Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.20.23 Commission on Equity and Public Safety MeetingCity of South San Francisco Minutes of the Commission on Equity and Public Safety Tuesday, June 20, 2023 City Manager’s Conference Room, City Hall 400 Grand Ave, SSF, CA 94080 6:00 pm Committee Members: Present: Salvador Delgadillo, Arnel Junio, Carol Sanders, Steven Yee Absent: PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard, Alan Perez, Krystle Cansino Staff Members: Present: Devin Stenhouse, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Officer Maryjo Nuñez, Management Fellow Captain Adam Plank ____________________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 6:11pm. AGENDA REVIEW No changes to the agenda. Commissioner Yee wanted to share that he thought the agenda would be too tactical/granular at first but now realizes that it’s a nice frame of reference for what they are going to be talking about overall for today. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes from the April 17th and May 27th meeting were approved. ITEMS FROM STAFF MEMBERS -Devin shared that SSF participated in the Pride event for SMC; 67 people registered to walk with us and about 50 people actually showed up. There was also a SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROUD t-shirt (Thanks to Kathy Ko!) -Devin also shared that the Cultures United Progress Pride Flag Raising and documentary showing… There were also about 50 people present. For Cultures United PRIDE month next year, SSF might be trying for a larger scale event. -Devin also received 3 emails from residents: there is no action needed to be taken at this time. The residents have been receiving emails for a shelter to be located at Airport Blvd. Residents would like to have representation from Old Town when talking about where to put a location, especially since this location would be in Old Town. He will be sure to share more information as he receives it. As in terms of what the Commission can do, there’s not much as this is County-level. Vice Chair Junio shared that it’s interesting that there was no notification to the residents. However, Devin shared that this is yet to be set in stone as there are more approvals that need to be done from the County. -Devin also shared that there were some emails from residents who were not on board with the Progress Pride Flag raising. -Commissioner Yee reiterated that he would like to have the Commission reminded to keep in line with the General Plan of SSF. No Public Comment. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Reading of the Land Acknowledgment. Vice Chair Junio read the Land Acknowledgment. 2. Approval of minutes from April 17, 2023. Commissioner Yee motioned to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Sanders. The minutes were approved. 3. Approval of minutes from May 27, 2023, retreat. Commissioner Sanders motioned to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Delgadillo. The minutes were approved. 4. Review of mental health crisis response models and identify priorities for future Council presentation. Devin asked the Commission to use this as an opportunity to look through the presentation; ask questions; and bring up ideas for a further discussion to develop these slides again in July. Attached is data from the Garner Center; they will have another study out in September and again next year. So, the Commission’s charge involves updates to Council, but also advises the Commission to review the data for inclusion into the slide deck. Devin recommends including these studies as updates to Council. This current data focuses on co-response in dispatch. -Vice Chair Junio shared that the Commission does not recall if they saw the other studies in their entirety. -Capt. Plank shared that the original report was expectations, theories of what we are expecting the datta to show to get some sort of baseline leading up to when the program and then after from when the program started. He imagines that the final report will include what was consistent, what surprised them, etc. -Commissioner Yee shared that for the interim data, that mid high-level overview is to include the findings—this is clearly delineated—to a higher-level, it lacks progress of goals, etc. so would like to incorporate this into further reports. -Last report is coming in March, but the program ends in July. Since this is the 2/4, maybe we incorporate this, and then for the other presentation, include ¾ and 4/4 for the presentation to Council. -Commissioner Yee shared that the slide deck is cluttered and has a lot of dense information. There could be a summary deck, then a detailed deck, so if folks want a deeper look, we still have this in our back pocket. -Devin, looking at pg. 28, asked the Commission if they like this format. It involved bullet points. This format is identity the problem, identity program, Devin asked, “is there another format we could follow?” -Commissioner Yee recommended a matrix; so that audience can visually see rather than reading. -Commissioner Delgadillo shared that he agreed with Commissioner Yee. People learn in different ways, so it would be helpful to incorporate different presentations so as to allow different learning styles to better absorb and understand the information. -Vice Chair Junio shared that he isn’t sure who would be speaking to the Council, but he also agrees that he would have someone “speaking to Council” vs. having Council “read.” That way, this would better allow interfacing between Council and the Commission. -Commissioner Sanders what would we replace this with? Moving pictures? -Devin shared that matrix seems to be the key word here. Starting at the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Pilot Program, this could be stand alone, but once we get to the other programs, this could be where the matrix comes in. He envisions four columns from the agencies with team, response, services. That way, this is not replacing information, but rather reformatting. -Commissioner Yee stated that the disadvantages/advantages could be baked in… -The advantages/disadvantages