commenced. what we need are the funds for these two allocations so it's $5.4 million rather than the $7.9 in the first year and those funds will be applied towards the design, the tenant improvements and the actual moves for the various departments including adult probations, police along with the da's office. this would help to exit from the hall of justice which will then help us to demolish and rebuild that building. >> for what reason are you not interested in seeing these funds placed on budget reserve? i understand that there's just -- there's not a detailed spending plan. >> so we provide many pages of detailed planning for the budget analyst. what the funds are needed for are essentially to facilitate the work now. we have some of the leases that are becomiing active as of july 1st. by having these funds available it will allow us to now do the design work for some of the

other properties and then to actually fund the tenant improvements directly themselves. the lease budgets are actually already placed within our operating budget. this is the other side of the one time cost. >> thank you. bla? >> my understanding is it's appropriations. when we did the lease review for the police evidence lease and the adult probation lease the tenant improvements for those leases were from prior year appropriatio appropriations. this is an additional appropriation for these purposes. i don't have the specific numbers but i believe that 1$15 million has been appropriated and these were additional moneys in the capital plan to continue that project. the reason we are recommending a reserve on these funds is that we have looked at these leases and as they have come forward the plans and the tenant improvements there's no detail behind it. they are very, very early planning stages. we were concerned as we looked

at the adult probation lease that the estimate cost of the tenant improvements because we didn't have any way to know what was behind it. the same is true with the police evidence lease. those are prior year funds that were appropriated for those purposes that were not put on reserve. this is a new appropriation on top of that. i believe the entire appropriation between the two sets is about $30 million. we think it's really significant that the board have an ability to look at those funds and see how they are being spent. i want to make it really clear that the budget and finance committee reserve is a one step process. it doesn't even go to the full board. so all they have to do is come forward, give details on how the moneys are being spent, submit it to us for review, have a hearing before the budget and finance committee and then have the moneys released. >> thank you for highlighting that. one question for the bla. i wanted to know if you took into consideration -- if i'm not misunderstanding the city administrator's office is what

they are saying about when it comes to leases, did you take into consideration that we could possibly -- if placing money on budget reserve would slow down the process, that means that we would be in a lease and that a building will be sitting empty because it would not be allocated. hold on. we have to get your mic on. >> i don't like this mic. the moneys are appropriated. they are available. all they have to do is come and be released. there's the leasing and then there is the tenant -- the tenant improvement cost. the board still has to approve the lease. so it's kind of irrelevant if the lease has not come to the board for approval. >> thank you very much. i want to give the city administrator a chance to respond. >> the leases were approved in may. >> i have a question. >> on may 17th at budget and

finance. >> all right. hold on. >> maybe i need some clarification. we've been talking about the police evidence lease and the adult probation, correct? >> ask our deputy director for capital planning to help address. >> please come forward. >> the lease is for 777 branon which is the police storage and the lease for 945 bryant both came to budget and finance on may 17th. >> okay. >> correct. at that time we expressed concern about not having a budget for the tenant improvements. also my understanding was they were prior year propositions for those. >> right. what was said for those at that time was any questions about those improvements could be addressed during the budget process, which is what we are here doing. so i'm happy to answer any questions that you have about any of the plans before us. >> yes. >> so the -- to the question about what things were based on, i'm happy to answer any of those. >> mr. rose? >> put it this way, there's a

$5.4 million for furnishing, fixtures and equipment. if you do not accept our recommendation for reserve you're giving the department authority to spend those funds with no budget review. now the department just said they will be happy to discuss it with you now. they don't want us to look at the details. they don't want to submit a budget for details and then we report to you. if you go with the department, the department says, fine, we'll show you supervisor, we are going to spend it on this, this and this and it will be so much for this, so much for this. there's no need for a budget analysis report to tell you how $5.4 million is going to be expended. we believe the board of sup supervisors should review that $5.4 million in detail. >> on those leases do we start paying rent on those on july 1st? >> july 25th beginning the lease at 350 rhode island north. that's the da's property. the 777 branon lease begins in

august 2018 before the board comes back from recess. then the bryant lease for adult probation and hopefully one other office begins in november of 2018. so we have three leases coming up quickly and we want to get folks in as quickly as possible. >> maybe you could speak to the point that the bla just made, mr. rose in particular. >> can i just ask one follow up question? >> sure. i'm sorry. >> so the timing oh of -- of the hall of justice, if the funds were reserved would there be a delay in there? if we were paying rent on something that we are not in is my concern. >> understood. i don't believe that there would be a delay in moving. we do have -- if i can just clarify some of the numbers because some of the numbers that the bla mentioned at least to my ear didn't sound quite straight. so in fiscal '18 there was an $8

