Yeah, we're ready to go with uh we'll go.

Oh, let me double check.

Check it out.

Oh, yeah.

I'm on live feed.

I see it now.

Thank you.

We're ready.

All right, good morning, and welcome to our May 4th, 2026 Rules Committee meeting.

I am your Chair Supervisor Shaman Walton, joined by Vice Chair Stephen Sherrill, and soon to be joined by President Mandelman.

Our clerk today is Victor Young, and I want to thank James Kowanawood.

SFGov TV for making sure that this meeting is publicized and made available to the public.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any announcements?

Yes.

Public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak on your right.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to myself, the rules committee clerk at VICTOR dot Y O U N G at SFgov.org.

If you submit public comment via email, it will be included as part of the file.

You may also send your written comments via U.S.

mail to our office in City Hall when Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodley Place, room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of May 12th, unless otherwise stated it.

That completes my initial announcements.

Thank you.

Would you please call item number one?

Item number one is an ordinance, meaning the administrative, business and tax regulation, campaign and government conduct, environmental health, labor and employment, municipal election, parks, planning, police, public works, and transportation codes to define distinguish between commissions and advisory bodies, and establish certain standards provis standard provisions, some of which generally apply to commissions, some to advisory bodies, and some to both.

Generally establish the terms and term limits of bodies with four-year terms and three-year term limits for commissions, three-year terms and four-year term limits for advisory bodies, and generally limit holdover service by members of the body, establish, modify, or clarify the censor date of certain bodies, abolish certain bodies, retain certain bodies, in some cases rename them, modify the powers and duties, and or change them from commission to advisory bodies.

For certain bodies, modify composition membership or appointment structure of members and change qualification for service from required to desired qualifications, transfer of chapter five of the administrative code provisions for bodies that are currently located elsewhere in the administrative code or another part of the municipal code, so that the large majority of commissions and advisory bodies are concentrated in chapter five, modify the duties, responsibility definitions, and membership of child care planning advisory council to conform with applications of state law, add two state required bodies, the community corrections council and juvenile justice coordinating council to the administrative code, make other minor clarifying changes regarding commissions and advisory bodies, authorizing and direct the city attorney to make clerical and non-substantial changes to update the municipal code, cross-reference and rename bodies and cross-reference to sections and subsections numbered changes by this ordinance.

Welcome.

Yes, I was the chair of the commission streamlining task force.

Um what I wanted to do was give you a brief background what's in this ordinance, and then hope to answer any questions you might have.

Um so it was created by Proposition E in the in 2024 election.

The proposition said that it should be convened for the purpose of advising the mayor and the board of supervisors on ways to eliminate, consolidate, or limit the powers and duties of appointed boards and commissions for the more effective, efficient, and economical administration of the city and county of government, and introducing one or more ordinance to effectuate its recommendations.

The members were appointed by the mayor and the board, and then three staff members of the city attorney, city controller, and city administrator.

We met over the last year.

We reviewed 152 bodies.

One of the first things we did was figure out how many there were, and we ended up with 152.

Anything called commission advisory committee board, staff working groups that met the definition of a legislative body under California Code Section 54952, which was specified in proposition E.

We received over a thousand comments, 550 in public comment, and 670 written comments, and we had two deliverables.

One was a proposed charter amendment, which is still being worked on and revised, and the other is an ordinance which is before you today that will go into effect 90 days after introduction, unless two-thirds of the board of supervisors votes disapprove it.

The 90 days are up in early June.

So what did we do?

And I have one very high level slide.

If you could put that up for us, it's not going to work, is it?

Is this how you make it bigger or smaller, or can you do that?

SFGov, can we uh zoom out on this matter?

While they're working on that.

Um, what we tried to do is to find different groups we were working with so that we could be consistent when we wanted to, but but if we were inconsistent, it would at least be intentional.

Um those groups were in for this ordinance decision making bodies, advisory bodies, staff working groups, and inactive bodies.

Inactive bodies were those who were expected to meet regularly but have not met in more than a year.

Thank you very much.

Um when I say to meet regular regularly, some groups like the districting redistricting task force only meets every few years, but it didn't mean that we should, it was inactive just because it hadn't met.

Um, the decision making bodies, there were 10.

They have some high level of oversight, budget authority, contract authority.

We kept all of those in our recommendations.

There are things like the Children and Families First Commission and in home support services, public authority governing board, and others like that that are in the admin code, not in the charter, but they do have decision making authority.

The next grouping was active advisory bodies, active meaning not the ones that we have in that inactive lowest lowest grouping.

There were 37 in total.

We're recommending keeping 26 of them, and we are recommending that you remove 11 of them from code.

The example of the ones that are kept are things like the Veteran Affairs Commission, the Southeast Community Facilities Commission, the Child Care Planning and Advisory Commissions, but then there are others that are variations of that.

So you'll see in our report that we are saying you should keep the advisory council to the Disability and Aging Services Commission and the Dignity Fund Oversight and Advisory Committee, but we are recommending you merge the two together because they overlap considerably.

And so in some cases, we are merging this as one of the few that was suggesting that.

So it shows up continuing in this ordinance because it is up to you and the voters whether there's a charter amendment and a voter approval to take that out.

So it's still included in here.

The ones that we proposed, the 11 that we proposed to eliminate, I thought I should just mention because your board digest lists all the ones that I wanted to differentiate the ones that are inactive versus those that we're proposing to eliminate.

The bicycle advisory committee, citizens committee for community and community development, city hall preservation advisory committee, early childhood community oversight and advisory committee, food security task force, shelter grievance advisory committee, shelter monitoring committee, structural advisory committee, treasury oversight committee, and the Urban Forestry Council.

It's unusual to think that you took for staff to meet, you'd need to have them codified.

In some cases, they have some recommending authority to the board or budgetary authority of some, so the Capital Planning Committee, for example, that is an organization that includes members of the board and the mayor.

It's a public body, and so we kept that as it is.

Um the Committee on Information Technology also has certain oversight responsibilities.

We kept those.

But ones that we didn't think were necessary are things like the Interagency Planning and Implementation Committee, the Justice Tracking Information Systems Committee Governance Council, and groups that are either inactive or their staff.

