To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

October 7, 2013

San Francisco Youth Commission
Minutes
Monday, October 7, 2013
5:15pm-8:00pm
City Hall, Room 416
1. Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl.
San Francisco, CA 94102

There will be public comment on each item.

Jina Bae, Anna Bernick, Joshua Cardenas, Sophie Edelhart, Monica Flores, Ramon Gomez, Michelle Kong, DeAsia Landrum, Michel Li, Lily Marshall-Fricker, Nicholas Persky, Luisa Sicairos, Angel Van Stark, Eric Wu, Joyce Wu, Ariel Yu


1. Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 5:22pm. Commissioners present: Bae, Bernick, Cardenas, Edelhart, Flores, Gomez, Landrum, Li, Marshall-Fricker, Persky, Sicairos, Van Stark, Eric Wu, Joyce Wu, Yu

Commissioners absent: Kong

Staff present: Phimy Truong, Allen Lu, Adele Carpenter

There was quorum.

2. Approval of Agenda (Action Item)

Commissioner Landru, seconded by Commissioner Gomez, moved to approve the evening’s agenda. This motion was approved by acclamation.

There was no public comment.

3. Approval of Minutes (Action Item)

A. September 9th, 2013
(Document A)

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Van Stark, seconded by Commissioner Landrum, moved to approve the minutes from September 9, 2013. This motion was approved by acclamation.

B. July 15th, 2013
(Document B)

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, seconded by Commissioner Bernick, moved to approve the minutes from July 15, 2013. This motion was approved by acclamation.

4. Public Comment on Items not on Agenda (Discussion Only)

There was none.

5. Consent Calendar (Action Item)

All items hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests. In that event, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item immediately following the vote on the rest of the items.

A. Referral from the Board of Supervisors, File No. 130864: Ordinance amending the Planning Code to transfer proposed child care facility oversight from the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families to the Office of Early Care and Education; and making environmental findings.
(Document C)

Commissioner Persky explained the handling of a consent calendar. Commissioner Cardenas gave a brief overview of the legislation and explained how to sever an item from the consent calendar. Commissioner Persky asked for clarifying questions. There were none.

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Flores, seconded by Commissioner Landrum, moved to approve the consent calendar. This motion was approved by acclamation.

6. Legislation Referred from the Board of Supervisors (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)

A. [BOS file no. 130946] Hearing – Impact of Sugar Sweetened Beverages to the San Franciscan’s Health and Health Care Sector. (Primary Sponsor: Supervisor Eric Mar)
Presenter: Peter Lauterborn, Legislative Aide, Supervisor Mar’s office
(Document D)

Chair Persky made general remarks about how the Commission can receive legislation referred. Commissioner Cardenas explained that the legislation is a request for a study on the effects of sugar-sweetened beverages. He reminded the commission that the Youth Commission heard a presentation on the subject in June 2013.

Peter Lauterborn explained that Supervisors Weiner, Avalos and Cohen co-sponsored the hearing request. He explained that he was asking the Youth Commission for feedback and input on what questions they want included in the hearing on this subject. Sweetened beverages make up for 10% of the calories we consume, and unlike other sugars, sweetened beverages have no nutritional value. The supervisors want to understand the science regarding the health effects of sugar. It has addictive qualities, can harm the liver, and has financial impacts through increased healthcare costs.

Other cities have addressed this issue by creating an added sales tax to sugary beverages. Some have looked at creating excise taxes. Others have tried to limit shelf space. An outstanding question regarding such measures is where added revenue would go. The budget and legislative analyst will study this issue and the scientific community will be responding, but the feedback of the Youth Commission is also welcomed.

Commissioner Flores asked about the impact of SSB’s (sugar-sweetened beverages) by neighborhood. What is the relative availability of healthy drink alternatives?

Mr. Lauterborn explained that addressing the need for equity in the availability of food is an important component of this effort. He explained that Supervisor Mar’s office was working on a variety of other initiatives and that he would be happy to talk over them with youth commissioners.

