Do a quick mic check with the clerk. Can you hear me loud and clear?
Good morning, President Lee. I believe I heard you. Could you speak into your mic again?
Yes. Can you hear me loud and clear?
Yes, I can. There's a lot of murmuring in the chamber, so it was a little hard to hear you over that.
But
I think we'll be good once the meeting starts.
Great.
Thank you. So you can see me and hear me good?
Yes, we can.
Lovely. Thank you.
Good
morning, everyone. Today is Tuesday, February 24th, and I'd like to call the Board of Supervisors meeting to order.
If
you're new to our meeting, please take a seat. We'd love to have you here with us. I'm going to first start to establish a quorum. I think you can tell that I am not President Lee, and we'll tell you all about that in just a minute. But first, we're going to ask Curtis to. I'd like to call the roll. Supervisor Abacoga.
Here.
Supervisor Young.
Here.
Supervisor Ellenberg.
I'm
here.
Vice
President Arenas. I'm here, too. President Lee.
Good morning or good afternoon, President.
Good morning. President Lee, this would be a good time to read your disclosure.
Very
good. Thank you. So first, to Government Code Section 54953 .8 .3, I am participating in today's meeting of your teleconference. For a just
cause,
person to the Government Code Section 54953 .8, echo E, I'm required to disclose whether any individuals 18 years or older are present in this room with me. No other individual 18 years or older is present in the room from which I am participating in your teleconference. And due to my absence from the dais, Vice President Arenas will be presiding over today's meeting. Thank you very much.
You have a quorum. Wonderful. Wonderful. And for those of you who may not have heard, I'm going to give
you
just a moment to go ahead and settle in.
You might have not heard President Lee say that he is not, he's attending this meeting remotely. So we are going to have him involved in the meeting. I'll just be chairing the meeting on his behalf.
All
right. So we are going to move on to.
I know there's
a lot of excitement in the air, but we're going to
ask
our clerk to make an announcement for interpretation services. Thank you. If we could please have our interpreters translate the following statement into Spanish and then Vietnamese. If you are in chambers and require Spanish or Vietnamese translation, translation devices are available at the back of chambers. The deputy clerk can assist you with setup. Translation is also available in Zoom using the interpretation button. Additionally, as a gentle reminder for public commenters, staff and those on the dais, please speak clearly and at a measured pace directly into the microphone to improve the accuracy of translation. Thank you. Wonderful. We are going to. We can have our Spanish. Oh, I'm so sorry. Yes, of course. I didn't hear that
in Spanish. Thank you.
Buenos dias. Para la gente que se encuentra en la sala, vamos a tener servicio de interpretación simultanea y los dispositivos se encuentran en la parte de abajo de la pantalla. trasera de la sala.
También el personal les puede ayudar con eso. Y para la gente que está en Zoom, pueden hacer clic en el botón de interpretación en la barra de Zoom que se encuentra en la parte de abajo. Para las personas que se encuentran en el público personal, por favor hablen de manera clara y a buen paso para que se pueda hacer una buena interpretación de lo que se va a decir. Muchas gracias. And our Vietnamese interpreter.
Thank you.
Wonderful. I'm going to ask Supervisor Abacove, Koga, excuse me, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, if
you would.
Thank you. Please rise if you're able, and please join me.
Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank
you.
Next, I'm also going to ask Supervisor Abacove to introduce today's invocator, if you would. Thank you,
Vice President Arenas. Good morning, everyone. In Santa Clara County, every month carries meaning for a different community. February brings both Black History Month and Lunar New Year, and soon we will honor Women's History Month, AAPI Heritage Month, Pride, and so many others. I find that these celebrations often bring mixed emotions. We feel pride in our heritage and joy in our traditions, but we also feel the knowledge of how far we still have to go as a country and as a county to build a society without systems stacked against certain communities. It's a moment to celebrate progress, but also to confront the painful truth that racism and hate still exist right here at home. This truth
was evident in Palo Alto during the height of the pandemic, when the community experienced a rise in hate crimes. During that time, the oldest Black church in Palo Alto was desecrated. Black Lives Matter signs were vandalized. Derogatory Chinese virus signs were posted at schools. An Asian American council member was verbally assaulted. Anti -LGBTQ and anti -Semitic materials were placed in public spaces. These are not isolated events, unfortunately. They are reminders that our work is far from finished. My guest today is Reverend Coloma Smith from the University AME Zion Church in Palo Alto, also known as UAMES. Reverend Smith and his church has helped document and respond to these incidents through his role on the Palo
Alto Human Relations Commission. Reverend Smith was one of the strongest voices in demanding that the Palo Alto City Council take a stand against racism and hate. He was also one of the strongest voices in demanding that the Palo Alto City Council take concrete action in response to these hate crimes. He did this by pressing Palo Alto to host community conversations on race and belonging and systemic reforms to address disparities in policing, hiring, and representation. Reverend Smith consistently reminds the community that real change requires showing up, speaking out, and holding leaders accountable. Reverend Smith often tells people to meet their elected officials, build relationships, and stay engaged in a wholeheartedly active community. Dr. Bill Smith originally
asked other UN official to join the process, but he said, The guests and officials agreed. �Change does not happen when we stay silent, or sit back and wait for someone else to speak up. It occurs when community members raise concerns together, send emails, attend meetings, and insist on transparency and action.�
�Former Councilor Tom Govindar said, �This is what your state would look like if you had later on, more and more accountability, and more appropriate 뭐� Mr. Smith also said, �I think that is the only way for us to move forward. I still believe in a more transparent and open process of government .� Reverend Smith also said, �This is the only way that we can continue our work .� of the church under the leadership of Reverend Smith. As an elected official who I deeply value openness and strong relationships with the community, I want to echo the message today. Come talk to us. We will meet you too. But bring issues forward. Hold us accountable. Nothing will
move unless people push for it. Reverend Smith has been a powerful example of what that looks like in practice. And beyond his civic leadership, he serves as senior pastor of the University AME Zion Church. So UAMES is a congregation founded in 1918 by African -American families seeking refuge from spiritual segregation. At the time, churches discriminated against its black members. The UAMES, known as the Freedom Church, counts Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, and Sojourner's Truth among its members. It was part of the abolitionist movement in the US. That legacy of courage and justice is strong in Reverend Smith and the UAMES congregation as a whole. At UAMES, Reverend Smith has built a community rooted in inclusivity, authenticity,
and service. And his leadership brings faith, justice, and community healing, something we all need to remain optimistic about during these tough times. And as we reflect on Black History Month and on the work still ahead, it's an honor to welcome a leader who embodies the conviction, clarity, and hope this moment requires. Thank you. Please join me in welcoming Reverend Coloma Smith to deliver today's invocation. Welcome. COLOMA SMITH, REV. Good morning, everybody. I have the distinct pleasure of being good friends with a gentleman by the name of Clarence Jones. Clarence Jones is Martin Luther King's speech writer, lawyer, and a confidant from 1962 through 68. And I was sitting with him in November, and I said,
what should I do? He said, you've seen a lot, sir. You walked with King. You helped write the I Have a Dream speech. You did all of these things. And he said, the first thing is you have to recognize that everybody matters. People are not numbers. People are not a budget line item. People are people. We live in a world that is highly split and highly divisive. And I think the greatest gift we can do is recognize people. Being from Nashville. We are black people in the black community. And we have an African -American Church tradition. I understand my people. We were slaves. And we were in the Brush Harbors in South Carolina. We were
in Jim Crow in Alabama. We even came to this area and thought we could make it. And people pushed us to the side. My church's original deed had to be signed by a group of white pastors because they wouldn't sell the property to black people. Today, as I do this invocation, as I reflect on this Black History Month, the one thing that our church and our community has always done is see the domestic at the same level we see a lawyer. To see the person that raked the grass at the same level as an elected official. So as we do this invocation, the greatest lesson from Black History Month is to see people for who
they are and the beautiful way they're created. Let us pray.
To the God who has created all things in this earth and the God who continues to move, we lift up a prayer today for our elected officials. We lift up a
prayer for our brothers and sisters
from unions and different places that sit in this place. And my hope is that we can see freedom. We can see joy. We can see self -respect. We can see people being seen as people. I know that we face difficult times and I know that we live in a world that we objectively rectify each other and label each other and marginalize each other. But in this chamber on this day and many moving forward, my prayer is that this place be a light where people are seen as people, hope is given, and transformation happens. Amen.
Thank you. Thank
you for that
wonderful opportunity to reflect and pray collectively.
I'm going to move on to item number nine. This is public comment.
This item is reserved for those of you who might, this might be the first time you're here. Welcome, first of all, and thank you for being here. We know sometimes it's a trek to come to all the way here to the county. We appreciate you. And so we're asking the public who wish to speak. This is on items that are not on the agenda. So if you have an item that's on the agenda, you'll wait for that item to come up. This is for folks who want to provide us with any comment that is not related to the agenda. We will call up to up to 30 names now, and the remainder names will be
called at the end of the agenda if we have more than 30. If you're in person and would like to share a public comment, please complete a yellow request to speak form. If you don't know where it's at, it's in the back of the room in the tray near the back. And if you're joining us virtually via Zoom, this would be the
time
that you raise your virtual hand. We all learned that during the pandemic, so do that now. And in -person speakers will be called first, followed by the Zoom speakers. No further requests to speak will be accepted under the continued public comment in the afternoon. So a reminder for speakers on Zoom that when speakers in chambers start speaking, no more speakers will be taken. All right. And so during public comment, please respect everyone's comment. We don't allow applause or boos, but to show your support, you can raise your hands and shake your hands quietly. And we appreciate your cooperation at our meeting so we can move in an orderly fashion. We'll begin with in -person public
comments and then move on to virtual. So I'm going to ask Curtis how many folks do we have to speak both in -person? And virtually. We have 20 in -person speakers and three Zoom speakers for item number six. Three? So 23 total. 23 total. Okay. So we will have a minute for folks to speak. All right. I will call some names. We'll close the queue. Our first speakers are Terry Hines, Kayana Medina, Andre Oliveira, Dora Balthazar,
and Jerry Weib. Thank
you very much, Honorable President and Vice President and Supervisors of Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Terry Hines, Campbell City Council District 1. I'd like to request to be a representative for Santa Clara County for the Bay Area Quality Management District Board. The City's Association picked a different candidate for the choice. I received six votes. I received five. The air we breathe is fundamentally the most important natural resource we need to manage effect. I look to bring to BAQMD my experience and perspective on effective community supported projects and plans. Conservation has always been a keen and driving force for me. I have an MS degree in wildlife biology. I sponsored a Campbell Creek cleanup with
59 trash talking volunteers and purchased a 300 mile EV and full charging at home. Please consider me for the appointment to be a Santa Clara County representative and I have submitted my application but not sure of the interview process. I have several March commitments that have taken me out of the area so I wanted to present to you today. Thank you to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for your great leadership in furthering the needs of Santa Clara County cities, residents, businesses and property owners and obviously a very effective group here to be able to chat today. Thank you.
Before the next speaker, please come forward. I'm just going to interject really quickly as I'm being told that our YouTube public access is isn't up and running. It's having some technical issues so if you are
able to
hear I don't know how they would hear but I'm going to just cross all my T's, dot my I's I'm going to ask folks to switch to Zoom instead. So if you're hanging on by a wire online, switch over to Zoom instead. Alright, thank you and please go ahead. Hello board. Good morning. My name is Andre. I'm the chapter vice president of SCIU 521 here in Santa Clara County. I am here today because our impacted members have been notified last week that their bidding process was going to take place today and yesterday and we feel that's not enough time for them to take, make a decision that will impact not only their career but also
their lifestyle. I'm here to ask you to give them at least two weeks because we feel that's enough time for them to be able to do an informed decision and to have also the support of their union. Okay, thank you so much. Have a good one.
Hi,
my name is Kiana. I'm an LVN and I'm affected by this layoff. Paul Lorenz has stated in this room the importance of transparency yet employees have received none, only confusion and questions. He also said every affected employee would have a lateral position but after attending the layoff training last week we learned that the county has no finalized vacancy list, no guarantee that full -time employees will keep full -time status, no assurance for similar locations or schedules. We're asking for collaboration, adherence to contractual protections, two weeks to review the final bidding list and for ICT positions to be moved into a billable cost center instead of being deleted. Thank you.
Hello,
good morning. Dora Balsazar and I am an HSR at the Moore Park Compass Clinic and I'm also an SEIU 521 member. It is unacceptable that only some of our impacted members receive their layoff training. The county excluded our union from these sessions and we're barely provided training yesterday. How is it fair for our members, for myself, to navigate such a stressful layoff process without proper guidance? Clear information and the support we deserve from the county and from our union. Please allow myself and my union siblings two weeks to review the finalized list to responsibly bid on our transfers. Thank you.
I can call a few more names. We have Carlos Murillo, Luna Mondragon, Refugio Gonzalez, Beatrice Walton and Nia Zhong.
Good morning Supervisors. My name is Jerry Reby. I'm a Community Outreach Specialist with the Homeless Health Care Program. I'm also a Chief Steward for Ambulatory Care. One of the most crucial programs that I work with personally, the Integrated Care Team.
The Integrated Care Team is on the chopping block today. This program serves medically fragile, psychologically complex and psychiatrically complex residents who depend on coordination of care across the medical, health, custody and housing systems. There is no existing program that replicates this integration of structure and nor do patients trust those outside entities. So they don't get to take advantage of the services without this core group of people. Eliminating the ICT would not reduce community needs or the county's spending. It will only increase emergency room visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and costly systems cycling. The problem is not clinical failure, but a billing structure issue. Please reconsider
eliminating the
ICT team and put them under a cost
structure. I'm a
county worker and I also serve as the blue collar Vice Chair for SEIU.
We understand that budget reductions require difficult decisions, but rush, timelines, bypassed union process and the dismantling of programs that actually
save money
are not unavoidable. They are decisions. And decisions can be made differently. Fiscal responsibility should never come to at the expense of fairness, transparency or respect for the workforce that keeps this county working. We are asking for collaboration. We are asking for collaboration, adherence to contractual protections and two weeks to deliberate once the finalized bidding it is provided. And move the ICT positions into a cost center where they can bill for services instead of
deleting them.
And your name, I'm sorry, for the record. Carlos. Thank you. Do
I just start? I
don't even know how this works. Okay. Hello, my name is Beatrice Walton. I have been an IHSS provider in Santa Clara. I've been a member of the IHSS provider in Santa Clara County since December. I care for my sister, Marissa, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Every day I help her with her basic needs and make sure that she is safe. I had to quit my job in order to provide this care because she depends on me. Even though I already have done the process of getting care for her with IHSS, I have not been paid yet because of delays in paperwork and required lab clearances. As a result, I am now in the process
of getting care for her with IHSS. I am now on, or I am in the process of eviction. These issues are making it harder for me and other providers to provide care for those we love. IHSS was created to ensure that people live with dignity and safety within their communities. However, providers are financially unstable and we urge you guys to make an agreement for a fair contract. Thank you.
Thank you, Refugio Gonzalez. Thank you for giving me this small moment of my participation and being heard.
We are here to support the 20 -15 and workers in the county with the need and interest they have in their contract. A contract where they can have better benefits and opportunities in their own jobs. Because we know that from this, from a work of dignity, we can survive and have enough for the needs that are presented to us. I work at McDonald's. I am in the union of fast food workers. And just like them, we need to be heard by you because I am sure that the function that you perform, we are being heard. And through you, our work is being heard.
With your support, we will have better achievements and progress. Thank you for listening. Thank you.
Have a nice day. Good
morning, my name is Refugio Gonzalez and thank you for giving me this moment to talk and to be heard. I support the 20 -15 because we all, because we are supporting the county workers, their needs and their interest. And also, we would like to have the benefit and
to have all this we know that in order that we will have a dignified that we would we would like to have a dignified work and enabled in it and we want to do it because we want to have enough for our needs
I
work in McDonald's and I'm part of the union of fast food workers but as well as them we want to be heard by you we are sure that through you we will have a good achievements all together
thank
you very much
I
can call a few more names we have margarita loop per row Kayla Gomez Victor Costa Jose a pasty Ola and Isla Cardo
and
then just a reminder to the folks in the audience if you could please silence your cell phones
thank
you
hola
buenos dias me nombre es una mon dragón gracias por el pequeño momento que me brindan el día de hoy para poder expresarme
yo
soy trabajadora de car juniors por casi seis años he vivido una serie de represalias ahí en mi área de laboral
entonces
el día de hoy estoy aquí empatizando me con mis compañeros porque al final de cuentas todos somos compañeros que estamos en la lucha
es
necesario el día de hoy empatizar nos para escuchar las necesidades de lo que está pasando en la lucha es necesario el día de hoy empatizarnos para escuchar las necesidades de lo que está pidiendo ahora la lucha del 20 por 15
entonces
este el día de hoy más que nada es necesario acudir las necesidades de cada uno de nosotros
porque sabemos de antemano que
la lucha por los derechos no es nada fácil
entonces
hay que empatizar nos
a veces
muchos de las veces hay que vivir la injusticia para poder sentir lo que está sintiendo el otro lo que está viviendo el otro
entonces
más que nada de antemano estamos aquí apoyando esperamos ser escuchado por cada uno de ustedes
gracias
lo que dijo la señora anterior si no da un poquito momento
good
morning my name is no run am and I thank you for giving me this place to talk of you here
I
am I have been doing your workers for six years and I have been on love and justice
day I
thank you for being here to talk to me here I am a And that's why I'm here to empathize with all the workers that are having the same fight as us.
We
want to be heard, and that's why we are supporting the 2015. We want all our needs to be covered. We also are fighting for the same rights, and when doing that, we know it is not easy. Sometimes we need to live in justice to feel what others are living and to empathize with them. That's why I'm here before you. So our voice is heard by each one of you.
Thank
you very much.
Margarita
Lupercio, San Diego, USA Buenos dias.
Mi
nombre es Margarita
Lupercio. Este
mensaje es para la amistad de Supervisor. Necesitamos mejores
salarios.
Yo cuido a mi hijo en casa
y
son 24 -7. De una enfermedad mental que no se mira.
Lo
fisico se ve que esta bien pero mentalmente no esta bien.
Tengo
que cuidarlo y darle sus medicinas y todo.
No
hay tiempo de ir a buscar otro trabajo.
Es
de una enfermedad mental que no se mira. Es de una enfermedad mental que no se mira. Es de una enfermedad mental que no se ve. Necesitamos mejores salarios porque muchos pasamos que no es un trabajo de que trabajas 8 horas y te vas para tu casa. Es 24 -7 y es bien difícil.
Espero
que nos escuchen
y
gracias por este momento de darme la oportunidad de hablar. Gracias.
Good
morning.
My
name is Margarita Lupercio. This message is for all supervisors.
Thank
you very much.
We
want… Thank you very much. We would like to have better salaries. For example I take care of my son and he's having a mental illness. Critically, he's looking okay, but mentally he's not,
and
I have to
give
him his medications and this is not allowing me to have enough time to look for a job outside so it's been very difficult.
We need
good salaries.
This
is not an eight hours job.
This
is 24 -7 and therefore it's difficult.
Thank
you. So thank you.
Thank
you for the opportunity to be here and to giving me the opportunity to speak out.
Hi,
my name is Ayla Cardo, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the AHSS program and the SEIU Union for giving me the opportunity to be a caregiver. Because in 2024, I was laying in the hospital bed of Valley Medical with severe burns to my body.
I have
to have eight skin grafts. And a friend of mine also had the same thing happen at the same time, and I was given the opportunity to be their caregiver. And so I just wanted to say thank you for allowing me to do that, and that's all.
Hello, supervisors.
My
name is Victor Ozier -Acosta. I'm the community political organizer for SEIU Local 521. We are here in solidarity with our union siblings from SEIU 1021 and 2021. We just ask that you please provide us the respect and dignity that our workers deserve. And allow to bargain with us in good faith, knowing that we are in dire times. And helping making sure that we're taking care of the essential workers that help keep this county and community running.
Thank
you.
I'm going to call a few more names. Second call for Nia Jung. We have Trout.
Courtney Sylvia.
Elliot Tabarez.
I
can't read that first name.
Last
name is Cadeo.
And Ray. Raymond Wilman.
Hello,
board of trustees.
My
name is Nia Jung.
And
I have been providing IHSS for Santa Clara for more than two years. I take care of my patients.
I
and other providers are facing the
same
problems.
Most
of the elderly in Santa Clara have to go to work two or three more times to survive.
I
have a family that needs a contract that can guarantee a higher salary and better health insurance.
The prices of everything are rising.
And
we need your support. We have been negotiating for a year, almost two years now.
And
we have shared the difficulties that our families are facing. Let's reach an agreement together. Thank you. Thank you for your hard work and for your care.
Thank
you.
My
name is Marv. I have been working for the IHSS program for the last
20 years. I have been, I have still have to try to do two jobs in order to be able to maintain my family, my family. So I want to have a really good look for an agreement where we can have higher wages and better health benefits. Everything has gone up so much in the last few years. I really, really need some assistance. We have been in discussions for the last year and actually two years to share the difficulties we encounter all this time. And I'm really hopeful that some kind of agreement can be come forward to help us with higher wages and better health benefits. Thank you very much. Hi,
supervisors. Good morning. Good morning to our CEO. Our admin, my name is Kayla Gomez. I'm with SCIU 2015. I'm their political organizer here in Santa Clara County. We're here joined by our siblings from SCIU 1021, from 521. We appreciate everyone who showed up, really urge you to listen to their needs, to their comments and what they had to say.
And those of our IHSS workers who have been in negotiations for over a year now. Right. Budget deductions have historically impacted those who are living paycheck to paycheck the most. And we don't want that to be the case here in Santa Clara County. Service workers should not be left behind. And so we are insisting transparency and we're insisting action. We're insisting that you all help us find a solution, find an end to this contract. Thank you. Good
morning,
everybody. My name is Courtney Sylvia. And. I am a client of the integrated care team. I've been with for two years. And this team has saved my life. Two years ago, I was pretty much dead. I was on the streets and almost dead. Now I got everything back from the integrated care team. I got my housing back. I got a lot of things back. It's a great team. It saves lives. You know, it's well worth it to keep this team going.
Thank you. Good
morning, everyone. My name is Elliot. I'm a client of the integrated care team. I've worked with them since 2022.
I met them in jail. I had a traumatic brain injury in 2021. And things have been harder for me since then. I trust them. They helped me. I've been clean for almost two
years. This
program matters. Please take item 74 off consent. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Jose Abastira. And I am the proud political organizer for SEAU 1021. If you look behind me, you'll see that we have a coalition of 521 and 2015 with us. Just like in history with the United Farm Workers, there was Filipino workers. There was Latino workers. There was American workers. And in order for one to understand each other, they did the unity clap in order to break barriers in unions. You will now see a piece of history.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank
you.
We're going to take a moment. It sounds, it looks like folks are leaving.
Okay.
We will resume public comment. Please come up to the podium and begin your public comment.
Thank you. Okay. In Revelation 20, it talks about how Christ threw the devil in jail for a thousand years so that he could not deceive the world. It says that he will not deceive Gentiles in regards to the gospel. But then after the thousand years are expired, he'll be loose for a little season. He's a liar. He's a murderer. And he'll be loose for a little season. And then fire comes down from heaven. Okay. And destroys them all. Now, I find it very interesting. I mentioned two weeks ago to watch an inconvenience study .com. And I hope everybody has about the shots. And how there's never been any double -blind placebo studies done on any
of them. Of the 72 shots we're telling the kids they should take. But here in Brian Artis' book, COVID -19 Lies, he gets into the fact that early in 2020, there were four different studies that traced it, not to the bat, but to the Chinese king cobra and to the Chinese crate snake. That's where COVID came from. Remdesivir.
Boy, that was powerful. Write it down.
Last call
for, I believe it's Raymond Caudillo and Raymond Wilman.
All right. I believe they are in chambers. So we will move to our Zoom speakers. Our first speaker is Jennifer Del Bono.
Please accept the unmute. I
became an IHSS provider in Santa Clara County for my sister, Suzanne, after the death of our mother. Suzanne is mentally disabled and blind due to a degenerative condition called retinitis pigmentosa. Every day I help her with personal hygiene, meals, toileting, mobility, and getting to medical appointments.
These
are not extras.
These
are basic supports that allow her to live safely and with dignity with her family.
I'm
a small business owner and a trustee of the Gilroy Unified School District.
The
IHSS support gives me the ability to care for my sister while working and serving my community.
Without
IHSS, Suzanne would need institutional care at a much greater cost to the county. The program is not only compassionate, it's fiscally responsible. Be reminded that each of us could someday need the support for ourselves and someone we love.
I
urge the board to work together. Work with us for a fair agreement as investing in IHSS is an investment in families, dignity, community stability, and responsible governance. Thank you.
Thank you.
Our
next speaker is Parent. Please accept the unmute.
Yes. Hello. Good morning to you all. I wanted to see if you guys would be willing to initiate an investigation for the district attorney's office. DA Jeff Rosen. He's assisting a person in sex trafficking my children
and
he's incentivizing this person to physically assault me because he's filed criminal charges against me
and
he's trying to discredit me.
And
not only this, but now this person who's sex trafficking my children is threatening to kill my kids. And I sent all this information to DA Jeff Rosen and he doesn't care.
He's
allowing terrible crimes to occur in our community.
I
posted a lot of this information online.
If
you Google DA Jeff Rosen, petitions, sex trafficking,
all
those terms together,
you'll
see in the first three results what I'm talking about.
Thank
you so much for your time.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Tammy Donota.
Tammy,
can you accept the unmute, please?
Yes.
Good morning. My name is Tammy Donota.
I'm
from SEIU Local 521. I'm the Region 1 Vice President.
I'm going to get rid of that. I've
been a 31 -year member of SEIU Local 521.
I'm
also an officer of the union and a South Bay Labor Council delegate.
And
I'm here to ask the board members to strongly adopt what these members have been asking for.
These
two asks, we don't think they're a lot.
We
want you to please be the labor champions that we know you to be. As you know, we worked very hard in this last election to get measuring adopted so that we could ensure that the jobs were protected, the workers' rights were respected, and also that the community services were supported.
So
please honor the request that the workers have presented to you today. And we will continue to work with you in good faith. And we believe that by not doing this, you wouldn't be honoring us in good faith. So again, please honor the two asks that our workers have presented today.
Thank you. That concludes public comment for item number six.
Great.
Thank you.
I
appreciate all the folks coming in. I'm sorry that they are gone now. But I am concerned about something that a couple of the speakers said. And that is the additional time that they may need to make a decision to transition. To transition into another class or another position. James, do you have a
response for that? Sure. And it is too bad that folks left the room. But hopefully they'll hear this online. But we have been in conversation with SEIU Local 521 and with ESA. And we are able to extend the bidding timeline process through the end of next week.
There
are some potential collateral impacts of that. On how much time people may have regarding in -placement. I've shared that with SEIU leadership. But we're continuing to work with SEIU on that. And are extending the bidding time. In addition, I just wanted to provide assurance that we will be involving the ICT -related staff in the transitions associated with those clients. And this is just to keep the comments very brief. Since we're just at public. But just want to acknowledge that Paul Lorenz, Michelle Delacalle, and Rocio Luna, who's not with us this morning. Because she's with the medical monitors
at
Custody Health. Are all three directly involved in that effort. And have made that commitment as well.
Great.
Thank you. And I also want to make sure that we adhere to contractual rules. And that we follow seniority and other rules that we have. Agreed to contractually with the unions. And that is really important. Not just for ICT. And I think I'll leave it at that. And ask for additional time with you to have a conversation about ICT. Okay. We're going to move right along to our consent calendar. This is item number 10 for those of you who are still hanging on to a Zoom feed. Supervisor, I think you meant item 7, correct?