They can meet when they want to meet.

They don't need to have Brown Act requirements.

And then finally the inactive bodies, there were 30 in total.

Some of the examples, closed juvenile hall working group that issued its final report in 2021.

The graffiti advisory board has not met in several years.

The African American Arts and Cultural District Community Advisory Committee was established in 2020, but it has never met.

It has never had any nominations or members, and so it's been six years.

The Capital Implementation Committee was established to coordinate spending by DPW and RECP Park for the 2000 bond.

Those money were all spent in 2020.

They don't meet anymore.

The long-term care coordinating council actually voted itself to disband in March of 2024.

So KEP does not mean that they were left the same.

A number of other suggested changes were made.

We were trying to update and standardize where it seemed to make sense.

When we started, we thought we could group these things in a much more formalized way, which didn't actually work.

We were hoping to say if you see the word commission, it really means a decision-making commission, usually in charge of of oversight of a department.

We realized that there were some commissions that didn't fit that.

For example, the Film Commission is pretty much an advisory commission, but there's a brand for the San Francisco Film Commission, so changing the name didn't make sense.

So we did not do it consistently.

For advisory groups, we ended up for 27 of them of them recommending the change to council.

So you don't so you see that there are an advisory council, and you know when you see the word council, you know that it's advisory, it's not decision making.

Um we updated the term limits or lengths of term for 15 groups.

In many cases, there were no term limits at all, or there were no overall length of service times.

And so generally speaking, we had recommended three or four-year terms with 12 years total in a term limit because we thought we should give people the opportunity to serve in the city and not have the same people on the same commission forever and ever.

We made some exceptions to that.

We added a sunset clause for 12 groups.

This the board has a policy that any advisory committee that you establish should have a sunset date of three years unless you choose otherwise.

So for 12 groups, we added that three-year sunset date.

It is not intended to say that group goes away in three years.

It's to say that you have a chance to evaluate whether it needs to be changed, whether it needs to be continued, or whatever happens with it.

And we updated the C qualifications for eight groups, typically from specific seat requirements to body wide requirements.

So in some cases, it has been very hard to fill certain seats on certain commissions because they're so specific.

So trying to find a certain kind of engineer that lives in San Francisco and has no conflict of interest with the city is almost impossible.

And so we try to change those to make them more flexible.

And then there's a variety of odds and ends.

So the service provider working group, which advises the children, youth, and their families group, they technically had 295 members.

You can't have a Brown Act required group with 295 members.

So we work with them, and that will now have a group of seven members.

Sometimes there are multiple changes.

The ballot simplification committee is an example.

One of the members in the in the group was supposed to be nominated by the board by the superintendent of schools and appointed by the board.

That didn't seem to make a lot of sense.

So we just said why shouldn't the superintendent just appoint the person in the first place as opposed to having it come through the board process.

In addition to that, if you look at the board Matty report that goes to the state, every single appointment on the ballot simplification committee is vacant.

The only reason it's still able to meet is that there's holdover appointments who choose to continue to come back for us.

So we recommended, and part of it is it because it specifically has to come from nominations of specific journalistic and other kinds of groups.

So again, we tried to make that a little more flexible and said that for the mayor and the board, we asked the nominees for nonpartisan organizations representing professional journalists who focus on free and fair elections, but they are free to nominate any registered voter who possesses an understanding of ballot issues and writing skills and training, which provide for a high capability in written communications to the general public.

So again, in an effort to try to make those things work, we liberalize some of the appointments.

Those are my comments.

I'm happy to answer questions, hear public testimony, do whatever you would prefer to do.

And as you can imagine, even from the introduction from the clerk, it's a very long involved one, so I'm hoping I can answer your questions today.

Thank you, Mr.

Harrington.

Do you have any questions?

Uh President Melman.

I don't have any particular questions.

I just I want to thank uh thank the chair of the task force and the members.

This um was a whole bunch of a whole lot of work over a whole long time.

And um I don't know whether I regret to say, I'm not sure that uh many of the suggestions that came on well, I know that um a number of the suggestions that came on charter are probably not gonna make it through the Board of Supervisors.

I do think that uh this ordinance um is a lot of useful cleanup and um uh you know so again I think it it's it's I'm glad you all did the work and um wouldn't have happened, you know.

So thank you.

Thank you, President Metelman.

I don't see anything from Vice Chair Sure.

I do have a couple of questions.

Just because I want to make sure we have clarity.

Um how does this affect like the police commission, planning commission, rec and part commission?

Those are all in the charter, and the Supervisor Mandelman said a number of the the recommendations we made for charter amendments were much more controversial than these.

They were in some in many cases they were split votes.

The stuff before you today was almost all unanimous, it is much less controversial, even though I'm sure there are some that people would prefer to have differently.

So give me an example of like I mean, obviously this is you being someone who's been involved in the work for years.

But what happens to something like the Food Security Task Force when it disappears?

Like who does that work?

They're not we are saying is we're recommending the Food Security Task Force be eliminated because this Human Services Commission regularly provides opportunities for this discussion of citywide food security, and it is now being done and it's built into the operations of the human services agency up with their and they have dedicated staff for that purpose.

And when do these changes take effect if I believe the clerk can correct me, but I believe it's June 4th unless otherwise acted on by the board.

Well, definitely again, like President Mattelman, just want to thank you all for for doing the work.

Um I know it was very controversial, and so I wouldn't wish having to make decisions like this on anyone.

Obviously, we do have to make um the final decisions, but I do appreciate the work.

Um I do think that a lot of committees, councils, commissions, bodies were put in place to really do what we could as a city to make sure that people from the general public had an opportunity to participate in decision making, to feel included, and I think that at some point we most certainly may have added a lot of repetition in in the work for sure.

Uh but I also know that this committees, councils, commissions, et cetera, also provided a lot of opportunity for that voice to come from community.

Um I think for me, I would love to move this forward without recommendation, but we can talk about this after public comment.

But the main purpose is I know that I would rather the board have an opportunity to vote on this as a whole.

Um and I don't want to vote no on this today.

