tv Our City Our Home Oversight Committee SFGTV December 2, 2020 2:10am-4:21am PST
queue for public comment. please start speaking when the system indicates you are unmuted, and you will have three minutes. there are no public comment. >> okay. and i just wanted to say we will have two hours today, so we wanted to be realistic with our agenda, and i know there was a lot of interest in looking at our bylaws, our procedures, and then talking some more about decision making criteria, so i just wanted to explain why s.i.p. is not on your agenda today, but we're working hard to have that on november 30. just wanted to give that update, and now, we'll now move into item three, where we discuss proposed bylaws, governance structure, and legal
obligations under proposition c, and possible approval of bylaws or other action. [inaudible] in terms of the responses to the bylaw survey. i have a few comments that i received. there's a request for a few different committees. i think i have requests for one, two, three, four, five, six, seven committees. [inaudible]. >> -- i can summarize what people propose, and then, we have city attorney jon givner to kind of walk-through the draft again to kind of figure it out and answer questions about it. so mary, if you want to give me
access. you want presenter access, laura? >> please. >> okay. i'll move it from jon to you. >> as that's happening, i just want to notice at the last meeting, there was about seven callers that wanted to give public comment that were not able to, and i just wanted to see if one of the suggestions from community members is, instead of calling in, if people could just be on webex and be unmuted and then get unmuted when it's time to speak instead of having a separate process. >> yeah, i'm actually getting some e-mails right now in terms of some people that are trying to get on right now. >> okay. wow, in terms of public comment, mary, do we have any callers? >> clerk: i see one person that just raised their hand, and i can take that if you
want, but the instruction is they would call in and follow the instructions on the agenda. they would press star, three to raise arthur han, and that's what i would be looking for to call public comment on, so i'm not sure how the seven -- >> yeah. it's a little different if they're on their computer, watching the webex. at the bottom of the screen, they should have an icon to raise their hand. >> okay. well, can we take the one caller and then try to find the others if possible, that -- i know you say you said one caller was there. >> clerk: yeah, i'm going to go ahead and unmute this caller now. hello, caller?
>> yeah, i'm seeing that exclamation mark that -- yeah, hello, caller? >> yeah. they have an exclamation mark, that means they're usually away from the computer or not on the screen. we do have another caller on that on the phone. >> clerk: okay. should i go ahead and unmute the next caller? >> okay. go ahead and mute this -- >> clerk: okay. and then, i will go ahead and unmute the next caller. caller, hi. >> hi. this is liz c hharziden, and i the director for healthy aging for episcopal services. with me is dave corego, executive director of senior center, and executive director
of the bayview seniors center. we are here today to implore you to consider directing funds specifically to senior housing. their a dire need for specialized housing for older adults that allows accessibility to imperative services. without it, these seniors lack the accessibility to needs for even basic quality of life. thank you so much for your attention to this urgent need. >> thank you. do we have the next caller available? >> clerk: jim, i don't see any callers. do you see any -- >> no, i think that was the same person, so you can mute that and then go on. >> clerk: there are no additional callers.
>> is there any additional callers that we see? if not, we'll go back to item three. >> clerk: i don't see any additional callers. >> okay. well, if we do see callers, please let us know, we want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity for public comment, so we'll go back to laura and city attorney givner to talk about our bylaws and governance structure and legal obligations under prop c. >> so i'm just going to summarize the various comments that we heard and shared these with jon givner to sort of have in his brain, as well, with the bylaws, the comments included allowing more flexibility in the regular meeting dates rather than codifying specific dates, allowing for two
meetings per month, document procedures for establishing an ad hoc committee, so having in the bylaws exactly what needs to happen to be able to create new committees. codifying in every agenda that every agenda should include an action item for members to request future agenda items and vote on them, establishing a progress chair on the executive committee that helps track progress and ensure transparency, possibly create a subcommittee to support this work, establish a data impact officer with the power to request and handle city data, and to encourage data sharing for the purpose of ending homelessness and the monitoring of prop c funds, also responsible for transparency data monitoring and progress of outcome. there a
there were a couple of different outcomes of proposed committee structures, so two proposed that were stomach but a little different. so one had six subcommittees that would include -- similar but a little different. so one had six subcommittees, and the proposal had descriptions of all of them, and we can pull them up later if we want to discuss those in more detail. the second proposal was similar but a slightly different structure. had five subcommittees in addition to the primary committee. immediate funding needs work group, system planning data subcommittee, a housing development work group, a behavioral health work group, and a communications subcommittee, so those were the various comments that we received related to the bylaws.
so i'm going to stop sharing now and can turn it over, mary, if you want to give presentation back to the city attorney, that would be great. >> mr. givner: all right. thank you. so i can briefly run through these ideas just to flag a few issues, what can be done easily and what's more complicated, and then, obviously, the committee needs to discuss and decide what direct you want to go in. after this meeting, i'll modify the bylaws, the draft bylaws following your direction, and you can vote on them probably at the next meeting, but hopefully, that'll be just a simple final step. so meeting dates, i'll start -- start with the easier issues.