million appropriation to the justice facilities improvement program that -- through the capital budget that was approved. a little bit of spending has occurred there. then there is an additional $7.9 requested in fiscal '19 and then those are the funds that we need to execute all three leases. it's not so much an issue of timing because the moves are staggered and tenant improvements will take some time. we do need a hefty chunk up front just for the tenant improvement and furniture ordering. the da is ready to order furniture now. the fourth floor plan for them is set. there is a time factor there. i think that there's more of a concern about introducing reserves. so when we allocated the $8 million last year in fiscal '18 the purpose -- it was a

programatic budget, it would take years and there were a lot of moving pieces that we know. we are doing oust best estimates on the moves and setting up an office. just on the da's piece alone those efforts are proving helpful and on point. so where we were estimating all along a $9.1 million tenant improvement project at rhode island we are seeing that come in close to final now still going back and forth a little bit with the landlord but those are coming in around $9.6. we are not far off. all of which is to say the only thing that's new here is the reserve. there was always a plan to spend $16 million plus some ffne help if needed over the course of fiscal '19. any details about that move i'm happy to provide. there is absolutely nothing to

hide. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> i just want to say one more thing. if you need these funds released during august we are not here so is that a problem if we are not here for a month? >> i mean, i'm always concerned about that. that does make me nervous. we know that staff needs to get out of that building as quickly as possible just on tuesday there was another water leak above the head of one of our adult probation staff and we had to move her. the partial ceiling collapsed. any possibility of delay even by a few weeks is not something that we are looking for. >> thank you. so to me it sounds like you need to do some -- you need to figure out when you need to be out of the -- be out of the building and you want to be in the new one and do some planning. >> we have. yeah. >> so you can get the item on the calendar knowing that there will be four weeks in august that the board will not be in session. >> yeah. >> so it just sounds like just a little bit more planning and

thoughtfulness needs to be -- >> it's just a level of detail requested. the first request for detail we had on the project was the bla request. we provided what we thought was more than comprehensive detail. if it's not we can come back. >> if you think about it, that's kind of like the argument as to why it should be on budget reserve. until the bla made the request these numbers have not come to the budget and finance committee. >> yeah. >> so that's where i'm uncomfortable. i like putting things on budget review. i think it's fun because that's when you really get to know about what is going on, where these dollars are being spent. so when you're in walgreens or in safeway and someone is asking you why are you spending this much money you can see with authority this is what i heard in committee and being able to be accountable for every dollar on reserve. colleagues, any other discussions? no? nothing? okay. i want to see if the department

-- the department, is there anything else that you guys want to share? any last minute closing arguments? >> for this particular item or other items? >> for this particular one. >> no other arguments on this one. >> let's move forward then. >> just a few more. so the last one -- actually the last two, so one has to do with the policy recommendation denying the office of cannabis's proposed upward substitution of an 1840 junior manager assistant to a senior analyst. the position is currently filled as an 1823. we did sell in order to attract and retrain an incumbent that has the skills, experience and academic training in order to do the work that is required for them, in order to help set up the new office of cannabis. >> let's talk about that. why would you advertise something that you're not budgeted for? why would you advertise a job that you do want to attract a certain skill set but you don't have that in the budget? >> so we drew from temp salary

and then the broad project budget allows us to fund the position. based on the start up of the office looking at the skills that were needed in order to engage communities in this case we have a bilingual speaker and to do the complex legislative analysis and to work it through the permitting process so it's a broad range of activities. we've asked this person to basically go out and do safety inspections along with other departments. we'll have multiple departments at the same time going out and doing a broad range of complex higher level work. >> so i think what makes me uncomfortable is i was at the table when the legislation was introduced. i think we introduced it together on the creation and the allocation -- budget allocations for these positions. so it's really hard to sit here and you say, okay, we are going

to give you this much for this position and then you guys -- i'll just not -- not you specifically but you meaning the department decided, well, this is what we really need. it just feels like we were sold something and then what we actually ended up getting cost us more money. it's like when you go to negotiate a car. you go for your bmw and they have all these packages and safety things that they add on so your monthly cost is more than you wanted to go in and spend on. for what reason would you make an offer to a candidate that for a position that you didn't have the budget authority to really make? what you're asking for is for us to up -- what is it called? upgrade it. up zone it? a substitution. an upward substitution. it's like you said, hey, do this

