Measure Y Oversight Committee

By Lawrence Cooper,2014-08-09 11:49
10 views 0
Measure Y Oversight Committee

Violence Prevention and Public Safety Oversight Committee Draft Minutes, February 23, 2009




    February 23, 2009

    6:30 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M.

    Hearing Room 1

    City Hall, Oakland, California 94612


Item 1: Roll-Call was commenced by staff at 6:40 p.m.

    Oversight Committee Members Present: Blevins, Brown, Carter, Dorado, Johnson and Chairperson Dillard Smith.

Six members were present. The required quorum of seven members was not achieved.

Item 2: Open Forum

There were two speakers on this item.

    - Jim Dexter

    - Sanjiv Handa

    Member Johnson requested an agenda building item placed on each agenda item in the future. Secondly, that staff provide information and reports forwarded to the Oversight Committee earlier in order to be included as part of the agenda building process.

    Chairperson Dillard Smith added that the Oversight Committee should set up an ad hoc committee to identify how to best interact with various Measure Y stakeholders, e.g., City Council, Public Safety Committee, City Attorney, etc., so that all are adequately informed. At one point staff convened an “All-Hands” meeting – a coordination meeting

    to ensure one hand knew what the other was doing. I’d like to propose that the “All-

    Hands” meeting be re-convened and if necessary, members of the Oversight Committee convene these meetings. I’d like to propose that a small group of Committee members get together to provide to the larger (Oversight Committee) group recommendations as to how we can participate and better communicate with the Public Safety Committee and the City Council and that may mean that at every other Public Safety or City Council meeting we report out our recommendations on items heard before the Oversight Committee.

Member Johnson responded that he’d prefer not to convene another subcommittee. The

    matter of subcommittees should be deferred to a time when Oversight Committee membership is up to capacity. Presently the Oversight Committee has a direct line to Public Safety and the City Council that ought not be lost to an additional “subcommittee



Violence Prevention and Public Safety Oversight Committee Draft Minutes, February 23, 2009

    Member Brown added that to be more effective representative to the city as well as the appointing councilmember, we need to know what the city, all agencies and council members are doing as it relates to the subject matter of this Committee, I’m going to

    make a motion that at our next meeting we have a discussion of the recommended ways that information out of this committee is forwarded to city department and agencies in a timely fashion.

    Chairperson Dillard Smith noted that she and staff met with members of the East Palo Alto staff regarding their Measure C which is based almost identically on Measure Y of Oakland. The first convening of the Oversight Committee occurred on last Thursday. East Palo Alto has in place a very clear, transparent, well articulated definition of what qualifies programs for funding, what it means to have an evaluation and how the various bodies that have anything to do with Measure C funding interact with each other. The administrative regulations may be a good tool for this body. Palo Alto has conducted a lot of advance thinking that will save them a lot of lessons learned that we are presently encountering. I’ve asked East Palo Alto to share that information with us.

    Item 9. Status Report: Measure Y Violence Prevention Program Deliverables, First and Second Quarters, FY 2008-2009, Department of Human Services. Sara Bedford, Department of Health and Human Services provided the report. The Committee requested information that could be provided on a regular basis of our program deliverables. The document in your agenda package is a draft, provides two quarters of deliverables and is provided for your review. These deliverables are linked to program payments.

Member Brown stated that the format is good. I’m interested in the deliverables. In most

    cases the number of client hours or sessions is exceeded. It also strikes me that the number of hours or type of sessions is comparably low considering what the agency is contracted to do. Maybe you could clarify for me?

    Sara Bedford responded that if you start with the first agency, ABASE youth case management program, for example, the key deliverable is case management clients which is a high number while the number placed in employment is a lower. This is an example where benchmarks are part of keeping track of deliverables but not a specific part of the actual contract.

    Member Brown stated that her preference is to have monthly program numbers connected with the monthly budget statement. We receive monthly revenue and expenditure reports with a description of the program attached.

    Chairperson Dillard Smith stated that typically what happens is that since programs are billed on a quarterly basis the monthly expenditure reports disclose the monthly personnel costs and each quarter month report includes the program and personnel costs.


Violence Prevention and Public Safety Oversight Committee Draft Minutes, February 23, 2009

    Member Brown asked what are the interventions for a project that misses some or all of their benchmarks?

    Sara Bedford responded that DHS withholds funding if the benchmarks are not met. We factor in all extenuating circumstances and additional factors and in the past have provided technical assistance to agencies struggling and have recommended de-funding to agencies.

    Member Brown asked whether the Committee would receive this report for the first quarter, (January March) by the next Committee meeting?

    Sara Bedford responded that DHS would provide the next report by the Oversight Committee May meeting.

    Member Blevins asked whether the deliverables in the column are for a six month period and the actuals are what is actually accomplished in the six-month period. Typically what I’m accustomed to seeing is the percentages that disclose what was achieved.

    Sara Bedford responded that she has asked staff to show the full annual percentages and in most cases the numbers are consistent across the four quarters. In a more finished product we could show the full year.

    Member Blevins asked where payment is based on performance, do you change the deliverables- in some cases the deliverables are exceeded by 200% - maybe the deliverables are set low.

    Sara Bedford responded that DHS does change deliverables (both up and down) however we try not to racket them down. There are cases where we think the cases are not counted properly. There are places where numbers are high, such as events, where the agency conducts a huge number of events however, something not high on our deliverable list. Our focus is on deliverables linked to payment.