meeting dates, the committee has to have a regular meeting date. doesn't have to be twice a month. you can have a regular once a month date in your bylaws, and then, you can hold a special meeting as the second meeting every month, and that date can be flexible, or if the regular meeting date turns out tos infeasible, you can always cancel that date and have a second meeting, instead. so it needs to have one meeting date and then you can schedule another one. the one -- one member proposed that the bylaws should note that every agenda would have an item on it for committee members to propose future agenda items. that's totally fine, that's standard for a lot of different commissions in the city. i can add that to the bylaws, no problem, and then, it'll be
on all your future agendas. the, i think, more complicated discussion for the committee today is the subcommittees. the bylaws can identify subcommittees or the bylaws could not identify subcommittees at all and just say that the committee is authorized to create subcommittees by a majority vote at any meeting or a [inaudible] i will note that any time a committee creates a subcommittee with two or more members, that subcommittee is subject to all the meeting laws and rules that you are subject to now, so that means agenda
preparation and notice, public comment, the preparation and approval of minutes, all the rules that, say, the board of supervisors is subject to, and all subcommittees will require a fair amount of staffing just like your committee meetings have, so just to -- as an example, the board of supervisors, as -- as many of you know, has five subcommittees in addition to the [inaudible] committees at the regular board meetings, and a dedicated staff to support those five subcommittees. so that's something to keep in mind as you consider the subcommittees, as well as the timing and effort and
scheduling to hold subcommittee meetings. an alternative to subcommittees, as i mentioned at your last meeting, is the chair could designate a single person to be a point person on a particular matter or report back monthly on a particular issue, and that member of the committee could step out and talk with as many as -- as three of her colleagues to get input. in her discretion, she could decide who to converse with as she prepares her report back. if you designate one person to handle a task, that person is not a committee, and that person isn't subject to all of the regular meeting rules and just has the more informal
conversation and would just report back at your next meeting. that goes a little bit to the final suggestion in the list that laura posted, which is identifying particular people or particular members of the committee to be officers or in charge of particular c.a.d.s. [inaudible] it doesn't have to be in the bylaws. you can do it on a meeting-by-meeting basis, and that's all a decision you can make today or in a fixed meeting. and those are my thoughts about these items. >> thank you for your -- >> can i -- >> sorry. go ahead. is that member friedenbach?
>> yes. jon, can we designate a single person in the bylaws on you doyou -- or does that have to be done ad hoc? >> mr. givner: you can designate in the bylaws, say, that member friedenbach will be the transparency officer, or one member will be the transparency officer and will be responsible for the following tasks, so yes, we could include those in the bylaws. >> yeah. so the names part, i'm less -- you know, i'm thinking about, but in the proposal that was brought up, where we have an immediate needs committee and behavioral health and housing
acquisiti acquisition and coms, the proposal was to have those committees have people and wouldn't be formal committees of the body, but as i was getting input from a variety of different people that were involved in the our city, our home coalition, it was suggested that we put something in the bylaws so there's an element of formality around it, and so we would have, in the bylaws, for example, the chair shall designate a single person to take on immediate impact and, you know, kind of down the line. and so that way, we could have -- you know, i think the idea for me is that we really need to have dialogue in the
community and be able to really dig down deep on this stuff in a pretty nimble and speedy way, and i think that i also want to be cognizant of the city staffing issue, and i feel like a lot of this stuff we can do as a committee and bring back recommendations to the board, because i want to make sure there's a formal element to that, if this makes sense, as we're recognizing this as an extension of our activities. thanks. >> okay. thank you, member friedenbach. i'm going to go to member nagendra, and then member reggio. >> yeah. so if we have one person be a
point person on that particular topic, could that person essentially have an informal community -- you know, a work group that included a set of meetings with stakeholders and that sort -- so the member is sort of the official person on that topic or that area of activity and then meets with people in whatever way and has to staff that on their own, but then come back and having a informal work group structure. it's not officially a subcommittee, but still a duty of the commission? >> mr. givner: yeah, that's exactly how that works. you sign a person a job, and they can go out and have regular meetings that she sets up on her own with regular members of the community and then comes back and reports
about it. >> okay. >> member reggio? >> so i think it's obvious from the first couple of comments, i would agree, that setting up a point person system is a lot more manageable, not just manageable, but preferable, and it keeps it from being written as much some stone. with respect to what jennifer is saying about the need to codify it, could it be codified in terms of there's four persons that we recognize a need for right now, those may not be areas that we want to dig down as deep in a year from now. and if we put it in the bylaws, that means if we change our mind and want a different one or no longer want to have a point person for housing pipeline, for example, then, we would have to go in and change the bylaws, so i think an
alternative approach to it would be, i suppose codify is the correct word in this case, but as a committee, we formally said hey, we've got these four areas that we want a point person on, and this is what we're going to work on over the course of the next year, and in a year, we're going to look at it again. long way of saying i would like to keep the bylaws as streamlined as possible and locking us into areas of subcommittees and points, but being able to identify issues at the time that we need to. >> mr. givner: that's definitely doable. you're right that amending bylaws is a lot more tedious
than specify acting committees. you can say that each committee will have specific actions as defined by the chair, and then specify that as you go forward. >> so i would say that i'm personally supportive of that. i think it keeps us more flexible, more nimble to the needs that present themselves to us six months from now or a year from now. >> thank you, member reggio. we'll go to member leadbetter and then member andrews. >> i have one quick question, and then maybe we'll go to -- if possible, i would love to pull up the chart that i submitted, based on a lot of collected feedback from folks. but my quick question is if a
member forms a work group and wanted to talk with up to three members, can that all be done in the context of a work group or does that have to be conversations, you know, held separately? >> mr. givner: so, for example, if you're the -- you're assigned by the committee to be the rapid response point person, you want to have a conversation with 15 of your colleagues, is that what you're asking? >> yes, i'm a rapid response work group, and i pull together a group of maybe 10, 15 stakeholders from the city who are not on the committee [inaudible] some committee members to that work group. is that possible? >> mr. givner: yes. the only restriction on you there is you can't have a
quorum of the committee. so you can have four committee members altogether speaking with the other members of your -- of your community group, but you couldn't have five of you there because that would turn into a meeting of the ocoh committee. >> okay. that's great. that's exciting. i'll pass onto member andrews and would like to come back to another [inaudible] if possible [inaudible]. >> great. member andrews? >> thank you, chair. jon, i just wanted to get clear on this, and i know i sat on the ethics commission there for a few years and certainly understand sunshine and brown and the things that we, clearly, in terms of coming together, need to pay attention to and prevent something that
would restrict ourselves from doing. can the oversight committee write within its bylaws that the oversight committee has the authority to establish a committee of one? i know we're using the word point person, but can you indeed establish a committee of one, and then, beyond that, the oversight committee in a regular meeting then seeks to establish as many committees of one or more as they want to, and just have to agree what those are? so could one person represent a committee? >> mr. givner: i do think it's a bit of a kind of a semantic wording question. i would recommend against using
the term "committee of one" or "committee" because in government we generally think of committees as subject to all the committee rules. so i don't know if there's another word or what would be the right word, but i would lean against using the word that refers to the group that would usually be subject to the brown act. >> okay. got it. >> okay. we'll go to commissioner d'antonio. >> i just had a question about the special meeting. does that have to be mentioned specifically in our bylaws? >> mr. givner: your bylaws do not have mention special meetings, but it's probably a good idea, now that we're including -- we can add it to
the section about regular meetings. actually, i think we may have done that already, but i'll make sure that that's in. sorry. just getting back to committee member andrews' question, if we're looking for another word for point person, another term we can use is liaison or community liaison or something like that. >> great. member nagendra or member -- is your hand raised? okay. the lower hand function. okay. so if we could bring up the chart that member leadbetter sent? >> i'm sorry [inaudible] the screen back, if you could give me presenter rights. >> clerk: yep, working on it.