have not come out yet according to Capt. Plank, hence why there is no information following this slide. -Devin states that (after the Advantages/Disadvantages slide) is where we begin including the information from the Garner Center. -Commissioner Yee suggested to include a pros/cons according to SSF’s need with each program as well. -Commissioner Delgadillo shared that the findings from the center are important, so we should include those too. -Commissioner Sanders shared that this would be value into the conversation, esp. focusing in on the success of the programs to the Council. -Devin states that these cities are just different flavors of what the SSF crisis response model could be… It sounds like either a matrix or get rid of the examples. -Commissioner Delgadillo stated that a matrix might be too much… SSF as a small city is different from Alameda County, which is a whole county. -Devin: this is nothing more than examples. This pilot program is not the first of its kind; this is the message that this is providing. If looking for a report or a slide deck that is going to be as efficient as Commission would like, then ask, “are examples necessary?” -Commissioner Yee mentioned that this is still worthwhile to include, and this is more than just examples, because we learned from them. We don’t have to do a deep dive, but it would be nice to include say, this is what we gleaned from them for consideration for our program. -Vice Chair Junio stated that he is under the impression the Council is expecting the Commission to dissect these programs, figure out what would work best for the City, make a budget, and then suggest recommendations. So, he wants to make sure that whatever the Commission presents to the Council will be to their satisfaction. They have seen so much information from other places but has not seen anything about boiling down what the other groups do and seeing if that would work for SSF. However, he also recognizes that there is key data missing still, so that would help hone in on the presentation. -Devin: since the pilot is still ongoing, we are in no position to make recommendations yet and Council is not looking to hear recommendations yet. This is simply an update, think “we are just updating Council.” He recommends that their presentation not exceed 5 minutes. -Capt. Plank shared that as one of the first cities in the county to adopt this and participate has been humbling and rewarding. Many people—including himself—are looking forward to looking into the what has worked and what are the lesson learned. -Devin also recommended that the Commission also take SSFPD and Mika’s first-hand input would be incorporated into the presentation. -Commissioner Delgadillo said this presentation would have to be done before September? -Devin shared that July-August is the ideal date, but presenting in September wouldn’t be too bad either. -Commissioner Sanders mentioned that folks should get together to talk about a presentation before the next meeting since that is July already. -Devin said that this sounds like something a subcommittee could do…He could even create the matrix himself and then have a subcommittee meeting to firm up the presentation later. -Commissioner Yee asked 2 questions: 1) when are folks next available? 2) so far in the process, what has been most surprising for Capt. Plank? Capt. Plank: one of the numbers that jumped out is that 80% of the calls that the clinician responds to, she is dispatched to; the other calls are request for officer, then officer asks for Mika to join. It doesn’t really spring from Mika’s initiation first, most of it is calls to 911 or officers responding and then recognizing a mental health component. It is surprising but also not that surprising because –it is definitely supporting the dual-response model—and so far, there aren’t desk calls or in-person visits as much. Another thing is that there has been way more embracing of Mika in the department; folks appreciate her as a resource. PD also asks her when they had a call but she didn’t accompany that “what would you have done, so we can respond better?” The Mon-Fri still seems to work best with the 9am-5pm hours. If we switched it, we might lose something, gain something else. This also provides consistency. -Devin also stated that there has been inconsistent language, but for the sake of our matrix, we should be constant in our language. -The Vice Chair said that he believes this has been a productive conversation and suggested that the commission move onto the next item. 5. Review and Approval of Bylaws (including vision, theory of change, and guiding language). -Devin: we are starting on pg. 58. Everything above is essentially the ordinance for this Commission. He also shared that he is playing catch-up, there is the Mission Statement—which seems to be created from the previous Commission—if they wanted to vote and it is unanimous, they could, but as a reminder, the Chair is not present, and there are more members not here tonight. -The Vice Chair also clarified that the Commission discussed this in their early days but were sidetracked by a former member that labored in the language which stalled this group. He doesn’t think they have to revisit it but are welcome to. -Commissioner Yee wanted to understand, how reflective is the bylaws for us? He wants to make sure that their bylaws follow their charge and do the best they do to represent SSF. -Vice Chair Junio stated that now would be the time to skim through and then if something pops in your head, feel free to speak to it. -Commissioner Yee asked about a clarification about the process, specifically on the efficiency, but he understands that with the Brown Act, they can’t all just jump on Google sheets in their spare time. -Vice Chair Junio shared that they looked at it collectively; it was a working document. -Commissioner Yee: so how did you capture all the edits? -Commissioner Sanders: we would do it during the meetings. -Vice Chair Junio also shared that yes, we would do it during the meetings, but then we would have revisions then, which would further our