Um I'm not saying that I will vote no when we get to the full board, but I think that the the full board should weigh in and there are some things that we just need to have conversations about, I personally believe.

Um Vice Chair Sherrill.

Um I think that sentiment is is probably the right one.

This is a good conversation for the full board.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Harrington.

And now we will go to public comment.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time by the windows.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes.

There will be a soft chime when you have 30 seconds left and a louder chime when your time has expired.

Okay.

Let's see.

Good morning, supervisors, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Mary and McFarland, and I'm here today to urge you to not eliminate the shelter monitoring committee.

This committee is not just an advisory committee.

It is one of the most it's one of the trusted independent spaces where shelter residents can safely speak about what they are experiencing.

For many people in the shelter system, there are real barriers to reporting concerns, fear of retaliation, lack of access, and simply not being heard.

The shelter monitoring committee helps to bridge that gap.

These members are highly active, not just in their committee meetings themselves.

They do conduct the shelter inspections themselves.

They do go out to the sites and survey clients and assist with investigations about the clients' complaints.

So they are highly engaged with this community.

I want to be clear that removing this committee does not remove these problems.

It simply makes it less visible.

In many years that I've worked in the field of social services, I have heard directly from clients who have said that they felt safer sleeping on the streets than inside of a shelter.

That should concern all of us.

As it has been said consistently over time in a simple online search will testify to this.

The role of the shelter mining committee is to take these realities seriously and walk towards solutions and not silence them.

This body does more than investigate the complaints.

If we are asking people to come indoors to accept services and engage with the system, then we must also ensure that there is accountability in a place where those voices matter.

If there are concerns about how the committee operates, then reform it, strengthen it.

But eliminating sends the message that client experiences are not a priority.

I urge the Board of Supervisors to preserve and but not to just preserve, but support and invest in the Shelter Monitoring Committee.

Thank you.

Hi, Jennifer Friedenbach, College on Homelessness here with concerns around eliminating the Shelter Monitoring Committee and also the Shelter Grievance Advisory Committee, which was created by Supervisor Walton and oversees due process in the shelter.

It is not a meeting that I mean it's not a group that meets frequently.

They meet four times a year, but it's incredibly important and they're able to track whether due process is actually being followed in the shelters or not, and then that is instantly corrected.

It's one of the clearest places where you get full transparency in San Francisco.

Shelter Monitoring Committee was created by originally by Supervisor Almiano's work and creating standards of care.

At the time, we had people who were, you know, sleeping on mats without any bed covering, um, a couple inches apart, sharing communicable diseases, no toilet paper, no soap to wash your hands.

Um these issues still persist, as well as poor treatment of residents.

And it's incredibly important that this body continues.

It is not as the task force said that it would be able to be absorbed by the hawk or by actually they said by city staff.

City staff do not have the time to go out and investigate complaints in this way.

Um and they also don't have the trust uh necessarily of the shelter residents because many of the folks that are on the SMC are very trusted in the homeless community.

Um this body, I mean, you're in such a vulnerable place when you're in shelter.

And um it is really important to have this protection because of course people get put out of shelter in the middle of the night.

Um people don't feel comfortable speaking out within the shelter when they're being targeted or harassed.

Um there continues to be really serious things that happen in shelter.

And um, we continue to have uh things like um sex being traded for uh being able to stay in the shelter.

We continue to have exploitation of folks.

Um we need to have independent.

Hello, my name is Lila Holzman, and I'm a district five resident.

I've lived in San Francisco about 10 years.

I'm here in support of this ordinance because I believe it will help improve government efficiency and enable city government to better serve San Franciscans.

Right now, the people who navigate our government most successfully are political insiders, people who know which of the dozens of commissions, councils, committees, and working groups handle which decisions.

The system was made for them.

By addressing redundancies through consolidation and eliminating 36 inactive bodies, this ordinance will make the currently unwieldy commission system more consistent, clear, and accessible to the people it serves.

We need a system that someone without an insider's map can actually find their way through.

We need to make it easier for people to meaningfully engage with the most appropriate parts of our government.

And the Commission Streamlining Task Force incorporated a variety of public input.

Commissioners, advocates, and the general public, including me, I went to several meetings, uh, provided in-person written and virtual public comment, and I'm just a concerned citizen interested.

So went to a lot of fun meetings.

Um this ordinance should be passed uh to the full board with a positive recommendation to enable a more equitable, abundant, and forward-looking San Francisco.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Juliana, and I'm a resident of District 2.

Um, I'm here in support of moving this ordinance forward with a positive recommendation.

San Francisco's commissions are not just bureaucracy.

Historically, they have served as checks on concentrated power and as tools for public oversight.

And that matters, it does.

But public engagement is not measured by the number of meetings or bodies that exist.

It is measured by whether residents can understand where decisions are made, where to show up, and whether their input can actually reach the right place.

I'm someone who's been trying to move from being a politically interested resident into being an actually useful civic participant.

The more I engage, the more obvious it becomes that San Francisco does not lack opportunities for public input.

It lacks a clear map for how that input turns into decisions.

Streamlining does not mean weakening oversight.

It will mean making oversight more legible, effective, and accessible.

Please move forward with this ordinance with a positive recommendation.

That is the reform that I want to see here.

Not less public voice, but less confusion about where that voice is supposed to go.

Please move this ordinance forward.

Thank you.

I'm a longtime San Franciscan, a homeowner, and a father.

Two years ago, I stepped away from work to become a full-time parent.

Moving from the tech sector into that role required a fundamental shift in how I think about myself and my purpose.

I went from a world focused on launching, ship it, celebrate it, and move on, to one where my primary job is maintenance.

The work to care for children never ends and requires constant reassessment.

I support eliminating these 36 inactive bodies, not just because it could lead to a more efficient city, but because of what it represents.

Government is good at implementing.

It is far less practiced at stepping back and assessing whether what it implemented actually worked.

An abundant city isn't one measured by flashy wins or big celebrations.

It's one that does the unglamorous work of maintenance.

A city is a living organism that requires constant care.

Eliminating these bodies is a symbol of that willingness to assess and a call for more of it.

Please pass this ordinance with a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

My name is Jougal Patel.