give me one secretary. >> this is an opportunity for the folks who presented the two proposals to just walk us through that, and we could sort of move from there. we've got the two structures that laura shared, but there's more extensive charts for each proposal, so if we could move through member leadbetter's proposal. >> this is commissioner williams, and i believe that member haines is raising his hand, as well. >> [inaudible] i just wanted to [inaudible] to do about that [inaudible] liaison, and i love
know. there's no good way to say it. >> i hear what you're saying. technology support, liaison rules, what are some of the rules that they have for support of technology and also just getting information out to the general public. i don't know, city attorney givner, if you have any -- >> mr. givner: i'll defer to laura or mary or ben on the question about providing support for those -- for just community meetings that liaisons are having. there's nothing -- there's no legal reason why you couldn't put those on webex, whether supported by the controller's
office or not or record them and make them public. in terms of report back from liaisons, which i think might be good to work back from each chair, to put on each agenda, an item for liaison reports, so you have just a standard that you're going to have a report back every meeting, and that's something that you can decide to include on the agendas when appropriate or not, say over the holidays, there's no liaison report. >> okay. thank you. can we -- mary, is it possible
to pull up the chart? >> i will -- i'll do it when we're ready. i'm sharing the two. there was one, i think that was member leadbetter's original here, and let's see...it's quite small, so i'll zoom in so you can, and i'll turn it over to let member leadbetter kind of guide and direct. >> can you make it a tiny bit bigger? >> sure. >> thank you. here we go. so thank you. i just want to thank the general public out there. this is -- i received a lot of feedback from interested party
that were following along, and i think the public is key to our success, so i'm working really hard to build a lot of conversations with people and keep themmen gauged, and what we're -- them engaged, and what we're finding is [inaudible] care about the particular subpopulations, a lot of interest in [inaudible] and homelessness, so everybody [inaudible] wants to be a part of this project. so i think the idea here in
building off of member friedenbach's comments is building community engagement while also recognizing the staffing required to do such a thing, and so just putting out there that, you know, in addition to all kinds of interested, you know, providers and people impacted by homelessness, we're getting a lot of interest from funders, and getting funding from collaborators to do this work, and appointing point people so the point people don't have to spend [inaudible] during the week and months as well as the conversation in the workplace can be brought back in an organized way in the committee.
so that's the big picture. we've got all the information from our agent and department head -- agency and department heads, and we've got the [inaudible] of the city to support this work, as well. so that's the context why i was being considered for so many committees, and we'll start there. i think, similar to member andrews, what i had gleaned back from the feedback that i was gathering, maybe one subcommittee that is the backbone around our transparency and impact, and how we're cleaning it up, and that this here is called the impact subcommittee, and having
make that bigger, and maybe appointing more members so we're having a lot of eyes on our data, eyes on our transparency and [inaudible] participation so we can keep everyone invested in this, and we haven't talked a lot about that, so i'd like to the city attorney for what this would look like. so [inaudible] and the data and the systems model and the progress report, and see me going through that committee. >> yeah, and discuss progress in [inaudible] and metrics and staff at the controller's
office [inaudible] also putting in [inaudible] in departments like the office of racial equity as we move in that direction, and, yeah -- sorry. sounds like a little hard to hear me, so i'll speak up. so yeah, that would be the backbone of this [inaudible] committee. and the other one, it sounds like there's a lot of alignment with some of the committee members here of wanting to be flexible and having a point person, so i think people take this structure and revision on the feedback of what i've heard today [inaudible] one member appointed, and then, they build a group that they see to do the
work. [inaudible] so the city mobilization work group is how do we keep people engaged [inaudible] how do we structure an active external process so that this really lives out in the as compared to live in the city [inaudible] and various ways about mobilizing and potentially from being sort of things like community action model where people in the community are working in groups to create policy change and improvements and things like that. system planning, i think we talked a lot about that and have a sense of what that -- and have the idea [inaudible] sort of medium to long range planning, working with
technical assistance like [inaudible] or local. we also have t.a., which is now working with h.s.h., so that could be an interesting partnership. in addition, funder's interest is [inaudible] it could get in the housing pipeline work groups [inaudible] pipeline work that's necessary from the more technical housing finance plan and work. so yeah, a point person for [inaudible] strategic investments, that can be the needs assessment, basically, creating our needs assessment, and then, the rapid response, immediate funding, i think we've heard from everyone about their concerns about the proposal that would be in front
of us, wanting to support s.i.p. residents as well as a lot of immediate needs, and that could also be supported by somewhat a more targeted modelling, so that would make sense, and maybe it would be [inaudible] a longer term investment plan, and then, a housing work group, i think we're seeing the value of a net housing group coming on-line. [inaudible] what's the cost effectiveness of things that come across our plate as well as looking at a conversation between behavioral health and h.s.h. around acquisition rehab and behavioral and understanding what that needs and then a behavioral health integration type work. and then, i got feedback, as
well, earlier today that we need more prevention work. so that's the best thinking that i could do to combine all the feedback i've gotten in an update. and again, thank you to the general public out there who's really given so much to this. >> thank you, member leadbetter. can we pull up the next -- actually, let's go to the committee for any questions. i see member friedenbach. >> yeah, julie, super helpful. thanks for all your work on this. i just want to do the comparison back to the board of supervisors because i think that's our reference point. so like when the board is doing legislation, and things are going -- you know, that gets introduced to the full board, there's all these things that
happen behind the scenes. they meet with city officials, they have staff that do that. they meet with all the staff, and do all these things that happen on legislation, and then, they meet with the entire body. i just want to say that we're going to need a work product, and we're going to have it meet prop c definitions, and that work has to happen somewhere, and so maybe i'm -- yeah, so i just wanted to kind of point that out and do the comparison because i know -- this is about, like, trying to not have public input, this is trying to have a process where we can have really good public input so that the public has something to be bouncing off, and so when they come to this full board, they'll have a proposal in front of them that they then can weigh-in on, and we can make adjustments.