Commissioner Bernick asked about efforts to have youth drink SSB’s in more moderation.

Mr. Lauterborn explained that this was part of the thinking behind the school district having removed sodas from campuses.

Commissioner Landrum asked what the next step after the hearing will be. Is the city considering legislation? Will campaigns be put in place for certain neighborhoods and areas?

Mr. Lauterborn explained that efforts to limit consumption of SSB’s have to be met with efforts to offer other alternatives. Supervisor Mar introduced legislation to provide incentives to corner stores that convert to provide full service healthy food.

Ariel Yu asked how the City would deal with the concerns of the companies that sell beverages.

Mr. Lauterborn explained that the City does not know what policy approach it would pursue. Most large corporations are not happy about having their products regulated, so we can expect they will spend money to protect their industry interests.

Commissioner Li asked what sorts of policy options are being considered.

Mr. Lauterborn explained that campaigns to limit alcohol and tobacco consumption provide good examples. The effort in New York to limit the size of beverages has not shown evidence of effectiveness.

Commissioner Edelhart asked how a tax would affect smaller independent companies like liquor stores and corner stores.

Mr. Lauterborn explained that it could affect other businesses that make money selling SSB’s. That is why Supervisor Mar wants to provide incentives to businesses to shift to provide healthier options. There would be conversations with the small business commission, as well as labor groups. Mr. Lauterborn offered to follow up with Commission staff with more information on the incentives legislation.

Commissioner Van Stark suggested that the City should look at caffeine addiction as well and that any extra revenue from the initiative should be applied to counter-advertising campaigns.

Commissioner Bernick said that funds should be spent on having more exercise at school.

Commissioner Eric Wu said the consumption is ingrained because it is cheap and affordable. We need to look at the habits of consumers to understand where to intervene.

Chair Persky reminded his colleagues that the commission usually takes motions to approve or not approve the legislation referred, as well as questions and comments.

Commissioner Sicairos asked about the use of vending machines, and how soda company sponsorship of athletics at City College would affect such initiatives.

Mr. Lauterborn explained that corporate sponsorship is not allowed in SFUSD, which has also placed limits on what can be sold at vending machines. More broadly, this is a challenge with vending machines. Any policy that included a fee would apply to however a beverage is sold, including vending machines. City College could enact a similar policy to SFUSD.

Chair Persky called for public comment.

Azizi Loyd explained that a problem with sweetened beverages is that they are very accessible. Could there be an initiative to lower the prices of unsweetened healthier drinks?

Mr. Lauterborn explained that other countries have subsidized healthier options.

There was no further public comment.

Commissioner Edelhart motioned to urge the BOS to look at how possible legislation would effect small businesses, and to look at incentives to help small businesses. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Li and was adopted by acclamation.

Commissioner Landrum, seconded by Commissioner Flores, moved to include a recommendation that possible legislation include research and provisions for addressing discrepancies in access to affordable healthy alternatives in low income neighborhoods. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Bernick, seconded by Commissioner Landrum motioned to include a recommendation that the Board of Supervisors make efforts to work with local businesses to lower the price of healthy and unsweetened beverages. This motion was approved by acclamation.

Commissioner Van Stark motioned to urge BOS to look at parallel causes of addiction and obesity, including caffeine and alcohol. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bernick and was adopted by acclamation.

Commissioner Eric Wu motioned to suggest that the Budget and Legislative Analyst conduct a study on consumer’s consumption of SSB’s and look at means of how to intervene on the habit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Edelhart and was adopted by acclamation.

Commissioner Cardenas motioned to include the recommendation that the Board investigate targeted marketing of SSB’s toward specific populations and the impacts on children’s health. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Landrum and was adopted by acclamation.

Commissioner Van Stark motioned to include a recommendation that surplus revenue be used for a counter-marketing campaign for sweetened beverages.