I am a resident of district District 8, and I'm here to share why this ordinance matters to me and so many others.

I started taking a civics class on how SF government works to get more involved in San Francisco's civic life.

In our first class, I was puzzled and surprised by the Schmorgers Board of Commissions, their complex makeup, and the fact that so many, that there are so many, no one knows the exact number.

One of our first quiz questions was how many commissions are there?

The correct answer was a range of 50 to 60.

This felt intimidating.

It felt like the kind of thing where if you weren't already an insider, you'd give up before you started.

Thankfully, I have not, but I imagine many others have.

That experience is why this ordinance matters.

This isn't an abstract reorganization.

It's about whether an everyday San Franciscan can look at their government and understand it.

Knowledge is power.

And the complexity of our commission system feels like a litmus test that keeps most citizens out.

Eliminating 36 inactive bodies isn't just cleanup.

It's a signal to residents about which doors are open to effect change.

Creating consistency across bodies means the next person who wants to make a difference in their government has a fighting chance.

And the task force did this thoughtfully.

They took written, in-person and virtual public comment and met with community members directly.

The process honored the public it is trying to bring in.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Graham Griffin.

I'm a district two resident and I work at Abundant San Francisco.

I'm here today in support of this ordinance because government accessibility is an equity issue.

At Abundant San Francisco, we believe in a government that does not do more to deliver results for our residents.

Right now, the people who oftentimes navigate our government most successfully are the people who can afford to, those who have time and access.

Yet that's not true for everyone.

I want my community members to know where to turn when they need access to resources or help from the government.

The overly complex commission system often takes time to navigate and doesn't serve its intended purpose.

When there's too much diffusion of power, no one is responsible for delivering to the people who need it most.

There's been significant public outreach and input on this measure, as we already heard today.

At the end of the day, this is about building a government that works, one that is easier to engage with and more capable of delivering the results San Franciscans expect and deserve.

Please pass this ordinance with a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Walton and members of the committee.

My name is Graham Jack.

I'm a district eight resident, and I am a renter here in San Francisco, and I represent Abundant San Francisco and the Abundance San Francisco Civic Leaders Program, of which uh many of whom are joining me here today.

Um as a renter in San Francisco, and like a lot of people my age, uh, I have the potential to be just one bad month month away from being priced out of the city.

I'm here in support of this ordinance because the way our government is structured isn't an abstract problem for me.

It's a housing problem.

Every decision that touches whether new homes get built, whether tenants get protected, whether neighborhoods get the services they need, has to navigate a maze of commissions committees, working groups, and councils.

Some of them haven't met in years, some of them duplicate each other, and every layer adds time.

Time is what I and many like me don't have.

Every month it takes the city to make a decision is another month that rent can go up, another month that I'm calculating uh whether or not San Francisco is a city I can stay in.

Process delay is not neutral.

For renters, it has a cost, and we are the ones paying it.

This ordinance doesn't solve the housing crisis on its own.

I won't pretend it does, but it removes 36 inactive bodies, makes the system consistent, and creates fewer choke points where good decisions go to die.

That is a precondition for a city that can actually deliver housing at the speed that people need it.

Speed is a progressive value.

And when the task force uh and when the task force did its work, they took public comment in writing in person and online, and they met with the committee members directly.

They modeled exactly the kind of accessible engagement this ordinance is trying to make standard.

Please pass this ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Hi, committee members.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

Um my name is Lucas Illa.

I'm a D9 resident and I'm with the uh coalition on homelessness.

Um of course uh there is no oversight of these shelters, um true oversight that is client-centric without the shelter monitoring committee.

The shelter client advocates employed through the eviction defense collaborative speak highly of this committee.

It serves as an independent monitor to um the true crimes at times that occur in shelters.

Um it's disappointing to hear the words equity, accessibility bastardized um by some when you eliminate the this body for street homeless folks that are in and out of shelter.

Ask any of them if you if they report something that happened to them by a city worker to a cop.

I have seen that happen, and there is not only non-belief and you know no time given to that person and to the crime that they experienced or the treatment they were served by the hands of the city, um, but they are laughed at, or they are dealt with worse than that um by that cop.

And so when the shelter monitoring committee um exists and they have a place to air those um grievances and um concerns about the shelter conditions that they're facing, that is true democracy.

That is true accountability, that is true equity.

When you eliminate it, yes, I'm sure it doesn't do much to the housed folks of San Francisco that couldn't give a crap about it.

Um, but to a lot of folks on the street, that's their only mode of accountability.

Um, and at least someone that will listen to them and treat them with dignity.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Solange, and I work with individuals and families experiencing homelessness in San Francisco.

I'm here pleased to urge you to continue supporting the shelter monitoring committee shelter.

Um shelter conditions change every day, and without independent oversight, problems don't go away, they go unseen.

The committee ensures accountability, protect client voices, and help close the gaps between policy and what people actually experience in shelters.

For many residents, is the only safe way to raise concerns without fear of retaliation.

Um thank you for listening.

Hello, my name is Lisa Wynne.

I'm in here in support of this commission.

This could this committee is made from people that are from San Francisco and also have experience homelessness.

And the things is we need checks and balances, right?

It's it has been far too long that people are getting misplaced, people are getting immediately removed out of San Francisco, and I'm here in support of this task.

I mean, of this commit commission, and I really hope that you guys really take into account that the public interest why this commission was built was for the public interest to have a say in how they treat their peers.

My name is Miguel Carrera, I work in the coalition on homelessness.

Um when when I see in these uh um uh so eliminate these bodies that we create collectively from the voices them the from the democratic process and collectively from the voices from the homeless people to create these uh advisory boards and and uh and and you guys don't show me anything that they want to be better that this program is working really well for the families, for the singles we need somebody to support in when when they face in issues in the shelters.

Second thing, uh I don't really like the to eliminate the shelter monitoring committee, because this is a place with people homeless can uh can kinda speak in front of the power and let it know what issues happen inside and the shelters, why what issues facing.

So please don't move if you don't have a clear plan and clear different something different, like really supporting the homeless people because I believe this this program, this committee that we create over the years, they work in really well, they be protecting so many homeless people who don't throw out in the streets, and we don't want to create this inestability to the people.