without work happening behind the scenes, then we're not going to get to that work product. so i just kind of wanted to make that comparison because i think it might be helpful way for people to think about this. >> thank you, member friedenbach. was there any other member -- actually, i see member miller. >> hi. thank you, jennifer, for saying that because i'm a little -- i am a little concerned, and i think a lot of us in direct service are because we have deadlines kind of coming, and i am a big believer in efficiency and getting things done, so i think if we can find some way to -- if we have a liaison, and they work on each one of these
groups so people can identify what group they want to be a part of, and the liaison is accountable for gathering this information, i mean, it's going to -- for a lot of it, it's going to have to happen very quickly. but the thing i like about the liaison structure is that you have one person that's accountable. so if i, lena miller, let's say, does something for rapid -- if i want to be the lead person for rapid response, and i'll be back november 30, and i'll have this done, then, you know, there's not diffused responsibility. so i think it's time, and i think we're all saying that we want the same thing, so i think now, it's time to get the action plan, you know, to make sure we get this done, to jennifer's point. like, we've got to slhave a pl
to present -- particularly for this rapid response, we've got to have a plan to present very, very soon before these people get out of these hotels or, you know, federal funds stop, and we don't know when that's going to be, and we have to figure out a plan for a few thousand people. so i just wanted to kind of -- my suggestion was to find a way to implement this now, figure out our structure, assign our people, and get going. >> thank you, member miller. i have member nagendra. member nagendra, you're muted. >> thank you. i want to say, julie, thank you so much for all of this work, for incorporating our comments. really, really, really helpful
to see this. i think we're building -- buil member miller's and member friedenbach's comments -- if we can establish these as soon as possible, and some of them, we can start to take on immediately and start -- have them work, like we did in [inaudible] group, having that be a focus, having that be a focus on start with, and then, depending on who's appointed to each one or whoever's assigned to each one, we can sort of talk about that, but then, we can sort of build them in various stages, but yeah, if we can prioritize a needs work group. i think a lot of groups will feed into what the system planning is doing, as well, because they're going to need to know the development of the housing pipeline and the other
systems integration. it doesn't need to be in that order, but we can just sort of stagger them, figure out who's on what, and trying to figure out some action plans and timelines for each one. >> thank you. and i want to give us the opportunity to look at the other proposal that was sent, as well. >> you know, actually, shanell, that is the other -- jennie has actually incorporated what i had sent in in pretty full fashion. so i would say -- unless it's not the one for me. >> and that's one -- yeah, yeah, i think this is yours. >> jennie has pretty much incorporated almost everything that i had done [inaudible] incorporating our ideas, so there's not [inaudible]. >> julie? >> yeah. >> i'm sorry about that.
julie. >> so i'm amenable if we want to move this forward, if we want to say this is the particular focus or these are the buckets of work that we see we need to have a liaison in one role. city attorney givner, do we need to adopt that struck or we can we just start to nominate folks as liaisons for different areas? >> mr. givner: you don't need to formally adopt a structure if you reach a conconclusion for what each person's -- conclusion for what each person's responsibilities are. >> okay. well, is there a proposal for the committee based on the committees that were shared that we will? >> chair, i'm wondering if i could ask a quick question.
>> yes. >> i would want to hear a little bit of feedback from the city attorney on the one proposed [inaudible] committee and [inaudible] a bit more. >> mr. givner: can you describe again what exactly the responsibilities of the committee would be? >> yeah, the function of the committee would be to [inaudible] the dashboard in progress preventing homelessness, so obviously, that dashboard would need to be created and listening points come out of that [inaudible] and it's really a place where people who care can get together and make progress and look at how we're actually achieving our targets out in
the community [inaudible]. >> mr. givner: i don't see a legal problem, any legal issues with forming a committee like that. you would just need to be sure that you're only assigning between two and four people to that standing committee, and keep in mind that it would be subject to all the brown act issues. it sounds like the -- the role of that committee would be similar to the role of the larger oversight committee, so we'd want to specifically as much as possible that committee's specific rules and bylaws. >> yeah [inaudible] and i think the idea is we want communication amongst committee members but also amongst the people who are interested, so that's the general assembly.
like, can we hold a committee meeting or subcommittee meeting that has a relaxed [inaudible] and dialogue so, for example, they'll say [inaudible] around chronic homelessness needing to be, you know, advanced [inaudible] and how they understand why that is so it can be a robust conversation with either a larger stakeholder committee or either people who want to participate from the general public. >> mr. givner: okay. i understand. if you form a formal committee, with multiple members, you're going to have to have a regular public comment period where you give each person, each public commenter the same period of time, so that could constrain that free flowing kind of
discussion. you could have presenters like on items that you sometimes at the board of supervisors, but that's relatively limited, you're still kind of constrained. i think if you wanted to see that kind of forum, the most flexible approach would be to assign one member who forms kind of a general assembly kind of discussion rather than it be a formal committee of the oversight committee. >> okay. i think that's helpful. i think still having the larger impact formal subcommittee i think is of interest to me, as least [inaudible] general assembly ideas over more to this community mobilization-type work. >> okay.