Consent
calendar is item 7. You
know what? I am just completely reading a script on here. And here it says item 10. But you're absolutely right. It is item 7.
And yes. And so we're going to move to item 7. The consent calendar. Hopefully that didn't mix people up on Zoom. And any changes to the Board of the Supervisors agenda today. First I'm going to ask Curtis to. Read through the current updates to the consent calendar as it is proposed. All right. We have a request from Vice President Arenas to consider item numbers 13 and 14 concurrently. Item number 13 is to receive report relating to options to expand the geographical boundaries of the San Martin Planning Area. Item number 14 is adoption of ordinance number NS -300 .1005. Amending sections A6 -248. And section A6 -250 of Chapter 22 of Division A6 of the County
of Santa Clara Ordinance Code relating to the San Martin Planning Advisory Committee. We have corrections to item numbers 57A, 57F, and 57G. 57A should reflect that it is jointly submitted with Supervisor Young. And 57F and 57G should reflect that they are jointly submitted with Supervisor Abacoga. 57A is to adopt accommodation for Dr. Lori Olson for trailblazing work in the field of education and expertise uplifting English and Spanish. 57G is to adopt accommodation for English language learners at Oak Grove Unified School District. 57F is to adopt accommodation for History San Jose for showcasing the history, creativity, and talents of women across San Jose and Santa Clara County at the Women's Heritage Day event. And 57G is
to adopt accommodation for the Muslim community of Los Altos on the occasion of its third annual Iftar dinner and in appreciation of its community contributions. We have a request from administration to hold item number 63 to March 10, 2026. Item number 63 is to consider recommendations relating to a cost -sharing agreement with the City of San Jose regarding pavement maintenance. And that concludes the consent calendar update.
Great. Thank you. Next, I'm going to ask if there are changes to the consent calendar, and I see Supervisor Young. Thank
you, Vice President Reynos. I'd like to pull items 69 and 70 from consent. I do have some questions about consent. About these items and where SIU concurrence is on these items. Item 69 is approved request from appropriation modification number 116 related to adding one assistant chief engineer position, five station engineers positions, dealing one communications cable installer position, one facilities material coordinator positions, and so on, like additional positions. These positions are also listed here under item 69. And then item 70 is the salary ordinance that would operationalize the recommended, the appropriation modification 69.
And then I also have some comments here on item 66. It's the, just so I want to extend my appreciation. It's to approve the second amendment to agreement with WSP USA relating to providing 2016 measure B expressway program support services.
Really want to provide comment that I appreciate the investments that's being made to Capo Expressway. I know that we have a ways to go until the light rail connector is done before significant work can be done to improve the conditions of Capo Expressway. But really encouraged to see that. I know it's been a long time coming, and it'll take a little more time to get it done. But my appreciation is extended to staff. And I see that we have our members of the public back. Thank you. So on item 74, I want to thank Vice President Rennes for raising the questions during this item at the top of the agenda item. And I hope that
James, during your CEO report, if you could delve further into the transition plans for the ICT team and where we are on the bidding process during your report.
Sure.
Happy to do so.
I'll
make a motion to approve the consent calendar with my proposed changes. I'll be
the second. Wonderful.
Thank you. I'm also going to make a comment on item 47. This is consent, and this is a Joe Serna Junior Farmworker Housing Grant Program. I think we all understand at a very deep level how deserving farmworkers are of stable housing. And they need real pathways to becoming first -time homeowners. Homeownership is definitely an American legacy for generational wealth. It's something that we are no longer really seeing among working -class families. So I'm really grateful to the Office of Supportive Housing for really centering agricultural workers and their housing along with the work plan adopted by the board in 2023. They've done this in just a multiple of ways, including recent groundbreaking of the magnolias in
Morgan Hill, which will bring 28 units designed exclusively for farmworkers. And today, we are celebrating the Office of Supportive Housing successfully securing $2 .2 million in funding through the Joe Serna Farmworker Housing. And from what I understand, it's been quite a bit of time since the county has received any of this particular funding. We've worked with partners that received the funding, and we benefit from that. But the county hasn't received anything directly. And so thank you, Consuelo, for the work that you've been doing. As well as KJ. This was really exciting to know that we are building long -term stability for our farmworkers and their families. And so I'd also like to extend my gratitude
and administration for this dedication to our farmworkers. All right. And I think we already reviewed the correction to item 57. And I think we already reviewed the correction to item 57. And I'd also like to ask to hear item 13 and 14 together. And I think we already reviewed the correction to item 57. This is the item specific to San Martin planning area. And so both of these items connect. And so I'd like to just hear them together. And so I'd like to just hear them together. If that's okay with the... Okay, wonderful.
If there are no other comments, we'll go ahead and take roll call. If there are no other comments, we'll go ahead and take roll call. If there are no other comments, we'll go ahead and take roll call. Do you want to check with President Lee to see if he has any changes? President Lee, of course. No changes. Thank you. Thank you so much. You know, I kind of telepathically knew that. But we also need to hear public comment. But we also need to hear public comment. So great opportunity to do that now. All right. I have one card in chambers. And it looks like we have one hand raised on Zoom.
You want to set the speaker timer for two minutes? You
want to set the speaker timer for two minutes? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, of course. Thank you. Our speaker in chambers
is Cole Cameron.
Thank you. Another amazing woman joined our Veterans Commission.
This is the back of my shirt that I so enjoy from the 129th Rescue Wing where Zoe Laughlin and others joined us in celebrating before the Trump cut that and our DEI stuff out. But we continue doing our honoring locally, which takes me to the appreciation of the appointment to Kelly Estes, as our newest commissioner, another fellow amazing woman, who among her application, my letters, did not include the book she wrote, starting as a teenager, about her uncle that lost his life in World War II. I really appreciate what was presented earlier and the continued support by Executive Williams after Supervisor Arrhenius brought the question up, because we have a group on our work plan
for the Veterans Commission called VCP, Veterans Community Program, where we have the same issues going on. Home care for vets that don't have insurance, that are stuck in their homes, and getting support beyond family, if they have any, is a real concern, and so that's why we've made that one of our key five points on our work plan. Thank you so much for all that you're doing. As an old finance guy, I appreciate the hell you're doing. I appreciate all you're going through. I've been there many times, and just really appreciate the support of the lesser served, as was presented earlier, that you're continuing to support as you can, which is as you can. So
thank you again, and have a good rest of the meeting.
We will move to our Zoom speaker. Our Zoom speaker is Erica Murphy. Please accept the unmute. You have two minutes. Members
of the Board, I am here to speak on behalf of the VCP. On item 61, I was surprised to learn of the county's intent to purchase 21287 Almaden Road, especially since just last month, several members of the New Almaden community spoke at a zoning administration hearing regarding this same property. At that hearing, we expressed concerns about the proposed plans for a home that, as designed, is not compatible with the New Almaden National Historic Landmark District. In a sense, this turn of events is preferable to a home designed for the VCP, but it is not. It is an urgent need for the community to purchase a property that would erode the historic character of New Almaden.
However, it is not without reservations.
Specifically, County Parks continues to purchase properties to expand the park portfolio, and because the funds come from the park charter land acquisition account, the purchases
are not scrutinized sufficiently. They are assumed to be a benefit to the community. Unfortunately, no consideration is ever given to the wildfire risk posed by these properties. For example, item 61 proposes the purchase of a home for the community, but there is Purchase of a small less than 2 acre parcel that would add a trail connection that would be added to the Bay Area Ridge trail. This is a significant trail. That has the potential to increase vehicle and foot traffic within within the new Albany community. As a result, knowing that greater than 95 % of wildfires in California are human cause this increase in activity increases the threat of wildfire. Furthermore, knowing that new Almond
and Quicksilver county park already poses a significant wildfire threat to the surrounding community and is categorized by Cal fire as a high fire hazard severity zone. Due to the lack of any significant fields management. I believe it's irresponsible for the board to continue to authorize the expansion of the park system until the parks department can adequately address the wildfire risk posed by the lands. It already owns. 1 must look no further than the 2025. 5. To see how fire can quickly spread from public park lands to the surrounding community.
Thank you and that concludes public comment. Great so now we can go ahead and take a vote. Yes, and for the record, we have a motion by supervisor young seconded by supervisor Ellenberg supervisor. I supervisor, you. Yes, supervisor Ellenberg. Yes. Vice President, arenas yes presently. Yes, motion carries with 5. WONDERFUL. I LOVE THAT EMPATHIC YES. ON THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO REGULAR AGENDA, BUT WE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY HOLD OFF ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SINCE IT WAS RECORDED THIS WAY, WHICH IS TO NOT BE HEARD EARLIER THAN 1 P .M. SO THAT THIS GIVES OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR COMMUNITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE RIGHT AT 1 P .M. TO HEAR
ITEM EIGHT, AND ITEM EIGHT IS TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE SURVEILLANCE USE POLICY FOR THE AUTOMATED LICENSE READERS. SO WE ARE GOING TO SKIP TO THAT ONE, AND IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN HEARING THAT, BE BACK AT 1 P .M. EITHER JUST TO LISTEN TO THE DISCUSSION OR TO PARTICIPATE BY PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE NOW OVER TO ITEM NINE, TO RECEIVE MONTHLY LEGISLATIVE REPORT.
ITEM NINE IS ALSO UNDER THE 1 P .M. TIME CERTAIN. OH.
SO
I THINK ITEM TEN WILL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THINK MY NOTES ARE JUST A LITTLE BIT WRONG. SO WE WILL GO TO ITEM TEN, WHICH IS TO RECEIVE REPORT FROM COUNTY EXECUTIVE, INCLUDING UPDATES RELATING TO STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGET DEVELOPMENTS. PLEASE SHARE WITH US. THANK
YOU, SUPERVISOR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR. JUST A FEW UPDATES TODAY IN COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S REPORT. FIRST, WE CONTINUE TO BE VERY FOCUSED ON STATE AND FEDERAL BUDGETARY IMPACTS. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR MORE UNDER ITEM NINE, WHICH WILL COME UP UNDER THE 1 P .M. TIME CERTAIN RELATED TO THAT WORK FOR IGR. SO I 'LL KEEP MY PORTION OF THAT UPDATE BRIEF, EXCEPT TO JUST SHARE WITH THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC THAT WE CONTINUE TO DO BOTH EDUCATIONAL -RELATED OUTREACH REGARDING ASPECTS OF THE COUNTY'S BUDGET, INCLUDING DESCRIPTIONS OF HOW DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTY, AS ACTUALLY REFLECTED IN THE LAST SPEAKER UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR, WHO ASTUTELY NOTED,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE PARK CHARTER FUND IS A SEPARATE FUNDING SOURCE FROM GENERAL FUND, CONTINUE TO PUSH OUT INFORMATION TO HELP DESCRIBE HOW THERE'S DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THE COUNTY'S BUDGET THAT ARE
DIFFERENT, AND SEVERAL COMPONENTS THAT DON'T FACE THE SAME CONCERNS RELATED TO FEDERAL AND STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING, BECAUSE THEY ARE SEPARATE FUNDING SOURCES. WE'RE ALSO LAUNCHING AN INITIATIVE AND TAKING SOME LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE MID -YEAR PROCESS AS WELL, CALLED NAVIGATING CHANGE TOGETHER, TO HELP OUR EMPLOYEES UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS BETTER AND WALK THROUGH AND PROVIDE TIMELY UPDATES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF WHAT THESE PROCESSES AND CHANGES MIGHT MEAN FOR OUR OWN WORKFORCE IN FULL RECOGNITION THAT THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND THAT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME, CANDIDLY, SINCE OUR ORGANIZATIONS HAD TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE CHANGES. THE LAST SIGNIFICANT MID -YEAR ADJUSTMENTS, AS THE BOARD KNOWS, HAPPENED IN 2011. IT'S BEEN A SIMILAR TIME
FRAME SINCE WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF FIELD POSITION -RELATED IMPACTS IN THE COUNTY ORGANIZATION. AND SO WE ARE RECOGNIZING THAT AND TRYING TO TAKE STEPS TO BE MUCH MORE PROACTIVE IN THAT COMMUNICATION. ALSO JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT ON MARCH 12TH, THE COUNTY IS HOSTING A DISABILITY COMMUNITY TOWN HALL TO SHARE KEY DATA RELATED TO THE STATE OF THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND TO INCREASE VISIBILITY OF COUNTY EFFORTS AND GAIN COMMUNITY INPUT AND INSIGHT RELATED TO IMPACTS FOR THAT COMMUNITY, TOO. SO JUST THOSE ARE A COUPLE UPDATES THERE. I KNOW THAT THE SUPERVISOR UNION REQUESTED SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION ON THE COMMENTS FROM THIS MORNING DURING THIS REPORT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION FIRST OR YOU WANT ME TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
JAMES, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PRESENT AND THEN I 'LL FOLLOW UP WITH ANY QUESTIONS. SURE.
SO WITH RESPECT TO CONCERNS RAISED BY CU LOCAL 521, WE HAVE WORKED WITH ESA TO EXTEND THE BIDDING TIMELINE PROCESS. THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT IS PRESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACT AND IT IS A COMPLEX PROCESS WITH A CERTAIN ORDER OF OPERATIONS. THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY IN MANY INSTANCES FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SELECT DIFFERENT POSITIONS BEFORE IT IS SENIORITY BASED IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE NOT VOLUNTEERS. TO EXTEND THE BIDDING TIMELINE PROCESS THROUGH NEXT FRIDAY, WHICH WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME. THERE COULD BE SOME SECONDARY IMPACTS FROM THAT, WHICH WE 'VE ALSO HEARD WITH LOCAL 521 LEADERSHIP THAT IT MIGHT MEAN LESS TIME FOR CERTAIN FOLKS WHO END UP INPLACED, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO DO OUR BEST TO
MANAGE THAT PROCESS AND AFFORD AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE FOR FOLKS IN RECOGNITION OF THE IMPACT THAT THAT HAS ON STAFF. REGARDING THE ICT TEAM,
WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALLY AFFECTED STAFF ON THE TRANSITION PLANNING ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPACTED CLIENTS AND THEIR TRANSITION TO THE ALTERNATE CARE MODEL. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY, PAUL, THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THAT, BUT PAUL LORENZ, MICHELLE DE LA CALLE, AND THE DIRECTOR OF CUSTODY HEALTH SERVICES ARE ALL THREE EXECUTIVES WHO HAVE BEEN VERY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THAT PROPOSAL AND IN THAT EFFORT. AND ALL ARE VERY COMMITTED TO THAT. ROCIO, LIKE I SAID, WOULD ALSO BE HERE JUST NOW, BUT FOR THE FACT THAT SHE IS WITH OUR MEDICAL MONITORS WHO ARE HERE AS PART OF THE CONSENT DECREE MONITORING AT OUR JAIL FACILITIES RIGHT NOW. SO, HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS. SO, ONCE AGAIN, THE BIDDING PROCESS HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO NEXT FRIDAY? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, I KNOW THAT USUALLY WE DON'T GET INTO LENGTHY CONVERSATIONS INVOLVING STAFF PRESENTATIONS, BUT WOULD IT BE OKAY FOR US TO HEAR FROM PAUL LORENZ AND MICHELLE DE LA CALLE ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS OR OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ICT TRANSITION?
YEAH, ACTUALLY, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.
I'M JUST GOING TO CAUTION THAT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A PARTICULAR NOTICED ITEM, CONVERSATION SHOULD BE KEPT VERY SHORT.
THANK YOU, VICE PRESIDENT ARRINEZ, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. PAUL LORENZ, CEO FOR SANTA CLARA VALLEY HEALTH CARE HERE WITH MICHELLE DE LA CALLE, WHO RUNS THE TRANSITIONS PROGRAM FOR CUSTODY HEALTH. I WOULD JUST ECHO WHAT JAMES SAID. WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORK WITH THE STAFF TO ENSURE THAT THE CLIENTS RECEIVE THE APPROPRIATE SUPPORT DURING THIS PHASE. I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY COMPLICATED SITUATION, BUT WE ARE COMMITTED TO ENSURE THAT THE CLIENTS RECEIVE THE SUPPORT THAT THEY REQUIRE IN ORDER TO TRANSITION INTO THE COMMUNITY.
HI. GOOD MORNING. MICHELLE DE LA CALLE, WORKING WITH THE ICT TEAM, AS WELL AS THE CUSTODY HEALTH CARE. WE ARE
WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE TEAM, TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITY OF EACH INDIVIDUAL, GOING CASE BY CASE, LOOKING AT ALL THE OPTIONS, ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY WHERE POSSIBLE, AND TO SUPPORT EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THIS TRANSITION FROM THE TEAM TO THE OTHER SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. SO AS THE TEAM, THE ICT TEAM, WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE ICT TEAM TRANSITIONS AS A RESULT OF THE MID -YEAR REVIEW CHANGES. WILL THEY BE ABLE TO BE ENGAGED OR INVOLVED? WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THEIR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TRANSITION PLANNING AND THE TRANSITIONING OF OUR 35 PATIENTS IN ICT?
I'M WORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WILL LAND IN THE BIDDING PROCESS, ET CETERA. I WILL WORK WITH THEIR NEW SUPERVISOR IF ANYTHING COMES UP. I IMAGINE THEY WILL BE OPEN TO CONVERSATIONS IF THINGS COME UP IN THE TRANSITION TIME. BUT I WILL WORK WITH THEIR NEW SUPERVISOR, MANAGER, AND THE INTERIM IF SOMETHING COMES UP THAT NEEDS THEIR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MICHELLE. AND PAUL, I REMEMBER THAT AT THE LAST DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM, YOU HAD MADE THE ‑‑ YOU HAD AFFIRMED DURING OPEN SESSION THAT THE PROGRESS OF THE 35 PATIENTS IN ICT WILL BE MONITORED AND THAT AS NECESSARY, IF NECESSARY, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT A RELAX, WE DON'T WANT A REVERSAL OF OUTCOMES, THAT COURSE CORRECTION WILL BE IMPLEMENTED TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE FALLS THROUGH THE CRACKS. YES, SUPERVISOR YOUNG, WE WILL MONITOR AND SHOULD THERE BE ANY
ADVERSE SITUATION OR CONCERNS, WE WILL INFORM THE BOARD, BUT WE WILL DO OUR VERY BEST TO ENSURE THAT THE CLIENTS ARE TRANSITIONED APPROPRIATELY AND ARE CARED FOR APPROPRIATELY. THANK YOU. IN THE PROCESS OF LEARNING ABOUT THIS ICT TEAM, I JUST WANT TO ALSO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO DESIREE AND TESSA, WHO REALLY TOOK A PILOT PROGRAM AND
ORGANICALLY SHAPED AND STRUCTURED THEIR SERVICES IN A WAY TO MEET THE NEED IN THE MOMENT, NOT NECESSARILY MEET THE MANDATE OF THE PILOT, BUT TO MEET THE NEEDS THAT WERE IN THE MOMENT IN REAL TIME TO ENSURE THE BEST OUTCOMES FOR OUR PATIENTS HERE, VERY HARD TO SURVIVE. AND I THINK THAT IS THE POPULATION THAT OFTEN TIMES PEOPLE AT LARGE MAY TEND TO IGNORE OR FEEL JUSTIFIED AND NOT FOCUSING ON. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHAIR. THANK YOU JAMES. THANK YOU PAUL. THANK YOU MICHELLE. THANK
YOU. IF NOBODY ELSE HAS QUESTIONS, I DO HAVE SOME, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE FOR THE ICT.
I'M WONDERING WHY IN THE MID -YEAR BUDGET, THE DECADE THAT THE DOCUMENTS DIDN'T HAVE ANY MENTION OF THE ICT BEING CUT, THIS IS WHERE I, YOU KNOW, WE FACE THIS ISSUE BACK WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PERT, AND PERT WAS GETTING CUT AS A PROGRAM EVEN BEFORE THE DECISION CAME TO THE BOARD TO HAVE THE BOARD DECIDE WHETHER PERT SHOULD BE CUT OR NOT. IT WAS A CLINICAL DECISION OR A DEPARTMENTAL DECISION TO HAVE THAT CUT, AND IT DIDN'T PROVIDE PERT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY REALLY DEVELOP IN A WAY THAT I THINK SPECIFICALLY FOR MY SOUTH COUNTY CITIES TO BENEFIT FROM. AND I SEE THIS IN THE SAME WAY. I SEE ICT, WHICH IS VERY
HIGH END USERS, JUST LIKE THE PERT PROGRAM, WHICH ARE FOLKS WHO MAY HAVE A LEVEL OF CRISIS AND ALSO INTERACTION WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OF COURSE A THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION. THAT IS MUCH BETTER THAN A POLICE INTERVENTION AND HAS BETTER OUTCOMES. ON THE HEELS OF HAVING A PERSON WITH BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ISSUES IN OUR JAIL MURDERED LAST YEAR AROUND THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REALLY CONSERVE THOSE SAFETY NET PROGRAMS THAT MIGHT BE SMALL, BECAUSE I HEARD YOU SAY IT'S 35%. THEY MIGHT BE SMALL, BUT I THINK BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGH END USERS, AS SUPERVISOR YOUNG SAID, THEY ARE DESIGNED VERY SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS POPULATION. AND IT'S ONE, IT'S VERY
TAILORED, BUT THE SECOND THING IS THAT WE ARE ALSO SAVING, CREATING SAVINGS FROM HAVING HUMAN SAVINGS, FROM HAVING THEM BE IN A CARCERAL SETTING OR IN A HOSPITAL. TO ME, OBVIOUSLY, THE HUMAN COST IS THE GREATER COST. BUT WE ARE ALSO SAVING OUR COUNTY MONEY. AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER THIS TRANSITION TIMELINE IS, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THOSE ELEMENTS THAT THE ICT CREATED, THAT THEY ARE NOT LOST BY EXPANDING THEM OR GIVING THEM TO AGENCIES, AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ELSE, BUT THAT I JUST KNOW THAT THIS TEAM IS DOING THEIR JOB REALLY WELL, AND WE HAVE TESTIMONY FROM FOLKS WHO HAVE COME AND SAID, YOU SAVED MY
LIFE, RIGHT? AND IT'S JUST REALLY TOUCHING TO HEAR THAT, BUT ALSO I'M SURE THAT IT ALSO REPRESENTS A LOT OF SAVINGS FROM OUR SYSTEM. AND POTENTIALLY A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A SUSTAINABLE MODEL. THERE IS A MODEL HERE THAT WE COULD BUILD FOR IN A WAY THAT COULD CONTINUE TO CREATE SUSTAINABILITY INTERNALLY. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT OUR COUNTY DOES BETTER, AND THEN IT'S OKAY, I THINK, FOR US TO KEEP THOSE. SO, ANYWAYS, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. THIS IS WHAT I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN GET, JAMES, IN AN AFTER FOLLOW -UP CONVERSATION, BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT. I KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A WHOLE LONG CONVERSATION WITH YOU. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULL
-FLEDGED CONVERSATION HERE, AS IT'S NOT ON OUR AGENDA. BUT WE DID HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THERE'S A NEXUS HERE TO ASK QUESTIONS. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CAN HAVE APPROPRIATE FOLLOW -UP. AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT THESE 35 INDIVIDUALS RECEIVE THE CARE THAT THEY NEED TO RECEIVE. AND I THINK YOU 'VE HEARD THAT FROM PAUL AND MICHELLE, AND I'M SURE DORSEO SHARES THAT COMMITMENT AS WELL.
AND, YEAH, AND WE WILL MONITOR AND TRACK AND FOLLOW UP AND SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH
THE BOARD. THANK YOU. I'D LOVE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS ALTERNATIVE CARE MODEL. BUT ALSO HOPING TO SEE WHAT WE CAN PRESERVE THAT THE ACTUAL ICT PROGRAM DEVELOPED THAT WAS KEY TO MAKING IT SO SUCCESSFUL, RIGHT? I DON'T WANT TO MISS THAT. IF IT'S EXPANDING IT, THAT'S WONDERFUL. WE'RE EXPANDING IT. I'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. I JUST AM CONFUSED IN TERMS OF WHAT IT IS AT THIS POINT. BUT WE 'LL LEAVE THAT FOR ANOTHER DAY BECAUSE I CAN FEEL TONY
DRAWING THE LINE FOR ME, AND I WILL STOP. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
DO YOU WANT TO CHECK TO SEE IF PRESIDENT LEE HAS ANY?
ABSOLUTELY.
PRESIDENT LEE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS.
OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN. IT
GOES TO TONY, THEN.
I'M SORRY? OH, YES, OF COURSE, TONY, YES. THE REPORT. THE FEBRUARY 23, 2026 CLOSED SESSION MEETING WAS CANCELED, SO I DO NOT HAVE A REPORT. WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEM 12.
THAT WAS RATHER EASY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 12. THIS IS RECEIVE, OH, NO, THIS IS CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE VALLEY HOMELESS HEALTH CARE PROGRAM. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE SHARING WITH US, WELCOME.
GOOD MORNING, VICE PRESIDENT ARRENAS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, CELINE HO, DIRECTOR FOR THE VALLEY HOMELESS HEALTH CARE PROGRAM. I'M HERE WITH CHRISTIE RAUS, OUR ASSISTANT NURSE MANAGER FOR VHHP. TODAY IN YOUR BOARD PACKET, WE 'VE INCLUDED A RESPONSE TO VICE PRESIDENT ARRENAS REFERRAL REGARDING CULTURALLY ALIGNED STRATEGIES FOR SERVING OUR CLIENTS THAT ARE EXPERIENCING UNCONTROLLABLE DIABETES. AND WE ALSO HAVE A BUDGET UPDATE FOR YOUR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK
YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT. WE ARE GOING TO GO TO OUR PUBLIC TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS. CURTIS?
I HAVE NO SPEAKER CARDS IN CHAMBERS AND NO HANDS RAISED ON ZOOM, SO WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. ALL RIGHT. I 'LL LOOK TO MY SUPERVISOR.
SUPERVISOR ELLENBERG.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, AS ALWAYS, FOR THE REPORT. AS NOTED IN THE BUDGET UPDATE, WE'RE CURRENTLY DRAWING DOWN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICE EXPANSION, BHSE GRANT FUNDING. ARE THESE FUNDS GOING TO BE RENEWED? WE'RE FUNDING TWO POSITIONS WITH THE GRANT. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? YES. THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH EXPANSION GRANT IS ROLLED UP INTO OUR BASE GRANT NOW. AND SO WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RENEWING THAT. WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF SUBMITTING, WE HAVE SUBMITTED OUR APPLICATION FOR THE NEW HRSA BUDGET FUNDING, AND THAT AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASE GRANT. EXCELLENT. AND YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THAT WILL BE RENEWED? YES. AS CONFIDENT AS ONE CAN BE. YES. WE'RE
VERY HOPEFUL, AND WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WILL GET THE RENEWAL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS.
I'M HAPPY TO SECOND THAT.