People homeless already suffer so much, mom's children suffer so much, which when we create these these programs or new programs or eliminate these programs, they create inestability on our families and the children's and the single people too.

So please stop in this process and doing something better for this for for the people homeless.

Thank you.

Are there any additional speakers on this matter?

There are no additional speakers.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And I think as previously stated, I'd like to make a motion to send this forward to the full board without recommendation on that motion.

My apologies.

Uh on the motion to refer the matter without recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on that motion, Vice Chair Cheryl.

Aye, Cheryl I, Member Manelman.

Aye.

Madam Aye, Chair Walton.

Aye.

Walton aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number two.

Item number two is a hearing consider appointing two members, term ending January first, 2027, four members' term ending January first, 2028, and four members' terms ending January first, 2029.

To the Behavioral Health Commission.

Thank you so much.

And first I just want to thank everyone who has stepped up to want to serve uh on the behavioral health commission.

It is important work that we do here in the city.

We do have a lot of applicants, and so I would ask that when you come up, you speak, of course, about your credentials, why you want to serve, and why you should be supported, but also take into account that we should probably keep these about one to two minutes.

Um I also will go in order that names appear on the agenda just to make sure that everyone's name is called and everyone has an opportunity to either come up and speak, or if they're not here if for some reason, at least we know that we made every effort to hear from an individual.

So with that said, I am going to call up Amelia Harman.

Hi.

From there in 2019, I moved into a position that advocated for people going through the highest utilization of 911 system in Alameda County, mostly due to behavioral health services, but also um but also complex medical issues.

From there, I joined uh London Breeds Street Crisis Response Team as a peer provider as well.

Saw all of those changes happen uh politically and down to how that affected the people operating in the field.

Um I feel that the collaboration between the Department of Emergency Management, Public Health, and the nonprofit that I work for, which is Rams Incorporated, even though I'm here speaking for myself, um, was really crucial in the beginning to understand what what ways that we could help people experiencing crises, whether it be in a penthouse in Knob Hill or whether it was someone trying to work with the shelter monitoring committee to figure out how they could be best advocated for as they're experiencing homelessness.

Right now I work as a peer supervisor with the street crisis response team with ongoing relationships with the community paramedicine division and the fire department, um, even though again I'm here speaking for myself.

I do believe that right now my dedication to the field shows that I am hopefully going to be useful in the field for collaboration interdepartmentally as we move forward in this process.

Um at this moment, I have accepted a fellowship to Johns Hopkins and their Masters of Public Health program, which requires that I stay working in the program that I have dedicated myself to through the completion and over one year past uh past graduation.

Therefore, I would like to also express my full dedication for the next at least five years to this specific issue.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next we have Adina Bingying.

And please forgive me if I mispronounce anyone's name.

Athena is not here.

Okay, Bradford Smallwood.

No Bradford Smallwood.

Brandon Fountain.

Good morning, supervisors and everyone.

Uh it's been a wonderful morning hearing from so many passionate San Francisco citizens, and it reminds me every day why I choose to call this city home.

So I am Brandon Fountain.

I am a member of uh board president Mandelman's district, District 8, and I am a consumer of mental health services in San Francisco.

As a consumer of these services, uh I have seen many of the challenges and intricacies that come with navigating the mental and behavioral health space in San Francisco, and because of that, it has become a matter of high passion for me to be an engaged citizen who can give back to the city.

Um I have years of experience as both rank and file and leadership in nonprofit boards and committees.

And I'm very passionate about leveraging this experience to give back to the city of San Francisco in particular.

Um I would love to be nominated and confirmed to this board so that we can build an effective and highly collaborative environment that can ultimately serve the clients and citizens of this city in order to make the behavioral health uh condition and atmosphere much better.

I'm fully dedicated to uh service.

Should I be confirmed?

Uh I'm fully dedicated to bringing a high level of collaboration and professionalism, as well as a level of getting to a low level of detail, really getting to know the space, getting to know the people, uh, working very tightly with the Department of Public Health to become highly educated and work with fellow members of the commission to be highly educated so that we can be highly, highly effective, which we heard a lot about earlier today.

Um I I also want to mention that this is a process that's been uh I've been persistent in for a little over a year now, and so I'm hoping that that will demonstrate uh my persistence and my passion that this is not just uh a fleeting interest, but that this is actually something that I've already invested um a lot of time into, and so I hope that that will serve as evidence of the posture that I that I hope and plan to bring.

So, in the interest of time, I will stop there and thank you all very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Brian Busseri.

Uh Mr.

Borseri uh withdrew the application.

Thank you.

Alisa Mapson.

No Alyssa Mapson.

Gabriel Akamoto.

No Gabriel Akamoto.

Harriet Stevens.

Uh I'd like to note that it was determined that uh Miss Stevens has fulfilled her term limits and she cannot be appointed at its time.

Got it.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Jason Funel.

No Jason.

Jasper Verdillen.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Jasper Verdown.

I'm going to be applying for seats eight through twelve based mostly on my relevant work experience.

For the last three years, I've worked as a clinical social worker at Felton Institute here in San Francisco on a dedicated team within the TAE system of care.

Most of my clients are Tay aged, but there's a lot of overlap between the TA system of care and the general adult behavioral health system.

I thoroughly enjoy working with my clients as a commission as a clinician, but I'm seeking a position on the Behavioral Health Commission as I've also always been drawn to macro level work and its ability to cause large-scale transformation.

My small team gets referred clients who've recently experienced an acute mental health crisis, and our goal is to help them stabilize and then connect to whatever resources they need within San Francisco.

Through this linkage process, I've been exposed to many different areas of our behavioral health system from inpatient psychiatric units to outpatient settings, shelter settings, housing, jail behavioral health, residential treatment, mental health diversion, care court, the regional center, conservatorship office, just to name a few.

Working across so many different levels of our behavioral health system has given me a unique insight into how our systems collaborate both effectively and ineffectively.

Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Primarily unhoused women in the mission SOMA and Tenderloin.

Across higher education, early childhood and community-based services, I have developed a strong understanding of how policy translates into real world care.