Mr. Lauterborn explained that the legislation has not been crafted yet, and that the commission would do well to consider the needs of youth.

Commissioner Landrum made a substitute motion to include recommendation that any revenue from potential legislation go to health programs and campaigns in communities most effected by the health effects of SSB’s. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Van Stark.

Staff member, Phimy Truong, reminded commissioners that they could attend the hearing and there will be more opportunities to include input on policy regarding SSB’s

Commissioner Edelhart reiterated that the legislation before them was a hearing request and was only the beginning of a conversation.

Commissioner Landrum withdrew her motion.

Commissioner Edelhart motioned to support the legislation referred. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Flores. The motion in support of the legislation was approved by acclamation.
Staff clarified can engage with the staff.

Staff member, Adele Carpenter, asked which commissioners would be interested in working on issues of sugar-sweetened beverages in the future. Commissioners Flores, Joyce Wu, Bae, Sicairos, Bernick, Li, Yu, Edelhart, Landrum were interested.

7. Presentations (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)

A. Presentation on Project WHAT!
Presenters: Project WHAT! Youth participants and Mailee C. Wang, Program & Policy Director, Project WHAT! Community Works West
(Documents E and F)

Arvaughn Williams, 15, explained that he had been working with We are Here and Talking since Summer 2013. He explained that there are 2.7 million students with incarcerated parents nationwide. Project WHAT aims to raise awareness about children with incarcerated parents. It has a youth bureau and a youth leadership circle. It is a paid job.

Jessica Calderon explained she has been part of Project WHAT since June 2013. The project was born from the bill of rights for youth with incarcerated parents. The Bill of Rights includes: right to be safe and informed at time of my parent’s arrest, to be heard when decisions are made about me, to be well cared for in the absence of my parent, to see my parent, to support, to not be judged or labeled, to be considered when decisions are made about my parent, to a lifelong relationship with my parent. The bill of rights was made into a California resolution. We have distributed our resource guide to youth with incarcerated parents. We will be launching a campaign based on our stated rights.

Azizi Loyd explained she has been with Project WHAT since summer 2013, and that she is here to ask for the commission’s help. Project WHAT is in a research phase of their campaign, and will later ask for the Youth Commission’s endorsement. Project WHAT will be doing surveys and researching problems for the seventeen thousand youth with incarcerated parents in San Francisco. She invited youth commissioners to visit Project WHAT’s office and asked for support reaching out to decision-makers about their campaign.

Commissioner Van Stark asked how else youth commissioners can help.

Aziz explained that Project WHAT could use help passing out surveys at schools and getting the word out about their project, and that they would like support being considered during policy discussions.

Commissioners Sicairos and Marshall-Fricker thanked the presenters and expressed their support.

Commissioner Edelhart invited presenters to a Youth Justice committee meeting and offered support with the survey project and eventual campaign.

Zoe Wilmott. program coordinator, introduced herself and explained the Project could use support distributing surveys and conducting focus groups. She asked if commissioners could recommend supervisors or individuals to reach out to regarding gaps in services.

Commissioner Flores explained that youth with incarcerated parents are one in seventeen, and that she is the child of an incarcerated parent. She explained that she was appointed by Supervisor Campos and would like to help reach out to him when needed.

Commissioner Van Stark asked about the 17 thousand youth in San Francisco figure and how it was calculated.

Ms. Wilmott explained that there is no government agency required to collect data on children with incarcerated parents. Prisons do not record the number of children that inmates have. The number cited is from a data formula that researchers came up with in 2010. It was funded by SF Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership. We may recommend that that data should be collected by the city.

Commissioner Landrum explained that she is also the child of an incarcerated parent and inquired what age groups Project WHAT works with. Do they work with transitional age youth? How can older youth be involved?

Zoe explained that the funding for paid positions is for youth 14-17 years old, but that the Oakland partner group works with youth up to age 21 and that there is a strong alumni network. The project puts out a resource guide that includes TAY youth resources.