and you get who you think you want and then it's like actually just kidding, we really want this and here you are today. >> hi. administrative office again. one of the things i want to clarify is that the position itself -- the original 1840 position, a management position was not created to substitute the position. i agree the department, when we came through the budget process we probably shouldn't have been as conservative as we were in thinking that we were going to be able to staff the office at the level of position put forward in the budget. >> that's one rational. the other rational is since we underestimated we have to stick with what we put out there, stick within the confines of the budget. that's another way you could have went. >> what we thought was more important is we had a number of legislative and priority policies in front of us in order to successfully put forward this program with a lot of different components and make sure it hit a very specific deadline.

that's what we were committed to do. in order to do that we needed more than the specific -- we needed more than a management assistant. we needed an analyst position which then allowed us to help develop the applications process, help go out in the community, help with bilingual representation, help with a variety of other more high end analytical work that originally when we were thinking of having a management assistant we thought we needed to help staff the office and do more paperwork. we didn't realize we really needed more staff who were doing higher level functions. so that's when we went back to dhr and said we are not going to fill the 1840, we really need this other position, we have the availability to create it through the process, dhr process, and that's what we need to move forward as quickly as possible in order to meet all of these policy deadlines. >> what happens when the person that has the job now moves on? do you oh -- downgrade the

classification? say the person doesn't have the entire skill set because that's the position that the person occupying this position has and you can't duplicate that, how does that work internally? >> we would not downgrade the position because the job duties and functions are based on this level of classification. we would ask for this plus. for example, being bilingual does not lead to a particular classification. >> thank you. bla. >> madame chair, you correctly referred to this as an upward substitution. this is an upward, upward substitution. this is a 44% increase in salary. this is going from $79,724 to $114,618 i could be -- correct me if i'm wrong, isn't it true that the incumbent in the lower classification is being promoted, that person is being

promoted to the higher salary? >> that is not correct. >> that is not correct. but it is a 44% increase in salary. >> okay. >> i was just correct that, that it was a new position, not an increase in salary. we did not substitute or increase an existing position. we choose not to fill a position and instead created a new position. >> i understand. >> the salary was 44% higher. >> but it's a little bit like semantics now what you're nitpicking at. what was introduced and what this body voted on is different than now what you are asking us, this committee -- when i say this body i meant the board of supervisors. we took a vote and we said these are the positions we are going to use, this is the classification we want to see in the office of cannabis and now you're here six months later saying, okay, we've got the office of cannabis up and operational, we've got our people in place, we underestimated the skill set that we were going to need for this one particular job and so we want you to not up but up two

times i guess to stick with the bla's language this classification. that is creating a 44% increase. now if you would have come to the board of supervisors and said this is our original classification, this is what we want for this job i don't know if i would have voted for that. can you understand? put yourself in my position, how i kind of feel tricked. >> i can understand it, supervisor, yes. >> what's your name, adam? >> ken. >> kent. >> ken. >> i like you. i think that you're good looking. i think that you look good in that suit. it's certainly not you. i don't think that i've ever met you. i can appreciate the position that you're trying to defend and i'm just looking to make sure that we are -- that you can appreciate where i am and the seat that i sit in and understand a little bit of my frustration, particularly because i've just been at the forefront of this entire conversation as it relates to cannabis so i know about the

permitting back up and i know about the scaling up and creating an online presence and basically starting something from scratch. there isn't anything unique -- i mean, the office of cannabis is unique. there's not a model that we can go and borrow from to create this. so first and foremost, congratulations for doing a fairly good job. my -- i say fairly only because in this one position -- i mean, a 44% increase is just -- it's just -- that's huge. that's a lot. that's a lot. you don't have to respond, kent. adam -- oh -- ken. thank you. he was not going to correct me. you didn't have to. you had all these people around you correcting me for you. on your behalf, ken, i can definitely appreciate your perspective and i think i saw

adam who wanted to weigh in on this discussion. no? >> no. >> ken is handling it. ken. i'm going to write that down. okay. i won't mess that up again. supervisor sheehy? >> we anticipate all the cost for the office of cannabis being recooped in fees. >> that is the model for the on going, yes. >> so first year we have to pay but after that we set this up specifically so all these costs, including this salary would be captured in fees from people in the industry? >> yes. >> and so we have somebody in this job right now? >> yes. >> so if we cut their salary by 44% what is the likely out come? >> that's a personal decision of the person that is in the position. ken can't purport to know what