EXCELLENT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. I'M JUST GOING TO THANK YOU FOR THE FOLLOW -UP. THANK YOU FOR THE DATA. YOU 'VE ALWAYS STEPPED UP EVERY TIME I HAVE AN INQUIRY. YOU'RE DOING THAT FOR ME AND NOT ONLY FOR ME, BUT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. SO YOU'RE ALWAYS VERY GRACIOUS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M GOING TO ALSO CROSS MY FINGERS AND SALT OVER MY SHOULDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT GRANT GETS APPROVED AND HOPEFULLY FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS WE 'LL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO BE SOMEWHAT STABLE IN THIS AREA. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO CALL I'M GOING TO ASK PRESIDENT
LEE IF HE HAS ANY COMMENTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PRESIDENT, ACTING PRESIDENT TODAY, ARENAS. FIRST I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. STAFF HAS POSED FOR THE VHC VISIT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. AND THE FREQUENCIES. AND ONE THING I LEARNED FROM THAT IS THAT TURNS OUT THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A LOCATION IN THE CITY OF MILPITAS IN TERMS OF VHP VISIT AND THAT WHAT A BACKPACK MEDICINE REFERRAL IS WARRANTED. SO BASICALLY WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IT'S OKAY FOR THE MAKE OF A MOTION, I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ASK ADMINISTRATION TO RETURN TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MONTH VHP REPORT. WITH INFORMATION OF POTENTIAL VISIT FOR THE HOUSE ENCAMPMENTS IN MILPITAS. I
REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.
WILL THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION? YES. AND THE SECOND. OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GOT YOUR TEAM ON BOARD. THANK YOU. PERFECT. GO AHEAD. THAT'S ALL I
HAVE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR ELLENBERG SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR APEKOGA. SUPERVISOR APEKOGA. AYE. SUPERVISOR YOUNG.
YES. SUPERVISOR
ELLENBERG.
YES. VICE
PRESIDENT ARANAS. YES. PRESIDENT LEE. AYE
AS WELL. YES.
MOTION CARRIES TO FIVE. WONDERFUL. OKAY. SO WE'RE MOVING RIGHT ALONG. THIS IS ITEM 13. RECEIVING THE REPORT FROM THEIR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND RELATING TO OPTIONS TO EXPAND GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF SAN MARTIN PLANNING AREA. WELCOME. AND EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. VICE PRESIDENT ARANAS. WE ARE TAKING 13 AND 14 CONCURRENTLY. YES. YES. WE ARE, SIR.
GOOD MORNING. SYLVIA GIGAS. DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE. AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE STAFF INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
TESTI. HELLO. PRINCIPAL PLANNER, SAMI GUTIERREZ FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
ACTA
DARIA. DEPUTY COUNTY COUNCIL WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL. SO
STAFF IS PREPARED TO MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION OR SIMPLY RESPOND TO QUESTIONS?
I WOULD LOVE IF IT WAS JUST A SIMPLE PRESENTATION BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH WORK ON THIS.
SURE. ONE MOMENT WHILE I LOAD UP ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS. WONDERFUL. SO AS YOU DO THAT, I'M GOING TO ASK CURTIS TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHO WE HAVE IN PERSON OR ONLINE VIA ZOOM.
RIGHT NOW I HAVE ONE CARD IN CHAMBERS. LOOKING FOR HANDS TO BE RAISED IN ZOOM. I'M NOT SEEING ANY HANDS IN ZOOM. SO WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER. OKAY. WONDERFUL. WE 'LL GO AHEAD AND CHECK IN ON THE ZOOM AFTER THE PRESENTATION. JUST CHECKING IN A LITTLE BIT EARLY.
AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND JUST GIVE YOU SOME RECOGNITION IN TERMS OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN SAN MARTINE WHO HAVE BEEN VERY GRATEFUL AND HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS. SO. AND AS YOU AS A BOARD VERY WELL KNOWS, SAN MARTINE DOES NOT HAVE A CITY STRUCTURE. WE ARE A DE FACTO CITY STRUCTURE FOR SAN MARTINE. AND SO THIS IS PART OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING THERE. I'M JUST BUYING TIME.
JACK, YOU LOOKED AT ME.
ALL RIGHT. ARE WE ONLINE? PERFECT. GO AHEAD. WELCOME. HELLO. PRESIDENT LEE AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. AGAIN, SAMUEL GUTIERREZ. AND I AM CURRENTLY DISPLAYING A MAP THAT I 'LL BRIEFLY DISCUSS RELATED TO THIS REFERRAL. THIS ITEM IS IN RESPONSE TO A BOARD REFERRAL FROM THE NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING WHERE THE BOARD DIRECTED THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE SOME OPTIONS REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF THE MEMBERSHIP ELIGIBILITY AREA FOR THE SAN MARTINE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AREA. THIS IS A PART OF MY ADVISORY COMMITTING ON THE CIMPAC AND EXPLORING WAYS TO EXPAND THE SAN MARTINE PLANNING AREA THROUGH A FUTURE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. IN REGARDS TO THE CIMPAC MEMBERSHIP CHANGE, OR EXCUSE ME,
THE MEMBERSHIP AREA CHANGE, THE EXISTING AREA IS LIMITED TO THIS AREA INDICATED IN ORANGE OR YELLOW. IT COMPRISES 12 .36 SQUARE MILES OF THE SAN MARTINE AREA. AND IN RESPONSE TO THE REFERRAL, STAFF PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT TO THE MEMBERSHIP AREA INDICATED HERE ON THIS MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE BORDERS EXPAND BEYOND THE EXISTING YELLOW AREA OF SAN MARTINE PLANNING AREA, AND THAT WOULD COMPRISE 18 .87 SQUARE MILES, REPRESENTING A LARGE 52 % INCREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP ELIGIBILITY AREA. THE METHODOLOGY UTILIZED WAS TO UTILIZE THE ZIP CODE THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY LOCATED WITHIN SAN MARTINE, WHICH IS THE 95046 ZIP CODE. THIS WOULD EXPAND THE ELIGIBILITY AREA TO THE WEST AND EAST, SHOWN HERE ON THIS MAP, HEADING
TOWARDS COYOTE LAKE, AND ALSO HEADING TOWARDS THE CORDOVALE GOLF CLUB AND PORTIONS OF HAYES VALLEY. THE INTENTION HERE IS TO INCLUDE THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE ZIP CODE, AS THE ZIP CODE DOES BRIEFLY, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT KIND OF GRAYED OUT IN THE NORTHERN CORNERS TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT. IT DOES GET INTO THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL A BIT, AND THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL.
THE INTENT OF USING THE ZIP CODE WAS, BECAUSE IT WAS RELATIVELY IDENTIFIABLE BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS INCORPORATED TO STAFF OR ANYONE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING IF THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP. ONE KNOWS ONE'S ADDRESS. AND AS YOU EXPAND BEYOND THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE EXISTING SAN MARTIN PLANNING AREA, WHICH ALSO COMPRISES THE EXISTING MEMBERSHIP AREA, THE TERRAIN GETS MORE IRREGULAR. THE STREET PATTERNS ARE MORE IRREGULAR BECAUSE WE ARE EXPANDING FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO THE RURAL AREA. SO DEMARCATING A PROPER BOUNDARY BY KNOWN LANDMARKS DOES BECOME A BIT MORE CHALLENGING. SO UTILIZING THE ZIP CODE, AGAIN, IS SOMETHING THAT'S RELATIVELY IDENTIFIABLE AND WE BELIEVE IS A GOOD RESPONSE TO THE
REFERRAL. AND MOVING ON TO THE SECOND PART OF THE REFERRAL, THIS WOULD BE THE EXPLORING WAYS TO EXPAND THE PLANNING AREA THROUGH A FUTURE GENERAL PLAN. STAFF CAME UP WITH TWO OPTIONS THAT WERE POSSIBLE. THAT WOULD BE TO JOIN THAT EXPANSION WITH THE FUTURE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE THAT'S GOING TO COME IN 2027. THEN WE COULD UTILIZE THE RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE A PART OF THAT EFFORT, CONSULTANT ASSISTANCE AND THE GENERAL PLAN OUTREACH THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE WOULD BE FAR MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND WE WOULD BE DOING AN ANALYSIS OF LAND USES AT THAT TIME, WHICH WOULD ALSO INFORM US ON THE FUTURE GENERAL PLAN APPROPRIATENESS TO EXPAND THE PLANNING AREA ITSELF. THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE
TO INITIATE A SPECIFIC GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT THAT IS TO EXPAND THE PLANNING AREA, BUT THAT WOULD BE LESS EFFICIENT BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALSO COMPETE WITH ONGOING EFFORTS TO UPDATE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS LIKE THE SAFETY, THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS, AND THE CIRCULATIVE AND MOBILITY, AND WE DO HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO TACKLE THAT, AND THERE IS THE MID -CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW ON THE HORIZON. SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THE FIRST OPTION, WHICH IS TO JOIN THE EFFORT TO EXPAND THE SAN MARTIN PLANNING AREA WITH THE LARGER EFFORT OF UPDATING THE GENERAL PLAN. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M GOING TO CHECK IN WITH CURTIS IF THERE'S NOTHING IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND SEE IF WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SPEAKERS. I STILL HAVE ONE CARD IN CHAMBERS, AND WE ARE NOT SEEING ANY HANDS RAISED ON ZOOM. OK. ALL RIGHT. SO SEEING THAT WE HAVE NO LIGHTS LIGHT UP ON THE DAY AS I WILL BEGIN MY COMMENTS, THIS WAS A RESPONSE TO A REFERRAL THAT I HAD SUBMITTED AND OUR BOARD HAD APPROVED, AND THERE IS JUST A LOT THAT SAN MARTIN NEEDS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A CITY STRUCTURE, AND, YOU KNOW, PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THEM, AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO SEE THAT YOU
'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM SO CLOSELY ON AN ONGOING BASIS, NOT ONLY WITH THIS REFERRAL, BUT JUST IN GENERAL, AS WE HAVE QUITE A BIT OF THINGS FOR SOUTH COUNTY, INCLUDING OUR BUSINESS. WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS FOR RURAL ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF REVIEWING. SO BEFORE I CONTINUE WITH ALL OF MY COMMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T.
ALL RIGHT. OUR PUBLIC SPEAKER IS SHARON LUNA.
WE ARE SETTING THE TIMER FOR TWO MINUTES.
WELCOME,
SHARON. I WOULD
BE LATE BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT WAS PRETTY GOOD.
HELLO, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS SHARON LUNA, AND I'M A SAN MARTIN RESIDENT, AND I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE SAN MARTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. YOUR SUPPORT IN REGARD TO ITEMS 13 AND 14 ARE GOING TO BE WONDERFUL FOR OUR COMMUNITY. IT IS INCLUSION AS FAR AS WITH HAVING RESIDENTS AVAILABLE TO PARTAKE IN A COMMUNITY. WE HAVE WORKED. NOW, I CAN SAY FROM 2017, 16, TO GET THIS IN MOTION. SOME OF OUR OLDER RESIDENTS SAY THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 2014. EXCUSE ME, 2004. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT WHY IT HAS BEEN SO DIFFICULT TO GET THESE CHANGES DONE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME. I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DONE, BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE OTHERS IN THE COMMITTEE. WHAT WE ALSO NEED TO DO IS UPDATE THE SAN MARTIN PLANNING AREA MAP NOW. IT IS SO DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE MAPS, AND I ATTEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS THE WHOLE BIT, AND EVERY TIME THERE'S QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO SAN MARTIN. I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN GET THESE CHANGES DONE. BUT WE CAN, AND I SENT A LETTER IN THAT GAVE A TIMELINE AS FAR AS WHEN YOU COULD ACTUALLY DO ACTION AND GET THIS COMPLETED. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT YEARS.
I
'VE SEEN IT WITH THE RURAL ZONING UPDATE. I WAS INVOLVED IN 2018. AND NOW WE'RE COMING BACK, THANKS TO SUPERVISOR ARENAS AND TEAM, THE SAME INFORMATION.
THANK
YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU.
LISTEN, I THINK MY COLLEAGUES HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF LETTERS AND COMMENTS FROM OUR NEIGHBORS IN SAN MARTIN. THIS IS JUST LONG OVERDUE, I'M GOING TO SAY.
I
THINK YOU'RE ALL HEARING, WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS THAT SOME PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN SAN MARTIN WEREN'T ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME WAY, SIMPLY BECAUSE OUR BOUNDARIES DIDN'T SHOW THE COMMITTEES. WE WANTED THEM TO BE INCLUSIVE
OF,
AND ACTUALLY ONE MEMBER HAD TO LEAVE THE SAN MARTIN PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THAT.
AND
SO WHEN WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO REALLY WANT TO PARTICIPATE,
WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MOVE ALONG IN A VERY SWIFT AND SEAMLESS FASHION. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SOMETIMES WHAT WE TEND TO DO IS WE CREATE BUREAUCRACY. AND BUREAUCRACY IS MEANT TO CREATE SOME STREAMLINING. YOU KNOW, BUREAUCRACY HAS JUST GOTTEN A BAD NAME, RIGHT?
BUT
THE INTENTION WAS TO CREATE SOME STREAMLINING,
AND
IT'S UP TO US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE DO WITH THAT BUREAUCRACY.
AND
HERE I SEE THAT THERE IS A SOLUTION TO THAT.
AND
SO I REALLY WANT TO THANK JACK, YOU, AND YOUR TEAM,
SAMUEL
FOR PARTICIPATING, FOR OBVIOUSLY BEING THAT EXPERT IN THIS AREA. AND SILVIA FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR US TO REALLY STEP UP FOR SAN MARTIN,
AND
I HAVE SEEN YOU DO IT.
SO
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.
AND
I WANT TO THANK OUR COMMUNITY AND SHARON. IT'S SO LOVELY TO SEE YOU IN PERSON.
I
KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT FAR FOR YOU, BUT WE CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON YOUR SUPPORT. AND SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT AND
YOUR
REFLECTIONS
VIA ZOOM OR JUST ONLINE. AND YOU KEEP US REALLY IN TUNE WITH WHAT SAN MARTIN WANTS AND NEEDS. AND SO FOR THAT, I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR USING YOUR VOICE TO ENSURE THAT SAN MARTIN RESIDENTS DESERVE AND RECEIVE BETTER.
SO
REGARDING THE LONG -TERM SOLUTION,
I'M
GLAD THAT THERE'S REALLY FINALLY PROGRESS AND DIRECTION FOR US TO UPDATE THE SAN MARTIN PLANNING AREA IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
AND
SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE TIMELINE PIECE,
WHICH
IS UNDERSTANDABLE FROM ALL SIDES OF THIS. AND I KNOW YOU 'VE BEEN WAITING SINCE 2017.
YOU
'VE VOICED THIS.
AND
AS SOON AS WE CAME IN, WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS GOING ON IN SAN MARTIN, WHAT THE ISSUE WAS,
WE
SUBMITTED A REFERRAL. AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SOME PACT MEETINGS NOT HAPPENING.
AND
SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I KNOW THAT WE NEED A SOLUTION.
ON
THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE A PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT RIGHT NOW IS GOING THROUGH QUITE A BIT. ONE IS OUR RURAL PLANNING, OUR RURAL ZONING UPDATES, AND THE OTHER IS OUR PERMITTING PROCESS AND AN INTERNAL REVIEW OVER THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO DO IN ORDER TO ALSO
STREAMLINE
AND CONTINUE TO BE
AND
HOPEFULLY CHANGE WHAT BUREAUCRACY ACTUALLY MEANS TO EVERYBODY. AND THAT IS A LOT OF WORK.
AND
THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE HOUSING ELEMENT. SO I FOUND A BIT OF A COMPROMISE,
SO
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECEIVE THE REPORT, ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE.
WE'RE
GOING TO FOLD IN THE SAN MARTIN PLANNING AREA UPDATE INTO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WITH BIMONTHLY REPORTS ON WORK PLAN PROGRESS WITH CIMPAC BEGINNING IN JULY.
AND
I THINK THIS WILL HELP WITH CONTINUING HAVING CONSISTENT COMMUNICATION WITH CIMPAC. BUT I WILL DETAIL A LITTLE BIT OUT WHAT THE BIMONTHLY UPDATES SHOULD INCLUDE.
AND
THAT IS A PROPOSED WORK PLAN AND TIMELINE TO FOLD IN THE SAN MARTIN PLANNING AREA UPDATE WITH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE WORK PLAN AND THE EXPANSION OF THE SAN MARTIN PLANNING AREA. SO THAT'S MY MOTION. HOPEFULLY I 'LL GET A SECOND. SECOND.
I
'LL SECOND.
I LOVE THAT.
THANK
YOU.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THOSE ARE BIMONTHLY REPORTS TO THE COMMITTEE, CORRECT?
THOSE ARE BIMONTHLY REPORTS TO CIMPAC.
YES.
WAS THERE ANOTHER COMMENT?
NO.
I
THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO BEGIN TO SAY SOMETHING. NO. I WAS JUST
CLARIFYING WHO THE REPORTS WERE GOING TO. THAT'S ALL.
YES. YES. SO I JUST WANT SOME OF THE WORK TO BE DONE WITH CIMPAC GROUP. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO CURTIS WHO'S GOING TO DO ROLL CALL. DID WE CHECK WITH PRESIDENT LEE IF HE HAD ANY COMMENTS?
HE
GAVE ME A SECOND.
I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT AND I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND I DID HEAR TWO SECONDS. SO WHOSE SECOND ARE YOU ACCEPTING?
YOU KNOW, THIS IS IN PERSON BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS PRESIDENT, I THINK IT WAS SUPERVISOR YOUNG WHO DID THAT. AND SHE BEAT HIM. VERY GOOD. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM VICE PRESIDENT ARANA SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR YOUNG. SUPERVISOR ABAIKOGA. AYE. SUPERVISOR YOUNG. YES. SUPERVISOR ELLENBERG. YES. VICE PRESIDENT ARANA. I'M GOING TO SAY YES, TOO. PRESIDENT LEE. YES, OF COURSE. MOTION CARRIES WITH FIVE. WONDERFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT. WE ARE GOING TO NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 15. THIS IS RECEIVING A REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES RELATING TO UPDATES REGARDING CHILD WELFARE REFORM EFFORTS. SO AS WE MAKE THAT SWITCH, I
'LL SAY WELCOME TO THE NEW TEAM. AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE WHO CAME TO THE FORMER ITEM. GOOD
AFTERNOON, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. WENDY FROM DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES. AND I 'LL LET SARAH INTRODUCE HERSELF. GOOD MORNING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SSA.
ALL RIGHT. SO I AM HERE THIS MORNING TO BRING BACK AN UPDATE ON THE CHILD WELFARE REFORM EFFORT. SO THIS IS OUR QUARTERLY UPDATE ON HOW WE ARE DOING ON MAKING SURE THAT CHILDREN ARE SAFE AND SUPPORTED HERE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY. NEXT SLIDE. SO WE'RE BRINGING THREE UPDATES BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE FIRST WILL BE AN UPDATE ON OUR MID -YEAR PROGRESS RELATED TO OUR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN THAT WE ARE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. OUR NEXT STEPS IN OUR TIMELINES FOR OUR REQUIRED AND MANDATED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN. AND THEN WHERE WE ARE IN BUILDING SOME OF OUR KEY PARTNERSHIPS RELATED TO THAT. NEXT SLIDE. SO AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE
WITH PROGRESS. SO WE CONTINUE TO MAKE STEADY PROGRESS ON ALL OF OUR ACTION PLAN EFFORTS TO ENSURE A PATHWAY TO SAFETY FOR CHILDREN IN OUR COUNTY. HAPPY TO REPORT THAT WE ARE AT 61 % OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN SIGNED AND COMPLETED BY CDSS. ANOTHER 5 % THAT ARE UNDER REVIEW. AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT AN UPDATE AS OF TODAY, ALL ACTION ITEMS ARE UNDER REVIEW. SO THE LAST TWO THAT WERE IN PROCESS HAVE BEGUN. SO ALL ACTION ITEMS ARE IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW. NEXT SLIDE. A BIG AREA OF FOCUS DURING THIS LAST REVIEW PERIOD HAS BEEN OUR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TOOL KIT AND THE SIX TOOLS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR US TO COLLECT INFORMATION.
SO IT ALLOWS DFCS TO COLLECT AND EVALUATE AND THEN SHARE KEY FINDINGS IN KEY AREAS THAT WE NEEDED TO DO A DEEPER DIVE RELATED TO OUR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN. THIS ALLOWS US TO BE REALLY STRATEGIC ABOUT AREAS WE'RE DOING REALLY WELL, AREAS WE NEED IMPROVEMENT, AND THEN TO FORMULATE REALLY GOOD STRATEGIES THAT WILL HELP ENHANCE THE QUALITY IN PARTICULAR AREAS. I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT. ALL SIX TOOLS HAVE NOW BEEN DESIGNED AND APPROVED BY CDSS AND HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED. A QUICK SUMMARY ON THE SIX TOOLS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU. OUR FIRST IS REGARDING OUR STRUCTURED DECISION -MAKING SAFETY ASSESSMENT TOOL. SO THIS REALLY IS MAKING SURE THAT OUR ASSESSMENTS OF FAMILIES RELATED TO SAFETY ARE
DONE COMPLETELY AND ACCURATELY. OUR SAFETY PLAN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TOOL, THAT'S ABOUT THE SAFETY PLANNING WE'RE DOING WITH FAMILIES. AGAIN, WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF THOSE SAFETY PLANS? HOW WILL WE MONITOR THEM? AND THEN OUR CFT MEETINGS, SO OUR CHILD AND FAMILY TEAM MEETINGS. THAT'S REALLY TO EVALUATE PARTICIPATION, ENGAGEMENT, DISCUSSION, AND DECISION -MAKING AND HOW WE'RE INCLUSIVE OF FAMILIES IN THAT PROCESS.
THE
FOURTH ONE IS OUR STRUCTURED DECISION -MAKING REQUIRED RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL. AND AGAIN,
THIS
IS ABOUT ASSESSING IF RISK IS DONE ACCURATELY AND COMPLETELY. AND THEN THE OTHER TWO, WHICH ARE MORE KIND OF HIGHER -LEVEL CQI, IS A SOCIAL WORKER CONTACT WITH FAMILIES. THIS IS A SOCIAL WORKER WITH PARENTS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TOOL.
THIS
IS LOOKING AT THE QUALITY OF ENGAGEMENT AND DIALOGUE WITH THE SOCIAL WORKER WITH PARENTS TO GET THAT INFORMATION TO DO OUR ASSESSMENTS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO. AND THE FINAL ONE HAS TO DO WITH NEW REFERRALS ON OPEN REFERRALS OR OPEN CASES. AND THIS IS REALLY TRACKING AND ADHERING TO OUR REQUIREMENTS AROUND THAT AND MAKING SURE WE'RE DOING THAT ACCURATELY AND COMPLETELY. NEXT SLIDE.
I'M
GOING TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE HIGH -LEVEL UPDATES IN THE THREE PILLARS WE CONCENTRATE ON, OUR SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN, OUR PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE WORKFORCE, AND PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHERS. SO IN THE AREAS OF SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN, THERE'S TWO BIG UPDATES I WANT TO PROVIDE FOR YOU. OUR FIRST IS WITH REGARDS TO SAFETY PLANS. SO WE HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY MONITORING OUR SAFETY PLAN DOCUMENTATION. NOVEMBER MARKED THE FIFTH MONTH IN A ROW THAT WE HAD BEEN AT 95 % OR HIGHER IN OUR COMPLETION RATES, ENSURING A SAFETY PLAN IS UPLOADED IN THE REQUIRED SYSTEM, HAS THOSE REQUIRED APPROPRIATE SIGNATURES AND APPROPRIATE SAFETY THREAT IDENTIFIED. I'M HAPPY TO REPORT CDSS HAS MOVED THIS TO ACTION ITEM UNDER REVIEW. I WANT TO
ASSURE THIS BOARD THAT WE REMAIN ACTIVELY FOCUSED ON SAFETY PLANS. THIS IS A KEY TO THE WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE KIDS ARE SAFE. WE WILL NOW FOCUS OUR ATTENTION INTO HOW WE'RE DOCUMENTING, MONITORING OUR SAFETY PLAN.
THE
OTHER AREA OF FOCUS RELATED TO SAFETY HAS BEEN REALLY THAT CONCENTRATION ON OUR POLICIES AROUND NEW ALLEGATIONS OF A CASE OR REVIEW. THIS WAS AN AREA TO ENSURE CLEAR POLICIES, CLEAR TRAINING. WE WORKED WITH CDSS TO LOOK AT OUR POLICIES. WE DEVELOPED A TRAINING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CDSS,
AND
I'M HAPPY TO REPORT WE HAVE LAUNCHED THAT TRAINING. NEXT SLIDE. IN PARTNERSHIP WITH SUPPORTING OUR WORKFORCE, THERE'S TWO AREAS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT. THE FIRST IS THAT WE 'VE SPENT THE LAST FEW MONTHS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
BOTH
OUR WORKFORCE, CDSS, AND OUR COACHES AROUND HOW WE STANDARDIZE OUR DOCUMENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT WE 'VE BEEN PILOTING A DOCUMENT, HAVE WORKED WITH TSS TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S EASE OF ACCESS. WE 'VE DONE THIS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH LABOR. WE 'LL BE MEETING WITH LABOR AGAIN THIS WEEK, AND HAPPY TO REPORT WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING IN MARCH TO LAUNCH THIS AND TEST IT AND SEE HOW IT WORKS. THE OTHER AREA THAT WE NEEDED TO FOCUS IN ON WAS COMMUNICATION. ALSO HAPPY TO REPORT WE 'VE BEEN IN LOCKSTEP WITH CDSS, WITH OUR COACHES, AND WITH STAFF AROUND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING A VERY ROBUST COMMUNICATION PLAN SO THAT WE CAN LIVE INTO A CULTURE WHERE COMMUNICATION IS TRANSPARENT, THAT IT'S BIDIRECTIONAL. WE'RE MAKING
SURE THIS IS A VERY FLUID DOCUMENT. I'M HAPPY TO REPORT WE PRESENTED THIS TO MANAGERS IN JANUARY. WE PRESENTED IT TO ALL STAFF JUST THIS LAST MONTH. WE WILL DO A DEEPER DIVE WITH STAFF AND START TO LIVE INTO HOW WE LAUNCH THAT COMMUNICATION PLAN, AND WE 'LL BE BRINGING IT BACK TO CHILDREN AND SENIORS. NEXT SLIDE. I NOW WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU THE SHIFT AND UPDATE ON OUR REQUIRED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN. AS A REMINDER, OUR SYSP IS REQUIRED EVERY FIVE YEARS BY CDSS. IT IDENTIFIES AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT AND HOW THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MEASURED AND UNDER WHAT TIMELINES. I ALSO WANT TO, FOR CONTEXT, LINK IN THAT ANY COUNTY THAT'S IN A CORRECTIVE
ACTION PLAN, THERE'S A SEAMLESS TRANSFER OF THE END OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, AND ANYTHING THAT STILL NEEDS TO HAVE ADHERENCE OR BE FOCUSED INTO SHOULD FLOW INTO YOUR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND WE STAY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CDSS AROUND THAT. AS A REMINDER, THE BOARD APPROVED OUR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN MAY 6TH OF 2025. JUST A REMINDER OF SOME OF OUR KEY GOALS IN OUR CURRENT SIP THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN COLLABORATION WITH CDSS. OUR FIRST GOAL WAS REALLY ENSURING THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN BY PREVENTING MALTREATMENT. WE DON'T WANT THOSE KIDS TO COME BACK TO OUR ATTENTION. SIP NUMBER GOAL TWO WAS REALLY STRENGTHENING OUR QUALITY INSURANCE SYSTEM BY HAVING THOSE SEQUENCES. WE WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE DATA DRIVEN AND USING DATA TO BE RESPONSIVE TO FAMILIES AND TO OUR COMMUNITY. SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON AREAS OF DISPROPORTIONALITY AND DISPARITY. AND THEN GOAL NUMBER THREE WAS REALLY STRENGTHENING OUR WORKFORCE. WE CAN'T DO THIS WORK WITHOUT A ROBUST WORKFORCE AND MAKING SURE THEY HAVE THE SUPPORT OF TRAINING AND COACHING SO THAT THEY CAN DO THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO DO. NEXT SLIDE. JUST A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE SIP TIMELINE. IN WHERE WE ARE, WE ARE ON TRACK TO BE ABLE TO DO AN UPDATE ON OUR PROGRESS ON OUR CURRENT SIP THAT WILL BE COMING, WILL BE FINISHING THAT UP AND HAVE THAT AVAILABLE BY JUNE. AND WE
NOW START OUR PROCESS OF COLLECTING INFORMATION ON HOW WELL WE DID IN THE SIP AND OUR SELF -ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS THE PROCESS OF WHAT'S OCCURRED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS. WHAT HAVE WE DONE WELL? WHAT DO WE NEED TO IMPROVE ON? AND THAT WILL INFORM NEXT STEPS INTO OUR NEXT SIP. THE DIFFERENCE FOR US, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IS THAT WE WILL ALSO FOLD BACK. WE WILL FOLD IN OUR ITEMS FROM OUR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. JUST A COUPLE HIGHLIGHTS ON KEY PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE CONTINUE TO BE FOCUSED IN ON. THE FIRST IS OUR COMMUNITY SOCIAL WORK PILOT THAT'S IN GILROY AND FRANKLIN MCKINLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH A SOCIAL WORKER FROM THE CHILD ABUSE
AND NEGLECT HOTLINE ON SITE. WE ARE ENGAGING IN MEETINGS ON WHAT DATA POINTS WE 'LL USE TO EVALUATE THAT, AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP MEETINGS WITH BOTH SCHOOL DISTRICTS SO THAT WE CAN FIND OUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND GET THEIR IDEAS ON HOW WE TRACK OUR PERFORMANCE. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS OUR COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE. HAPPY TO REPORT WE 'VE STAYED WITH OVER 23 PERSONS AT THE TABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE. THEY 'VE HAD FIVE MEETINGS TO DATE. WE HAVE AN ACTIVE FACILITATOR THAT JUST STEPPED UP IN JANUARY. THE COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING 15 GOALS TO REALLY FINE -TUNE THOSE FOR A COUPLE GOALS THAT THEY REALLY WANT TO STAY
FOCUSED IN ON AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR. NEXT SLIDE. GENTLE REMINDER FOR THE COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE. WE CONTINUE TO BE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE IF THERE IS A REPORT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE AND YOU SUSPECT ABUSE OR NEGLECT, PLEASE CALL 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK AT 833 -SCC -KIDS. AND THEN NEXT SLIDE. THE FINAL ONE IS OUR ACTIVE OUTREACH AND CALL TO ACTION FOR CAREGIVERS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE HAVE CAREGIVERS IN THIS COUNTY TO KEEP KIDS IN THEIR HOME SCHOOLS AND HOME COMMUNITIES WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SO PLEASE, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE CALL THE 408 -299 -KIDS IS THE NUMBER YOU CAN CALL FOR
MORE INFORMATION. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO GIVE MORE INFORMATION TO YOU AND INVITE YOU TO AN INFORMATION SESSION OR PARTNER WITH YOU OVER THE PHONE. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. I'M GOING TO LOOK TO CURTIS TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY SPEAKERS IN PERSON OR ONLINE. WE HAVE ONE CARD IN CHAMBERS AND ONE HAND RAISED ON ZOOM. ALL RIGHT. WE 'LL DO TWO MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. WE 'LL CLOSE THE QUEUE. OUR SPEAKER IN CHAMBERS IS KATHERINE CAMPBELL.
