. let's take it one item, although they were called together at the same time. i would like to make a

motion to table item 6. >> i will make that. >> roll call. >> on the motion to table item no. 6, supervisor cohen. >> aye. >> cohen aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor yee? >> aye. >> three ayes. >> thank you. that motion passes without objection. now item no. 7. item no. 7 is to amendment the annual security ordinance for the office of the public defender a legal unit to defend immigrants in deportations fiscal year 16-17 and 17-18. servin, could you -- -- supervisor tang is suggesting that because we're using the budget savings of $238,000 for these positions, these four positions that we highlighted earlier, that we do not need to -- that we need to table this item? i'm under the impression-- >> that is incorrect. i said that i thought we

didn't need to amend the aso and we could table it because they are temporary positions and not because we're using salary savings. >> in a understand correctly two different options here, one is that the department can hire temporary exempt positions that would then have to become permanent in the '17-18 budget and other option to create permanent positions. based on our recommendation -- our recommendation isn't do one or the other, but permanent positions were hired we recommended that they be limited tenure, which are permanent positions, but limited to 3-year term. >> of. those are the two options. >> so my motion was to make them temporary positions and with the understanding they probably will be permanent through the formal budget process happening in about 90 days and this would also give them the ability -- the public defender's office to

hire immediately beginning april 1st and, in fact but probably the requisitions would be approved like today. >> that sounds good. i can support that. thank you. >> >> supervisor yee? >> i get the notion, but we could decide to make these either permanent or temporary for three years? i guess my question is, if your office is hiring people, and i'm applying for a job and this says it's temporary for two months, i'm not so sure what kind of people where we we would have applying for this? if

>> supervisor that would be our concern. i think a one or two-month position would not, i think it would just be very difficult for us. >> supervisor tang. i want to clarify request the mayor's budget office, we're not talking about go months [stkwhr-f/] it's project bayh andum to three years limited term and even if we do fix it in the budget as servin mentioned to agree to be limited term, so it's consistent. >> again, i'm not talking about two months here. >> chair. >> please, supervisor yee. >> what you are talking about if it's a 3-month temporary, we don't have to

get any staff approval i conferred with the head of hr this morning and there is something along the category of temporary exempt position up to three years on project-based position and this definitely seems like aproject to me. so i believe that would be no problem and i discussed this with hr this morning. >> thank you for the clarification. let's -- are we ready to vote? i'm ready to vote. okay. supervisor yee, are you ready to go? >> yes. >> madam clerk, please call the roll. >> on the motion? >> yes. >> item 7. >> articulated by supervisor tang. >> yes. >> supervisor tang? >> point of clarification, i just want to clarify, we need to table item 7. deputy city attorney is nodding his head and to make it clear, we're tabling the item to have one head attorney, two staff attorneys and one paralegal. >> that is correct. >> yes. >> aye. >> motion by supervisor tang.

tang aye. >> supervisor yee? >> so sorry - >> supervisor, you have to -- once the roll has been called, you have take the vote and later you can rescind the vote and have the conversation, but you must vote aye or no. >> but so if we rescind -- not rescind, but voted to get rid of that, then how does the office, the public defender's office hire when there is no permission, temporarily to hire? >> let me suggest at this point you complete the vote and then potentially make a motion to rescind to engage in further conversations? should not be having conversations during the roll

call of the vote. >> you are either for it or against it. three attorneys and one paralegal. >> i will follow our deputy city attorney's suggestion. aye. >> yee aye. >> supervisor cohen? >> aye. >> cohen aye. >> three ayes } thank you, the motion passes. [ gavel ] >> to answer supervisor yee's question, his question is: how do we expedite -- how does one get hired? the answer is through requisition. the requisition of approval and the mayor's office is nodding yes, which means that once the public defenders have identified who they want, the requisition will be approved. please. >> so i would like to clarify one point, would i like to -- we'll approve today two attorneys and one assistant and i'm going to bring the head attorney to the mayor. >> three attorneys. >> is it three attorneys? >> one head attorney, two

attorneys, and one whatever. >> yes, sorry, can i get clarification, i'm confused on the number of positions. >> i think i clarification should come from the clerk. >> it would be one head attorney, two staff attorneys, and one paralegal. >> so i think two attorneys, one paralegal i would be happy to approve today and the one head attorney i have to bring to the mayor, because i haven't discussed it with him yet. i'm hearing that is what the board would like to do. >> that is what the board would like to do and there was unanimous decision. supervisor yee. >> what guarantee is that? i'm sorry? it's like we're asking for something. >> all right do we need to put legislation to do that now? is that what you are saying? >> i'm certainly not trying to make anyone upset and

happy to talk to the mayor and this suggestion of head attorney came you up during committee and hear whating the department wants, i would be happy to come back and if want you me to come back and report to you, i would be happy to. whatever you like. >> i would ask that -- >> mr. gonzalez, with all due respect, public comment is closed. we have to deal with this. i'm sorry, i cannot allow you -- >> i'm just trying to address -- >> i'm understand that is what you are trying to do. so i will have to ask you not to speak. i would look to the deputy city attorney any comment that you want to give? no? as far as what i understand, this body took up an issue. we made a decision, and melissa, you go back to the mayor, let the mayor know this is what we have decided. and based on his decision, we'll take it from there. is there any other questions?