the person is going to do or how they are going to respond? >> now, my understanding is that this person has been a high performerer -- performer at least from people in the cannabis industry. for me this cost will be recooped in the long run via fees that we have an incumbent performing greatly. i understand my colleague's frustration and displeasure at the switch but we are in a situation where we have somebody whose cost are going to be recooped from industry who is doing a great job and for me it's just hard to send that signal that you can come to the city, work very hard. i think this is an entity agency

that has really been stretched extremely in having to meet deadlines and do things that are novel and very complicated. so, again, understanding frustration and displeasure at how this all unfolded i do think that in the long run we'll get the money and i really have to ask myself what will happen if the individual in question -- who by the way might be attracted to people in the industry which is paying i think by all accounts fairly well, if we cut his salary by 44% this individual -- i'm assuming -- he or she. if this individual's salary is cut by 44% and they go to industry and we are no longer able to operate as effectively or efficiently in what is a fee recovery model. i just -- i think i would prefer to let this one pass. >> okay.

you're talking at the long game. what happens if we play the longer longer game and the industry starting to change and there's less revenue to pay for this position, then what? then we are on the hook to pay for this. >> the way we set this up is the industry will be feed for the office. the office was set up to -- >> correct. my question supervisor -- >> so we were looking at 100 3% fee recovery. >> the city changes, the amount of money we collect as a state has changed, the amount of money we collect from tobacco has changed because habits have chained, people are consuming tobacco less, this is a real life example, so we for the last 20 years have enjoyed tobacco tax revenue coming into our state and into our city and county. it's decreasing because there's less smokers. so say there are literally less people buying cannabis or worse we tax them and then the black market just explodes and people are no longer going through the permitting process and so we have built a department that's

predicated on recovering fees from the industry and if the industry no longer needs us, they decided that they want to go back into the shadows and operate in the black market then we still -- i mean, based on your premise we still have employees that would be available for. does that mean the department folds because the funding source folds? i don't know. you don't have to have an answer. >> it's a different structure. tax is something that's levied and you're thinking of a sales tax or gross receipt tax. the fee is levelled on the cost we eincur. the relationship is our cost, not what other people are making. so if we end up with five people in the business and our agency costs a million dollars they all have to pay $200,000. so we cannot feed for more and we shouldn't be feed for less than what our costs are. that's the way the law works.

if at some point the -- this particular industry starts to contract we can let people go. you know, but the point of this agency is we anticipated setting it up was that we would recover 100% of the costs of running the agency from fees on people in the industry. >> so i just want to say that i've been talking to people recently in the industry, they are so upset about the fees. they are so upset about the fees. they are just saying, no more fees. i mean, i don't know if you've heard them. they are just starting out. all these people who have permits in the pipeline, they are just saying come on, i'm not -- they are bleeding us. i've known people that have gone from the legit market now to the black market and so they are just -- everybody is just saying there's too many fees. >> okay. hold on. we are getting off topic here. we need to talk about the

budget, the salary. >> i think it's a consideration that if you think this is fee-based and we are putting it onto a business that we just started they are -- they say they are not even making it with the fees that we are charging now. >> thank you. is there anything else you want to say? >> not on this topic, no. we have one more item. >> let's bring it. mr. wynn, welcome back. >> thank you. >> mised you. >> our last item, so the last item has to do with the position for the office of transgender initiatives. the budget analyst is recommending that you deny an 0932 manager 4 position and they want you to substitute that downwards to an 0923 manager 2 instead. the position is necessary -- >> hold on. you want us to downgrade? >> the budget analyst wants you to downgrade it. >> of course. i see. i assume you're not in agreement with that? >> we are not in agreement. >> okay. >> so the position is currently

filled as on 0932 manager. we have an office that is set up in order to facilitate policies related to the transgender community. the policies are often a national in scope and visibility and this position helps us to ensure that city employment opportunities are available to all persons without regard to gender identity. the person also addresses the needs of transgender residents and visitors and provides guidance and assistance in improving service delivery over all. what we are doing in our department is trying to manage responsibly. we took an existing position we had and substituted it over in order to fill this position and create a permanent budget position. we initiated the office, started with the tex employee. we were provided no budget originally in order to create an office of transgender initiatives and now we are trying to formalize the program. >> bla? >> again, this is one of these positions that was enacted by

the department without first obtaining board of supervisors approval. >> a theme here, department. >> yes. yes. and for that reason alone -- and this is a very significant increase in the classification. only manages two people. because the board did not have an opportunity to approve this prior to the department doing it we consider it to be a policy matter. >> say that last part again? >> because the board of supervisors did not have the opportunity to approve this initially, the department just did it or put this in we consider it to be a policy matter for the board. >> thank you. >> it's like these other positions where, again, there was a change made and now the department is formalizing this in the budget this year. >> dan? >> yes. i just want to clarify that.