thank you. so is there -- i can't see the participa participants on my screen now. >> chair williams, could i briefly mention something, as well? >> sure, controller rosenfield. >> yes. our department's charged with staff support and helping form your work as a committee. i certainly think from a staffing support perspective, a liaison approach will allow the committee to work fomore effectively than subcommittees allow, and we appreciate that discussion. at the moment, our office is offering staff support to the committee by deploying
employees to work on this. but in the future, i think that additional resources are going to be needed to support you effectively, which might involve hiring office staff or outside entities providing that support. just in terms of setting expectations, as you've kind of had this discussion, our ability to kind of support different activities in the shorter term until those longer-term resources are in place will be somewhat limited. we're going to work hard to support what you need to get done and want to get done, but i want to just be clear that there's a few of howley say sons could work in the shorter term that really would be -- would be doable, i think, from a staff support perspective, and there's another way that liaisons could launch that would be more difficult to the extent that five liaisons begin
work simultaneously, and each of them envisions community public meetings that would involve public outreach, so i think we need to look at support in tour ability to provide support in the longer term and those terms. >> anybody else on the committee want to talk about this based on member leadbetter's documents? we still want to have a [inaudible] and they would be able to call meetings, inform the public, and do the in-between work that we know needs to happen. so is there any -- >> can i -- i'm sorry. just to make sure this is clear, with the public
subcommittee, the impact subcommittee, this is distinct from the system planning with a, like, looking at data. one is first creating the system plan and then the impact subcommittee is monitoring it. i just want to make sure that, like, if we're having a public meeting devoted to impact, that we understand that versus the impact group that is system monitoring. >> yeah. member leadbetter, do you want to speak to that? >> i think cynthia has her hand up. >> yeah, i was going to respond to that, but julie, if you have any comment, please go ahead. i was going to say the subcommittee, they're being the committee, as you said, takes the work -- the systems group is going to help set goals,
outcomes, progress benchmarks through sort of a data informed kind of systems planning process, and then, [inaudible] that those goals and targets and sort of that -- those plans can then be taken by the impact subcommittee and create -- and then, that impact subcommittee can basically use that to see and prioritize what the goals are to the public and to the entire committee and the commission to see what are the established goals, what are the investments that we're going to make in year one versus the following years, and then what are the progress benchmarks, and we can use those dashboards to present to the larger commission on a regular basis -- really, i think we should be looking at that on a regular basis, maybe every month -- where we want to be
and where to course correct, so that kind of holds the progress tracking function and help to inform the commission to be able to monitor where we are meeting our targets, where we need to change course, etc. >> and since it's using the work of the system group, it wouldn't be something that should start meetings right away, it would be something that would start to establish a plan, and then, this group would review the plan and evaluate the plan. >> i'd be open to hearing what commission members think about that. i don't know what work it would take to get that data or push dashboards together. i'd be curious as to what other commission members might think. >> all right.
well, i can't see hands raised because of the screen share, so if you want to comment, just speak. >> so what i heard controller rosenfield say was that there are resources, but there are a limited number of resources, so if we get everybody up and running now, that probably isn't feasible. but cynthia was looking at it in terms of a dashboard in front. i think if we start looking at what committees can start working right away, we can start looking at it in order. that committee needs to be working now, i'm sorry. even the thanksgiving holiday, we've got deadlines coming up, and they need to be grinding now, so maybe later or right
after that, or maybe even simultaneously, so that may have to do with, you know, community meetings that will need to be staffed and those kinds of decisions that will be staffed. however, if the systems committee wants to simultaneously be working, they can be creating systems on how to put that together, but maybe their work that has to be calved won't happen until after the work is done of the people that are looking at immediate issues. and then, you know, so what i'm saying is until we really kind of figure out -- so we have a robust support system, perhaps we can look at timing of everything, right, so that we can make sure that we roll the resources out according to the time that -- you know, that it's needed, and then that way,
the people who are working around the holidays can relax a little later, and people can pick up and do their people, so that's what i'm suggesting. we assign the time and prioritize the resources for whatever has been prioritized for that period of time. >> so what i'm hearing is from member ill -- miller is we need priorities for these commissions. is there anyone interested in serving as the rapt response liaison? >> chair, chair, shanell williams, can i just jump in here really quickly? >> sure. >> this is brett. so i'm overall generally in
support of the structure. the two things that pop in my mind, and i know that we've sat on way too many of these committees, is it feels like there's too much of an opportunity for siloed work to start, and the possibility of discussion to end up being limited. now some of us might have different interested, but that does not stop us from getting more support or else we are doomed to, in many ways, recreate what some would say is a less coordinated effort at the city level. so i'm just trying to figure out, as we build on plane, how
to pay attention to that and prioritize that. the second thing that i wanted to throw out is i know that we're going to have minimum monthly meetings, and that the over nig oversight committees have the ability to have monthly meetings, but that i think we should go through a deliberate exercise of sort of like quarterly outcomes that we want for ourselves; what things we want to seek to achieve. some of them are going to be more activities out of the rapt response team. -- rapid response team. the other, which may not be as significant of a priority, to establish what those priorities
are. it all pretty much is memorialized somewhere, so two, we can match ourselves against it and determine where our priorities are. i do worry about siloed activities beginning to happen without a shared agreement. >> no, thank you so much for that, member andrews. i definitely share that concern. i think that, as it was mentioned earlier by city attorney givner, we can actually designate and say these are the deliverables that we're working on for these particular buckets. i saw member friedenbach had her hand raised? >> yeah, i think those are really good points. one of the things that we can do, is for each of the groups to have, you know, the specific
outcomes, goals, and benchmarks, and part of that is the system integration, so i feel like if we have a specific outcome for each of the groups, and if we're thinking about that ahead of time, then i feel like that fits in what you're saying, brett, that we have a collaboration with all these different pieces instead of everyone going in different directions. and also building off of, i feel like the group should actually have -- actually, julie's presentation had specific goals for each of the committees. not all the committees had the specific goals, outcomes, and benchmarks, and so i think we should put that language into each, and then have some instructions that build off of the work that we did in the retreat for having a vision.
so each of the groups are starting off with this. this is are the priorities, and this is the expected outcome in term of the work product, and then, it all comes back with this group to create a set of recommendations. i also agree that we give a timeline to each group, and that we have some -- you know, immediate needs, i think we need to start right away. i do want to have a prevention group. i feel like we can chip things away and do one thing and keep going. i do feel like the housing production one, because that takes to much time, that's something we don't want to take too long on? but for the immediate needs, hotel acquisition, that could go under the immediate needs, so we could start doing the acquiring of property right away in our recommendations and then kind of moving it.