If appointed, I will focus on strengthening the connection between policy and practice, improving access for those facing the greatest barriers, supporting accountability that drives real outcomes, and advancing trauma-informed systems in practical implementable ways.

Ultimately, what matters most is whether people can actually access and benefit from the care the system is designed to provide.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keisha Mason.

If you have any questions, I'm here to answer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lisa Marie Bleischer.

Lisa Williams.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Lisa L.

Williams, born and raised in this great city of San Francisco.

I currently serve on the Behavioral Health Commission as secretary, and I would love to continue to have support.

My family moved here in the 1950s from Alabama, Louisiana.

And we grew up as a family where you really couldn't talk about mental illness.

It was a stigma.

In 1998, I lost my 30-year-old cousin to mental illness.

She walked to the Golden Gate Bridge and took her life.

Prior to those years, I spent countless hours helping her facilitate programs.

Programs are now successful.

Fighting medications, going from this hospital to the hospital.

But once you took our life, I made a decision to be dedicated to this work.

My advocacy lies a lot with the black LGBT community, the BIPOC community, the in-house community, children, consumers, consumers, friends.

This is an this commission.

I hope it remains.

It has a huge impact on people's lives.

From shelters, from children, from families.

I'm happy to ask any questions.

Questions.

And I hope to get to support to continue this work.

Thank you.

Lisa Wynn.

Hello, everybody.

Hello.

Also to the supervisors.

My name is Lisa Wynn.

I serve as the co-chair.

I am looking for reappointment.

In 2017, I was I am a survivor of gun violence.

My work in this field was not a career move, but it was a calling.

Serving and actually working in this community and being a consumer of mental health.

This was something that was how do you say it was very large in my community, but it wasn't spoken of because it was looked down upon, it was frowned on.

And I did a lot of work with creating career pathway programs with CCSF, also UCSF.

Within the within the time I got re when I got appointed in 2022, these are the this is the advocacy work that I brought in about advocating, about bringing the young people forward, and about looking into different mental health issues within different culture and communities.

And this is what I brought here as the vice chair and to this commission, and I will look forward to continuing my work and continue advocating for the voices unheard or feel they are looked down and they they don't know how to access mental health issues.

This is a part of why I do what I do, and I look forward to continuing.

If there's any questions anybody want to ask me about my work and why I want to continue, please ask.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Michael Fitro.

I'm applying for seats two, three, five through twelve.

I moved to San Francisco in 2022, homeless and struggling with undiagnosed mental health disorders, lack of essential mental health medications, and active addiction.

I began receiving behavioral health services through DPH, health and harm reduction services through City Clinic, reintegration case management related to mental health and substance use disorder through Positive Resource Center and found my recovery community through the Castro Country Club.

Today I'm dual diagnosis, having recently celebrated three years clean and sober on March 4th, and I'm living with diagnoses of autism, CP, TSD, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and ADHD, all of which are compounded by my being a survivor of gun violence, domestic violence, and the psychological abuse of anti-gay conversion therapy.

Right now I provide case management at two and advocate for San Franciscan seeking critical health care services at the San Francisco Human Services Agency due to behavioral health and substance use issues.

I work directly with DPH, conservators, authorized representatives, the justice system and coordinate with rehabilitation, behavioral health and treatment facilities, and I serve clients directly while they are in crisis.

I served in key roles in two state legislatures where I played a critical role in reforming the state's mental health and substance use treatment system and expanding Medicaid to combat the spike in uh deaths from maternal mentality, behavioral health and substance use issues.

I fought against conversion therapy and to protect LGBTQ minors and the rights of patients.

I am committed to, if appointed, building consensus among and collaborating with commissioners, public engagement, uh building strong working relationships with management and staff of our treatment rehabilitation facilities and city-funded programs, receiving and investigating complaints, touring said institutions and gathering as much data as possible to build thorough, easily digestible reports, identifying how we can improve conditions in care efficiency, provide support, reduce the necessary costs, and maximize our impact on those in need.

And of course, advocating for equity and behavioral health accessibility and treatment and fostering resilient, accessible, and culturally affirming behavioral health services.

I'm committing to keeping the consumers my center focus as one myself.

Behavioral health and substance use disorder presents differently in all people from all walks of life, and no story is the same.

We must build a truly coordinated system of care that is trauma-informed and healing centered that is accessible to all and prepared to treat everyone in the way they need to be successful.

I believe when we destigmatize, we legitimize.

When we legitimize, we can prioritize and we prioritize.

We can change lives.

That is my goal, if appointed.

Thank you.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Nicholas Chapman.

No Nicholas Chapman.

Ragu Abasani.

Raymond Deng.

Mr.

Ding is unable to attend today's meeting, but is still interested in the C in being appointed.

Ms.

Jackson, we the city attorney doesn't engage.

If you have something you to say, you'd be able to say it during public comment.

But he doesn't, he's not going to take your note.

Ricardo Rubio.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Ricardo.

I'm a resident of District 3, and I'm a social worker and therapist.

I've been working here in San Francisco for over six years, and I've gotten to see so many different levels of DPH these last few years as a case manager in permanent supportive housing as a family therapist.

Most recently as a trauma-focused therapist at SF General.

And I think those will bring lots of experience, specifically helpful for this.

I think I have lots of experience that could be super helpful for this kind of advisory position and hopefully efficient.

Because I think we have lots of awesome things that we do in DPH, but I think we can do a little better in a lot of ways.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ricardo.

Sam Yoshranski.

And again, I apologize if I mispronounce anybody's name.

Morning.

It's perfect, actually.

My name is Sammy Strinski.

I'm uh uh I hold a doctorate of nursing practice, MBA, and I'm dual certified as a family nurse practitioner and psych mental health nurse practitioner.

I've worked in San Francisco for the past 17 years.

I've been in healthcare for 20, and I've worked in every public sector from county jails, uh state prisons in California, been in the military for 10 years, uh VA also, and currently work at UCSF.

In 2024, we moved to San Mateo, which is um, I would ask for uh res residency waiver.