Commissioner Yu expressed willingness to help distribute the bill of rights booklets to raise awareness about the cause.

Aziz Loyd explained that the Project participants want to connect with social workers, police officers, judges, anyone who would deal with a child or parent around incarceration.

Commissioner Gomez asked how old the youth in the seventeen thousand figure are.

Zoe Wilmott said the figure includes 1-18 year olds.

Commissioner Wu asked whether it includes undocumented youth.

Commissioner Van Stark asked about polling youth in homeless shelters.

Zoe Wilmott said she will follow up with the researcher about the questions.

There was no public comment.

Chair Persky reiterated the presenters are welcome to return when their research phase is complete and when they are looking for support. He invited them to follow up with the youth justice committee on second and fourth Tuesdays.

Ms. Wilmott said she would like to follow up with the Youth Justice and TAY committees and invited commissioners to attend a meeting on a Tuesday from 5-7pm.

Commissioners who were interested in attending a meeting included: Edelhart, Landrum, Cardenas, Li, Sicarios, Van Stark, Flores.

Commissioner Sicairos invited the presenters to reach out to the Youth Leadership Institute for support.

B. Presentation and Request to Approve the Proposed Record Retention Schedule for the Youth Commission
Presenter: Wilson Ng, Records Manager, Board of Supervisors
(Document G)

Mr. Ng provided a brief overview of his job as Records Manager at the Clerk of the Board’s office.

He explained the reasons to have a record retention policy: Updating record retention is mandatory. The last updated took place in 2001. The policy allows for operational efficiency and overall accountability to provide accurate information to the public.

The attachments included/the proposed record retention was done in collaboration with the Clerk of the Board, the Records Manager, and Director of the YC. After approval of this proposed schedule, all divisions’ record retentions are consolidated under the COB department, forwarded to the City Attorney, and then the Controller’s office, and then lastly it goes to the retirement board for any time cards. For the YC – any payroll and personnel records will be removed, because that is a personnel function and included in the HR function.

Mr. Ng explained the differences between the current proposed record retention schedule, and the last record retention schedule updated in 2001 (which is located on the BOS website).

Commissioner Van Stark asked clarifying question about where records are stored.

Mr. Ng confirmed it would be stored with a general city index with the city administrator but records are physically stored at the youth commission office. The policy regards how long records are maintained.

Chair Persky asked where is the off-site storage is.

Mr. Ng explained the records are stored in Fremont.

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Eric Wu, seconded by Commissioner Marshall-Fricker, moved to approve the policy. This motion was approved by acclamation.

8. Youth Commission Business (All Items to Follow Discussion and Possible Action)

A. Discussion and Request for approval of the Youth Commission’s TAY, Housing, LGBT committee’s referral response to BOS file no. 130785 on family friendly workplace ordinance
Presenter: Commissioner Wu, Committee Chair, TAY, Housing, LGBT issues committee
(Documents H and I)

Commissioner Cardenas explained this legislation was heard in the TAY committee in time for the first BOS vote, and that the TAY committee asked this to be agendized for approval from the full commission. The Board of Supervisors has already approved this ordinance.

Commissioner Eric Wu explained that Catherine Rauschuber, from Supervisor Chiu’s office, presented to the committee. The ordinance allows an employee to request a flexible schedule in order to take care of children, elderly, or disabled family members. Employers are not required to comply. This legislation was referred to the committee because this can help combat family flight in San Francisco, as there are more dogs than there are children in the city. This type of ordinance will help keep families here. This also reflects that the American family today does not reflect the traditional nuclear family. There are many single family households, including women breadwinners who work and take care of children. This is a positive ordinance for businesses as they can deny the request, but it also reduces turnover by creating loyal employees. It is modeled after legislation in the UK, Australia, and Canada. Some of the recommendations our committee made are in the document. Commissioner Wu read the referral response into the public record.