sorry i also spit a bunch of stuff out, but i also feel like we're heading down a similar path. >> thank you, member friedenbach for saying that we needed to set up for each of these groups so i agree that folks are not going in different directions or sort of a direction that is not along with this body and what we see as, you know, where we want to go, so i don't want if that's something we can do right now in this meeting, but i know it was mentioned that member leadbetter's proposal did have some of that in there. so make we could take a look at that and see if our proposal, our motion to approve those [inaudible] from member leadbetter. >> no, i just want to say, can we -- i want to understand whether, just thinking of this
original discussion was about the bylaws, and so trying to be clear about what of these, if any of these items are about the bylaws or go into the bylaws and how the bylaws need to change or whether these are separate motions from anything to do with the bylaws. >> [inaudible] pull back up the chart that julie presents? >> yeah, there's the public member subcommittee, i think there's a desire to have that in the bylaws. i don't want to speak for the committee, but is there an understandi understanding or a motion that we would want to add that to the bylaws? >> if i can ask, maybe julie can talk, and maybe fully
wrapped around this, maybe not seeing the graphic is hurting this a bit. but talk about the subcommittee. talk that role a little bit and how that's separate from the functions that we're looking at. maybe that's a julie question. >> i'm happy to. it would be helpful to look at it. can we see it? . and, you know, i think there's a question to the committee here. some of the feedback we've gotten is maybe it does look like a lot like us. i think the idea that not being us is we also have other business to attend to in our
meetings, and impact is also the most important thing here. like, we really want to end be homelessness, and -- end homelessness, and giving it solid structure to discuss it the way it needs [inaudible] i could go either way, but i think the other thing that might -- so sorry. does that answer your question about that one, and then, you wanted to know how it differents frdiffers from other committees? you're muted. >> you're muted. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay. sorry. i was saying yes, i think the second part of the question still remains, how do you differentiate, why is this -- is this a formal committee or a subcommittee that we would recognize in the bylaws, so i'm
asking that distinction. but i would say, julie, you went at it, which is more the essential point that i was making, is this is our role as a committee, and i'm a little concerned with taking what the whole point is to make sure the impact is there and saying hey, we need a subcommittee for this. i would say instead we identify the things that we're referencing to did he vel llo -- develop, not develop, say these are the things we need. mohcd, come and present the pipeline. where are we in terms of benchmarks along the way and that? if there are things that are not being addressed, i think we
need to say hey, acquiring four more master lease properties in the next month is insufficient. i just am reluctant to set up a structure that is so, in my view, what our purpose as a committee is, so i would say i generally would not fair that. i would say i do favor work groups so we can recognize along the way the need to dig more deeply into something, we assign that, and we do it, but to have an ongoing work group or a network group or committee for impact, it seems like we're taking a chance at duplication of effort, it seems like we're taking a chance at drawing out a process that, instead, we
ought to be asking the controller's office, which staffs us, the h.s.h., which needs to link strongly with us, mohcd, hey, this is the stuff we need, this is where we need you to comment. so whereas i can honor, and i'm not who are identified by the thought of doing ---horrified by t-horrified -- of doing -- horrified of the thought of doing something like this -- i do think there is great recognition that prop c came from the community, from a collaborative effort on the part of the public, and we need to have greater public accountability and meetings to gather public input, but that's what this committee should be doing, and we don't have to set up subcommittees, in my opinion, to do that. >> i have a question for you. are you okay with the liaison proposal that we have on the
table? >> i like the liaison proposal that we have on the table very much, and i would be reluctant to identify five or six different areas of liaison right now unless we know very clearly what we expect these liaisons to do. for example, housing pipeline, let's say we want to really wrap ourselves around this might be good, tell someone to appoint someone to go and do a little digging. it 'seems like that's going to be do with mohcd and h.s.h. we work with controller's office to draw whatever type of dashboard we want related to that, and we go back to committee, but i'd say more on an ad hoc basis -- if we need a housing pipeline liaison, for
two months, we get it, rather than set it in place and somebody for the next year has to figure out what to do. i think we all have too much to do in any of our current activities to duplicate that kind of stuff. >> chair, if you don't mind, i'd like to get in there. so i think [inaudible] feedback on more subcommittees [inaudible] is totally understandable and perhaps shared. the things that -- and maybe some of the intentions of that could actually fold into the community mobilization committee, and maybe that's something more like mobilization and transparency. >> yes. >> i think some of the things that -- one, the systems modelling, that kind of becomes what we're measuring against, and i think there's going to be some exploration and
partnership that we're going to have to sort out, really, with the department, with h.s.h., mohcd because they have a [inaudible] plan that won't allow 100%. they have other funding sources that they're working with, so our system modelling is [inaudible] and slightly different, so i think we need to have some touch point of our system modelling specifically to measure that and [inaudible] and we're going to need to get up earlier rather than later. i also think having pipeline is more important in the community than just having a liaison. but the communications, i think is incredibly important in our
transparency and how you work with philanthropy to set up websites and really accessible information and data and tracking and things like that is work that will need to be done that can't be done in subcommittee or our committee. so as long as that moves somewhere, and maybe that is the committee mobilization, that's reflected in a lot of feedback that i'm getting. >> thank you. is there additional comments? i want to be mindful of the time and try to move it forward. it sounds like that the committee is okay with having point people for these areas, having liaisons that can work on these things in between the meetings. there isn't a desire at this time to building into any of our subcommittees, i'm just trying to get a temperature. but is there a desire to
appoint any of these liaisons today? is there a desire? member friedenbach -- oh, you're muted. >> just to kind of move stuff along, i'd like to make motions on some of the points that came up, and i'll -- and so i do -- whether we put the committee -- whether we put the liaison, the official positions in the -- the categories in the bylaws, i guess is the -- is kind of what we're debating? but the two things i want to make sure that we do at least is that we have a data officer. we have had a tremendous amount of problems to date getting the information we need to be able to make decisions as a body, and so i want to make a motion for that, and i'd like to make a motion fore f the agenda pie
of stuff. >> we can just add the action item piece. we don't need a motion for that. we can just take future items, but we do need a motion for a data person. so mary said we should go into public comment before we go into motion [inaudible]. >> are we supposed to do motion and then action and then public comment? >> i think we're supposed to do public comment before we take action. >> okay. >> that's correct. so members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. access code is 146-261-1651, then pound, and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star, three to lineup to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then begin your comment.
please know that i have three minutes, and i just want everybody to know that you can you can know the public comments are being taken. i do see one hand raised. i'll unmute this person right now. >> it usually takes a second. hello, ashley. sorry. hello. >> i don't think we have any public comments right now.