Um to be closer to my wife, my wife works at Stanford, so just cutting commutes, but I do work and I'm committed to San Francisco.

I've also volunteered um at St.

Vincent's DePaul in San Francisco for hundreds of hours over the time I've been here.

Any questions for me?

No.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Some rat Roy.

Thank you.

Stephanie Gonzalez.

Good morning, supervisors.

Thank God I'm going somewhat last.

I will make it as fast as possible.

Um good morning, everyone.

My name is Stephanie Gonzalez.

I am born and raised in San Francisco.

I am a domestic violence survivor.

I was raised in Geneva Towers, Patrol Hill neighborhood.

Um I was adopted and taken in by a Samoan family when I was younger, which birth my birth parents were in and out of prison, suffering from their own mental health issues.

Um I seen a lot of violence growing up.

Um being on both sides of the coin now, and a person who also struggled with her own behavioral issues, myself in the past, makes me a great candidate for a seat.

My journey in helping supporting others started in nonprofits.

Um my journey helped people surviving in the tenderline, the same place where I was doing unrolled things back in the day, a long time ago.

Working with diverse communities for over 20 years, especially our LGBT community, serving our seniors, and our black and brown brothers.

I help everybody.

I don't care what color you are, what race you are.

Behavioral health is on a rise in San Francisco.

Working at Glide started me off.

Jan and Cecil saw leadership in me when I couldn't see them myself.

God bless their souls.

They helped me get help with my behavioral health issues back in the day.

You know what they say, if you can work at Glide, you can work anywhere.

Now moving on into my DPH roles.

My supervision and my great ideas lead me to these great positions, like working at the San Francisco Sheriff's Department with the Survivor Restoration Program, St.

Anthony Shelters, COVID Command Center during COVID at the Musconi Center, running the Ella Hill Hutch vaccine clinic when they couldn't find anybody.

Being at the Linkage Center as a site lead, opened up by our previous mayor, checking on people dying in their SROs, suffering from mental health issues, working in jail psych in the jails, where there's behavioral health issues, helping our inmates, even being at Laguna Honda when they needed help.

I also volunteer at this great organization called AMU.

It's called All My Uthos.

It's ran by the great brother JC and his wife Christine.

There is really something deeply wrong with our behavioral health in San Francisco.

It is overcrowded with every color, every race, and if given a seat, I assure you my ideas of what could work or may work will do our city some healthy change overall.

What I've learned is being in this role, working in behavioral health for so long.

Thank you for your time.

Mahalo.

Thank you.

I just wanted to note that uh Sylvia Arabia did note that she has a work conflict today, but is still interested in being appointed.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Great.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Taragamboa Eastman.

I grew up in D8 and now live in D6.

My mom worked in our city's public mental health system, and that experience shaped both my values and the path I've taken in my career.

I'm also someone with my own lived experience.

I'm a consumer and a family member of loved ones with serious mental illness and substance use disorders who have experienced homelessness and died by suicide.

Today I serve as the Director of Government Affairs at the Steinberg Institute, a leading behavioral health policy organization in California.

In this role, I have helped shape and implement many of the policies that this commission is responsible for overseeing, including the Behavioral Health Services Act, the 988 Crisis Care Continuum, and our state's broader behavioral health transformation.

What I would bring to this commission is a bridge between policy and practice.

San Francisco is navigating an unprecedented transformation of its behavioral health system.

We have new tools, new funding, and new expectations.

But we all know that passing policy is one thing.

Making it work for people is another.

Thank you so much.

Teresa Malbar.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Teresa Mielbar, and I'm interested in being appointed to the Behavioral Health Commission as a consumer of mental health services.

As a person actively utilizing mental health services, I understand the difficulties patients face both in accessing services and maintaining employment.

Mental health disabilities are a visible disabilities, and their unique needs are often disregarded and overlooked.

Because I don't present as disabled or mentally unstable, I often face discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

It is my goal to bring a new face, one of a consumer who appears functional to the behavioral health commission.

As a consumer of mental health services, I've had to advocate for my mental health and physical health to ensure my needs are met.

This includes working with or in some cases fighting against insurance agencies and service providers.

I am often exhausted and disillusioned by the obstacles I experience.

Every day I face an uphill battle trying to meet my needs without adversely impacting my situation.

After attending several commission meetings, I believe the current commission is ineffective, not because of the members, but because the city departments do not engage with commission in a meaningful way.

As a city and county employee for 23 years, I know how to engage with departments and agencies in a direct and collaborative way.

I know the verbiage and the processes to get the data the commission needs.

My educational background includes a master's in public administration, a master's in law studies, a bachelor's degree in psychology, and two development certificates.

My MPA has equipped me with the knowledge of best practices for program and service delivery.

My MLS has prepared me to apply legal principles and requirements when investigating and evaluating public policy.

My degree in psychology has taught me the fundamentals of mental illness and the behaviors it creates.

As a perspective of somebody with an individual disability that often conceals their condition to be able to integrate with neurotypical systems and people.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And is there anyone who appears on the agenda that may have come in late?

Anyone who appears on the agenda that may have come in late.

Thank you.

And I don't see any questions or comments from colleagues at this point, so we will go to public comment, Mr.

Clerk.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes.

There will be a soft chime when you have 30 seconds left and a louder chime when your time has expired.

Good morning, committee clerk, Chair Walton, Supervisor Mandelman, and Supervisor Cheryl.

My name is Andrea Gallardo, and I am the co-president of the San Francisco Young Democrats, and I'm here to give my strong support to Michael Fitcher, or as we know him, Merrick, for his appointment to this commission.

I met Merrick a couple years ago when he applied to be on our board.

And in reviewing his application, I remember thinking, like, what the hack you are so overqualified.

Why are you applying?

Um but in the moment when I got the chance to sit down with him and really um talk to him, he told me about you know his journey of recovery, um, all the good, the bad, and the extremely difficult.

And in that I, you know, learned that San Francisco for him was not only a landing point, but a fresh start.

Um, and that I think is such an integral story to many people that we get in the city.

Um overhead the resume, his extreme like love for public service and for wanting to give back to his community.