we do recognize that a manager position is needed for this function but when we looked at the classifications and how many people that this position would be supervising it looked like a manager 2 was more appropriate than a manager 5. >> that last part? >> then a man -- manager 4. sorry. a manager 2 looked more appropriate because it's only supervising two positions. >> only supervising two positions so they should be manager 4. >> in our judgement we thought that a manager 2 was more appropriate than a manager 4, a couple of notches down. >> in response of that, the department of human resources reviewed this position and classification based on the roles and responsibilities. the fact that it is national in

visibility and scope and basically helping to argue for more protections, rights and access for transgender persons and then the person has to work across city wide initiatives all departments in order to help make improvements to policy and practice. >> okay. mrs. callahan or mr. yamasaki, your department signed off on this. this seems to be a trend here. i don't know. come down please and speak to this. this seems a discrepancy about the classification on a manager. >> yes. i have in front of me a little bit of text that describes how duty allocation for the management jobs that might be appropriate. >> please. >> distinct between class levels are based on the

program's complexity, sensitive and/or size, organizational impact, decision-making responsibility, level of supervision exercised, nation of position supervised, are they front line works, managers being managed, the nature of the position supervised and the nature of duties such as hands on work rather than planning and policy development activities. i can tell you, for example, we are talking about 0932 here, right? so this is -- can you help me? >> yes. >> so this is an 0932. >> on 0932 and substituting downward to an 0923. >> we are going to pull it up on ted's phone. >> ted actually had it memorized. what you just read, he said that. literally verbatim. >> although there's another

paragraph that says -- that describes the general characteristics of the positions in that class. so i can read that one to you and then you can determine whether you agree if you'd like that. it will just be one second. >> so as you find that i'm just going to share some of my thought with the department and probably share a little bit about why i'm frustrated. it seems to be a theme within the city administrator's office that you are either misclassifying or being liberal with the classifications of roles and duties, building in jobs and i'm uncomfortable because i know the office -- i guess when you work with different department and department heads for a long time you develop long-standing relationships. i mean, i definitely want to spread carefully but i'm not convinced or i'm uncomfortable with the classification and how you're classifying these

positions that we are talking about, that we are in disagreement about. i don't even know what other ones exist. this is what five maybe, i think. three. three or four of them. they are just the point of discrepancy for today's conversation. you know, there seems -- there's a constant conference to, well, the controller's office signed off on it or the dhr signed off on it. there seems to be a really strong relationship between the city administrator's office and dhr that maybe there's an over willingness to sign off on classification. i can not ignore when an independent third party makes a policy recommendation, i'm referring to the bla, that this is a misclassification of a position. >> i think that we are all -- we all play our roles in this process and i would respectfully disagree with the

characterization that the department misclassified. our role is to take the policy guidance from the board and other guidance and -- >> you mean the board of supervisors. >> we've given you guidance and you do something else. >> we have guidance on these -- guidance on the work we are supposed to do. we look at how we need to do the work. we speak with the department of human resources in terms of the kinds of positions, job duties, functions. the department of human resources is responsible for determining the proper classification based on discussions with the department. the budget analysts office responsibility is typically to try to be as conservative as possible on that review and try to save money. so respectfully that's what they do. >> right. >> what we do is try to do the day-to-day work and work with our colleagues to figure out how we do that day-to-day work as effectively as possible. i don't think anybody misclassified this work. we went through the proper processes as the director of dhr

indicated and we classified this position to do the work we asked it to do. to do very critical important work that's been effective in the time that the incumbent has been in the position and it would be -- you can -- it's fine for you to say that the department should not have proceeded this way but i don't want in any way to impact the great work that has been done or somehow not allow us to continue that work as a 0932 which has been appropriate. >> thank you for reframing it. appreciate that. i want two colleagues that want to speak. what i'm going to do is we are going to continue this and we'll deal with this back on monday. yes. >> supervisors, given the fact that you will be continuing this, we are very -- we can share with you or the committee the allocation factors that where he use in making the determinations on each of these contested positions. >> appreciate that. that would be helpful. >> so we'll follow up.