>> i accept. >> all right. >> it's been moved we have a data officer is is second. >> i second and i wonder if we have two separate motions. >> do we need to vote on the activity? i don't think so, right. >> i couldn't quiet hear the member's comment >> we asked to take the lead on modeling. >> no. >> we haven't decided on that
that. with sophomore modifications that wouldn't be part of the bylaws that would be -- it could be part of the bylaws but we wanted to put language in the bylaws he would be appointing a community liaison on this the the following subjects. it included system, needs, house can aquisition, behavioral health and calm? >> we need to take a vote on that to have a community liaison in these areas. that's in the bylaws to, you
know, subcommittee, is that correct? >> that's right. i'd add something in the bylaws that authorizes the committee to modify those assignments or come up with new liaison assignments. we can put that in the bylaws. >> we can modify that for future activity. >> motion moved is there a second. >> second. >> to add community liaison to bylaws. seconded by member haines. >> that was the list that liquor store are laura has. >> do you need me to reshare
the list. >> does anyone need to see the list for community liaison position. >> yes. >> can we share that. >> i'm fine to move forward with the list. so, is there a way they are to out listing the specifics subject areas we'll focus on. i guess it's a question for our council. is it still just as firm if we didn't nestle list these
identified subject areas in the bilogs bylaws but vote as a committee with the subject areas. the oversight committee could vote on them to the establishment of the liaison is listed there the bylaws. the actual identification is a vote by the oversight committee itself. i'm trying to break out the two. any straight, power or per view for the roles. >> i'm comfortable modifying my motion. >> i think that makes a lot of flexibility that we are looking for. especially having an officer.
[inaudible] >> okay, so, member, you will orr are willing to amend your proposal to establish community lee liaison. it's including but not limited to some of these areas. >> i'm saying as a oversight committee substructure we establishment within our bilogs. in a separate vote not apart of the bylaws they can vote on the establishment of the five or six we have listed. that way, we are voting into
these positions a particular person or persons that's been identified within the bylaws. i'm sure council, john has a better way of saying it. >> we have saying we are setting up the position of community lee anson. the areas they will be operating in. >> yep. >> we can absolutely vote on the specifics that are the priority issue and issue areas we have. >> our first motion is to establish the community liaisons. member, would you like to move your motion. >> i'll modify my motion.
i move to add language in the bylaws that allows for the creation -- appointment of liaisons on subject areas deemed by the committee as a whole. >> thank you. is there a second. >> second. >> was that member andrews? >> yes, it was. >> any farther discussion. >> the only thing i wanted to say is on this list i think we are missing communications. that's it. all in favor of establishment. >> i think communication is part of mobilization so they can be called out.
community liaisons. >> i'd just like to ask a configuration question. i'll have to leave in 15 minutes and make sure i'm clear. by by bylaw amendments so you can finally vote on them they will add a requirement that every attendant including future agenda items you will preempt the public subcommittee. add the liaison concept with the idea the committee will be
assigning liaison subject to a majority vote and creating the data officer position that has been apointed but will be in the future as well. it would be helpful and you mentioned this chair williams to have a little more description of the data officers role so we can include that in the bylaws as well. >> i'd like to clarify that the public, the impact subcommittee was not voted on. i'd like to make sure you are adding that. it wasn't a vote. >> they selected the committee moving that forward. >> okay, sorry. >> i wrote that down and right, thank you. >> all right. do we want to appoint any of these positions today, i mean, we have 15 minutes.
we have a hard stop around 11:30. i'm not sure if we want to do appointments today or the criteria discussion a bit. >> member reggio. >> since we only have 15 more minutes we might hold the appointments to next week. we can spend a few minutes talking about what you put together. maybe three or four minutes on next weeks agenda. >> okay, anyone else beside? >> yes, i'd like to strongly advocate for electing somebody
or identifying somebody to work with rehousing. i think it's happening soon. i'm getting a lot of questions and pressure and there is a lot of anxiety and fear about people who be leeing lee -- leaving these hotels. someone should be doing something now. i think we should identify the person for that now. >> are there any nominations for this role folks would like to vote for? anyone interested in this role? >> i'll do it if no one else wants to do it.
i don't want to be the person but i'm happy to be the supportive person. i talk all of the stuff i can't not do it. i'm fine as well. i'm worried about conflicts. that's one reason i nominated myself. i think, i'd love to do it with you. either way. >> i would like to support you, jenny, i think you are right. i have conflicts in terms of i have the hotel and run the village. i don't want to be in conflict but i'd like to make sure it's
done. let's work together. however i can support you to make sure with you have meetings and whatever it is we start moving on things now. i'd like to nominate member friedenbach. >> member friedenbach you working on rapid response? >> yes. >> i also add there is support so which can get -- [inaudible]. >> all right, seconded. any farther discussion on this appointment? all right, if not we'll go to
way, where to cut right at the end and reagendaize or make quick decisions. this document was shared by e-mail yesterday. it's a discussion we had on the second day to capture the content in a few ways. the driving force is to get to that decision criteria or framework for how they would like to review and understand proposal. so, the comments are categorized here. categorizations we can change them if needed. it's generally defined in five
categories. one is on equity and ensuring all of the proposals are targeted to right ask a metic. racial inequitities that had one of the highest priorities. the next is sort of a broad view of housing first. we prioritize housing first and programming. we are making sure the decisions lead towards housing and maximize housing.
it enters then i'm come in with approaches making sure it's homelessness and then i heard a lot about collaboration. the community stakeholders at the community. last thing is accountability and value and things. they promote accountability. there are a lot of other comments that members made this is how we make sure. it's a document.
it's action you might take or concepts. just some values with proposing. it east the basics and administrative cat gore res. is it eligible for the basic categories of funding. also looking at your oversight role of administering the fund. equity, a few guiding questions to explore what that looks like. would you look at the proposal on inequity. also guiding questions to make sure the proposals are sufficiently client center.