okay. madam clerk -- >> supervisor, may i just clarify, so everybody is on the same page? once it's tabled, it's not pending in this committee anymore and can be revived by supervisor at the board. if you wanted to keep the aso amendment alive in the committee until you hear back from the mayor's office, that would require the committee to rescind the item and continue the aso item and i don't know if that is what you intend to do, but to understand. >> supervisor yee is expressing that is something he is interested in doing because there is no guarantee the mayor's office would comply. i want to hear perfect supervisor tang } i would be okay with continuing that item, asoto

the call of the chair. >> i think we have to rescind the vote. >> i'll make a motion to rescind item 7 tabling. >> let's do a roll-call vote on that motion. >> motion to rescind -- the vote on item no. 7, supervisor tang? >> aye. >> tang aye. >> supervisor yee? >> aye. >> yee aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> cohen aye. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> that motion to rescind passes unanimously. that means we're open to entertain another motion. >> i will make a motion through the chair to continue item 7 to the call of the chair. >> can we take this without objection in all right, without objection the motion passes. any other business before this body. there is no further business. >> all right, meeting aed journeyed [ gavel ]

>> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint

point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city

employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www..

>> it seems like everyone in san francisco is talking about housing san francisco housing prizes are among the highest it tops anyone million dollars and rent rise unfortunately, this is not the first time housing has been in the news thought california the cost of a home has made headline the medium prices for a house in the the $207,000 in california it is more than twice that amount and the laura u bay area is higher it's more than doubled the states so while more than half of the americans can afford the medium fewer in california and quarter in the bayer and now fewer than a 6th of san franciscans can afford it so why it housing in san francisco so

go cheven condition tharz the obviously a high demand to live here the city is known for cultural diversities that attacks new residents and the credible opportunity our city diverse and will daytime committee grows jobs as a result we estimate the number of jobs is at ann an all-time 0 hive of 6 hundred thousand in the 80 the population was 6 hundred and 75 thousand now, it's grown steadily and quickly the recent estimate is 8 hundred and 40 thousand the highest in the city's history and it's not only san francisco it is greek the bay area has $2 million for residents and jobs then in the 80 and the growth is expected to

continue by the year 20403.9 million people unfortunately, our housing supply does not keep up with the demand i might not realize the majority of construction is housing that's been suspended for years due to the 2008 recession while population is increasing the housing is only increasing that i 9 percent if we don't pursues housing the cost of housing about only increase how do we plan the regional allocation identifies the total number of housing unit by affordable level to support the new residents san francisco incorporates it into the housing elements that guides the housing policies the arena data places it in the investment

plans for the growth throughout san francisco those plans developed by years of community planning laid the ground work for the construction so the city he e sets the goals in broad terms the private sectors builds market rate housing and non-built affordability housing that majority of housing in san francisco as well as throughout the country market rate houses built by private developers within guidelines of the city some below market rate you howls paid pie public and private dollars and prized to be variable to certain population housing is considered affordable if it costs less than 1/3rd the medium income for a 2 percent householder is $70,000 this householder will have to pay no more than $7,150 to be

affordable san francisco has see long applied federal, state and local money often built and nonprofit tint for individual families the news cities in california what the inclusive program requires that 10 or ottawa more units to certain blow income levels or contribute to the fund that supports the blow market rate unit almost 25 thousand have been supported by city funds and more than 6 nous thousand of the unit were built between 2000 and 2012 what you can't afford a million will home you're not alone in response san francisco mayor ed lee has set a goal of creating thirty thousand

now e-mails homes by the year 2020 most will be in outreach of the san franciscan with federal and state funds drying up the san francisco ethics commission is, taking an iv i of actually roll is providing housing across all levels we're working diligently for everyone to live here and mr. chair protect the housing semiand strengthen goals against evictions we're commented for housing needs for all san franciscans to learn more visit highwaymuch. >> (clapping.) >> well good morning and thank you all for being here i'm ed reiskin the director of transportation and can't tell you how existed and speak on