>> asking worked for gsa and having gone through -- for two years and having gone through this process where i had to justify my positions quite frankly i was scared of ken and i had to justify it. you know, it's not an easy process. there's a lot of paperwork and there's a lot of justification behind it. i just -- you know, i worked for gsa for two years. you might consider me bias but i just want to add color to this. it's not an easy process. there's a lot of justification that goes into it. department heads just can't write down on a piece of paper what they need. it actually has to be approved and we have go go through dhr and through ken to make sure and jennifer to make sure that exactly a justified position. i just wanted to add that. thank you. >> that's a welcome addition. thank you. supervisor sheehy? >> sure. so first of all i guess i want to take strong exception to the

bla's analysis of this position. this position is a position that has national stature. it's vital to a community that has been oppressed statewide, nationally and globally to have someone who actually performs at this level. the question isn't about the direct reports, it's about the ability to create policy that is absolutely novel, to take on institutional challenges and over turn them and change them in a sophisticated manner. now we could have individuals sitting out in front of the building all day protesting. the choice here because there was a recognition that there was historic injustice is we would bring somebody in -- as i've seen the position operationalize has done beautiful work in addressing these injustices.

the fact that we are arguing other this position in the time of trump, when this community is under direct assault nationally, it portrays or values as a city. this fighting over somebody who has done an enormous job, a community that's underthread in our city that doesn't get the fairest deal from law enforcement, does not always get the fairest opportunities for jobs i find incredibly disturbing. >> thank you supervisor sheehy. ken, we are going to see you on monday. >> excellent. thank you. >> i will look forward to it. thank you. folks we are going to hear from the department of human resources, mickey callahan and then the public defender and then from general responsibilities and policy recommendations from michelle. thank you very much, ken. and adam.

>> good afternoon. nice to see you again.

>> supervisor cohen: for what reason is there such an increase in caseload? >> we attribute it to two factors. the size of the city has grown. more people means more claims. i think we've done a good job educating people about their rights and supervisors about their obligations to report. and, thirdly, the fact that -- i think the metoo movement has created an awareness. so we welcome people filing complaints and when they file them with us, it shows that they believe they will get a fair shake from our internal investigations and they don't have to go to the department of fair employment housing or equal opportunity housing. the overwhelming majority of claims are filed with our own agencies, so we're proud. it means that people know we do a good job, but at this point, we're six months behind. we've centers will saying, thanks for your complaint. we'll get to you in six months.

i will say, though, that we appreciate the support that the budget analyst in recognizing that we have this extreme need to add positions. the challenge that we have, though, is they're -- on the policy side, offered to us on a limited term. we have no reason to expect that we'll have a diminution in our caseload. in fact, we expect it to increase. if we can keep what we have, it will bring us to 30 cases per investigat investigator per year, which is higher than we would like and it's not accounting for projected increases and the trend is only going up. so we have great difficulty recruiting and retaining people if we tell them it's a limited-term position. it's core work. and as h.r., we responsible for

ensuring that permanent work is done by permanent employees. we're held accountable by our labor partners in particular. we're always leaning on departments, if this is core work, core functionality, permanent employees need to be doing it. we're concerned in our ability to recruit and retain if we're saying, hey, you are just here to clear a backlog and then they will be looking for a new job as soon as they arrive. so wire very concerned about that. we're asking that the positions that are being added will be added on a permanent basis. it's not a cash difference, if you will, between our two positions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for pointing that out. i will pivot to the b.l.a. to hear what their remarks are on this topic. >> thank you, supervisors. as the director mentioned, there are four new positions, 12 33 equal opportunity program

positions and the director spoke to the increase in the caseload. while there has been an increase in the last few years, it's not necessarily been steady increases every year. in '16/'17, they dipped a little bit and now back up. so the reason why we're recommended limited term is because we're expecting whether this will sustainably continue to increase or whether it's going to plateau or potentially might ease up a bit. so we're going to give the department three years to see where this goes. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i appreciate that. colleagues, any questions? supervisor yee, would you like to say something? >> supervisor yee: just make a comment. i understand the three-year term piece, but i also understand in regards to temporary employment

and three years is really not that temporary, to be truthful. there's a chance that it might go down and you may not need all of them or one of them or two of them, so i will go in the middle somewhere that either one -- you can make adjustments, but one or two could be permanent and the other one or two temporary. to give some wiggle room, in case there's some decrease they need to do in the future. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee, what are you proposing? >> supervisor yee: i -- okay, i will propose something here. why don't we go with the recommendation of having two -- is it four positions or three?