they have outlined how input has been informed in the strategy. they are a low barrier. data driven and outcome oriented looking at what are the expected impacts. any proposal. that brought us the reach. this is a tbk related to that. once you establish or impact model you can decide how that fits into your decision criterias as well for how you make decisions based on the model. it's a placeholder there. this is the framework of a true values made into a set of decision criteria. there are choses you can make as a group about how to use this. i offered a few guiding
questions. making sure they have consensus around categories also are there other captions that would help you understand that better. really about use. how would you use something like this some might be using it as a more formal template like a scoring framework. order them into priority and kind of assess each proposal against it in rank or score. it could be a discussion model. we will use these questions to guide our discussion. we will come forward as a committee. these are decisions you will need to make about how
something like this might be used. this is an option based on the conversation we have as a retreat. i can turn it over to the chair. >> thank you. thank you for your work on capturing the discussion and the pieces that came out of our retreat. i'm not sure if we would like to add this as a short part of our november 30th meeting to get folks time to reflect on so many of the options you gave for how we can use this tool. and everything we evaluate.
>> it's okay. >> so, i think we would see proposals or at least the department need funding. we want to have this as a separate response for the work group or structure for it. i think it should happen early. i think we should evaluate that. is that what is needed. >> we got to request to hsh and other groups that have been working on the hotel issue and speak to us about
that idea. the question request the tool is it's the standard tool for our body to review all of our spending plan or do we feel comfortable that this is the guiding framework but not a set in stone we absolutely have to rank everything by this, you know, this tool. we could make a motion to adopt it as our decision making tool it can go that way. >> i think it's premature to adopt it. i think it's an excellent tool. there are additions and changes. we don't have time to talk about that yet. i do want to raise one element that i think needs to be called on in a different way. i think the category that has
transparency and accountability has sustainability kind of tucked in there. i do believe if you go down to the bottom there. make sure the cost of services coh i think there is sustainability issue there. i think as we develop things we need to look at this as a new category. actually, let me get the wording on this. is the funding adequate to assure program sustainability. the second bullet there is a proposs salad quitly form
wages for service providers. this is an incredibly important point. i think there is a tentcy tendency to fund an item where it's funded at a level ten years ago and you go through years of it not sufficiently going up so employees that were working there are not adequately compensated andes sen which will things to protect the quality of life for people who are living there. things like elevators that are not sufficiently staying functional. i'd call on sustainability as something we look at as a separate category. it has to be prematurely to vote on this important tool
which otherwise i think is pretty incredible. thank you for working on that. >> i think, i'm not sure but i wanted to make this comment. when we think about capacity of people carrying out the workout. i know, i'm not sure but i think some have to think about how to make sure if we ask for certain kinds of targets and outcomes we are funding providers to do the work and funding the outcomes and making sure or at least thinking about how to build capacity. i have seen in other communities money hit the streets in large funding infusion. it takes time for people to build the capacity to carry the workout. i'm not sure exactly where to think about that.
i wanted to put that in as something we should think about as a commission in terms of department staff and the providers were carrying this out. >> absolutely. that connected to another point around sustainability. that could be sustainability and capacity if there isn't capacity the work is not sustainable. yeah, it should be blended in there. i'm trying to see if there is additional stance or comments. it sounds like we are not ready to vote on this tool today. we can think about it and if there are any comments i'm not sure if you received comments to date on this. >> i did not. we just shared it to the group yesterday. i wouldn't have expected
anyone too. one of the next stepless might be if people can bend adjustments. the decision members were talking about earlier so, if this will be a framework for decision making they should have it meet their needs. that's looking like you know the next meeting they will bring you information about spending proposals. so, you know, if you decide you would like to use it at your own thinking and helping understand one anothers prospective you wouldn't necessarily need to adopt it as a decision criteria. it's a structured tool and proposals are weighted against. that would probably need to high pressure the vote you
would do on the spending proposals that are coming in two weeks. maybe if it's not quiet ready yet to be used that might not be viable and a formal tool for the immediate need but could become a formal tool later that you used in the process. you are weighting those long-term budgets. it's more clarity on how you would like to use something like this. those are options for you. >> thank you so much. i would like to say there is a number of there are potential spending plans out there. to the comment around us being able to get our eyes on proposals. i know you are operating as it
liaison. they will come from hsh to get those earlier, prior to the november 30th meeting that would be ideal. >> so, just for that, if this is -- i don't know if we are talking about that now. i'm not sure if it's part of it's agenda. there are agenda items established for the november 30 meeting. if there are different items we will postthat agenda by the end of this week so people will have materials for review over the week. if there are changes we need to establish that asap. they are working on preparing materials for established agenda items for the 30th. >> i was just going to say
chair williams, i think we have in this case the information that we need sent by the board of supervisors. i have access on that with the sip hotel. i think we can get moving and lay stuff out while the, you know, interrupting the agendas as laid out. >> awesome. >> the discussion about the rapid response work group. i'm not sure for sure. >> member friedenbach can give us an update. it seems like there is a lot of information out there. we just need to review it as committee members.
in terms of the decision making criteria tool are we okay having it as an advisory tool right now and at a later date adopting it as we make changes overtime. >> awesome, this was a very productive meeting. >> members of the public should call 415-6755-0001. access code 14626116651. if you haven't done so dial star 3 to line-up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. note you have 3 minutes. bringing up the attendee list now. i do not see any hands
>> we are now adjourned at 11:41 a.m. thank you for everyone that signed up to be liaisons and see you on november 30th. >> thank you. . >> neighborhood in san francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them we're in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what think of i i his favorite district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the san francisco bay the district is
the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district fisherman's wharf exhibit no. north beach telegraph hill and part of union square. >> all of san francisco districts are remarkable i'm honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got chinatown, north beach fisherman's wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in san francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of tight-knit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the
neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun hi, i'm one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the united states been since 1956 opposed by the grandfather a big people person people had people coming since the day we opened. >> it is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6
years ago but anyone was doing that starbuck's exists and it created a really welcoming pot. it is truly a legacy business but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care from the jefferson starship hung out the cafe are the famous poet lawrence william getty and jack herb man go hung out.
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on