LET'S GET YOUR MIC ON,
CURTIS, PLEASE.
HOLD ON A SECOND, KATHERINE. WE'RE GOING TO RESTART YOUR ‑‑ CAN YOU CONTINUE TO SPEAK JUST UNTIL WE KNOW THAT THE MIC IS WORKING? IT SHOULD BE WORKING NOW.
I DON'T HEAR IT WORKING EITHER. I USUALLY SEE THE GREEN LIGHT. THERE'S NO
BUTTONS. THERE IT IS. WONDERFUL. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU FOR HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. IT'S TIME TO REVIEW CHILD SAFETY AND THANK YOU FOR WENDY FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING TO INCLUDE ALL THIS IMPROVEMENT. I DO WANT TO SPEAK TO THE THREE GOALS THAT ARE PRESENTED FOR THE SIPPS. THE FIRST ONE, TO PREVENT CHILD MALTREATMENT. ONE AREA THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED THROUGH THE INTERCOUNSEL AGENCY IS THAT CHILDREN WHO GO TO FAMILY COURT ARE FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS. AND I MENTIONED THIS FROM A LIVED EXPERIENCE AND THOSE I HAVE SPOKEN WITH. WHO ALSO HAVE LIVED EXPERIENCES. WE ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE.
AND THE
MISSTEPS THAT ARE HAPPENING, CHILDREN ARE BEING FORCED TO GO IN ONGOING ABUSE IN MANY SITUATIONS. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU LOOK AT GOAL NUMBER TWO IS THE DATA, I BROUGHT IT UP AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH ARE PEOPLE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THESE EXPERTS THEY ARE ORDERED INTO IN FAMILY COURT? SO IF YOUR CHILD REPORTS ABUSE, CPS, DCSF BECOMES INVOLVED. BUT IF YOUR CHILD IS, IF YOU REALIZE I CANNOT LIVE THIS WAY WITH MY CHILD BEING ABUSED AND I WANT TO LEAVE, YOU END UP IN FAMILY COURT. AND AT THAT POINT, THERE'S REALLY A BIG GAP THAT HAPPENS. AND YOUR CHILD, YOU ARE FORCED TO PAY THESE EXPERTS. THERE'S THE REGULATION,
I 'VE WORKED YEARS ON TRYING TO HAVE THIS WORK ON. JUST HASN'T REALLY COME THROUGH FOR GOOD OVERSIGHT. AND WHAT WE'RE REALIZING IS THERE ARE NO NUMBERS THAT SHOW HOW MUCH YOU HAVE TO PAY THESE EXPERTS. MOST PEOPLE PAY 100 % OF WHAT THEY HAVE. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND FOR NUMBER THREE, THE TRAINING THAT NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW CENTER, THEY PRODUCED ALREADY TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. THEY'RE PRODUCING MORE. AND I SUGGEST THAT WE ACTUALLY USE THOSE PROGRAMS. BECAUSE CHILDREN ARE STILL BEING CONTINUALLY HARMED HERE.
AND I LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MOVING TO OUR ZOOM SPEAKERS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS
PARENT.
YES. I DON'T SEE ANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE SPOKEN ABOUT IN THIS REPORT. MY KIDS ARE BEING SEXUALLY MOLESTED. AND I CAN'T GET A SCREENING. THEY 'VE NEVER GOTTEN A SCREENING AND THEY NEED ONE. MY SON REPORTED THAT MY EX -WIFE WAS LETTING A MAN RAPE HIM BEGINNING AT THE AGE OF 12. SHE'S NOW 13. AND THERE'S BEEN UNNECESSARY BATHING WITH THE CHILDREN. AND THERE HAVE BEEN SEXUAL CONTACT BETWEEN TWO OF THE CHILDREN. I MEAN, ALL THE SCREAMS THAT I NEED TO GET
A SCREENING
FOR MY KIDS. AND WHEN THEY CAN HEAR OUT, SHE'S JUST IGNORING ME. AND SO IS SARAH DUFFY. AND THAT'S COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. AND NOW MY FORMER ATTORNEY, WHO IS SEX TRAFFICKING MY KIDS, YOU KNOW, SHE WANTS THE SEXUAL ABUSE TO CONTINUE. SO WHAT SHE'S DONE NOW, SHE'S SAID, IF YOU DON'T STOP THE CHILDREN FROM TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR KIDS, I'M GOING TO KILL THEM. I'M GOING TO MAKE SHOES OUT OF THEIR SKINS. I MEAN, I SENT THIS TO WENDY KANEA RAUSH. AND SHE JUST IGNORED ME. I MEAN, HOW CAN SHE SAY THAT? SHE'S TRYING TO PROTECT KIDS. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST COMPLETE B .S. TO ME. I MEAN, I URGE THE BOARD TO GOOGLE VALERIE
HOWTON SHOES. H -O -U -G -H -T -O -N. AND YOU 'LL SEE A BLOG CALLED MAKING SHOES. AND WITHIN THAT, IN THE COMMENT SECTION, I POSTED THE LINKS TO THESE POSTS THAT SHE PUT TO MY DIRECTION.
I
MEAN, IT'S JUST CRAZY. I MEAN, WE JUST HAD THAT REPORT THAT THERE WERE THREE ADDITIONAL DEATHS. AND WENDY KANEA RAUSH, WHY DIDN'T SHE DISCLOSE IT? WHY DIDN'T DANIEL LITTLE DISCLOSE IT WHEN WE HAD OUR SPECIAL MEETING ABOUT BABY PHOENIX? I MEAN, IT'S JUST TERRIBLE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS COUNTY. AND REALLY, IF YOU WANT TO PROTECT KIDS, YOU NEED TO REPLACE WENDY KANEA RAUSH, BECAUSE SHE'S NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. SHE'S JUST FOOLING US INTO BELIEVING THAT SHE'S PROTECTING KIDS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT WE TYPICALLY DO NOT MAKE COMMENTS ON OPEN CASES. AND IF SOMEBODY HAS CONCERNS ABOUT CHILD ABUSE, AND IF SOMEBODY HAS QUESTIONS, I WILL ASK WENDY IF YOU COULD PLEASE GIVE A PHONE NUMBER SO THAT FOLKS CAN ACTUALLY CALL AND REPORT THE ABUSE. GO AHEAD.
OH, YOUR
MICROPHONE
IS STILL OFF. NO, YOUR MICROPHONE IS STILL OFF. IF YOU SUSPECT CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT, WE ENCOURAGE YOU 24 7 TO CALL OUR CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT LINE. THAT NUMBER IS 1 -833 -SCC -KIDS. K -I -D -S.
WONDERFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE INTO THE DISCUSSION PORTION OF THIS ITEM. AND I'M GOING TO LOOK TO LIGHTS OR TO PRESIDENT LEE IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR ELLENBERG. JUST THAT IT WAS A REALLY GOOD AND THOROUGH REPORT. I APPRECIATE THE QUALITY AND THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL IN HELPING US TRULY UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT PROGRESS WE'RE MAKING SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. AND SUPERVISOR YOUNG. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
TO WENDY AND SARAH FOR THE REPORT. I'M ENCOURAGED TO HEAR THAT OUR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IS MOVING FORWARD. AND REALLY
EXCITED
ABOUT THE SOCIAL, THE SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER PILOT PROGRAM. I KNOW THAT WE'RE IN OUR FIRST MONTH AND I 'VE HAD SOME TIME TO SPEND, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND SOME TIME IN THE FRANKLIN MCKINLEY DISTRICT. AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, LIKE WITH ALL THINGS THAT WE LAUNCH, NEW THINGS, RIGHT, NEW INFORMATION, NEW CUSTOMS, NEW THINGS GETTING USED TO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE PROGRAM CORRECTLY, THAT THE SCHOOL -BASED SOCIAL WORKER'S MAIN PURPOSE IS TO TAKE CALLS AND IN -PERSON REFERRALS FROM SCHOOL STAFF, TEACHERS AND FAMILIES.
THAT IS CORRECT. AND THAT THE SOCIAL WORKER IS NOT APPOINTMENT ONLY, THAT WALK -INS ARE
ACCEPTED, ENCOURAGED, WELCOMED. ABSOLUTELY. WALK -IN, IN -PERSON, ON THE PHONE, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. OKAY.
AND THAT THE SOCIAL WORKER DOES NOT REPLACE THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY SCHOOLING SERVICES? NO. IT SHOULD
COMPLEMENT, IT COULD MAKE A REFERRAL, MAKE THAT CONNECTION, BUT IT'S NOT TO REPLACE.
AND
THE SOCIAL WORKER IS PHYSICALLY LOCATED ON CAMPUS AND OR NEAR CAMPUS, WHICHEVER PROVIDES THE EASIER ACCESS AND ENGAGEMENT FOR FAMILIES AND PARENTS AND STAFF? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THOSE CONFIRMATIONS. THAT'S IT FOR ME. OKAY. SEEING NO MORE QUESTIONS.
THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS I'M GOING TO MAKE MINE. I WANT TO START OFF BY JUST NOTING THAT WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS IN DECEMBER 2024, THERE WERE 75 ACTIONS IN
THE
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN. AND I KNOW MY OFFICE, WE WROTE A WORK PLAN THAT I THINK MERITED THE SITUATION. BUT THE DIRE STRAITS THAT WE WERE IN, AND I 'VE GOT TO SAY, WENDY, YOU REALLY STEPPED UP TO ANSWER AND BE RESPONSIVE TO WHAT WE WERE ASKING AS A BOARD IN THE MOMENT. IT'S DIFFICULT TO SOMETIMES LOOK AT THE
SYSTEMS
THAT YOU'RE IN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES, RIGHT? BUT WHEN THINGS HAPPEN AS SOME OF THE DEATHS THAT WE HAVE SEEN, OF COURSE, THOSE PROMPT US TO REALLY ASK OURSELVES SOME VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS, AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR DOING THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY EASY TO DO SO BECAUSE IT MAKES US VERY VULNERABLE TO CRITICISM, TO THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING MAY DESTABILIZE NOT ONLY OUR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, BUT INTERNALLY OUR OWN TEENS, RIGHT? CHANGES TEND TO DO THAT. SO I KNOW THE 75 ACTIONS, RIGHT NOW YOU'RE AT 61%, AND I HEARD YOU LOUD AND CLEAR THAT SINCE NOVEMBER, YOU'RE AT 95 % COMPLETION RATE FOR ASSESSMENTS FOR SAFETY PLANS,
AND SO THOSE RIGHT THERE, THOSE NUMBERS, TO ME, ARE JUST REALLY WONDERFUL. AND SO CONGRATULATIONS FOR THAT. CONGRATULATIONS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE SAID, WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS, AND CERTAINLY WE WERE NOT COMPLETING THE SAFETY PLANS IN THE RATE THAT WE ARE COMPLETING THEM NOW. AND THAT IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH AND IMPROVEMENT, AND I THINK THAT SHOWS IN THE LEADERSHIP THAT WE HAVE. YOU KNOW, SARAH, YOU WERE LEADING US FOR QUITE SOME TIME AS WELL. AND NOW, DEFINITELY, WE'RE LEADERSHIP, AND AS A LEADER, I CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN OUR CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM, OR AT LEAST IN THE DATA, RIGHT? AND SO
I LOVE THAT. I LOVE THAT. I'M REALLY PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE 'VE
DONE
SO FAR. BUT WE KNOW THAT THE WORK ISN'T DONE. SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR ALL THE WORK. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THAT AWAY, BUT I WILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, AND THEY'RE RELATED TO SOME OF WHAT I 'VE SEEN THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE CHILD DEATH AND SORRY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE TEAM REPORT THAT WE ALL RECEIVED ABOUT, MAYBE ABOUT A MONTH AGO OR SO. BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CDSS CONDUCTED AN ON -SITE MID -CAP REVIEW THAT YOU MENTIONED, AND THAT WAS
LAST
YEAR. I'M HOPING THAT THOSE KINDS OF REPORTS CAN COME DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.
AND
SO IF WE COULD, I 'LL MAKE A MOTION AND ASK FOR US TO RECEIVE THE MID -CAP REVIEW. AND THEN I 'LL INCLUDE SOME OTHER ITEMS, BUT I 'LL START WITH THAT.
I
THINK THIS WAS IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
BEFORE I GO INTO THE CHILD DEATH REVIEW REPORT, I DO WANT
TO SAY
THAT I'M ALSO REALLY HAPPY ABOUT YOU BRINGING IN A CONSULTANT FOR THE ROUND TABLE. I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE WERE RUNNING A ROUND TABLE, BUT I KNOW THAT YOU'RE DOING IT, BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, PULLING UP YOUR ROOM. YOU'RE JUST MAKING SURE THAT YOU GO INTO AN ISSUE AND ADDRESS IT, AND THE ISSUE WAS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE SOMEBODY TO LEAD IT. SO THANK YOU FOR LEADING THAT. THANK YOU FOR HONORING THIS ROUND TABLE WITH A CONSULTANT AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE HEARD. I'D LOVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN ACTIVELY INTEGRATE THAT. I KNOW THAT YOU SAID THEY HAVE, I THINK YOU SAID 15 OR 25 GOALS. EITHER WAY, EITHER
NUMBER SOUNDS LIKE A TERRIBLE AMOUNT OF GOALS TO DO. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM TRY TO ACHIEVE IN ONE YEAR'S WORTH OF TIME. SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HOW, NOT ONLY WHAT THEY ARE HOPING TO ACHIEVE, BUT ONCE YOU NARROW THOSE DOWN, BUT ALSO HOW CAN WE CONNECT THEM WITH THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE CAP OR THE SIP? BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS WHERE THEIR VOICES WILL REALLY COUNT. NOT ONLY JUST TO HEAR THEM ON AN ONGOING BASIS, BUT ALSO TO INTEGRATE THEIR FEEDBACK AS SOMETHING THAT IS MEANINGFUL.
SO DO YOU THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE FOR THE GROUP?
ABSOLUTELY, WE CAN
COMMIT
TO DOING THAT AND WE 'LL MAKE SURE THEY'RE INTEGRATED. THEY'RE A STAKEHOLDER AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND THE ROBUST GROUP OF PERSONS SITTING AROUND THE TABLE HAVE VERBALLY AND SHOWN UP IN ACTION ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, SO THEY ARE INCORPORATED INTO BOTH OUR SELF -ASSESSMENT, OUR SIP, AND OUR CAP AS WELL. PERFECT. AND I KNOW ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I HAD RECOMMENDED A COMMUNITY ROUND TABLE WAS BECAUSE WE FOUND THE STAKEHOLDERS, THEIR FEEDBACK WAS JUST REALLY IMPORTANT. AND SOMETIMES WE GATHER INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT FOLKS DIFFERENTLY, RIGHT? IT MIGHT COME TO YOU IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY THAN IT COMES TO US. AND I THINK IT'S A REFLECTION OF YOU. IT'S JUST
A REFLECTION OF THE DIFFERENT ROLES THAT WE MAY HAVE, RIGHT? SO THAT I 'LL LISTEN TO YOU. AND THAT ALLOWANCE JUST, I THINK, CREATES MORE TRANSPARENCY.
SORRY,
YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO?
I
WAS JUST GOING TO ADD, AS WE PIVOT INTO THE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THERE'S A WHOLE WINDOW OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT,
AND I THINK THE
ROUND TABLE CAN BE A REALLY VALUABLE RESOURCE IN HELPING US NOT JUST HEAR FROM THAT GROUP BUT HAVE REACH INTO DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY AND HELP GUIDE SOME OF THOSE CONNECTIONS SO WE GET A MUCH MORE FULL PICTURE OF KIND OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK ARE THE PRIORITIES BEYOND JUST THEY CAN HELP LEAD US INTO THE SPACES IN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL, BECAUSE WE HAVE A COUPLE MONTHS TO DO THAT WORK. PERFECT. SO IT WILL BE VERY VALUABLE IN THAT SPACE TOO. GREAT. THE OTHER THING THAT I WAS HOPING THE COMMUNITY ROUND TABLE WOULD DO, BECAUSE THEY
DO,
WE HAD A BABY PHOENIX STAKEHOLDER GROUP, AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER STAKEHOLDER GROUP, AND I'M JUST HOPING THAT THOSE TWO GROUPS WERE FOLDED IN, BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING A LOT OF VERY SIMILAR THINGS. THEY WERE HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH VERY SIMILAR OBJECTIVES, AND SO I'M WONDERING, ARE THEY FOLDED IN? YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD. YES. THERE IS SOME CONNECTION TO THAT. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE SUCCESSFULLY FOLDED IN, BUT I CAN GO BACK AND REVISIT WITH THE COMMUNITY ROUND TABLE AND MAKE SURE WE INTEGRATE BOTH INTO THAT. BUT WE MADE INTENTIONAL EFFORTS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE WE HAD CONNECTIONS TO ALL OF THOSE SPACES AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT GROUPS. PERFECT. OKAY. I LOVE THAT. SO ON THE,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES. SO I KNOW THAT IN, THERE WAS A GROWTH OPPORTUNITY AREA TO REQUEST FOR MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COACHING AND PEER -TO -PEER LEARNING, AS WELL AS TO IMPROVE PROCESSES FOR RESOLVING DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN STAFF SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS ON CASE. CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IS THE PROCESS CURRENTLY WHEN STAFF AND MANAGERS DISAGREE ON A COURSE?
SURE. THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. AND I THINK I EXPECTED THIS TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GROWTH ON THE CASE. BECAUSE I THINK WE NEEDED TO DO SOME WORK ON COMMUNICATION AND HOW WE HANDLE DISAGREEMENTS. THE WORK WITH FAMILIES IS COMPLICATED AND IT'S GRAY. AND THERE ARE SPACES WHERE THERE MAY BE DISAGREEMENTS. AND THERE WAS ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING OURSELVES TO THE MANDATED SDM STRUCTURE DECISION MAKING SAFETY AND RISK TOOLS AND MAKING SURE WE WERE DOING THAT TO FIDELITY. SO I 'LL POINT TO TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS OUR LEGAL CONSULTATION POLICY. SO IF THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LEGAL CONSULTATION POLICY, THERE IS AN IRONED OUT PROCESS
ON HOW THAT LOOKS ACROSS SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS BEING INVOLVED THEN UP TO SENIOR LEADERS AND IF NEEDED UP TO THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL IF THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT ON A CASE OR SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. THAT SAME PROCESS PLAYS OUT FOR ANY CASE THAT'S NOT A LEGAL CONSULTATION POLICY. IF THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT A CASE GOING TO VOLUNTARY SERVICES THAT WOULDN'T FALL IN THAT. WE HAVE ALSO REALLY LEANED INTO OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH COACHES. SO WE HAVE ADVANCED. WE HAVE HAD ACTIVE WEEKLY TIME WITH OUR OUTSIDE COACHES TO BE ABLE TO PARTNER WITH OUR LEADERSHIP TEAM AND SUPPORT WORKING THROUGH THOSE CASE CONSULTATIONS AND THEN WE HAVE GOOD FEEDBACK LOOPS FROM THOSE CASE CONSULTATIONS
AND REGULAR MEETINGS WITH OUR COACHES AND MANAGEMENT TEAM BECAUSE WE LEARN FROM THOSE CASE CONSULTATIONS AND THOSE AGREEMENTS. WAS THERE SOMETHING WE NEEDED TO FINE -TUNE IN POLICY? WAS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT COMMUNICATION? IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THE PRACTICE? SO THAT WE HAVE GOOD FEEDBACK LOOPS BECAUSE WE LEARN FROM THOSE DISAGREEMENTS AND FROM THOSE POLICY SITUATIONS AND PRACTICE ON HOW WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO FINE -TUNE THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING. WONDERFUL. I'M REALLY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT. HOW ABOUT WHEN THERE'S DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN CLIENTS AND SOCIAL WORKERS OR MANAGERS? BECAUSE I THINK IN THE PAST THERE WAS AN EMBUNDSMENT PROGRAM THAT WAS MEANT FOR OUTSIDE SO FAMILIES AND CLIENTS TO RAISE ISSUES. HOW IS THAT GOING?
I 'VE HAD CONCERNS. THIS IS SOMETHING YOU 'VE HEARD BEFORE. IT'S NOTHING NEW. I 'VE HAD CONCERNS OF IT BEING INTERNAL TO THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW NEUTRAL FOLKS CAN BE. ANOTHER IMPORTANT QUESTION AND I THINK AN IMPORTANT ONE BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE RESPONSIVE. WE PUT OURSELVES IN THE PLACE OF A PARENT IN GOING THROUGH THIS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR RIGHTS AND WHAT'S GOING ON AND IF THEY SEE CONCERNS OR WORRIES. SO WE ABSOLUTELY STILL HAVE FULL ACCESS TO THEIR RIGHTS AND WHAT'S GOING ON. WE ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH THE Ombuds AND REGULARLY MEET WITH THEM AND SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH FAMILIES.
WE ALSO MAKE SURE FAMILIES HAVE ACCESS IF THEY WANT TO A CULTURAL BROKER OR A PARENT ADVOCATE THAT CAN BRIDGE THOSE GAPS IN COMMUNICATION. WE ALSO HAVE AN INTERNAL COMPLAINTS PROCESS THAT IF THERE IS A VIOLATION OF A YOUTH RIGHTS OR PARENT'S RIGHTS, WE HAVE A FORMAL PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH AND THAT FORMAL PROCESS IS LINKED IN WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AS WELL. AND WE DON'T BAR FAMILIES FROM GOING THROUGH ANY OF THOSE PROCESSES. AND THEN I 'LL ALSO JUST POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE A REALLY STRONG POLICY AROUND GOOD COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILIES. AND WE WANT FAMILIES TO HAVE GOOD COMMUNICATION WITH SOCIAL WORKERS AND THEY CAN ALWAYS GO TO A
SUPERVISOR OR MANAGER IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS AS WELL AND WE WORK THROUGH THOSE. SO ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO FAMILY MEMBERS, PARENTS AND YOUTH. OKAY. I THINK PART OF THE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES, THOUGH, THAT WAS SEEN FROM THE CDS AS A PART OF THE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES,
REVIEW WAS THAT WHEN THEY CHECKED IN WITH STAFF, THEY SAID WE'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE COACHING AND PEER TO PEER LEARNING. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO TAKING PLACE?
YES. WE HAVE MADE SURE FULL ACCESS AS WELL AS MEETING WITH STAFF ABOUT ANY BARRIERS ON TIMES OR LIMITS IN SIGNING UP FROM THAT AND THEN WE 'VE STARTED TO MONITOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT BE GETTING COACHING AND HOW WE CIRCLE BACK AROUND WITH THEM FOR ANY BARRIERS. I ALSO KNOW THAT IN CONVERSATIONS, WE 'VE ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LEADERSHIP TEAM. ONE THEY ASKED FROM STAFF IS THEY WANTED TO DO COACHING WITH THEIR SUPERVISORS AND WITH THEIR MANAGERS TO FEEL LIKE THEY WERE SUPPORTED AND SO WE 'VE REALLY BEEN LEANING INTO THAT SPACE AND PARTNERING WITH SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS TO SUPPORT TEAMS. THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO RECEIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT
INFORMATION IN THE NEXT REPORT. OH, SARAH, YOU HAVE THE INFO. I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION, WE HAVE BROUGHT BACK AND IT'S BEEN A COUPLE MONTHS SINCE WE 'VE REPORTED ON THE NUMBERS OF TRAINING AND COACHING SESSIONS AND WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT BY KIND OF STAFF, SUPERVISOR, MANAGERS, SO WE CAN BRING THAT BACK. WE DID HAVE SATISFACTION SURVEYS AS WELL, BUT WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK THAT STAFF WAS FEELING A LITTLE BIT OVER SURVEYED IN SOME OF THAT SPACE. WE'RE CHECKING IN TOO MUCH. WE HAVE THE COUNTS OF PARTICIPATION, WE HAVE SOME SURVEY DATA AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION WITHIN UNIT MEETINGS. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE THAT BE A FOCUS MAYBE
NEXT MONTH, BRINGING BACK SOME OF THAT DATA. THANK YOU. I DON'T MEAN TO CONTROL OR ATTRIBUTE TO THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM OUR FOLKS WHO ARE WORKING ON THE GROUND AS, YOU KNOW, I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MESSAGES AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I 'VE BEEN AT TRADER JOE'S ONE TOO MANY TIMES IN THE EVENING AND SOCIAL WORKERS ALSO LOVE TRADER JOE'S FOR SOME REASON, BUT I 'VE BEEN STOPPED QUITE A BIT OF TIMES FOR FEEDBACK. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. SO IT SHOULDN'T BE TRADER JOE'S, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE THAT THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO SET ME UP.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A CHANNEL THERE. OKAY. AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT THING THAT I'M GOING TO ASK ABOUT IS THE
CHILD
DEATH REVIEW TEAM REPORT.