>> supervisor cohen: it's four new positions. >> supervisor yee: and three of them -- >> supervisor cohen: in a three-year short-term -- >> supervisor yee: four new positions? >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> supervisor yee: that's easy. two permanent, two on three years. >> all the same classifications. >> do you think that it's a weird diskrep answery that everyone is with the same classification and yet two are permanent and two are temporary? >> i would say not necessarily. i -- the average time that a lot of folks stay in their positions these days is two to three years. so i'm not sure that that will make a difference. >> supervisor cohen: let's hear from the department. >> we would prefer that -- with all due respect and we will not

argue for long -- we would prefer that we don't have to come back and ask to make these permanent next year. i think that just to point out, it's been a steady trajectory with a tiny dip in one year, but if we stay at this number, even if we're plateaued, we're going to need these positions. the only circumstance we won't need them is if there's a drop. by the way, if there were to be an economic downturn or massive layoff, that increases the number of claims that are filed. so it's kind of -- that's an additional concern that i would have. so we will defer to the board, obviously. but if we can have them treated all the same, that would be best. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer?

>> supervisor fewer: personally, it doesn't sit well with me to have some classifications at the same time doing the same work, some temporary and some permanent. although i so highly respect the b.l.a.'s opinion and judgment, i think that these employees should be permanent. you can build a life on a permanent job. >> supervisor cohen: i can't hear you. >> supervisor fewer: you can build a life on a permanent job. civil service jobs were designed for people to have a livelihood and build a future. >> supervisor cohen: any other response, colleagues? would you like to respond? >> i thank you for your consideration. >> supervisor cohen: so you will hold to the request for four. >> with all due respect. >> supervisor cohen: yes, we love respect. thank you. [laughter] i respect budget analysts as

well. how much are we talking? what are two new f.t.e.s? >> there's no shaving, whatsoever. none. this is a designation. and i totally understand what supervisor fewer has just stated. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so it sounds like, supervisor fewer, there's a little bit of a proposal that's nuanced. the b.l.a. is saying, no. >> supervisor yee: they're saying three years. >> supervisor cohen: our colleague is saying, let's give them two permanent and two for temporary. >> supervisor fewer: i understand that, and as much as i love him deeply, i disagree on this one. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> supervisor yee: and you can rest pepect me, too. [laughter] >> supervisor fewer: and respect him.

>> supervisor cohen: okay. colleagues, any other indications on what you are thinking. i haven't heard a motion. >> supervisor yee: i think it was my motion. >> supervisor cohen: it wasn't seconded. i will second. supervisor yee, could you restate your motion? >> supervisor yee: sure. b.l.a. is asking for all four positions on temporary, three-year cycle, i guess. and what i'm suggesting is a compromise of putting two of the positions as permanent and two as suggested by b.l.a. on a three-year, temporary contract. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: how is that different?

>> supervisor fewer is saying they should all be permanent. >> supervisor cohen: okay. there's a motion made and seconded by supervisor yee and let's take a roll call vote on that motion. [roll call vote] >> clerk: there are two ayes, three nos. >> supervisor cohen: motion fails. is there another motion to consider? supervisor fewer, anything that you want to -- >> supervisor fewer: so i can make a motion now? >> supervisor cohen: we have to give the controller's office direction on what to do with this item. >> supervisor fewer: i make a motion to maybe the three positions permanent. four positions permanent.

>> and accept the underlying budget analyst recommendations that the department agrees with. >> supervisor fewer: absolutely. >> supervisor cohen: can you say that -- >> supervisor fewer: and to accept the budget analysts underlying assumptions. >> supervisor cohen: is there a second for that? seconded by supervisor stefani. can we do a roll call vote, please? [roll call] >> clerk: there are four ayes and one no. >> supervisor cohen: all right. this passes. >> apologies, i overlooked a couple of previous motions i should have asked you to make. to take the budget analyst recommendations that weren't in kiss prosecute with the fire department and the city administrator's office. apologies. those were the indisputed portions of the budget analyst