discussions which made it laboring. He was fine with it then and still is. -Commissioner Sanders is also fine with it. -Devin states the citizens will ask to read their bylaws, so please, make sure that it is all good within your hearts. The other thing in terms of process is that yes, it will take a little while. For the sake of today, if nothing jumps up, then nothing will be voted on, but we could wrap it up, send to the other Commissioners what they think. It is recommended that they vote on the bylaws within a month. -Commissioner Yee: to Devin’s point, the Commission will be held accountable to these. There are some comments he flagged for clarification. -Commissioner Yee asked about Article 5, Sec. 1 under complaints. Who triages the complaints form and send it to Human Resources? Devin mentioned that the city staff has a right to a formal review, so it will be funneled through the commission, but beyond the Commission, it will be Devin → HR. Commissioner Yee is cool with A-C; (as with the other Commissioners) he asked about Section D: he asked for help on how to understand these are translated. Through these things, what are the key results/objectives that the Commission is accountable for? -Commissioner Sanders: if she remembers correctly, that will include the presentations that they saw throughout the months, the tour of PD, teambuilding exercises. -Commissioner Yee still struggles with these because these sound-like activities; he doesn’t see the connection to the objectives/key results. -Devin: maybe instead of objectives, we say goals—then there’s where we can incorporate the education component. The goals could stay the same, but here are some objectives that we can include, i.e. performance reviews towards the end of the fiscal year, etc. It could clear sentences like these, if this is something you wanted to have in these bylaws. Commissioner Yee and Vice Chair Junio expressed that they not think they need to go that into depth. -Commissioner Yee suggests if they can include a commitment to the General Plan, then that would align with the City’s goals too, so it’s not like they are some “ragtime team.” -Commissioner Sanders: looks at E as the way to measure results from D. -Commissioner Yee commented that he doesn’t think KPI is not the language to use, but the Commission doesn’t have to be too technical. -Devin: this entire document is firming up the bylaws, just need to really focus in on this last part. -Commissioner Yee suggested that maybe they can reword D and E to align with the General Plan— perhaps by pulling directly from the General Plan. Then if there are deeper questions, we can direct them to the General Plan. -Devin: could include like, “these goals and directives are influenced from the General Plan”—each objective there don’t have to all be listed. There are two motivators: 1) the general plan and 2) the Commission on Racial and Social Equity Action Plan. There are actions items in each that align and some not too much. -Vice Chair Junio: likes Devin’s suggestions—he thinks that way, it will be according to him and Commissioner Yee. -Commissioner Sanders and Commissioner Delgadillo agree with this sentiment. -Commissioner Yee mentioned that within Section C Vision, the “with” is such a simple thing that he appreciates: we are WITH others. -Commissioner Yee asked is including with marginalized identities too exclusionary? Vice Chair Junio replied yes. He states he appreciated the honest and welcoming environment in which they can speak. -Devin: could state with and those who stand with and for marginalized identities. Also, to confirm, he crossed out D and E and replaced with the goals and objectives of this Commission are influenced directly from the City’s General Plan. This will make the conversation easier for next year. The question is do we want to get rid of this? The same can be said for methodology and strategy. -Commissioner Sanders stated that she is fine with saying goals—it would be more concise and then saves them from some things that they don’t have data on. -Devin: who are we building relationships with? What about needs assessment? If this is going to be included, folks may ask about this. Again, the question is, is this the way you want it to look on the bylaws? If it’s general, they could apply it however they want. -Vice Chair: hears omitting D, E,F and combining them into a concise statement that is in line with the General Plan. -Devin: the recommendation would be to provide a more succinct distinction when it comes to the relationship building. The commission will seek to explore relationships with nonprofits, etc. Needs assessments will be implemented 2x yearly or 4x yearly or whatever. -Commissioner Yee: yes, D and E could be smushed into a goal. If F is a standalone, then could hook into something else like H. If he looks at H, he’s not sure if folks are aware of theories of change. He’s not even clear with how this is being applied. Theories of change vs. levers of change? Devin: thinks that overall, is saying the same thing. The idea is: here are ideologies that we are going to use to ensure that a goal is being met. -Vice Chair is worried about belaboring this too much. -Devin: it seems like methodology, etc. is already there; thus, either we can bake in relationship building through practice; needs assessment processes Things in F may already be in H, if the Commission believes to be fine. -Vice Chair is comfortable with striking out F since it is part of the levers; then D and E would be scrunched up under the goals statement—he is fine with this too. Devin: G; this would be more internal. -Vice Chair mentioned that all caps from call IN not call OUT bothers him because all caps do imply yelling. -Commissioner Delgadillo and Devin said that calling in is to communicate your own perspective and being polite while doing it. They did not vote on this item. Items from Commissioners -Commissioner Yee said that he recommends commissioners to review/check in with the general plan to make sure they are all on the same page. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:20pm.