WHAT I SAW AS, AND I THINK THIS IS CONHELD, BUT I THINK THIS WILL HELP US MAYBE WORK TOWARDS THE SIP, RIGHT, AND MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE HOW DO YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE 'VE LEARNED OR WHAT YOU 'VE LEARNED IN THAT REPORT AND BUILD IT INTO A COURSE CORRECTION, NOT BECAUSE CDSS IS ASKING US TO DO THAT, BUT BECAUSE THIS IS THE ULTIMATE LESSON FOR US TO LEARN FROM WHEN WE LOSE THE LIVES OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT INADVERTENTLY CONTRIBUTING OR SYSTEMS ARE NOT BEING RESPONSIVE. HOW DO YOU FIND WHAT THE ROLE IS?
I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAN INTO THIS, AND I WILL ASSURE THIS BOARD THAT WE ARE AN ACTIVE MEMBER AND PARTNER WITH DR. JORDAN AND THE WHOLE CHILD DEATH REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND NEED TO BE, BECAUSE THIS IS ALL OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY. I 'LL ALSO HIGHLIGHT FOR THE BOARD THAT ANY FATALITY OR NEAR FATALITY OF CHILD DEATH, ANY FATALITY THAT OCCURS WITHIN DFCS, WE HAVE BEEN DOING A
ROBUST ASSESSMENT OF EACH OF THOSE SITUATIONS, AND WE 'VE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE ACTUALLY THE END OF 2018. WE MAKE SURE WE DO THAT FOR EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT HAS ANY CHILD WELFARE HISTORY, SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE ARE REFLECTIVELY LOOKING AND MAKING SURE WAS THERE ANYTHING WE SHOULD HAVE TENDED TO, WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS TO BE PROACTIVE AS WELL. AND I THINK THAT SAME ANALOGY HOLDS TRUE IN THE PARTNERSHIP. WITH THE CHILD DEATH REVIEW COMMITTEE, BECAUSE IT LETS US KNOW A WINDOW INTO WHERE WE NEED TO PARTNER WITH COMMUNITY. OBVIOUSLY FOR ANYTHINGS WHERE WE 'VE HAD CONTACT WITH THAT FAMILY, THAT'S ONE TRACK, BUT FOR MANY OF THOSE FAMILIES, THERE'S
SOME INTERSECTIONALITY, OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SAFE SLEEP, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SUICIDE, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DROWNINGS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT TAKE US IN LOCKSTEP WITH OUR PARTNERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, IN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, WITH PROBATION, WITH COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. AND SO WE SIT AROUND THAT. WE GET TO THE TABLE IN PARTNERSHIP ON ALL OF THOSE THINGS TO STAY IN LOCKSTEP ABOUT EDUCATION AND RESOURCES AND HOW WE PARTNER AND MOVE FORWARD ON THAT. I 'LL GIVE YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE. SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE STARTED TO SEE INCREASES AROUND SAFE SLEEP AND FATALITIES RELATED TO SAFE SLEEP. AS A RESPONSE TO THAT, WE HAVE MANDATES IN PLACE WITHIN CHILD WELFARE
THAT ANY TIME WE GO OUT WITH A CHILD UNDER TWO, WE DO AN ASSESSMENT OF SAFE SLEEP AND OFFER EDUCATION TO OUR STAFF, AND I DO A REQUIRED TRAINING WITH ALL OF MY STAFF AND STAFF EVERY YEAR WITH PUBLIC HEALTH TO REMIND THEM OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION AND IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY IN A FAMILY'S HOME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND SO I THINK WE WANT TO STAY IN LOCKSTEP AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER THING THAT I JUST WANT TO ASSURE THIS BOARD THAT ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE IN THAT CHILD DEATH REVIEW REPORT HAVING TO DO WITH CHILD WELFARE, I CAN ASSURE THIS BOARD THAT ALL
OF THOSE THINGS ARE IN PROCESS AND WERE ACTUALLY THINGS LIFTED UP WITHIN OUR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN OR THINGS WE WERE ALREADY WORKING ON AND SO THEY ARE EMBEDDED IN OUR POLICIES AND PRACTICES FROM MONITORING ENGAGEMENT WITH FAMILIES GOING TO VOLUNTARY SERVICES TO MAKING SURE WE REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE HIGH RISK YOUTH FROM THE ZERO TO FIVE AS WELL AS NONVERBAL OR THOSE YOUTH WITH HIGH ACUITY NEEDS. AND SO WE WILL STAY IN LOCKSTEP
AND
MAKE SURE WE'RE HEARING ALL OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CRDT AND TAKING A LOOK AT HOW WE TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION AND BE PROACTIVE ABOUT THINGS WE NEED TO DO, TOO. PERFECT. WELL, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. YOU MENTIONED THE SAFE SLEEP. I DID NOTE THAT THERE WAS A NUMBER OF DEATHS THAT WERE RELATED TO CHILD CARE CENTERS SO THAT DOESN'T HAVE A CONNECTION TO REFERRALS OR CASES THAT WE HAVE, BUT MAYBE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CONNECT WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AROUND SAFE SLEEP. YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING, SARAH? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, AND WE 'LL HAVE DR. EMBERLING HERE FOR THE NEXT ITEM, BUT WE ARE WORKING ON A LOT
OF, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK HAPPENING. WE'RE WORKING AROUND CHILD CARE AND FIRST FIVE IS A GOOD PARTNER WHEN IT COMES TO CHILD CARE CENTERS AND SOME OF THAT EDUCATION AND CHECK INS ON THAT ISSUE. I THINK WE WANT TO LEAN INTO THEM AS WELL. IT WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO CAREGIVERS BECAUSE THERE WAS THE, YOU KNOW, THOSE LININGS THAT PEOPLE PUT DOWN IN
ORDER
TO PROTECT, YOU KNOW, IF URINE LEAKS OUT OF A DIAPER ONTO THE BASINET OR THE MATTRESS. AND SO I THINK THOSE WERE THE NUMBER ONE REASONS. I THINK THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY CHILDREN WERE DYING RELATED TO THE CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. WHICH IS JUST TERRIBLE. ALL THE DEATHS WERE TERRIBLE. BUT SPECIFICALLY THE ONES THAT RELATE TO CHILD WELFARE ARE THE ONES THAT OF
COURSE
I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAW AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THAT REPORT WAS THAT THERE WAS A DEEPER DIVE TO SOME OF THE CASES THAT HAD ACTUALLY REFERRALS INTO OUR SYSTEM. AND THOSE REFERRALS WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED ABUSE REFERRALS, WHICH IS VERY DISAPPOINTING BECAUSE SHORTLY AFTER THE DEATH OF A NUMBER OF THOSE CHILDREN OR YOUTH, THERE WERE REFERRALS ONCE AGAIN RESUBMITTED OR RECONSIDERED. AND THOSE CHILDREN WERE ACTUALLY REMOVED FROM FAMILY. AND SO THE CONCERN WAS VIABLE. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT WE DIDN'T SUBSTANTIATE FROM THE BEGINNING.
SOME OF THEM HAD TO DO WITH NEGLECT. AND I KNOW NEGLECT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ASSESS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LEAVE A BRUISE ON THE BODY. BUT WE ALL KNOW THIS.
WE ALL KNOW THAT MENTAL HEALTH OR THE KIND OF ABUSE THAT DOESN'T LEAVE A MARK IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT LASTS A LOT LONGER FOR FOLKS, RIGHT? HOW IS THE SYSTEM GOING TO CONSIDER THE SIP, THE NEXT PHASE OF THE SIP, AND TAKE SOME OF THESE LESSONS INTO ACCOUNT?
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. AND I WOULD SAY THIS LEANS
INTO
GOAL NUMBER ONE OF NO REPEAT MALTREATMENT AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON THAT AND THEN A COUPLE THINGS I WOULD LEAN INTO FOR THIS BOARD. WE FOLLOW OUR WEALTH EARNED INSTITUTIONS CODE FOR THE THRESHOLD OF SUBSTANTIATED OR INCONCLUSIVE. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT EVEN IF A FAMILY DOESN'T MEET THAT THRESHOLD OF A SUBSTANTIATION FOR ABUSE, AS YOU SAID, NEGLECT IS SOMETIMES HARDER TO MEET THAT THRESHOLD. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN INTERVENTION WITH A FAMILY. IT DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY THAT WE WOULDN'T BE INTERVENING. I WILL SAY THAT ONE OF THE REALLY UNFORTUNATE FATALITIES THAT WAS NOTED IN THERE WAS A SITUATION OF MAKING SURE THAT ENGAGEMENT WITH
A FAMILY AND MAKING SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT INTERVENTION AT THE RIGHT TIME AND MAKING SURE WE DO THAT ASSESSMENT OF ENGAGEMENT AND WE HAVE TIGHTENED THOSE POLICIES SINCE THEN AND PUT IN REALLY RIGOROUS SUPPORTS IN PLACE THAT REALLY MAKE SURE WE'RE TETHERING TO
OUR
ASSESSMENTS OF FAMILIES, THE ENGAGEMENT OF FAMILIES, AND CONTINUING TO MONITOR THAT ALL ALONG SO THAT WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT INTERVENTION AT THE RIGHT TIME.
REGARDLESS
OF SUBSTANTIATED OR INCONCLUSIVE BECAUSE WE MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION OUT THE GATE WITH THE FAMILY, WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT LEVEL OF INTERVENTION. RIGHT. WELL, AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE PATTERNS AND IF THE PATTERN IS THAT WE ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATING REFERRALS AND IF THEY'RE CONNECTED WITH NEGLECT, THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT BECAUSE SOME OF I THINK FOR THE MAJORITY, WELL, NO, THAT'S NOT THE MAJORITY, BUT A NUMBER OF THEM WERE ACTUALLY SELF -HARMED. THEY WERE HANGINGS FROM CHILDREN WHO WERE AS YOUNG AS 12. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR ME THAT'S VERY CONCERNING. THESE ARE DEATHS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED AND THAT'S THE WORST THING THAT WE COULD SAY IS
THAT SOME OF THESE DEATHS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED HAD WE REMOVED THAT CHILD FROM THAT HOME.
SO I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR IF WE COULD INTEGRATE THE LESSONS AND THE LESSONS THAT WE
HAVE FROM
THE CHILD DEATH REVIEW TEAM REPORT INTO THE NEXT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN THAT WE WILL BE WORKING ON.
AND THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, I THINK, WAS?
THERE HASN'T. OH, THAT WAS ME. YES. OH, MY GOSH. I THOUGHT YOU WERE. THAT WAS THE LAST ONE. SORRY. I'M GOING TO SAY YES TO MY OWN SELF. AND WHO WAS MY SECOND? I DON'T KNOW. I'M GOING TO SAY SECOND. I'M HAPPY TO SECOND. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE FIRST PART OF THE MOTION, WHICH IS TO BRING BACK THE MIDCAP REVIEWS TO THE BOARD. YES. YES. AND SO THIS IS THE SECOND PORTION OF THAT, WHICH IS NO WONDER, SUPERVISOR ELLENBERG, YOU WERE NOT LOOKING AT ME. THIS DOES NOT BELONG TO ME. OKAY. AND SO
THE SECOND PART TO THAT IS TO ENSURE THAT AS WE MOVE TOWARDS THE BUDGET PROCESS, THAT ANY REALLOCATIONS THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IN ORDER TO COMPLY OR TO REDUCE, TO RESHIFT RESOURCES, THAT WE ARE SURE THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE AREAS THAT ARE STILL IN HIGH NEED. AND I WOULD SAY THE PATTERNS THAT WE RECOGNIZE IN THE CHILD DEATH REVIEW TEAM
REPORT ARE NUMBER ONE FOR ME, AND
THEN OF COURSE THE ONES THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE AS PART OF THE CAP THAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER AT THE TOP OF THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU SAID WOULD EASE INTO THE SIP PHASE.
ALL RIGHT. I THINK FOR ME THAT IS IT. I KNOW THAT WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE CHILD REVIEW DEATH REVIEW TEAM REPORT. JAMES, WHEN IS THAT COMING TO THE
BOARD?
I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THE
SCHEDULE
IS FOR THAT OR IF THAT GOES TO THE COMMITTEE, BUT WE CAN FIND OUT AND LET YOU KNOW. OKAY.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT COME TO THE BOARD. I THINK IT IS A REPORT THAT MERITS THE BOARD'S ATTENTION.
AND I CAN ALSO INCLUDE THAT IN A MOTION, AND I WILL SAY YES TO MYSELF, AND THEN SURPRISER YOUNG, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT? YES. OKAY. PERFECT. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IS IT FOR ME IN TERMS OF COMMENTS. PRESIDENT LEE, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
JUST
CHECKING IN. YES, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO WENDY AND YOUR TEAM FOR THIS THOROUGH UPDATE ON BOTH THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN AND THE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN. WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT BODY OF WORK HAPPENING CONCURRENTLY, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THIS CONTINUED PROGRESS.
ON
THE CAP, I ESPECIALLY WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE INCLUSION OF THE STAFF FEEDBACK ON THIS REPORT, HIGHLIGHTING BOTH STAFF SATISFACTION AND POINTS OF CONCERN. OUR IMPROVEMENT REFLECTS AN IMPORTANT CULTURE TOWARD TRANSPARENCY AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT. WE APPRECIATE THAT THOSE CONCERNS ARE BEING EVALUATED AND ELEVATED AND LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING THAT IN JUNE, HOW THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED FOLLOWING THE FINAL CDSS REVIEW. ON THE CIP, WE ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS AND DEEPER ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS AND STRONGER PEER AND STAFF ENGAGEMENT. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE JUNE UPDATE ON THAT WORK AND ON THE PRIORITIES AS YOU ARE TRANSITIONING INTO THE NEXT CYCLE. FINALLY, WE REALLY APPRECIATE
THE COMMITMENT TO BRING THE COMMUNICATION PLAN UPDATE TO CSFC IN APRIL AND WELCOME ANY MATERIALS IN ADVANCE. AND OVERALL, JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THIS AMAZING PROGRESS. PLEASE KEEPING US INFORMED AND CENTERING STAFF VOICE AS THIS REFORM WORK CONTINUES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, PRESIDENT
LEE. WITH THAT, I WILL TURN TO CURTIS TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION PROGRAM. I WILL TAKE A ROLL CALL.
SUPERVISOR ABBECOKA. AYE.
TESTING, TESTING. OKAY. NOW I'M HAVING MICROPHONES. LET ME TRY THAT AGAIN. SUPERVISOR
ABBECOKA.
AYE. SUPERVISOR YOUNG. YES. SUPERVISOR ELLENBERG. YES. VICE PRESIDENT ARRENAS. YES. PRESIDENT LEE. YES AS WELL. MOTION CARRIES TO 5. PERFECT. SO WE ARE AT 1151. AND I WONDER, WE NEED TO BE BACK, TIME CERTAIN, AT 1. OKAY. SO I WONDER IF THERE'S ANY ITEM THAT WE CAN HEAR THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE VERY LONG
FOR
THE NEXT TEN MINUTES.
I
KNOW SUPERVISOR YOUNG PULLED ITEM 69 AND 70 OFF CONSENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS THE SUPERVISOR HAS, BUT THERE'S NO PRESENTATION ON THAT ITEM. THAT MIGHT BE A SHORT ITEM. I THINK, THROUGH THE CHAIR, I THINK
THAT SHOULD BE A FAIRLY QUICK ITEM. OKAY. THANK YOU.
JUST FOR CLARITY, WE'RE MOVING TO 69
AND 70. YES, SIR. OKAY.
THESE ARE SOME AD DELETE REQUESTS FROM FAF. WE HAVE JEFF DRAPER HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THESE ARE ALL
VACANT POSITIONS. OH, THAT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION. JEFF, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. THERE WERE TWO REASONS WHY I PULLED THIS ITEM OFF OF CONSENT. AND THE FIRST WAS TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE POSITIONS WERE FILED OR VACANT. VACANT. VACANT. OKAY. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD WAS, IT SEEMS LIKE DESPITE THE BACK AND FORTH WITH FCIU SINCE APRIL OF LAST YEAR, THIS ITEM, THESE TWO ITEMS BECOME BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY WITHOUT FCIU CONCURRENCE. CAN YOU GIVE US SOME MORE BACKGROUND AS TO WHERE THAT IS? YEAH. I CAN JUST SAY ON A BROAD LEVEL THAT WE WENT BACK AND FORTH SEVERAL MEETINGS.
WE
ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY ASK OF US. AND THEN AS OF OCTOBER, OUR LAST INVITE TO MEET,
THEY
HAVEN'T GOTTEN BACK TO US.
SO
IT SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND MAKE A MANAGEMENT DECISION TO HELP THE DEPARTMENT BECOME MORE EFFICIENT.
AND
HENCE THE REASON WE'RE BRINGING THE ITEM FORWARD. THANK YOU, JEFF. JAMES, I 'LL TURN TO YOU. AND MAYBE THIS IS A JEFF AND JAMES RESPONSE. WHAT ARE THE OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES IF WE WERE TO DELAY THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING?
I MEAN, THE ITEM'S BEEN DELAYED FOR A LONG TIME. SO I THINK WE'D BE FINE TO DELAY THE ITEM TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
I
DO JUST WANT THE BOARD TO KNOW THAT WE WAIT A VERY LONG TIME BEFORE EVER BRINGING AN ITEM FORWARD THAT'S AN AD DELETE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A RESULT. THAT DOESN'T HAVE CONCURRENCE. AND SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.
THE
ORIGINAL REQUEST
WAS
MADE TO LOCAL 521 ON APRIL 3RD OF 2025.
AND THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS MEETINGS SINCE THEN. AND SO MANY OF THESE POSITIONS HAVE BEEN VACANT.
I
THINK SEVERAL OF THESE POSITIONS HAVE BEEN VACANT SINCE 2022.
SO
THEY'RE CLEARLY NOT POSITIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE FILLED IN THEIR CURRENT FORMAT.
HENCE
THE AD DELETE REQUEST TO REORGANIZE THEM.
CERTAINLY THE BOARD CAN DELAY THE ACTION TO THE NEXT MEETING. BUT I DO WANT TO ASSURE THE BOARD THAT THERE IS A VERY, VERY LENGTHY PROCESS BEFORE AN ITEM IS EVER BROUGHT FORWARD WHERE THERE'S NOT CONCURRENCE. MANY, MANY MONTHS IN THE MAKING.
JAMES, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND
THAT HAS CERTAINLY BEEN THE HISTORY OF THIS BOARD AND THIS ADMINISTRATION.
SO
I DON'T DOUBT THAT. AND I THINK YOU USED IT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DELAYING
THIS
WON'T CAUSE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO OUR BUDGETING PROCESS, OUR STAFFING PROCESS.
NO. THESE ARE VACANT POSITIONS. THE DEPARTMENT DESIRES TO,
THE
REASON FOR THE AD DELETE IS THEY'RE SEEKING TO SWAP THESE VACANT POSITIONS FOR DIFFERENT POSITIONS THAT THEY WOULD THEN FILL TO BE ABLE TO MOVE WORK FORWARD.
SO
IT DELAYS THAT.
BUT
THERE'S, AND I SEE JEFF WANTS TO ADD SOMETHING.
I
WOULD JUST ADD THAT. WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO ADD THE STATIONARY ENGINEER POSITIONS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH ON OUR MAINTENANCE SIDE,
THIS
IS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE INTO MORE LIKE A PILOT SITUATION AT TWO LOCATIONS, MEANING THAT IF IT WORKS WELL THERE,
WE
MAY HAVE FUTURE BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS RELATED TO CHANGING HOW THAT WORKFORCE DOES ITS WORK.
SO
IT'S A LONGER TERM VIEW.
THIS
IS JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE'RE TRYING IT OUT. SO MAKE SURE THAT IT WILL WORK. WE CAN GET THE RIGHT STAFF WITH THE RIGHT QUALIFICATIONS. OKAY.
SO,
JEFF, IS IT, ARE YOU AGNOSTIC ABOUT THIS BEING DELAYED BY ONE MORE BOARD MEETING
OR
IS IT OPERATIONALLY THIS NEEDS TO BE APPROVED TODAY? I'M OKAY WITH WAITING ONE MORE BOARD MEETING. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
AND
I, AGAIN, I TRUST THAT IT TAKES, I MEAN, SINCE APRIL OF LAST YEAR, I THINK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CURRENT BUDGETARY LANDSCAPE THAT WE'RE IN. AND THE NECESSITY OF US BEING ABLE TO BE JUST ON THE SAME PAGE WITH OUR LABOR PARTNERS,
I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE 'LL GIVE IT ONE MORE TRY TO ENGAGE AND GET SOME ANSWERS.
AND
I 'LL REACH OUT PERSONALLY AS WELL TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THE LACK OF CONCURRENCE LIES.
AND
HOPEFULLY IT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
OKAY. SO
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER THIS, TO DEFER ITEM 69 AND 70 TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING IN MARCH. SECOND.
THANK
YOU.
ALL
RIGHT.
SO
WE 'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC QUESTIONS. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THOSE ITEMS?
I DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR 69 AND 70.
GREAT. SO WE CAN GO AHEAD
AND
CALL ROLL. DO WE WANT TO CHECK WITH SUPERVISOR LEE?
YES. NO COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
I
WILL SUPPORT THE CONTINUANCE.
VERY GOOD.
I
BELIEVE THAT WAS A MOTION FROM SUPERVISOR YOUNG WITH A SECOND BY VICE PRESIDENT ARRANOS. SUPERVISOR ABAI -KOKA.
AYE.
SUPERVISOR YOUNG.
YES.
SUPERVISOR ELLENBERG.
YES.
VICE
PRESIDENT ARRANOS. YES, TOO. PRESIDENT LEE. YES. MOTION CARRIES WITH FIVE.
PERFECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. AND THAT GOT
US
REALLY QUICKLY THROUGH THAT ITEM.
SO
I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEM 16, ACTUALLY,
WHICH
IS RECEIVING A REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES POLICY
RULING
TO THE CONTINUED ALIGNMENT OF THE COUNTY -LED CHILDREN AND YOUTH SYSTEM OF CARE EFFORTS WITH THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AND YOUTH SERVICES MASTER PLAN.
SO
WELCOME BACK.
AND
BEFORE YOU BEGIN, I'M JUST GOING TO CHECK WITH MY COLLEAGUES. WE'RE JUST GOING TO GET THROUGH AS MANY ITEMS AS WE CAN. CORRECT? AWESOME.
HELLO. GOOD MORNING.
WAIT.
AFTERNOON. ALMOST.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DR. HEIDI EMBERLING, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES POLICY. JOINED BY... WENDY KNEER -RAUSCH, DFCS DIRECTOR.
SARAH
DUFFY, SSA DEPUTY.
WE
'VE PREPARED A PRESENTATION WHICH I CAN WALK THROUGH
OR
WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
PLEASE WALK US THROUGH A PRESENTATION. THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CHILDREN AND YOUTH SYSTEM OF CARE,
WHICH
IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE CYSOC AB2083 WORK,
IS
A COLLABORATION ACROSS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND IN PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITY -BASED ENTITIES THAT PROVIDES SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND YOUTH TO CREATE A MORE INTEGRATED, ALIGNED, AND SHARED SYSTEM OF CARE THAT'S EVIDENCE -BASED, OUTCOME -FOCUSED, FAMILY -CENTERED,
STRENGTHS
-BASED, CULTURALLY RELEVANT, TRAUMA -INFORMED, AND HEALING -CENTERED.
THIS
WORK IS CENTERED IN THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PREVENTION PLAN AS PART OF THE FEDERAL FAMILY FIRST PREVENTION SERVICES ACT DESIGNED TO SUPPORT FAMILY PRESERVATION AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN PLACED IN FOSTER CARE. PRIMARY GOAL OF THE CYSOC IS TO SERVE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN A WAY THAT ENSURES EASY ACCESS, EQUITY,
SEAMLESS
INTEGRATION OF VARIOUS SUPPORTS.
AND
FOR CYSOC TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL ACROSS COMPLEX SYSTEMS WITH DIFFERING ACCESS POINTS,
A
NO WRONG DOOR SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
NEXT
SLIDE. THE NO WRONG DOOR SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL REPRESENTS A CROSS -SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES CAN ACCESS THE RIGHT SERVICES IN COMMUNITY AT THE RIGHT TIME. REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY ENTER THE SYSTEM OF CARE.
THROUGH
THIS MODEL, FAMILIES CAN ACCESS MULTIPLE SERVICES FROM A SINGLE POINT OF ENTRY. THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SAN JOSE HAVE EACH ALLOCATED $1 MILLION TO SUPPORT A PILOT NO WRONG DOOR SERVICE MODEL IN TWO DEMONSTRATION SITES.
THE
TWO DEMONSTRATION SITES ARE OPERATED BY THE SI SE PUEDE COLLECTIVE AND THE FRANKLIN MCKINLEY CHILDREN'S INITIATIVE.
THE
SI SE PUEDE COLLECTIVE, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH SOCIAL SERVICES, IS CONTRACTED TO SERVE THE MAYFARE AND POKE AWAY NEIGHBORHOODS. THE FRANKLIN MCKINLEY CHILDREN'S INITIATIVE, IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH CATHOLIC
CHARITIES OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, IS CONTRACTED TO SERVE THE SEVEN TREES AND SANTIE NEIGHBORHOODS.
NEXT
SLIDE.
FAMILIES FIRST PREVENTION SERVICES ALLOWED THE COUNTY'S WORK TO ALIGN WITH THE CITY OF SAN JOSE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAMILIES FIRST COMMUNITY PATHWAY. THE WORK AIMS TO PREVENT AND TO IMPLEMENT CHILD WELFARE INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATE SERVICES FOR FAMILIES WHO MAY BE AT IMMINENT RISK OF ENTERING THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM.
THE
GOAL IS EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF FAMILY NEEDS, IMPROVING PROTECTIVE FACTORS, AND STABILIZING FAMILIES IN THE COMMUNITY BY DEVELOPMENT OF A PREVENTION PLAN OF PERSONALIZED SERVICES THAT ADDRESS MULTIPLE FAMILY NEEDS, SUCH AS ACCESS TO HEALTH, HOUSING, CHILD CARE, AND EMPLOYMENT, WITH SMOOTH TRANSITIONS OR HANDOFFS BETWEEN AGENCIES WHEN ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARE REQUIRED.