    Member Carter asked if there are any qualitative program measures? If a contractor is in trouble on the qualitative side are there measures in place to detect this? Do you receive input from stakeholders from in the community as to how well the programs are performing?

    Chairperson Dillard Smith added that we have not received stakeholder evaluation on the program services, that is hearing directly from clients, in their own opinion, whether services provided by agency where good and quality.

    Staffperson Baker noted that the present evaluator, Resource Development Associates, has undertaken client service surveys to obtain information directly from clients regarding their assessment of the effectiveness of services delivered.


Violence Prevention and Public Safety Oversight Committee Draft Minutes, February 23, 2009

    Chairperson Dillard Smith added that the richest source of information is from participants who left the program. While it is important to hear which programs are working well, it is equally important to hear the program areas that need improvement.

Member Johnson noted that the YouthUpRising Teen Center Support and the Mayor’s

    Re-entry Program are not part of the DHS report without a reason explaining why.

    Sara Bedford answered that the YouthUpRising Teen Center Support is baseline support and does not have services deliverables, rather deliverables such as development plan meant to stabilize the platform in East Oakland. The Mayor’s Re-entry Program is

    refining the data in the database. We have a hundred clients in the database but we don’t have the type of service delivered. We are working with the Mayor’s Office to enter the

    data correctly.

    Chairperson Dillard Smith asked whether the Re-entry data will appear in the May report?

Sara Bedford responded yes.

    Member Dorado noted that a problem area is putting people to work and keeping them there. What is being done to address the drop-off?

    Sara Bedford responded that the hardest part of re-entry is keeping persons employed. DHS has provided extensive technical support to Allen Temple and had similar discussions with WorkFirst who ended up meeting their benchmarks.

Chairperson Dillard Smith stated that the key areas to revisit in May are the Mayor’s Re-

    entry Program including a review of the retention data and sexually exploited minors. We may want to invite service providers to give insight of the challenges of the work.

Member Brown requested that providers from the Mayor’s Re-entry employment, Allen

    Temple and other re-entry providers present at our next meeting to speak about the challenges to their work.

There was one speaker on this item:

    - Sanjiv Handa

Member Lee arrived at 7:40 pm. There is a quorum of the Oversight Committee.

    Item #4: Discussion: Pending Measure Y Litigation re Augmented Recruitment of OPD Officers.

    Marlene Sacks, Petitioner in Measure Y Litigation, made the presentation. The following is a verbatim record of Ms. Sacks’ presentation:


Violence Prevention and Public Safety Oversight Committee Draft Minutes, February 23, 2009

    “Good evening, my name is Marlene Sacks. I’m the concerned citizen that filed the lawsuit against the City over the community policing aspect of measure Y. Ms. Dillard Smith asked me to be here tonight to talk about the lawsuit. So, if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. I wanted you to let you know that I have created a blog, which is at, there is no www, its just Defending Measure I

    created that blog because I wanted to put in one place that was easy to find and easy to access information that I thought was relevant to the media and to the public to people like you. I tried to write it in very plain English so that everybody could understand exactly what my lawsuit was about, why I filed my lawsuit, who I am, what my motivations were and I think a lot of the information that you might be interested is on my blog so I would definitely encourage you all to visit that site and get that information and you can leave comments and I will respond in writing if you leave me a comment on that website. I appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak to you today. I have to tell you that I’m a little bit disappointed that it has taken so long for this to really get your

    attention, get the public’s attention, get the city’s attention, because these were all issues all of the issues that I raised in my lawsuit were not new issues. They were all issues that were identified either in the RAND report, or by members of this Committee, or by various news sources. I didn’t really have to do a lot of digging to figure out there were a lot of messes with Measure Y and the way it was being administered. So, none of this should come as news. If you read my lawsuit, if you look at my blog all of those issues were flagged before and I’m really sorry that it took a lawsuit to get the city’s attention on these issues and I’m also really disappointed that this Committee did not require the annual audits that are clearly specified in Measure Y. I do think that’s one of your main

    functions is to read the statute, understand what it says and realize that the city was required to do an annual audit, and they didn’t do that, not in any year. And I think that had the City done those audits as they were required to do a lot of these errors would have been flagged, or even highlighted more than they were and maybe we could have prevented some of the draining of money that we now know occurred. I don’t know how many of you are aware of this 40% formula that has been applied retroactively ever since 2005 which I believe cost the Measure Y Fund about $11 million dollars. I think it was just a blatant theft of money by city officials and fuzzy accounting and fuzzy math and it was allowed to continue. If the tentative ruling is affirmed and the City is required to reimburse Measure Y there is going to be a dispute about how much money is actually owned because the City is going to try to downplay the amount that it has used and they’ve already tried to do that. I’ve got such conflicting information from city officials on how much money that was…

    Member Brown: Excuse me, I have read the tentative ruling. Do you have any idea what the judge projected…is he accepting motions… is there some sort of motion schedule

    that he has set out in his decision that I didn’t see in the tentative ruling and if so, what is that and when do you expect a final order?

    Ms. Sacks: By law the judge has ninety days to issue a final decision. This judge has been fairly prompt in issuing rulings. I think he’s a very careful judge. He has ruled

    against me on a few things. Looking back in retrospect I don’t disagree with any of his rulings. There is an appellant court case that holds that lies told by politicians cannot be