reports in those cases. >> supervisor cohen: i will make a motion that we take the indisputed portions for the fire department and city administrat administrator's office. seconded by supervisor fewer. and without objection, that passed. okay. mr. rosenfield, you have your orders. you know what you are doing? okay. thank you very much. >> thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: no problem. all right, everyone. we're moving forward. we're moving forward. >> last but not least, hopefully -- >> supervisor cohen: you are the main event, one small, tiny thing after you. >> we've painstakingly, i don't think i have any fingernails left, come up with $150,000 in cuts that we're willing to

accept. those are mandatory benefits, court reporter transcripts, and reducing f.t.e. for clerk typists. and that will contribute $225,000 over two years. the only issue in contention is whether or not the public defender should be allowed to hire an entry level para legal in order to defend cases of severely mentally ill, mostly homeless individuals, who are either transitioning out of jail or are in the hospital. we have a mental health unit of three attorneys and two support staff that represents 3,000 people a year on everything from 51/50, 52/50, and long-term

commitments to the state hospital. early this year, i had come up with the idea and i approached mayor farrell about this about having the public defender to begin to defer patients to assisted outpatient treatment, laura's law. i shifted my position a year ago when the board was debating whether or not to implement laura's law and the board did pass that. and i began looking at the results and i saw that there were only a dozen petitions that had been filed in the last 2 1/2 years. this would increase the number of referrals. we would take direct responsibility for preparing cases and petitions.

ordinarily, we represent the patient and interest of the patient. how would that work? we have individuals who are severely mentally ill, such that they cannot make a rational decision as to whether or not to participate in treatment. these are all individuals who have refused treatment historically. and what we do then is see if they would allow us to file a petition on their behalf. bring in the interested parties, the family, referring party, which is usually a family member or a physician, and file the petition. just to give you an example, we tried this earlier this year. we had an individual. i won't mention her time, but she was a long-term homeless woman. she was ranting and raving, covered with mud. she couldn't even get into a shelter because she had lice. one of our attorneys went out

and served her with the assisted outpatient treatment petition. she didn't go to court. when brought the petition to her. as a result, we were able to convince her to go into a short-term stabilization unit. she began taking medication while she was in that unit. and today -- this is four months later -- she's in housing at the broadway hotel in san francisco. i've met with jeff kaczynski about this. i've met with barbara garcia. and they're on board with this effort. so, again, if this is something that the board would like to see the public defender engage in, we're willing to do so. this is our way of stepping up to the plate. i do believe after having been a public defender for 32 years and being the public defender for 16

years. that we need to find a way to address the condition of our clients who are severely mentally ill and are not accepting services. >> supervisor cohen: and you rest your case? >> yeah, well. >> supervisor cohen: cool. thank you. we'll hear from the b.l.a. now. >> yes, we're not in disagreement with mr. adachi that there is a severe mental health crisis in san francisco and a lot of it is associated with homelessness. we just finished an extensive audit on this topic. what i'd like to say is that laura's law or assisted outpatient therapy is a -- is not evenness ll lly -- even necessarily a court-ordered proceeding. there were 60 participants and

only 6 of them were in the program through court order. right now in terms of who and where the responsibility for, you know, these individuals who had this need, the department of public health has a program of forensics behavioral health services. they are appropriate in terms of being able to track and understand who the people are. and, quite frankly, in terms of -- this isn't even conner is -- conservatorship. it's outpatient therapy thatter that receiving. at best, it's really a program that you need active case managers and active behavioral health intervention. i don't see a role in the criminal justice system for there to be additional, you know, staffing to work with the clients. i think there's a need, but i

think it's within the behavioral health system. >> supervisor cohen: you think it's a need but in the behavioral health system? okay. >> the reality is that most of the clients who would benefit from assisted outpatient treatment and, again, these are individuals that are refusing any kind of services and treatment. that's a requirement to be accepted, those are the individuals that come through our office. it's the same people. sure, we could sit back, as we have done, and say, you know what, that's public health's responsibility. if they decide to file a petition, then we'll represent the client. this is a very different thing for us to say, we're going to undertake the responsibility of bringing clients in. the fact that -- and this is not meant as criticism of public health -- but that there are only less than a dozen people in

a.l.t., i think is a travesty. you can walk up and down the street and see hundreds of people who could potentially benefit from this. i was at an event over the lunchtime and had referrals, one from the department of public works and another from the park rangers. and, you know, what this would allow them to do is actually contact our office and allow us to step in and prepare these petitions. the petitions don't get prepared by themselves. they have to get prepared. usually the person is too mentally ill to show up to court. so somebody has to get the petition and then serve it and then hand walk them into treatment, which is what we did on the case of the woman that we have now brought into