behalf of everybody here to be at this milestone after many years somewhat our decades ever planning to break ground on a transformative project for one of the city's anyhow unique and special streets i - there is a way this works folks without whom we wouldn't be here i'll give an opportunity to speak and afterwards go out and literally 0 break ground i want to acknowledge folks not speaking i'm not sure they're here by representatives from nancy pelosi's office and senator harris and there was a lot of work to be done at the freshen over the years and leader pelosi in particular was a huge comment thank her and

stare half and at the state level hearing from the state a strong will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with the transportation and our legislatures want to acknowledge supervisor chiu and supervisor scott wiener and a lot of folks made that happen but really the lead for this project has came into from right here in san francisco and one of the hallmarks of our mayor has been to forge collaboration amongst city agencies within the government and with the community and because of complexity of that project there were probably a dozen city agencies and newcomers state agency and the federal government as well as important stakeholders including some of the ones that occupy the building around where we're standing it took that kind of

collaboration in other words, to get to this point i want to start off by introducing the mayor of san francisco mayor ed lee. >> (clapping.) >> thank you ed reiskin good morning, everybody. welcome to the groundbreaking of our van ness corridor bus rapid transit i want to say thank you to everyone on stage and offstage since 2003 with the prop k been working hard to get this project done well and right a lot of community groups thank you, again to the mta to the commissioners, staff, who working hard to get a lot of views settled but our county transportation agencies and state and federal partners that are part of funding and vision

zero of of this our regional mta as well because the state road we're still on a lot of people here talking today and i've been told in no uncertain terms to keep my remarks under two minutes i'll let them talk about all the benefits of bus rapid transit and all the advantages as a city what i'm also exciting to talk about is that we're going to have better lighting along this wonderful avenue closing in the very lengthy distance for people to cross better lighting, better walk abilities more bounce on the street will be improvements i think that people living and walker users this corridor will have a great benefit but also

existed to say as your formerly c p w infrastructure person in the city excited to see four more miles of water sewer piping underneath more miles of sewer and stormwater pipelines underneath they won't leak nor break they'll be new 2000 new feet of our auxiliary water system been also underneath this is try infrastructure and i think i'm making a point that is when we tear up the roads and side medium and do all the traffic relayed improvements we're now improving as a city while we're there let's take care of what is underneath we never do the that in the past i've not seen an vastly improved

and safer avenue an avenue that serves thousands of people better because of bus rapid transit but all the other smart things we're doing to include and work underneath while we have at the medium and sidewalks opened up that's real progress for a city like san francisco and, yes we'll take that as a thank you with that my two minutes are are up let's get the dirt digging and the project done thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thank you, mr. mayor that is from to have a mayor who was a public works go director not on exciting stop i like hearing the mayor get exist bye about the sewers and other things and the benefits the lighting benefits and go, of course, the traffic and transit benefits a project

of this scale was don't happen without the locate leadership we're pleased to be joined spy the president of the board of supervisors would grew up not far from the street a great leader and supporter of transit in district 5 and across the city please join me in welcoming president of the board of supervisors london breed. >> (clapping.) >> good morning, everybody. well, i've had the prestige of riding the 47 and 49 along the van ness beyond a reasonable doubt or corridors when i went to galileo high school although the next generation of young people wouldn't use the excuse that muni was late when i did back then we are doing what we can to make sure their arriving on time 16 thousand people that

use this line gets to work on time and school and get to their designations and that's what this project is about yes, we made mistakes long ago before any any of us were born when we didn't underground the traffic systems that is expensive along the central subway and the bus rapid transit is reliable it is not underground but a way to speed up up the line and based on the initiatives preliminary numbers that will change the travel time by over 32 percent that's big that is big when you rely on muni to get you back and forth every single day to our example work and designation one of the most important projects in the city and i can't wait until that

happens because it is going to make a huge difference address isly with improvements comes sacrifice so for the next 3 years we'll have sacrifice do send me e-mails complaining when it is done you'll thank us to create something great for the future thank you all so much. >> thank you supervisor president london breed. >> one of our main partners is the community of transportation authority they lead the first phase the planning and get united states to e got us to a point they're a strong partner

and we're pleased to be joined by now the chair of the transportation authority who during his first couple of terms in office sat at the transportation authority when the project was coming to light please help me welcome chair the ta commission supervisor peskin. >> (clapping.) >> thank you, ed and by way of the history didn't start during my first term in 2000 behind us this was the firebreak from the 1906 san francisco earthquake o

we're on time and on budget so with little disruption there will be disruption we've been doing a lot of outreach with the community to best manage and might