NEXT
SLIDE. UNDER THE FAMILIES FIRST COUNTY PREVENTION PLAN, THE PRIORITY POPULATIONS IDENTIFIED FOR THIS EFFORT MAY
INCLUDE
FAMILIES OR YOUTH STRUGGLING WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE, PREGNANT AND PARENTING FOSTER YOUTH, HOMELESS YOUTH OR FAMILIES, AND OR FAMILIES STRUGGLING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
NEXT
SLIDE. THE COMMUNITY PATHWAY INTEGRATED PRACTICE MODEL CENTERS THE FAMILY FROM THE MOMENT THEY ENTER THE COMMUNITY -BASED SITE. WHEN THE FAMILY NEEDS ARE IDENTIFIED, THE SERVICE PROVIDER BECOMES THE MAIN CONTACT FOR THAT FAMILY, ENSURING THAT THEY ARE CONNECTED TO THE RESOURCES AND SERVICES THEY NEED IN THEIR COMMUNITY, WITH A
PROVIDER
THEY CAN BUILD TRUST WITH AND BE SUPPORTED BY. THE SERVICE PROVIDER ALSO PROVIDES OVERSIGHT AND SAFETY MONITORING, IMPLEMENTING MANDATED REPORTER PROTOCOLS WHEN INTERVENTIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MITIGATE SAFETY THREATS.
THIS
ALLOWS US TO BUILD ON THE FRAME OF MOVING FROM MANDATED REPORTING TO A SERVICE PROVIDER. THE SERVICE PROVIDER ALSO INCLUDES COMMUNITY SUPPORTING IN THE CASES WHERE EARLY INTERVENTION WILL PREVENT FURTHER SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT.
NEXT
SLIDE.
LEADERSHIP ACROSS THE COUNTY AND CITY ARE WORKING CLOSELY TOGETHER TO ENSURE STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL ALIGNMENT FOR THE PARALLEL WORK BEING DONE. UPDATES ARE SHARED AND DISCUSSED AT THE CHILDREN AND YOUTH SYSTEM OF CARE INTERAGENCY LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETINGS AND AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF THE SAN JOSE CITY COUNCIL. THE COUNTY AND THE CITY WORK EMPHASIZE UPSTREAM PREVENTION RATHER THAN CRISIS RESPONSE. SHARED PILLARS INCLUDE INTEGRATED CARE THROUGH A NO WRONG DOOR SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL, A FAMILY CENTERED AND STRENGTH BASED APPROACH THAT'S CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE AND TRAUMA INFORMED. INTEGRATED DATA COLLECTION AND SHARED OUTCOMES FOR THIS WORK AND SERVICES ARE DELIVERED IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH SHARED PRIORITIES TO SERVE VULNERABLE FAMILIES. AS THE PILOT DEMONSTRATION SITES DEVELOP,
WE ARE
CONSIDERING EXPANSION OF THE CURRENTLY INTEGRATED NO WRONG DOOR APPROACH TO ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS IN KEY COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTY. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I'M GOING TO ASK CURTIS TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THE ITEM. THANK YOU.
I HAVE TWO CARDS IN CHAMBERS AND TWO HANDS RAISED ON ZOOM FOR FOUR TOTAL SPEAKERS. OKAY. WE 'LL GO AHEAD AND DO TWO MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. TWO MINUTES. WE WILL CLOSE THE QUEUE. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS KATHERINE CAMPBELL FOLLOWED BY SARAH GROVER, I THINK.
IS IT ON? IT'S ON.
WE CAN
HEAR YOU. THANK YOU, BOARD, AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE. I ALWAYS WANT TO PUSH FOR MORE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS IS ENOUGH. I HAVE AN EXPERIENCE, A LIVED EXPERIENCE WHERE I 'VE KNOCKED ON EVERY DOOR. AND WHILE THE DOORS ARE OPEN, THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY NAMING ABUSE. AND ESPECIALLY CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE TO ACCEPT THAT THIS IS HAPPENING AND IT IS. AND WE TRULY NEED TO DO THIS PROCEDURALLY. I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT I NOTICED ON THE AGENDA WHEN I CLICKED ON THE PACKET, I COULDN'T OPEN THE PACKET EXCEPT FOR THE WHOLE RETIREMENT PACKET
FOR 109 PAGES. BUT THESE WERE NOT INCLUDED. SO I JUST SAW THEM TODAY. BUT I THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH FAMILY COURT, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY. AND THAT COMES DOWN TO A BIG GAP WHERE CHILDREN ARE FALLING THROUGH AND KNOCKING ON A LOT OF DOORS BECAUSE EVERY DOOR IS
ACTUALLY BECOMING A HOT POTATO. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN TO OUR CHILDREN. AND IT'S CONTINUALLY HAPPENING.
AND I JUST THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WE RECOGNIZE THAT. THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT AS MUCH EFFORT AS WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS UNTIL WE ACTUALLY NAME THEM. AND SO, I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT WE 'VE BEEN FUNDING THIS ABUSE, AND FROM THE ODDS OF MONSBIN AND TO THE DEATH REVIEW, THE DEATH REVIEW I'M NOTICING DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED IN FAMILY COURT. WE KNOW THAT ELLIE WAS INVOLVED IN FAMILY COURT, BUT SHE WILL BE IN THE NEXT ROUND. IT'S NOT THIS WAS BEFORE HER DEATH. SO SHE'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ONE. BUT I DO KNOW SHE WAS INCLUDED. SO WE SHOULD BE ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS FOR THE DEATH REVIEW. THANK
YOU. Good
afternoon, Chair, Honorable Supervisors. My name is Sona Grover, Director with the Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County. I stand in strong support of the county -led children and youth system of care efforts aligned with the City of San Jose Children and Youth Service Master Plan. After countless listening and designing sessions, planning meetings, and legwork, the coordinated effort of the city through its Children and Youth Service Master Plan and county through Families First Community Pathway have demonstrated to the community that its leaders are fully invested in their success. Community -based organizations, partners like Catholic Charities, leading effort in Santee and Seven Trees neighborhood have been integral to this work, helping translate planning into meaningful action at
the demonstration sites. One year into the pilot, Franklin McKinley Children's Initiative, a program of Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, has achieved significant progress, including increased community engagement and stronger cross -sector collaboration with community leaders, promotoras, the school districts, local non -profits, and businesses. As shared in December joint meeting of the City of San Jose NSC Committee and County CSF Committee, the pilot has moved from planning and ramp up to early implementation and initial learnings. Year two is critical. It allows us to... Build on the trust, establish with families, deepen impact, and support sustainability. With the city funding committing for fiscal year 27, we respectfully request the county also fund year two through the Community
Pathway Initiative. A full two -year pilot highlights the importance of sustaining and strengthening this investment so we can continue building on the demonstrated impact and upward trajectory of the program, capture meaningful learning, and... Provide the time necessary to plan for long -term sustainability. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you.
We will move to our
Zoom speakers now. Our first speaker is Angelica Ramos -Allen.
Good afternoon, members of
the Board of Supervisors. My name is Angelica Ramos
-Allen. I'm the Director of Policy and Communications at Grille Family Services. In December, alongside Somos Mayfair, we presented on behalf of the Sisa Pueda Collective. Today, I'm here representing the MAPER demonstration site, under the... I'm here representing the MAPER demonstration site, under the... for the first time in a long time. This is a demonstration of our National Union Service Master Plan and Family's First Community Pathways grant. As we also shared in December, we are now in active service delivery. We take cases across multiple tiers of support and connect families into a single system of care through a true no -wrong door model. So we're no longer in theoretical mode. We're in implementation mode. And our
families are walking through our doors receiving coordinated cross -system support. At the same time, we're building the data and evaluation infrastructure to track outcomes and strengthen the core social health process. this evidence -based framework work that both the county and city have envisioned for many years just as importantly we are building trust within the community in a moment when trusting government institutions can feel incredibly fragile we work alongside our families every day to ensure that our systems are accessible culturally responsive and worthy of their confidence this has been a significant investment from GFS it's almost Mayfair the city and the county of Santa Clara and we are sincerely grateful to our GFCS partners Rebecca Destiny
Wendy and Patty for their collaboration and support finally alignment with between the county -led system of care in the city's master plan has been transformational for our families and our children we look forward to sharing our findings later this year with your team and we also stand with you with Catholic Charities and our fellow demonstrations by and hoping that you fund this work thank you for your partnership and leadership
hope
you have a great lunch thank
you our next speaker is parent yeah
it
is very important that the city of San Jose has a strong relationship with the county and there's a good collaboration between the two but I the previous comment by Catherine Campbell is very true we need we need to pay attention to what she said
because
you knock on doors and nobody answers nobody cares you know like earlier Wendy Kinnear -Roush
gave
a phone number for the can't hotline and I have called that number many times
nothing's
done there's no responses I knock on Wendy's door I say please help my kids they're being sexually molested and now they're being molested and now she's a victim of a very much untruthful act
I mean
say hello bunları and you know what maybe maybe you will respond to this is the only response that I've ever gotten from her it's just one line
if
you want to file a complaint file a complaint I mean that's really just a show of uncaring
you
know like you need to have empathy you need to say what would I feel these these were my kids what would i do what would i want and i mean
the the response that she's giving just isn't adequate for our children and the entire community and so i i believe that we need to replace her if we want a strong collaboration between the city and the county we need somebody out there who's going to uh
fight
for our children no matter who's sexually abusing them no matter who's threatening to kill them we need somebody who fight for our community and that really is just not wendy camille roush just a side note on the community round table it's not posted anywhere there's no way to attend this meeting because it's not noticed to the public in any place not online i did a
google search there's nothing thank you so much for your time thank you that concludes public comment thank you i'm going to look to my uh supervisor uh ellenburg thank you and thank you heidi and
wendy and sarah for the report thanks as well to supervisor arenas for requesting that this work come to the whole board of supervisors so we all have the opportunity to hear about the encouraging upstream work that is being conducted at both the city and the county levels i was pleased to hear that part of the work that the county is responsible for in carrying out through the children and youth system of care can be done collaboratively with the city of san jose and local community partners i know i say this all the time but children and families truly have the best opportunity to thrive when we are all invested in coordinating and moving in the
same direction my understanding is that the no wrong door model could certainly offer many benefits especially when it's carried out in a trusted community setting i'm interested in learning more about what data is being collected to determine the program's success and i know this will be a baseline year wendy but can you or heidi or sarah can you any of you share a little bit more about what factors will be looked at how we're going to define success certainly you know that i'm expecting it to be more than the number of children or families that are serving the program in the community i think that's the core topic And when might we have a better
understanding on how impactful we are in actually
addressing the needs of children and their families?
I'll start this off, and then I'll defer to Heidi and Wendy to elaborate. So we actually have a referral from December, which Supervisor Arenas made at the joint meeting, to come back every other month, I believe, to CSFC and report out on progress toward implementation. So we will be reporting
on
this as well verbally on Thursday at CSFC.
DFCS slash Social Services Agency holds the contracts with Catholic Charities and CISAPOETA Collective. So
we
will start reporting out on service provision, on engagement from the outreach all the way through case management to referrals and coverage. So
we'll
have some very good data over the next couple months on what are the needs that families have and what are they interested in accessing through the pilot. So we will start putting together some regular report outs on that. I think that will address kind of what are the deliverables from the contract. But we also, as a system, with our partners in the city and school districts and the different organizations, want to look at
the
larger outcomes, like the health outcomes and the education outcomes and the safety outcomes in these pilot communities. And that work is, I think, in partnership with
the
collective partners, so the city, Franklin -McKinley, Alum Rock, the providers.
And
we are engaging in that evaluation framework and design as well. So I think that we're probably looking at being able. to report out ideally maybe
by
the end of the first year, so like summer, to start to look at like what are we seeing in terms of the more of the outcomes. That's my understanding, having been very involved in like the design of this and the meetings. So we can certainly, from an accountability standpoint, report out on what we're achieving with our contracts here in the county. And then I think the larger community evaluation work will be done in partnership. So that's my understanding, but I'll defer to Heidi and Wendy for discussion. If you have any additional details.
You did a
really good job, Sarah, on that. I think the only thing I would add in is part of that sort of larger vision and larger will be
the
gaps in services. So anything that's getting in the way of that. And then an evaluation of the
funding
opportunities and blending and braiding funding is being looked at as well.
Thank
you so much. You really hit, Sarah, kind of the two levels that I'm looking at. Of course, we want to know if families are connected to services, if they utilize those services. If a case is closed, which I would think means that that particular issue was addressed. But it really is going to be that holistic piece, what the children's data book measures every year. How are we looking at high -level improvements in social determinants of health and outcomes? So thank you. I appreciate that it's going every other month to CFSC. Of course, I have a policy aide who
monitors that.
I'll start with a motion to receive the report. But I would like to get this baseline data and learnings back from the evaluations that are being conducted at the demonstration sites. And, Sarah, you indicated summer. Does that mean this coming
summer? I think that's reasonable. I think we're going to lean into the Sisa Poeta Collective and Catholic Charities to confirm. But I think it's reasonable. That gives us several months of lead time. So I think August would be reasonable to look at kind of the 25, 26 year of services and the impact. Perfect. Thank you. Then
I'll include in the motion direction for that to come back in August.
And I know I'll need a second, but I want to just finish. I'll do the second. Thank you very much. In line certainly with the spirit of alignment, Supervisor Arenas, that you have initiated, it's my understanding that the county and schools collaborative work has begun and is guided by recommendations of the children and youth system of care interagency leadership team. First, confirm that that is underway?
Yes. We had an initial convening in January. I'm really excited about that. It's something that I've been talking about and thinking about since I was a school board member and just learning about school link
services.
And this is so much more comprehensive. I'd like to add to the motion direction
to have
this collaborative work come back to the report out on the collaborative work to come to the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis. And why don't we start it in August,
if
that makes sense, in conjunction with the report back on the others? Absolutely. Thank you. And what I'm really looking for is
what are
we learning about the ways in which we're coordinating efforts with other system partners, and what are we measuring in terms of metrics that can be identified through the school systems? What are we seeing? So really appreciate the work. I love that you are all very focused on both being holistic in our approach to children and also really meticulous about making sure that what we're doing has impact.
And if
and when it doesn't, certainly having the courage and confidence to come to us and say,
we
need to do A, B, or C differently. It's not quite getting to where we want to be. So
thank you for that. And thank you for the second. Of course. Seeing that there is no, and
I'll
go ahead and make my comments, and then I'll check in with our president.
I'm also just wondering about outcomes in the very end of this. You know, this is a whole year
that
we've gone through, and it isn't exactly clear to me
what
we're hoping to accomplish at the very end of this. There are a number of things. The two sites are slightly different. One is very integrated into the school system and the Franklin -McKinley School District. I had my daughter there one year, and it was during the pandemic, and she was in a dual immersion class. And when something popped up, there was a network of service providers to respond to her. And it wasn't a question of whether she had insurance, didn't have insurance. It was just there and available. I don't think she was a high -risk kiddo. But, you know, I think the pandemic made us all very susceptible to all kinds of different things and
created lots of different challenges. And so I've got to say, for her, it was just a really great experience. We tapped into some services that Franklin -McKinley School District offered. But I knew of those services, excuse me, even before as I worked for First 5 for a really long time, and with the City of San Jose, and Franklin -McKinley has always been a really great school district to work with. So I don't doubt that they are going to produce the kinds of outcomes that we're looking for. And I suspect that it will be a little different than Capitol Park. Oh, not Capitol Park, I'm sorry, Seven Trees, than Seven Trees because Seven Trees doesn't have
a school district. And as a matter of fact, that school district has had some, I think they're under Allen Rock, and they've had a number of superintendents and just instability, and I think that also creates an impact to the children.
So
my question here is, like, we have two different types of sites. We have to figure out, like, what is the path? And no wrong door, I understand the concept, but I don't know if it's meant to just,
I'm thinking about a south side neighborhood that doesn't have any nonprofits. It's the same neighborhood that Baby Phoenix lived in, died in. And, you know, there's a lot of duplexes and fourplexes and things of that sort. But nothing is really anchoring that neighborhood. The same thing could be said about a lot of different neighborhoods. Another one over by Eastridge that we worked with quite a bit.
And we
had a, we had Project Hope actually come in and help anchor that neighborhood. And I wonder if there are some things that we can do to help set up the success for some of the neighborhoods that are being chosen so that we can be kind of at the fair game, if you will. Franklin McKinley
versus
Seven Trees, it's almost unfair, right? Because Franklin McKinley is going to do really well. I suspect.
I'm just,
I'm not, there's no bets on it.
I
just suspect they'll do very well.
They
have a very well integrated service delivery model for their children.
And
Seven Trees is obviously, they have a lot of challenges.
And
when I was a council member, we even inadvertently were going to create a burden for that neighborhood by having safe parking there. And we had it for a very short period of time, but we understood that it was already a very high impact neighborhood.
And
former council member Esparza really advocated to not have that there as it would burden the neighborhood even more.
And
I understood it because it happened really quickly.
Things
just really spun out of control.
And
so, oh, I'm so sorry.
Is
it Seven Trees? You shook your head
yes,
but it isn't Seven Trees.
Okay.
You're shaking your head no.
It
is Pocahue. Gosh darn it.
I
worked in Pocahue as well.
Who
is that?
Yes. Oh,
it's you. The Si Sepere Collective is Pocahue and Mayfair.
And
the Catholic Charities Franklin McKinley Children's Initiative is Seven Trees and Santee.
Got
it.
Okay. Thank
you.
Yes. Sorry. I
got it all mixed up. But what I'm comparing here is, you know, when there is a partnership with the school and a school district,
I
think that especially during the pandemic or some of these neighborhoods that are very high needs or highly impacted by a lot of public health, social and health determinants
tend
to already have some services in place. There's some that don't and have generationally over time continued to be the same. And they're probably emerging hotspots for our cities or for our counties.
And
I guess I'm trying to figure out how do we create parity between the sites that we choose and do something slightly different with them?
So
if we know that one site has these elements but the other site doesn't,
are
we building in those elements to the site that doesn't have them so that they can be at parity? Because we know that those partnerships and one of them is school college. And we know that those partnerships and one of them is collaboration, right? Because our children spend the most time at school and because parents work so probably to jobs, it's easier to pull a child out for a therapeutic appointment at school than it is for a parent to come back,
take
a break from one of the jobs, come back, drop off the kid at a different location, wait there,
pick
up the kid, go to their child, excuse me, and then go to a childcare provider. Right? It just then those kinds of options are just not really doable for families.
And
so what I'm advocating is for us to integrate schools in a meaningful way.
I
know that it's not rocket science here, but I just wonder what the difference will be.
And in both sites, I know that these are generationally over time. These are the same hotspots that have been there since a really long time. Unfortunately, they're impacted by poverty, violence, and all of the things that we know are going to throw children off track in their development.
So how do we ensure that the one is how do we ensure parity in terms of the elements that each of the neighborhoods have? And then second, how do we ensure that once we do that, that we are going to be recruiting, outreaching, and connecting with the families that actually need us? Because I have seen over time that it's much easier to serve the families that actually want the services, right? In the same way that, you know, the Mayor's Gang Task Force, when I was still a council member, we, there was evidence. It was ebb and flows. And sometimes, depending on the nonprofits that were there, it was, and especially if we asked for certain
outcomes,
they
would target the kiddos who were just, you know, gang -adjacent, not gang -involved,
not
gang -affiliated, but just maybe impacted by gangs because they lived in those neighborhoods.
And
so it's much easier to serve those children than it is to serve a gang -affiliated or gang -involved youth. And so I'm also wondering, how are we distinguishing
and
making sure that the families that we are outreaching and connecting to are actually the families that need our services?
I
can start with some thoughts and then rely on my colleagues here.
One of the things I've been doing a lot of is attending a lot of different community meetings to try to see where these overlaps are. South County Youth Task Force is one of them. We're learning more about what does exist in South County in terms of resources.
And
I do think it's a really nice model for all of the people that are working on supporting youth, children, youth, and families in South County. I think we try pilots in areas of need, such as the social worker pilot that's happening in Gilroy as well, as ways for the county and schools to intersect around specific identified need areas. So I think there are, just like the No Wrong Door pilots, the social worker pilot, there are different pilots for looking at what model is going to be able to be used. So I think it's important to be scalable and to build on the relationships that we're building with other entities that are already working, deeply embedded
in the community, such as South County Youth Task Force. Also attending the San Jose YAH meetings. So that's another opportunity for connecting across issues that are arising. And I was just at one of those meetings last week where they were talking about chronic absenteeism. And what does that indicate in the community? And there were so many different entities there to weigh in on. I can also share that in our initial County Schools Collaborative meeting, that also came up. So I think we're looking for areas of intersectionality and ways in which county services can be provided through those entities that are already really deeply embedded in community. And I think GRAIL... Si se puede. Somos and
Catholic Charities have been very embedded in those communities. So they're good places to try this kind of no -wrong -door model. But then we can take the learnings and the data from these and apply them to other areas. So I think that's the hope.
Yeah. You know, I have plenty of questions about this. But what I'll do is this. I'll have a deeper conversation with all of you at our CSFC meeting. But what I'm hoping to figure out is, how are...when are families actually coming to us? When are...when is it that they were first realizing or they're first realizing that we're there? And, like, what crisis...at what point in their crisis are they engaging with us? Is that changing over time? What are those challenges that they're facing? Is it housing? Is it substance abuse? Is it... You know, whatever it is. And what are the...what are some of the needs that we are not meeting? What is fragmented? Who is
falling through those cracks?
And in terms of the outcomes, we can have a deeper conversation on that.
Thank you, Supervisor. I think I would add for that piece. Those are really good questions. Those are really good questions to try to answer qualitatively in this first year of the pilot. And I think we do that through working with the Sisa Plata Collective and Catholic Charities and really asking them that we want to...telling them we want to understand these things. We want to understand what are their methods of outreach. I mean, we have some of that identified in the contract. They have promotoras and they have outreach mechanisms. But I think we want to understand how it's actually rolling out in the communities. We have a changing landscape in the communities. We've heard a lot
about fear because of a lot of the immigration concerns that are making it more difficult to work directly with families. So those are the kinds of things that we have a shifting landscape and we want to hear directly what our family is experiencing. Is that changing the access points and mechanisms? And then... And then, of course, I think we can lean into the assessment...like the intake forms and assessment forms to understand what families are asking for. Those are going to be really important pieces of it. But beyond that, qualitatively, I think we just want to understand from the staff that are doing the outreach and working with families, as well as with the schools and
FRCs and other kind of locations in the community where we know families are accessing services or just spending time.
What are... What are the challenges in accessing what they need? So I think we can get at this in the next six months through some really intentional
qualitative data collection from our partners and we can ask them for that. And we're meeting very regularly with
them.
Sure. Sure. So I think let's put that... Let's put that request out and be very specific about the questions we want them to answer. I agree we can talk about this more in CSFC, but I would like to just have them start to bring some of that information into the quarterly reports. That they provide to us. Yes. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the motion on the floor to continue to come back with more information to see what some of those opportunities are that we're already doing in terms of our own work internally to the county that may not be integrated into this model. And I think what you're hearing from... Maybe... I'll just speak
from... What you're hearing from me is maybe a lack of clarity about why this particular model, if we are pursuing a certain population that we want to create certain outcomes with, what are those outcomes? How will we engage with those families? How will we make sure that we engage with those families? Do we already have those families in our systems? Like, are those the families that are saying no to the... To the... You know, voluntary services, but live in those neighborhoods that could easily fold into this if we just made it that easy to access. But we need to understand, I think... Or at least I need to understand this a little bit more. And
so maybe offline, we can have a meeting on this and figure out what that is. I'm excited that we have additional support systems for... For our communities that have been generationally, you know, poke away when redevelopment money was still available. It changed the face of poke away. I mean, you see it now. I mean, it's still a very difficult neighborhood to live in. But the way you see it now is a vast improvement to what it was before. And that's what redevelopment money did for that particular neighborhood. And then, of course, what we had there was a version of Project Hope, which is Project Crackdown. And it brings this myriad of services from the city
that work collectively, code enforcement and public safety and our police department and our neighborhood services. Everybody works together to make sure that that neighborhood organizes and understands their rights and creates... We create a sense of pride within that neighborhood and that association leads. So they're leading the work. We're not leading it for them. And I look forward to seeing something that models that way because those are the kinds of changes that actually could be longstanding when you have people that are living in that neighborhood. And I know it's a high turnover neighborhood because there's a lot of rentals, but there's a lot of folks who live in one neighborhood and as a renter for a
really long time and can be very stable. So anyways, this is just a lot of questions that I've had. I look forward to offline having some of these, continuing to have some of these conversations and then continuing to have the partnership, molding that partnership so that it could really be responsive to... To our families, our children and families. All right. So I see no more lights. So I'm going to check with President Lee and see if there is anything he would like to add.
No, thank you.
Okay. You're welcome. And so I'm going to ask... We have a motion and a second. I'm going to ask Curtis to go ahead and call roll. Yes. And we have a motion from Supervisor Ellenberg, seconded by Vice President Arenas. Supervisor Abicoga. Aye. Supervisor Young.
Yes.
Supervisor Allenberg. Yes. Vice President Arenas. Yes. President Lee. Aye. Motion carries with five. Perfect. We are at 12... Thank you so much for the presentation and the conversation. We are at 1239. We will return at 1 p .m. and I think that gives us enough time to eat a little something and come back. All right. See everyone back here at 1 p .m. and we'll go ahead and finish item eight and nine.
Test.
Welcome back. All right. We are going to reconvene our meeting and we have a time -certain item and we're going to begin with that item which is... Supervisor Arenas, what would you like? ...item eight, but I will take roll, yes, to meet quorum. I just met quorum with my eyes is what I did. So, let's go ahead and ask Rhonda to certify that. Supervisor Abicoga. Here. Supervisor Young. Absent. Supervisor Ellenberg. Yes. Vice President Arenas. I'm here. President Lee.
Yes. I am present and I would like to go ahead and read the statement, if I may.
Repeating what I just said earlier regarding the reason why I am calling remotely under
54953 .8
.3
and 54953 .8E. But now I also have a few 18 -year -olds in this room including our IGR team, Dave Campos, Monica Tong, and Elaine Trinh. Thank you very much.
And yes, I'm present.
Great. And I will note that Supervisor Young just sat at her chair. We have a quorum. Perfect. Okay. So, we are going to begin. And with Item 8, this is set up as time certain for 1 p .m. And this item is Consider Recommendations Relating to the Surveillance Use Policy for the Automated License Plate Readers for the City of Saratoga, City of Cupertino, and the Town of Los Altos.
Welcome, whoever is presenting. I don't see the sheriff. He's here. Oh, I do see the sheriff.
And if there's anybody else that's joining you, now would be the time to join.
And so, while people are settling in, I'll just remind folks that if you want to speak virtually, if you're online, please find your way over to Zoom. I believe YouTube is still not available. Raise your virtual hand. And if you're in person, please go ahead and support us. And if you're not, please submit a yellow card over to Rhonda. And we'll hear from you after the presentation. Welcome. Welcome. Good afternoon. We do not have a formal presentation. This is a return or extension from last month's meeting, I believe it was. Really, the decision before you today is about approving our surveillance use policy and not necessarily endorsing a vendor. You know, the cities of Cupertino
and Saratoga and Los Altos Hills, as you mentioned, independently selected and funded their ALPR systems. Our responsibility as the Sheriff's Office is just to ensure that when the Sheriff's Office operates these systems, we do so in a lawful, transparent, and under strict oversight. And as you know and we discussed in our last meeting, I think we've met that demand and that expectation of having a very strong safeguards in place. Not only with compliance. We have compliance with state law, but county surveillance policies and ordinance. We've disabled external data sharing from the system and the features. We do routine audits. And we've layered oversight through the Privacy Office and, as you know, through OIR Oakland. And
these are measures that ensure the discipline and the laws are followed. ALPR technology, as I mentioned last meeting, is something that we have found tremendously valuable but also needs to be managed appropriately. And when those proven safeguards are in place, it is a very valuable tool for law enforcement. It helps us recover stolen vehicles, identifies suspects and critical incidents such as kidnappings, provides real -time sensitive investigative leads, which have been very beneficial to us, and it allows deputies to focus on specific criminal activity rather than broad enforcement, improving both efficiency and community trust. I will say, you know, if there are concerns about the vendor, my role is not to advocate for any particular vendor,
and nor did I last time. It is about advocating for public safety for the residents of this county and throughout this county. And again, I think a lot of the attention has been on the vendor of this particular topic. And again, that's not our place and not my role to decide or try to drive that conversation. We are open to putting in any safeguards that you feel comfortable with, just like we were when we started this conversation. I think about two and a half years ago. So with that, I will pause and open it up for any questions you may have of me or our staff as we move forward today. Thank you for this
opportunity. Thank you. I appreciate that. And before we move into public comment, I will remind our folks who are here today that you can fill out a yellow card to be able to do that. If you want to speak, and you'll need to fill it out now so that you'll be in the queue for speaking, as well as those folks who are online, please raise your virtual hand if you're interested in speaking and contributing to public comment. Okay. I'm going to check in with Rhonda to see what that looks like so far. We'll give it a minute, Rhonda, so that folks can settle in. If you're... This is the first time you're in attendance with
us. What we count on is for you to fill out that yellow card that Rhonda is showcasing right now. You can find that at the back of the room, another showcase up there. And if you could please fill it out, submit it, because we close the queue for public comment once all of those cards are in.