Commissioner Cardenas expressed support for the recommendations put forward by the committee.

Director Truong informed the commission that the Board passed the legislation unanimously on the first reading.

Commissioner Yu clarified whether the legislation was just for public employees. Commissioner Flores explained it applied to all companies with over twenty employees in the City

There was no public comment..

Commissioner Marshall Fricker motioned to approve the committee referral, seconded by Commissioner Flores. The motion was approved unanimously by acclamation.

9. Staff Report (Discussion Only)

Director Truong informed commissioners about the following: A film screening for the Day of the Girl at DCYF; and invitation to participate in SFUSD’s Vision 2025; Youth Lobby Day for Free MUNI for Youth on October 24th; the next Free MUNI for Youth coalition meeting October 14th; the deadline to sign up for health benefits. Commissioners Cardenas, Li, Bernick, Persky, Bae, Eric Wu, and Joyce Wu were interested in Free MUNI updates.

Staff member, Adele Carpenter, informed commissioners about the following: The Neighborhood Empowerment Network awards; an interview request from a USF student; an invitation to the Policy Research workshop; a call about youth transit with advocates in Portland and Boston; scheduling one-on-one check ins with staff. Commissioners Landrum, Yu, Edelhart, Cardenas, Li, Persky, Bernick, Sicairos, Van Stark, Bae, and Flores were interested in the policy research workshops.

Staff member, Allen Lu, invited commissioners to an October 22nd Children’s Fund Community Coalition Town Hall.

10. Committee Reports (Discussion Only)

A. Executive Committee, Vice Chair Michelle Kong, Legislative Affairs Officer Joshua Cardenas, Outreach Officer DeAsia Landrum, Media & Public Relations Officer Angel VanStark

Chair Persky explained the committee had worked on individual and institutional goals at their last meeting, and looked over past priorities. Commissioner Cardenas updated the commission that the Due Process for All legislation had passed unanimously with amendments, including amendments for previous felony convictions. He also explained that he is watching legislation that may be referred to the housing committee. Commissioner Landrum explained that the outreach plan was forthcoming. Commissioner Van Stark invited commissioners to schedule video interviews with him.

B. Youth Justice Committee, Chair Sophie Edelhart

Commissioner Edelhart explained the committee had set goals and reviewed priorities from past years. Additionally, they had marked the following goals and interests: talking directly to youth with incarcerated parents and incarcerated youth; looking at alternative sentencing and peer courts; restorative justice; the recreation yard at juvenile hall; transition out of the system; and racial profiling.

C. Immigration & Employment Committee, Chair Michel Li

Commissioner Li explained the committee had reviewed goals including following up on summer jobs plus, reaching out to organizations, DACA, and the youth immigration summit of past years.

D. Education, Health & Wellness Committee, Chair Ariel Yu

Commissioner Yu explained the committee had set goals and priorities including: special education and inclusion promotion; credit recovery follow up; healthy food access; defibrillators at schools; and nurses at schools.

E. TAY, Housing, and LGBT issues Committee, Chair Eric Wu

Eric Wu explained the committee had had the previously heard legislation referred and had reviewed past priorities and current interests, including: 12N, City College, TAY housing, human trafficking, families, case management for TAY Housing recipients, and supporting transitions for youth in TAY housing programs. Commissioner Van Stark encouraged colleagues to reach out to their appointing officers about the effects of dwindling WIC resources in the face of the federal government closure. He explained 16 thousand families in San Francisco were effected and 9 million nationwide are affected.

F. Youth Advisory Council, Representative Joyce Wu

Joyce Wu explained the YAC had had a first meeting and that they were following up on a recent evaluation of Youth Vote.

11. Attendance Authorizations (Action Item)

There were none. There was no public comment.

12. Announcements (This Includes Community Events)

Luisa: YLI applications for TURF.

13. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 pm.
Last updated: 11/6/2013 2:07:26 PM