Whether it's his work at HSA or his own volunteer work with the LGBT community, with the immigrant community, um, raising funds for um the LGBT asylum project, with elders, with the youth with us.

Um, he truly puts his everything in all that he does, and I believe strongly that Merrick embodies in a really important SF value, which is um our community cannot thrive without also taking care of our neighbors.

Um, which is why, on behalf of SFYD, we are so proud to call him our vice president.

I'm proud to call him my friend, and I hopefully can call him um a behavioral health commissioner very soon.

Thank you.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors.

My name is Carlotta Jackson Lane.

I am currently held over for the Behavioral Health Commission, uh, the tenth seat.

I don't dumb the public interest.

I was originally appointed by Jane Kim for Southern Market and then reappointed by Matt Haney.

And um, what I wanted to say is that I started with the mental health board, and we fought diligently for this behavioral health commission.

And I would like to put my uh full support for the behavioral commission moving forward is critical.

I am a domestic violence survivor.

I'm the immediate um past co-chair of the behavioral health commission, as well as uh also an executive director of Sejourna True Foster Family Service Agency.

I have spent over 40 years in working with complex trauma as well as a therapeutic foster care and as and as a certified mental health specialist.

And I just want to express to the Board of Supervisors that I would like to be considered to consider continue to do my work with the Behavioral Health Commission.

Thank you for this opportunity.

First, I want to say how blown away impressed I was by everybody that came up here to put their name forward for the commission seats.

I was very moved by I was just very moved by the civic.

I was very moved by the civic engagement and everybody's individual individual path to get here.

It was really kind of inspiring.

So thank you for that.

As somebody also who has gone through the commission process recently, I have a particular set of ideas that I think are probably very relevant, and I want to speak to my friend Merrick.

So I saw Merrick uh as as I saw Merrick come to the Castor Country Club three years ago in an effort to try and change his life.

That's what we do at the club.

We help people find sobriety when they are ready to change their relationship with substances.

And he has done that.

I think he possesses some talents and some individual characteristics that make him perfect for a commission.

Um the first is kindness.

The second is curiosity, the third is a willingness to meet people in the middle, and I think that is very important when doing commission work, especially in community.

Meet folks in the middle, Merrick.

Um and I think he has a general oral attitude to stick with what he started.

And so I just want to put uh a strong word in favor of Merrick for the BHC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other speakers on this matter?

There are no additional speakers.

Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers.

Public comment is now closed.

President Mendelman.

Uh thank Chair Walton.

Um I also want to thank all the uh folks who um put their names in to serve on this board.

It is important that this board be high functioning.

It is mandated by state law.

We we have to have this board.

It is not one that could be done away with.

Um, but I think uh it is uh it's not even a secret.

It is, I think, known that there that this has been a commission that has had some troubles over the years.

Um and uh so I think it's actually great that we see so many new folks interested in in stepping forward.

And um and I've also heard from the Department of Public Health a commitment to engaging with this body and um providing it's uh the support that it needs to be a high-functioning uh uh uh entity.

So um uh hard choices.

I'm regret that there were a couple of people who I think had expressed interest and uh uh you know seemed good um who don't seem to be here today, so that's a a bit of a conundrum.

But um I'm glad that we have uh um a strong pool.

I will note that one of these applicants, uh my my constituent Brandon Fountain um has been uh, as he said, on me for more than a year.

Um what's happening with the Vapor Health Commission?

When's it gonna be when are they gonna be like taking on new new folks?

And I think it is um good that there are others have reached out as well, Michael, um uh to um express their interest.

I think that shows a level of engagement and investment that's gonna be important for this body going forward.

Thank you, Vice Chair Shuro.

Um I want to echo um President Mandelman's remarks.

Um I think all of you have come here today are stepping forward to address uh one of the most challenging and uh important issues the city faces today, yesterday, tomorrow.

Um just thank you all for for stepping forward on this.

Um I appreciated some conversations that I and my office got to have, especially Merrick Jasper, thank you both, um, and thank you to all the others who reached out as well.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair Sherrow.

I definitely obviously want to just reiterate the sentiments of my colleagues.

Uh one stressing how important this role is for the city, but secondly, just to say thank you all for applying.

There are so many applicants that are qualified, and this is obviously one of the hardest parts of our job to pick a certain number of people out of a pool where everyone is qualified.

So I want to thank you all for being willing to serve, and obviously there are other opportunities.

I also want to be clear as you look back to item number one about the fact that we are now going to have term limits on some of these committees and term limits on some of these commissions.

And so some folks have served thankfully for years on this commission, and I want to thank you for your service.

But we will most certainly be in the spirit of item one going forward and provide an opportunity for for more folks because some folks have termed out.

So I do appreciate everyone for their service for their continued work, for continued commitment, and we will continue to work on ways for everyone to have an opportunity to serve if you are not appointed to this commission.

I do also want to just piggyback on President Mandelman's statements about some conversations we have had with other candidates that may not be here, and so we will not go forward with two appointments and come back to that at a later time and give more people an opportunity for those two seats.

But I again I appreciate everyone and I will make a motion to move forward the name of Brandon Fountain for seat three, Michael Fitro for seat five, Amelia Harman for seat six, Sam Yestrinski with the residency waiver for seat eight, Stephanie Gonzalez for seat nine, Jasper Verduin for seat ten, Keisha Mason for seat eleven, and Tara Gamboa Eastman for seat twelve.

My apologies.

No problem.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

I believe uh we have that.

I have um going down the list, Amelia Harmon, seat six, Brandon Fountain, seat three, Jasper Veridian, seat ten, Kisa Mason, seat eleven, Michael Frito, seat five, Sam Yerzanski, residency waiver, seat eight, Stephanie Gonzalez, seat nine, and Tara Gamboa Eastman, seat twelve.

Correct.

And we will come back to seat two and seat seven at a later date.

Yes, on the motion to recommend those uh appointments, Vice Chair Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Member Mattelman.

Aye.

Madam and I, Chair Walton.

Aye.

Walton.

Aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Seats number two and seven will be continued to a future date.

Thank you so much.

Motion carries.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other business before us this morning?

That completes the agenda for today.

Thank you.

We are adjourned.

We got this.