All right. Go ahead, Rhonda. I currently have 27. 27 in chambers, and I'm showing 10 on Zoom. Okay. Great. We will do a minute for those public speakers. All right. Okay. So we just had another one at 11. Up 12. We're going to give it just a second.
Back to last
chance.
Okay. We're going to close the public speaker queue at 27 in person, and we have 12 online. Speaker queue is closed. I'm going to go ahead and call a few people forward. You may speak in any order, but please be sure to state your name. Kimberly Wu. Austin Marshall. Tim McKenzie. Kylie Clark. Jeremy Burrus. And Ms. Rain Mendoza. And before actually the public comment begins, we want to just remind folks that we want to ensure that we can hear you and support you. But if you feel like you aren't going to do either one of those things as a member of the audience here, you're welcome. You're entitled to do so. But we don't accept
boos or we don't accept any clapping in the chambers. And so if you agree with something, you can shake your hands this way. If you don't agree, we haven't come up with anything. So please just keep that to yourself for a minute. And so we'll begin with the first public speaker. And if we begin clapping, we'll ask you.
We'll intervene. We'll intervene at that point. But it looks like everybody is very cooperative. Go ahead and begin.
Hi. I'm Kimberly Wu, and I represent SIREN. Good morning, honorable supervisors. I'm speaking on behalf of my fellow community partners to urge you to take negative action on both proposed items. Please oppose the sheriff's proposed surveillance use policies which would sunset the AOPR subs for the city of Saratoga and town walls of Aldous Hills and end the sheriff's office management and operations of these systems in those jurisdictions. While the FLOC system in Cupertino would remain in effect and the sheriff's office would continue to operate Cupertino's system, we hope that this county would encourage the city of Cupertino and other cities to align with local leadership of Los Altos Hills and terminate their FLOC contracts. The
proposed action report are only considering the potential financial impacts while ignoring the concerns regarding privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. For our reasons in the proven abuse of AOPR systems like FLOC and violating our constitutional rights to privacy, we move forward. We must reject the notion of financial impact and agree that the cost of surveilling and sharing every resident's and visitor's private data and borrow right the potential benefits.
My name is Austin. I'm representing Indivisible Palo Alto Plus. Lastly, the proposed surveillance use policies do not go far enough to protect our communities against AI mass surveillance, so we must reject the proposal. If the board seeks to manage another AOPR vendor, we urge you to establish all the below requirements. To strengthen surveillance use policies to hold any potential AOPR vendor to the strict standard, require valid judicial warrants for all data searches from all law enforcement agencies, refuse to participate in direct sharing with immigration authorities and indirect sharing of data in infusion centers, absent a valid judicial warrant or court order, establish time limit of 10 calendar days to data storage and retention, prohibit all
AOPR systems from integrating facial recognition, or biometric analysis software, prohibit generative artificial intelligence or facial recognition software technology in the AOPR systems, undergo a detailed review of contracts for data ownership and storage.
Hi, I'm Tim McKenzie, resident of District 5 for more than a dozen years, and I'm with Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America. Continuing the requirements, undergo a detailed review of contracts for data ownership and storage, implement stronger local controls on data access, and sharing, mandate independent auditability protocols,
confirm contract and policy safeguards will ensure system transparency, protect civil liberties, and reduce cybersecurity risks. If a camera vendor cannot guarantee our safeguards, then we must reject a surveillance use policy until a qualified AOPR vendor can meet all of the above criteria. We would like to elaborate on our recommendation for negative action, and this is how we keep us safe from federal overreach and constitutional violation of our privacy. The sheriff has not been transparent or forthcoming about the surveillance use policy in AOPR vendor systems. If it was not for careful review of agendas, no one would be aware this sup was on the agenda, and these harmful AOPR systems would be forced onto the public.
Thank you.
I'm Kylie
Clark with SVCN and the REAL Coalition,
and there are two references to warrants in the SUP in Section 1 regarding to search warrants for instance, incidental monitoring of vehicles on private property, and in Section 2 regarding arrest warrants. However, the AOPR cameras violate our Fourth Amendment right to privacy as it collects, retains, and analyzes location data for every driver to the second, having the capacity to stalk us for extended periods of time. We must require valid judicial warrants for all data searches by all law enforcement agencies to protect our constitutional right to privacy. Sections 1 and 2 wrongfully believe that AOPR systems simply flag vehicles of interest, will not be integrated with the law, will not be included with facial recognition or
biometric analysis software, and shall not use or employ generative AI technology without written approval. However, such an AOPR does not exist. In fact, FLOX specifically utilizes a generative AI tool called Freeform Speech Search to enhance their vehicle fingerprint software underscoring.
Jeremy Burrus with Amigos de Guadalupe in IPEN. Additionally, FLOX patent recognizes license plates and can extend to identify and categorize people based on height, weight, gender, race, articles of clothing, bicycles, and animals. We refuse all AI mass surveillance as written approval by these county officials would not protect us from the systemic harms of AI -powered cameras. Section 2 asserts that the AOPR systems will not be used to identify individuals engaged in peaceful, nonviolent demonstrations or protests. While the Sheriff's Office may not use the AOPR systems against individuals exercising the First Amendment rights, external agencies can access and exploit our personal data for those reasons. For example, our own cameras in Santa Clara County were apparently
used to hunt fugitives from Minneapolis. We are wary of this term's negative connotations and the AOPR system's harmful implications to target peaceful protesters. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan, with Amigos de Guadalupe in IPEN. So, 3, 6, and 10 attempt to improve controls of our ARLPR systems regarding data collection access, protection, yeah, protection and retention out of the, I don't know how to say that word, sorry, out of personal FLOX data regarding ICE cooperation could proceed false negative. Accordingly, to page 4 and 10 of VHS data, retention policies, VHS requires vendors to not leave a trail of ICE and audit logs on any ALPRs except their own. We may not see any required results about ICE or if ICE access our data because ICE systematically does not leave any evidence of the wrongdoing.
I'd like to call forward the next question. We have several speakers, Lucila Ortez, Sam, Musa Tariq, Darcy Green, Carmen Martinez, Manny, Hui Tran, and Akimi Flynn.
Hello,
Supervisors. Lucila with Silicon Valley Rising. And I will continue reading the letter.
So,
the reason why we see searches related to immigration enforcement or ICE is due to the, that we not see them, is due to the side door access. But given the current political climate, we can only surmise that ICE is accessing our data to weaponize against our communities.
Side
door access is when local police departments conduct searches on behalf of ICE or CBP. Our local police data is shared with other police departments who may use this side door to export our personal data to ICE.
Also,
Santa Clara County participates in the fusion center of Northern California Regional Intelligence Center. Which gathers and shares data, including ALPRs from other Northern California agencies to national, state, and local intelligence networks. So, while we do, you know, believe that the sheriff themselves are not doing these queries,
we
cannot guarantee that any other local jurisdiction is doing that on behalf of them.
My
name is Samantha, and I am speaking on behalf of the Defensoras Healthcare Learning Space.
On
Section 6, data retention remains the county's 30 -day time limit to collecting our data, unless needed. This is needed for a specific investigation.
Given
ALPR's proven vulnerabilities, we recommend a stricter time limit of 10 calendar days. In a recent Rohan Park meeting, the chief conceded that it's exceptionally rare for even 30 days back to be useful for them,
as
it is most useful in this precise moment of recollection. There are examples of even shorter time limits in other jurisdictions. New Hampshire state law requires law enforcement to delete non -hit automatic license plate readers, ALPRs, data within 3 minutes. If the board is operating under the presumption of needing ALPRs and restricting time limits to data
retention,
we believe that 10 calendar days stands as a reasonable compromise to protect our communities against potential system vulnerabilities and violations on searching of personal data without judicial warrant. Section 8, third -party data sharing, mentions data sharing with other law enforcement agencies, but this causes external unknown agencies.
All right. Hi, everyone. My name is Musa Wicare. The Council on American -Islamic Relations, and I'll be starting from here. Section 8, third -party data sharing, mentions data sharing with other law enforcement agencies, but this causes external unknown agencies to access our personal data,
breaking
our residents' trust, and contributing to the termination of flock contracts in Los Altos Hills and Santa Cruz. While the SUPs claim that our data will not be shared with federal agencies or any state or local agency outside of California,
we
learned a difficult lesson when the City of Mountain View promised the same thing,
only
for the vendor to share data with external agencies and violate the constituents' trust.
We
must require a valid judicial record. We must provide a valid judicial warrant or court order to all data searches by any law enforcement agency,
which
is a standard, rational Fourth Amendment protection to our reasonable expectation of privacy.
Section
9, training and other references to background checks may give us the illusion of safety, but the reality is that the public has no knowledge nor access to thoroughly assess the training requirements of authorized users. Beyond the SUP that reflects various hindsides, how can the public trust the other training protocols if we are prohibited access? For these reasons and more that my colleagues will share, we urge the Board to continue your unwavering protection of our immigrant communities and boldly stand against federal overreach.
Members of the Board, Darcy Green, Real Coalition. No matter how perfect the policy, the current federal government has proven there are no bounds to their lawless terror and violent propaganda on our communities, and we can expect and witness how they will weaponize any tool and data
against
our folks. We hope that the Board can raise awareness to our local cities on the issues of ALPR vendors that fail to meet the above requirements, ensuring our cities are taking the right steps to prohibit any direct or indirect sharing with ICE. If a camera vendor cannot guarantee our safeguards, then we must reject a SUP until a qualified ALPR vendor can meet all of our above criteria, the criteria you heard from people before me. One reason the Flock Safety Company cannot be trusted. Not only is Flock a deceptive company, their cameras are susceptible to being hacked in 30 seconds and have 51 confirmed vulnerabilities. If we cannot trust Flock, who prides themselves as the industry
leader,
Thank you. Thank
you.
Hello, Board of Supervisors, Carmen with Real Coalition and Defensoras. Then how can we expect that other ALPR systems would follow our standards? We must end our operations of Flock and
reject any
ALPR vendor who refuses to adhere to strict data control standards. Investigators have found Flock portal access credentials on the dark web. Anyone with 120 can easily create a Sheldon account to access 24 -7 live streams of our personal lives. One user found a live stream on a children's playground, making these cameras a prime accessible weapon for human traffickers. Flock tracks records on security places its customers in violation of SB 34's requirement that
ALPR
operators maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. From enabling broad searches of investigation and crime to granting CBP access to its systems, Flock has violated reasonable security measures and wrongfully misled their law enforcement partners. Another reason mass warrantless tracking of every driver to the second violates our Fourth Amendment right.
Hello,
my name is Manny. Alright, so I just wanted to point out that this has already been settled by the U .S. Supreme Court. In the United States case, U .S. v. Carpenter in 2018
and U .S. v. Jones 2012 affirmed that all residents have a constitutional right to privacy even in public spaces. Near perfect surveillance. Cell phone location data and GPS tracking on public roads give our government precise, comprehensive record of all aspects of our personal lives from our familial,
political,
professional, religious, and sexual relationships. Organizations such as SIREN and CAREN with the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are suing San Jose, Oakland, and Norfolk, West Virginia for their Flock contracts because of these unblinking cameras retained our data for extended periods of time. Stalking our residents every movement to the minute and failing to require valid judicial warrants before sharing our private information. We the people refuse to waste our precious city resources defending ourselves from valid lawsuits.
Good afternoon, Hui Tran with SIREN. When the federal
government has given ICE and CBP authorization to discriminately arrest our people based on the color of their skin or their accent and physically assaulting and fatally shooting our loved ones like Renee Nicole Good, Alex Preti, and Keith Porter Jr. We must protect our immigrant communities who have built our vibrant, bustling, and diverse Santa Clara County. However, AI -powered Alpers, including Flock Safety, threaten the safety of our immigrant loved ones by sharing our personal data with ICE giving federal immigration authorities an accessible, GPS -like weapon to deport our neighbors. State law prohibits data sharing with federal agencies and out -of -state police departments. But Flock allowed such sharing for years. At least 75 California police agencies
were sharing these records out -of -state as of 2023. In 2025, San Francisco police allowed access to out -of -state agencies and 19 searches were related to ICE. On January 13, 2026, Santa Cruz became the first city in California to
terminate their Flock contracts. Can
I call forward the next people please? Victor Sin,
Marjorie
Tana, Deborah Au, Karen Im, Chris Donovan, Elizabeth Agramit -Gistiano, Lori Katcher.
Go ahead. Good afternoon, Supervisors. Kemi Flynn with IPEN, the Immigrant Protection and Empowerment Network. And as you can see, we are collectively reading the letter that was submitted to you because we wanted you to hear it and the community to hear it. And so we can't read through the whole thing, so I'm going to jump to the conclusion. And that is that these AI cameras are the equivalent of placing a GPS tracker on every resident in our county. In a time when our neighbors are wrongfully criminalized and detained regardless of immigration status, when black and brown community members are pulled over for the way they look, and when the federal government assaults peaceful protesters exercising
their First Amendment right to free speech, we must refuse an AI mass surveillance system that will threaten our human lives and mental well -being. Standing by our values means choosing community trust, privacy, education, and immigrant safety over unconstitutional
hyper -surveillance. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Supervisors. I'm Victor Xin, Chair of the Santa Clara County Chapter of the ACLU of Northern California. Automated License Place Reader is a surveillance technology that makes it less safe for us,
particularly
immigrants, black and brown people, religious minorities, people seeking reproductive health care or gender -affirming care, and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. The vast majority of ALPR data is gathered on law -abiding people going about their everyday business. The Trump Administration is looking for ways to exploit local surveillance systems in order to target immigrants and activists. Some states are plowing through ALPR data to detect people seeking abortion. The only type of secure data is no data. That is, do not gather the data to begin with. We urge you to vote no on this agenda item and end the use of ALPR immediately.
Thank you.
My name is Marjorie Tona. I reside in Saratoga. I'm the third generation in my family to call Saratoga home and the sixth in Santa Clara County. I'm here today as a concerned citizen and to speak for those in my community who do not feel safe coming forward. When I was a child, my grandmother told me about growing up in San Jose during the war. Her friend from school was taken to a Japanese internment camp, and they never saw each other again. And I think about that a lot when I see what's going on in our country today. I see history repeating itself, and I want to know what side of history we'll be on. The
city of Saratoga has more than 120 automated license plate reader cameras for just 31 ,000 residents.
Violating California SB 34 and 35, law enforcement agencies and FLOC have grossly mishandled our personal security. We have been using personal LPR data by sharing it with ICE, racially profiling black and brown communities, stalking religious minorities, targeting people seeking health care, and harassing law abiding individuals exercising their First Amendment
rights.
Hi, my name is Elizabeth, and I live in San Jose and Santa Clara County District 2.
We
urge Santa Clara County to reject the proposed surveillance use policies and permanently stop our county's management and operation with ALPR, systems following the cities of Los Altos Hills and Santa Cruz, who ended their FLOC contracts. We strongly request that you vote no on the proposed policies, because it does not go far enough. And I strongly support the guardrails from the letters submitted and verbally read by numerous community partners,
such
as requiring valid judicial warrants on a court order for all data searches performed by law enforcement agencies. We call on Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors' brave leadership to encourage our cities to end their FLOC in April. We urge the City of Santa Clara County to stop using ALPR contracts. Mass surveillance is not public safety, and we cannot sacrifice our constitutional rights to privacy for the dangerous illusion of security.
Our communities should be able to drive and walk along to our streets without worrying how their information will be used or shared.
Good
afternoon, my name is Debbie Yao, and I reside in District 2 of San Jose, and I am against the FLOC cameras. This is an invasion of privacy. The Sheriff is right, though. We should be following public safety. But public safety is important, especially for those who could be victimized by ICE. I look at the number of times that I have seen that my information has been hacked. This system could be hacked. Any system could be hacked. And any time we collect data, it could be hacked. Thank you.
Karen Matsueta,
District 2, member of SURGE. In the name of public safety, I urge you to reject the proposed surveillance use policies and permanently end the operation of all ALPR systems. I've read the policy language about oversight and protecting data and civil liberties, but I can't ignore the mounting evidence that FLOC and law enforcement agencies, even in the Bay Area, have shared or sold data without warrants and used it to track and punish people simply for exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. These are not abstract risks. ALPRs have already been weaponized into a system of mass surveillance, and we have no reason to believe that the requirements in these policies will be ironclad
enough to stop serious abuses. At a moment of deep fear, federal overreach, and fragile public trust, we cannot sacrifice our basic right to
privacy for
the false promise of law and order. Thank you.
Can I go ahead and call forward a few more people?
Reverend Annalise Diehl, Laurel McClure, Andrew Siegler, Moises,
Yun, Dina, and Catherine Nagel.
Please
go ahead.
Hi, Board of Supervisors. My name is Laurie Katcher. I'm a 23 -year resident of District 2 and a member of Showing Up for Racial Justice. I also urge you to reject the proposed surveillance use policies and permanently stop our county's management and operations with ALPR systems following the cities of Los Altos and Santa Cruz who ended FLOC contracts.
There
is precedence for this. I urge you to vote no on these proposed policies, and I strongly support the letter submitted and read by community members that came up before me. We know that ALPRs create another tool for bad actors to racially profile our black and brown neighbors, and our Fourth Amendment right has been violated. Please do not waste our public dollars on ALPRs.
This
is not the public safety that we are asking for or need.
In
fact, it creates less safety for all of us.
What
makes our communities safe is safe housing, access to fresh food, access to health care, access to education. Thank you.
Good
afternoon. My name is Annalise Diehl.
I
serve as a priest at St. Jude's Episcopal Church in Cupertino, and I speak today as a clergy leader with Silicon Valley Allied for the Common Good. You can see many of our leaders standing with me here. We represent 21 member institutions, including churches, synagogues, and other community organizations across Santa Clara County.
In 2025, our
organization conducted house meetings all across our network, and in those house meetings, we reached more than 700 community members. In these meetings, we heard over and over from our immigrant neighbors and friends deep concerns about their safety in our communities. We also heard concerns about public safety and crime, and we share those concerns,
but
in these first months of 2026, the concerns of our immigrant neighbors have only intensified as a result of ICE actions around the country. We've seen that the federal government cannot be trusted to cooperate with local officials on matters of immigration enforcement.
The
scriptures holy to my tradition remind us again and again, dozens of times,
to
welcome, love, and care for the immigrant and the foreigner,
and
that commandment is not conditional, so please vote.
Thank
you.
Good afternoon.
My
name is Laurel McClure, and I'm more than three decades resident of Mountain View,
so
in North County, and I only recently became aware of this issue of flock cameras. Most recently, I was concerned when the Mountain View Police Department released a letter stating that flock cameras in Mountain View had been accessed by agencies outside our city, outside our state, and used for who knows what, really.
So
my concern really is that given that Mountain View had a policy in place which was supposed to protect our data and did not,
I'm
concerned that the policies that we think we're putting in place, may not be the policies that actually succeed in protecting our data.
I
think if our data are collected, they may be accessed by federal agencies, by people tracking, you know, folks seeking birth control or LGBT
healthcare.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors,
and
thank you for this opportunity.
I'm
a longtime resident of San Jose, and I live in District 4.
As
a Palestinian American, I know too well how mass surveillance and AI are used to control, oppress, and destroy an entire population.
I
oppose contracts with flock and ALPR, and urge each of you to vote no on the proposed surveillance use policies and permanently stop my counties' management and operations with ALPR systems. Let's learn from the destruction caused from Israel's massive 24 -7 surveillance of Palestinians in the name of security.
Let's
not repeat history.
Mass
surveillance is not public safety.
And
we must not sacrifice our constitutional rights to privacy in the name of security.
Protect
our immigrants. Protect our residents. Protect our county.
Vote
no to surveillance.
Thank
you.
Hello. Yoon,
San Jose resident. The Board has the responsibility to apply the precautionary principle before imposing any product on the people.
The
precautionary principle holds that the product has the burden of proving that it's safe and effective. In the U .S., the most prominent application of the principle is in the medical domain.
But
the use of the principle is even more crucial in the case of mass surveillance compared to the medical domain, since in the latter case, people have the recourse of additional protection of free prior informed consent.
With
the use of ALPR, there is no free prior informed consent.
APLR failed the safety and effectiveness test miserably.
Cases
of abuse are legion. APLR is used by both external agencies and the only jurisdiction to track down and intimidate, retaliate against observers and critics.
As
for effectiveness, where there are rigorous independent studies performed, as in the case of Peabody, California, Louisiana State.
Thank
you.
Good
afternoon. My name is Drew Siegler, D2 resident, member of SURGE.
We
urge Santa Clara County to reject the surveillance use policy and permanently stop our county's management and operations with ALPR systems,
not
just a specific vendor, but ALPRs in general.
It's
bad enough that I live in Matt Mahan's dystopian panopticon of San Jose.
It
would be nice if the county didn't follow his lead in doubling down on the terrible idea and instead helps lead the way in dismantling mass surveillance and fascism and protecting the people.
Bottom
line, don't be ALPRs.
Thanks.
Do
I press the screen button?
No, you can just begin to speak.
Hello,
my name is Catherine Nagley.
I'm
a 15 -year resident of District 5, Mountain View.
Hi,
Margaret.
I
ask you to reject automated license plate reader cameras and mass surveillance generally.
We're
watching the fiasco play out in Mountain View,
showing
that safeguards are apparently meaningless, even when very well -intentioned.
My
family has always felt safe here until now.
A
lot of my family members are immigrants. A lot are people of color.
Some
are queer and trans, and some are politically active. All of that suddenly makes us people of interest to the federal government,
and
ALPR surveillance makes us feel less safe.
Thank
you.
Final call for in -person speakers Moises and Chris Donovan.
All
right. Let's move forward to our Zoom speakers.
We'll
start with Allegra. Allegra, we ask you to unmute.
Go
ahead.
Okay. My name is Allegra Watson.
I
have lived in San Jose District 1 my whole life, and I'm a member of SURGE, showing up for racial justice in Santa Clara County.
I'm
commenting today to urge the Santa Clara County to reject the proposed surveillance use policies and permanently stop our county's management and operations with ALPR systems,
including
FLOC. The cities of Los Altos Hills and Santa Cruz have already committed to end their FLOC contracts,
and
local agencies and FLOC have proven that they've grossly mishandled our personal automatic license plate reader data by sharing data with ICE. Racially profiling black and brown communities, stalking religious minorities, targeting people seeking reproductive and gender -affirming care, and harassing individuals exercising their First Amendment rights to protest,
FLOC
itself is very vulnerable to hackers, and in our ever -increasingly fascist administration in the federal government, it's of utmost importance.
Thank
you.
Our
next speaker.
Sorry, I hit the screen. Jacqueline, we've asked you to unmute.
Hi,
I'm Jacqueline from District 3 in San Jose.
I
urge the Santa Clara County to reject the proposed surveillance use policies and permanently stop our county's management and operation with ALPR systems. We have no reason to believe that policies, such as ICE, will be enough to prevent harm to the community. In a landscape where Palantir is actively building a database of immigrants and activists, ICE officers are instructed to search houses without a warrant,
and
people are being unlawfully detained or killed, it is gravely irresponsible to continue subscribing to ALPR surveillance. And if you didn't know, each camera costs $2 ,500 a year to operate. There are 474 cameras in San Jose alone, and the total would be $1 ,325 ,000.
The vast
majority of data is collected on innocent people going about their days,
and
it would have a chilling effect on immigrants, activists, the LGBTQ community,
religious
minorities, and any marginalized group the government deems the enemy. Continuing the use of ALPR would increase opportunities for state violence.
Thank
you. Our next speaker is Brandon.
Hey there. My name is Brandon, and I live in Mountain View. I lived in Santa Clara County for a quarter century, and that entire time, I've spent it working in information security, protecting the tools and data so many of you use on a daily basis. Given my background, I'd like to exhort Santa Clara County to reject the surveillance use policies and permanently stop any ALPR systems. To explain why, I'd like to offer a little bit of an analogy. Some technology is like gunpowder. A little bit of it can be entertaining. A lot of it can be dangerous. And that's because at some point, if you store too much gunpowder in one place, there is no
way to make it safe enough that when the inevitable detonation occurs, people aren't going to be hurt.
This
surveillance technology is gunpowder tech. The more data we store on users and they're coming and going, the more the harms when the inevitable failure occurs.
And
you can just listen to the other speakers to hear how inevitable those failures are actually going to be. Thank you for your time. Please say no on this.
Thank you.
Our
next speaker is Brandon King.
Hi, I'm Brandon, a resident of Mountain View. I urge Santa Clara County to reject the proposed surveillance use policies and permanently stop our county's management and operations with all ALPR systems following the cities of Los Altos Hills and Santa Cruz who ended their flock contracts. I strongly request that you vote no on the proposed policies because it does not go far enough. Requirements such as valid judicial warrants and court orders for all data searches performed by
all law enforcement agencies is better than the current system, but the problem is that the data exists in the first place. I call on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to encourage our
cities to end their flock and all
ALPR contracts. ALPR systems have shown themselves to have systemic
flaws ranging from technical mishaps resulting in things like guns out traffic stops for misidentified persons, spying on peaceful protesters, and many more. Mass
warrantless
location tracking surveillance of every person is not public safety and we cannot sacrifice our constitutional rights to privacy with a
dangerous illusion of security.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Jordan Moldau.
Hi, my name is
Jordan Moldau. I'm a resident of County District 2. I live in Japantown, San Jose. I would like the County Board of Supervisors to reject the contract with flock and I'd like to uplift the comments of all the public speakers before me. The misuse that the federal government has been demonstrating is important to note, but it's also important to note that flock has been misused by other agencies and has been bad mass surveillance well before the current administration came into power and will remain a problem even after this administration leaves. So it's important to keep in mind that we should get rid of this technology because it can be misused by all levels of government and
even, as people have stated,
even
people who aren't in government. So please reject the proposal for continuing the contract and
get rid of flock in Santa Clara County. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kim Guptill.
Kim, we've asked you to unmute.
Yes, good afternoon. My name is Kim Guptill. I live in D6. I'm a member of SURGE and a rapid responder. This is simple. We must refuse to contract with any companies that sell us or try to sell us ALPRs. As the REAL Coalition clearly put this, allowing ALPRs is a moral failure. It is your responsibility to preserve our privacy, safety, and First Amendment rights, especially for our immigrant, black, and Latino siblings. Mass surveillance is not public safety. You know this. Please do the right thing.
Thank
you. Our next speaker is Hansel. Good
afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Hansel Aguilar. I'm a resident of District 4. I have served as a civilian oversight and law enforcement practitioner for over a decade, separately as a former law enforcement officer, and I am a public sociologist. I want to commend the county and the Sheriff's Office for taking public safety seriously. But I urge us to be wary of any narrow definition of public safety that focuses only on enforcement efficiency while overlooking how surveillance tools can harm our most vulnerable communities. On today's item... Excuse
me, Kim.
On today's item, I ask you to proceed only with strong enforceable guardrails, strict purpose limitations, short data retention, public reporting, independent audits, tight access controls, and clear limits on data sharing. As you heard through the testimonies, we're not there yet, so I urge you to vote no on this item. And as a personal note, as a Central American migrant, I'm especially concerned about the chilling effects these systems can have on immigrant communities. Public safety must include freedom from being tracked. I
know. The next speaker is Jordan Abrams.
Good
afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Jordan Abrams Whitehead. I'm a resident of Santa Clara District 1. I ask you to reject these proposed policies and instead fully prohibit the use of vlog cameras or any other AR offender systems. What we can see in other deployments of vlog cameras, these massive AR cameras, is that they can and are used to spy on law -abiding residents and to aid immigration enforcement. We should value the right to privacy of the people of Saratoga, Cupertino, and Los Altos. We should under no circumstances be aiding ICE or CBP agents through these failed systems. There is no safe way to implement ALPR systems that respects our data. We cannot trust these vendors
with our data. We should not let them violate their Fourth Amendment rights, our family's rights, our children's rights, or some naive pretense of safety. Thank you.
Our
next speaker is Josh Williams. My
name is Josh Williams. I'm a resident of Saratoga. I want to urge you to reject the proposed SUP and permanently stop our county's management operation with ALPR systems. And I strongly support the critical guardrails from the letter submitted and verbally read by numerous community partners. I'm particularly concerned with proliferation and sheer number of cameras. This has had potential harms, such as fear of mass surveillance and harm to religious communities. In the city of Saratoga, there are 120 currently known cameras of our 31 ,000 residents, which is one camera per every 280 residents. You cannot get to a school, church, playground, or place of worship without being tracked by one of these cameras today. Every day
when I go to or from work or take my son to school, I am being tracked by four to eight cameras at a minimum. This is not making our community safer, and I urge you to vote no.
Our
next speaker is Sam Gee.
Hi,
board members. I'm a member of downtown San Jose and urge you to vote no on this proposed policy. I and many others are concerned over the attacks in our country against our immigrant community, the reality is that federal agencies have been an unrestricted violent force that local police agencies have failed time and again to regulate. There are not enough safeguards you can propose that will ensure our data will not be weaponized against our most vulnerable communities. The installation of these surveillance cameras makes this inevitable and signals to the community that our local police are the first to misuse the technology. The mass surveillance breaks trust with the community. You will not be able to claim
ignorance to this harm or even negligence. We have the foresight given to us from the harm this technology has caused in the past to avoid this altogether. Choosing to continue with this surveillance can only be interpreted as an attack on our community.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Merlin Ling.
Hello, I am Merlin, and I live in County District 3. I'm here to urge you to reject the proposed surveillance use policy agreement and permanently stop operations and management of any ALPR systems. I echo the concerns of many community speakers from whom you have already heard. I ask you to not vote for technology that will be used to violate our Fourth Amendment rights. Thank you.
Our
next speaker is Catherine Hedges.
Good afternoon, Board Supervisors. I'm Catherine Hedges. I've served Santa Clara and served
Santa
Cruz. I visit Santa Clara County regularly. And I've joined the rest of the speakers in requesting a permanent ban on all ALPR systems. I don't trust Fluck or any other ALPR company not to be sharing data with the Department of Homeland Security to kidnap our immigrant neighbors, retaliate against peaceful protesters and other people exercising their rights. These ALPR systems watch everyone, guilty or not, and DHS has found ways to get the data. They're not going to stop just because the county writes a new agreement. First it came from the immigrants, and then black and brown people looked like they could be immigrants. Women seeking reproductive care, the activists, the queer community, the disability community, and
everyone who isn't just like them. Before you know it, we'll be one of those cyberpunk dystopias for big brothers always watching us. Don't trade temporary security.
And this concludes our public speakers on this item.
Thank you. I'm going to look to my colleagues
at Sorority Young. Thank you. First I want to start by thanking our members of community, our advocates for being here today, and for the extensive communications and advocacy that has been sent to, I'm sure, not just my office. I also want to thank Sheriff Johnson and his team for being here today. There's been no shortage of conversations between our offices either. I also want to give a shout out to our Chief Privacy Officer, Chris Powell.
I'm
glad you're here today.
We
have some questions for you, or maybe directions for you in a bit here. I pulled this item off of the last board meeting agenda for its continued discussion today.
And
to provide some context, today's vote is not to approve a contract with FLOC.
Today's vote is not to approve any expenditure of county funds. It's to approve a contract with FLOC. Today's vote, today's decision, is to whether or not we approve the tailored surveillance use policy specific to the cities that contract with the county for public safety services. For these cities, we are their police force through the Sheriff's Office. And so with some time under my belt here at the county, I'm just going to walk through memory lane for a bit here. All the years of sitting in the audience, listening to Joe Sumidian speak of privacy rights, data breaches, and this board's historical stance against surveillance use technology,
the
residents of the cities that contract with us, the city councils of the cities that contract with us for public safety services, asked for cameras.
They
demanded cameras.
They
advocated for cameras.
They
carved out pieces of their budget for the cameras. Our response, led by former Supervisor Sumidian's response, was the
strongest surveillance use policy in the nation.
It
is a nationally recognized model. I heard that we have someone from the ACLU here today.
The
national ACLU actually gave an award and recognized our surveillance use policy for its stringent standards and protecting privacy data, personal rights,
and to prevent against, and to condemn any type of data breaches against our will and also any type of misuse of data against its own people, which is an ongoing battle today in the ever -changing landscape of technology, and also with a hostile federal administration that has demonstrated time and time again that they'll use every tool they have to attack our most vulnerable communities. So today, we have an opportunity to talk about privacy, and we have the opportunity to limit a bad actor, a bad vendor,
a
vendor that has provided constructive notice across the country that they don't have a history of being trusted, and they don't have a history of complying with policies that they sign onto.
I
stand by our policy.
I
stand by our sheriff's office. You have been our partner in crafting the strongest immigration
policies at the local level, at the county level. This is a county that has a history of leaning into these hard conversations.
Speaking
of national models, our rapid response network is a national model with many members here today.
At
beginning, I just want... I can't help but see, and this actually amounts to constructive notice, that beginning in May of 2025, multiple media outlets reported that data from license plate reading cameras manufactured and owned by Flock Group has been used by federal agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection with search terms that include illegal immigrants,
illegal
immigration immigrants.
This
is not just local authorities and jurisdictions that are hostile to immigrants searching on behalf of federal agencies like ICE and CBP. In August of 2025, Flock admitted that it had provided ICE and CBP with direct access to their data.
Even
worse, Flock's nationwide and statewide lookup tools allowed agents to search data beyond their own networks.
Police
in states such as Texas and Alabama could potentially be able to look up Cupertino and Saratoga's red light camera data without cities knowing. Additionally, in Texas, the system was used to track a woman seeking reproductive health services, something that Flock is now under federal investigation for.
And
we
all remember
the media attention in January that revealed Flock data from Mountain View and Capitola was searched by out -of -area and out -of -state agencies.
We
could be exposing ourselves to litigation.
Public
agencies that use Flock technology have already been sued in both California and federal courts.
These
lawsuits include a federal lawsuit against the city of San Jose and the San Jose Police Department by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundations.
And
these are just a few examples.
There
are many more. Flock's corporate conduct and culture are incompatible with multiple policies that we have as a board
that
we as a board have unanimously approved in recent years.
More
importantly, they are incompatible with our core values, our immigration policies, our public policies, our public safety,
our
advocacy and protection of women's reproductive health rights.
Again,
this policy and national model,
and
Sheriff, I want to acknowledge that you have been a partner to me and to our administration, to our county,
to
advance these safeguards for immigrant communities and for vulnerable communities, especially during this time of federal unrest and this landscape of fear.
This
is not an indictment of our Sheriff's Office.
This
is not an indictment of our surveillance use policy.
What
we have here is constructive notice of a bad vendor that all signs are telling us don't get in bed with,
don't
get in cooperation with, because they have not demonstrated that they can be trusted.
At the last board meeting,
I
did ask our staff to conduct some research into the extent of a flock's loss of contracts and termination.
I
really didn't know the answer to that.
I
knew that Mountain View had canceled.
I
knew that Los Altos Hills had canceled.
And
through a search, a cursory search of Google and news and media outlets, not only did the town of Los Altos Hills cancel their contract with Flock,
so
did the city of Mountain View, so did the city of Santa Cruz,
so
did the city of Flagstaff, Arizona, the city of Sedona, Arizona,
the
city of Austin, Texas, the city of San Marcos, the county of Hays,
the
city of Richmond, Alameda County, city of Longmont, city of Cambridge,
city
of Syracuse, city of Eugene, Oregon, city of Staunton, Virginia,
city
of Evanston, Washington, city of Lincoln, Oregon, city of Springfield, county of Lane, city of Richmond,
and,
um, THESE JURISDICTIONS I 'VE LISTED HAVE ALL EITHER TERMINATED, CANCELLED,
OR
PAUSED THEIR CONTRACTS WITH FLOX SPECIFICALLY OVER DATA PRIVACY, DATA BREACH CONCERNS. SO I CAN NOT SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION AS IT IS PRESENTED TODAY AND WILL OFFER MY ATTEMPT AT AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION.
I'M GOING TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING MOTION WHICH INCLUDES FOUR PARTS. FIRST, I MOVE TO ADOPT THE CONSOLIDATED SERVANCE USE POLICY FOR ALPRS FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA, CITY OF CARPATINO,
AND
THE TOWN OF LAS ALTAS HILLS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ONE,
THE FLOX IS NOT USED AS A VENDOR OR CONTRACTOR FOR THE ALPR TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS THE SHERIFF OPERATES ON BEHALF OF THESE CITIES.
TWO,
IF ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF ALPR DATA IS MADE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE MUST MEETLY REPORT THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE TO THE BOARD AND THE ALPR SERVANCE USE POLICY MUST BE AGENDIZED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING FOLLOWING DISCOVERY OF THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE. THREE, THAT OAKLAND CARRIES OUT AUDITS AND REPORT TO THE BOARD EVERY FOUR MONTHS ON THE SHERIFF'S AND THE CITY'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVANCE USE POLICY. OAKLAND WILL BE A NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY THAT IS ABLE TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVANCE USE POLICY. AND JUST FOR CLARITY, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS CONSOLIDATED POLICY WITH THESE
CONDITIONS ATTACH WOULD SUPERSEDE ANY INDIVIDUAL POLICY RELATED TO ALPR TECHNOLOGY FOR THESE CITIES CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. SECOND, I MOVE TO ADOPT THE FINDING THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE ALPR TECHNOLOGY WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID OUT IN THE SERVANCE USE POLICY AND THESE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS LAID OUT IN MY MOTION OUTWEIGHS THE COST PURSUANT TO SECTION A -4 -0 -1.
THIRD, I MOVE TO DIRECT ADMINISTRATION AND COUNTY COUNCIL TO REVIEW WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD APPROVED SURVEILLANCE USE POLICIES REQUIRE ANY AMENDMENTS TO ANY RELEVANT CONTRACTS REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES OR OPERATION OF ALPR SYSTEMS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND EACH OF THE THREE CITIES, AND IF SO, TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO NEGOTIATE AN EXECUTIVE AND EXECUTE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTRACTS WITH EACH CITY AS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF OUR SURVEILLANCE USE POLICY. AND LASTLY, DIRECT OUR PRIVACY OFFICE TO REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE STATEMENT PROVIDED TODAY. I HAVE A COPY OF THAT STATEMENT THAT I WILL HAND TO THE CLERK TO HAND TO OUR CHIEF PRIVACY OFFICER SHOULD THIS
MOTION BE APPROVED, AND TO PROVIDE A REPORT BACK WITH YOUR ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER... WHETHER THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS OF OUR USE POLICY IS ALREADY IN PLACE, WHETHER IT WOULD BE FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT, AND WHETHER THAT WILL ACTUALLY RAISE THE STANDARD OF CARE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO HEIGHTEN EVERY DAY WITH OUR SURVEILLANCE USE POLICY. THAT IS ME FOR NOW. I'M
HAPPY TO SECOND THE MOTION.
I'M NOT SURE. I THINK SUPERVISOR HILLENBURG, YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN NEXT.
I MAY HAVE BEEN, BUT DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK FIRST? JUST THE SECONDER, AND THEN I
'LL...
THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR YOUNG, FOR YOUR MOTION. I'M VERY HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT, AND I, TOO, WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR BRINGING THIS BACK, OUR COMMUNITY. I SEE QUITE A FEW OF MY NEIGHBORS HERE, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMUNITY INPUT ON THIS ISSUE. SO I APPRECIATE SUPERVISOR YOUNG FOR CLARIFYING WHAT THE MOTION OR THE AGENDA ITEM IS TODAY. I THINK IT... IT'S UNDERSTANDABLY BEEN INTERTWINED WITH THE BUSINESS, THE COMPANY AT HAND THAT HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR, FRANKLY, VIOLATIONS OF WHAT THESE POLICIES AT THE CITY LEVEL PRESCRIBE. AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH AS A MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. I VOTED IN
2024 TO HAVE OUR CITY IMPLEMENT ALPRs. AT THAT TIME, WE WERE THE LAST OF TWO CITIES IN THE COUNTY THAT HADN'T HAD THE SYSTEM. AND AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT DOING REVIEW, DOING EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY OUTREACH, INCLUDING AT THAT TIME WE HAD A PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD THAT DELIBERATED ON THIS. THE BENEFITS SEEM TO BE MANY, AND HAVE SHOWN TO BE SO. AND I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS EVENING, THE MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL WILL BE DELIBERATING ON THE ENDING THEIR CONTRACT WITH FLOCK. AND THERE'S AN EXTENSIVE STAFF REPORT THAT I WENT THROUGH, AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF THE ALPRs, ESPECIALLY USED WITH THE REST OF THE STAFF. AS THE OTHER
CITIES IN COLLABORATION, WE 'VE BEEN ABLE TO SOLVE MANY CRIMES, MISSING PERSONS EVEN, DO WELFARE CHECKS, SO DEFINITELY THERE ARE BENEFITS TO THE ALPR SYSTEM. BUT EVEN THOUGH I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD A VERY STRONG POLICY AT THE CITY LEVEL, THE COMPANY VIOLATED THOSE POLICIES. AND I APPRECIATE THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT CAME FORWARD VERY QUICKLY UPON THEM DISCOVERING WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN TERMS OF SEARCHES BEING DONE NATIONWIDE. AND SO I THINK THAT A POLICY IS DEFINITELY IN NEED, BUT I WILL SAY THAT, AND AGAIN, I 'LL REFERENCE THE STAFF REPORT FROM THE MOUNTAIN VIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT.
BUT
THERE ARE LESSONS LEARNED THAT ARE SHARED IN THERE AS WELL AS BEST PRACTICES, AND MY ASK WAS GOING TO BE TO THE SHERIFF, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO MEET, AND I KNOW THAT THE POLICE CHIEFS MEET REGIONALLY, BUT I REALLY FEEL THAT THIS IS BEST, A SYSTEM BEST IMPLEMENTED AND USED WHEN IT'S DONE REGIONALLY WITH ALL OF THE CITIES IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COUNTY. AND SO, WOULD YOU, SHERIFF, BE ABLE TO MEET WITH THE OTHER POLICE CHIEFS AND COLLECTIVELY STUDY BEST PRACTICES SURROUNDING THIS TECHNOLOGY, AND AGAIN, MOUNTAIN VIEW SEEMS TO HAVE STARTED THAT, AND THEN COME BACK TO US AT A LATER DATE WITH YOUR FINDINGS FROM THESE?
THAT'S NOT
A PROBLEM. WE ACTUALLY, THIS WAS A CONVERSATION WE HAD AT OUR RECENT COUNTY CHIEFS MEETING. SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO BE FOREIGN FOR ANY OF THEM. TO HAVE AN ANALYSIS, HAVE A CONVERSATION, AND COME BACK TO YOU, AGAIN, I THINK THIS WAS SOMETHING I HAD ASKED OF COUNTY COUNCIL AND THIS BOARD IN THE LAST MEETING IS TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE POLICIES, BECAUSE TO SUPERVISOR YOUNG'S POINT, OUR POLICY IS THE MODEL OF THE COUNTRY. AND HERE WE ARE LOOKING TO TRY TO FIND BETTER PRACTICES, WHICH I'M NOT OPPOSED TO, BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS IMPROVE UPON. BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE POLICIES, WE CAN ALWAYS IMPROVE UPON. SO WE CAN
DEFINITELY COME BACK, LOOK AT THE POLICIES, BUT I WOULD BE VERY CURIOUS HOW THAT WENT IN LOOKING AT ALL THOSE POLICIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AND THE STATE. YOU KNOW, JUST TO PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE, SEVERAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS SPOKE OF THE 75 INCIDENTS THAT INFORMATION WAS RELEASED. THERE'S 18 ,000, OVER 18 ,000 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE COUNTRY, 18 ,000. SO TO HAVE 75 INCIDENTS.
DO THE MATH. IT'S NOT THAT BIG. ONE INCIDENT IS TOO MANY. I WILL AGREE WITH THAT 100%. BUT I WOULD ALSO CHALLENGE ANY MEMBER IN THIS CHAMBER TO COME FORWARD AND SAY THAT WE, THE SANTA CLARA SHERIFF'S OFFICE, HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE OF THOSE, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T. SO AGAIN, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE CAN COME BACK. WE WILL LOOK AT IT. WE WILL HAVE THE CONVERSATION. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE VENDOR. IT IS ABOUT THE POLICY. AND I FEEL VERY STRONG. WITH THE POLICY WE HAVE IN PLACE.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE SAYING THAT THE COUNTY, THAT YOUR OFFICE HAS DONE ANYTHING. I GUESS FOR ME, I'M LOOKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE. WE 'VE HAD, OTHER CITIES HAVE HAD POLICIES. WE HAVE OUR POLICY. BUT FRANKLY, LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, MOUNTAIN VIEW'S SITUATION, THEY HAVE LESSONS LEARNED. SO MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE, I'M THINKING, AND LOOKING AT WHAT THEY 'VE INCLUDED IS THINGS LIKE REGULAR AUDITS, EARLY AUDITS, EARLY REGULATIONS. YOU KNOW, HAVING A SYSTEM, LIKE SOMEONE DESIGNATED FOR THE SYSTEM. YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT DESIGN REVIEW EARLY ON. THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY MORE IMPLEMENTATION RELATED. BUT I THINK THERE'S, AND IT ACTUALLY DOES TALK ABOUT COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES. SO MY
THOUGHT IS IN READING THIS, THERE COULD BE ADDITIONS TO OUR POLICY TO STRENGTHEN IT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS POLICY TO MAKE IT AS FOOLPROOF AS POSSIBLE. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T MAKE IT, NOTHING'S PERFECT. BUT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO TRY, ESPECIALLY ON THIS ISSUE, GIVEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE HIGH INTEREST LEVEL AND CONCERNS THAT WE 'VE HEARD. SO THAT WAS MY REQUEST. SO I APPRECIATE, I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO ADD THAT IN A MOTION. I CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, ASK THAT THE SHERIFF COORDINATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES. POLICE CHIEFS ON THIS AND COME BACK TO US WITH A REPORT OF BEST
PRACTICES.
YOU CAN EITHER MAKE IT PART OF THE MOTION TO FORMALIZE IT OR YOU CAN JUST SORT OF STATE IT AS A REQUEST. EITHER ONE
IS FINE. AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, I WOULD LIKE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE MOTION AS WELL. OKAY. GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
GO AHEAD, SUPERVISOR ELLENBERG.
THANK YOU.
YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM ME. I AM REALLY EXISTENTIALLY TROUBLED BY THE EXPANSION OF THE SURVEILLANCE STATE AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE EROSION OF DEMOCRACY, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND OTHER PROTECTIONS THAT ACTUALLY CREATE SAFE COMMUNITIES. TO THE SPEAKER THAT NOTED THE FACTORS THAT ACTUALLY KEEP US SAFE, ALLEVIATING POVERTY AND ENSURING STABLE HOUSING, SUFFICIENT NUTRITION, ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION, CLEAN AND WELL -LIT STREETS. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT, OF COURSE CREATE MORE SAFETY THAN SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, EVEN WHEN USED UNDER THE STRICTEST USE POLICIES. THE ACLU, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION AND OTHERS RAISE CONCERNS WITH THE MASSIVE COLLECTION OF DATA BY ALPR'S WHETHER CLAIMS OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY ACTUALLY JUSTIFY THE
COMPROMISE IN OUR RIGHTS. And while ALPRs may theoretically have some redeeming value when investigating vandalism or covering stolen vehicles or finding missing persons, we've also seen this technology used, as Supervisor Young noted, to track women seeking abortions, monitor individuals who participate in protests, and track individuals who are believed to be undocumented. Even aside from those abhorrent FLOC examples, ALPRs from other companies have been the subject of numerous lawsuits as a result of misidentification of vehicles as stolen. Innocent people have been held at gunpoint because the technology captured the wrong vehicle color or a license plate number was off by one digit. FLOC is particularly problematic. But I differ from my colleagues. I don't believe they
are an outlying bad actor. And alternatives are not necessarily any safer. And we don't know what tomorrow's news story will bring about Axon or any other provider.
I
do support and believe in our surveillance policies. And our excellent policies only impact how we use the technology. And Sheriff Johnson, I have tremendous respect for. Your office, even under our model policy, there have been a couple of, well, at least one incident of sharing outside data with an LEA outside of our county. I know that was noted in the last SUP audit. But to me, honestly, the issue isn't how your office is using the data, but whether it's necessary to have that data at all. I know that our contracts are not with MEA providers. And I know that the sheriff contracts with cities for law enforcement work, and that some of those cities have
chosen to install An APRs. I also know that it is well within the rights of the Board to prohibit the use of this specific tool without interfering in the sheriff's investigative work. I'm certain that we will continue to see advances in technology. That further. erode privacy and expand surveillance of every individual in a community. We're going to see that more and more and it will always be done in the name of public safety. Where do we draw the line?
How much surveillance will we tolerate? Regardless of the vendor, ALPRs are an excessive invasion of privacy and civil liberties. I'm confident our Sheriff's Office can rely on myriad other tools at their service to continue to investigate allegations of crime and bring perpetrators to justice.
Respectfully, to the wonderful women with whom I work, I cannot support the motion that reflects an underlying acceptance of radically expanded surveillance technologies, the use of which does not clearly outweigh the dramatic and incursions to our privacy and civil liberties. So I will be voting now.
Thank
you. President Lee.
I
actually would like to hear your comment, Vice President, first. Well,
it is the privilege of the President, I suppose.
But I am the chair today.
Listen, I'm okay sharing what I think about what we have to do. I'm in front of us today. I am the Vice President. And so I will go next. I'm just really reflecting on what has already been shared, not only by my colleagues, but really from the hour worth of comments from all of you.
And in the spirit of trying to protect people who might be more vulnerable to
being misidentified, right? And so typically it's not people that may look like some of you who are in the chambers. It's mostly people that look like me or darker versions of me. And so I'm very cognizant of that, what we're stepping into.
But as a policymaker, I think about what is, when there's a policymaker, there's a policy in front of us, especially one that's very controversial.
Not because we don't think and share, but not because we think, I'll say this to you directly, I don't think that you are going to misuse this technology or that you are, that we don't believe or that I don't believe. You've demonstrated over, we both started at the same time, and you've demonstrated a level of dignity and respect and cooperation with the county, with all of us, that I have a definite respect for you and your office. And so it isn't, it isn't reflected on you and your person. This is more of an issue that I see as a policymaker. And so when I think about what is it that we're trying to solve for,
that's the basic question as a policymaker. When we're going to change a law, you think about what's the problem we're trying to solve. Is it a problem that we've created and that now we have to fix? Is it something that inadvertently is happening? Is it because there's a practice that is different than what the policy is and now we have to correct the behavior of what is a practice and not what people are actually supposed to be doing, right? And for me, I'm trying to figure that piece out. And so I'll ask you questions along those lines. And what I'm hoping to garner is what kind of crimes do you think that we will be
able to solve for or to, is there a significant number of unresolved crimes or investigations that you think would really be helpful for these particular cities that you've noticed that they would really benefit from this? Well, I think that's a great question. And I will say that I think the greatest benefit for public safety is to prevent violent crime. I mean, there are a lot of things that happen out there that, yes, FLOC is probably being utilized for on a lower level crime. But for me, the primary reason that I find value in it is to prevent or apprehend individuals that have committed violent crime, serious crimes. And I think that's where my concern, and
I apologize because I know I come across frustrated or hurt at times, but that's not my intention. I'm just very passionate about keeping this community safe. And I think we are safe. And I think there is a place for technology to do that. And FLOC, whether that's a vendor or not, or Axon, some of the other companies that have been mentioned, I don't know who is going to have the perfect tool. But if there is such a tool that we're allowed to use and have the ability to use to prevent violent crime or, again, to apprehend individuals who commit, serious crime in a timely fashion, that is a benefit to this community. And again, so
that's what I would say to your question, is serious crime would be my number one objective in reducing for every resident of this county. Thank you. And I'll say that I have a huge respect for those who serve in law enforcement. I'll tell the audience here that the sister who's served all her life in law enforcement in one of the most challenging cities of Oakland. And I know that it is a passion and determination, dedication to serve your community this way. And we all are serving in a very different capacity. So I appreciate your role and what you're doing to ensure that we are being kept safe.
And I appreciate your answer. The question that I have that still lingers is that I think it's Saratoga that actually taxed themselves in order to be able to fund this and to implement it. And I think when people tax themselves, they're either very well informed and they're trying to fight back, something that is in their community. And this is not to you, Sheriff, because obviously you didn't have this tax. You didn't engage in it. You didn't promote it. You didn't help approve it. The city of Saratoga did this on their own. And when I consider countywide some of the areas that have the highest crime rates, I look to, unfortunately, I look to Supervisor Young's
district because you have downtown, you have the east side of Oakland, you have San Jose. And then I'll look to my district as well,
specifically in the southern part of my district. Those are the areas, and if my recollection is correct, and probably James here can help me with this memory, but the cost of gun violence, the zip codes that were, I think there were five really high zip codes. Three of them, I believe, were in Supervisor Young's district. One of them was in my district, and I can't remember the last one, but you seem to remember everything, James. That's why I was like, this is my lifeline right here.
I don't remember Saratoga being one of them, or I don't remember Cupertino being one of them. I don't remember Mountain View, maybe Mountain View. I don't remember any of those cities being some of those most impacted. And, of course, there's been other ways that we collect information in terms of impact. I just don't see those cities being, I haven't heard anything, but I don't know if, James, did you want to add something or correct me? No, no correction. Good.
I don't remember all of the specific zip codes, but you're correct. That one was in Gilroy for sure, and three were in District 2.
See, validating right there. So my point is that I don't know what the city of Saratoga is trying to do. I don't know what the city of Saratoga is trying to accomplish. You're not responsible for that. I understand that. The city of Saratoga runs its own agenda, and however they want to accomplish whatever it is they feel that their community has as pressing issues. And they found that this is a tool that they want to invest in. And for the majority of those residents, they said, yes, you know what? We'll forego some of our privacy in order to implement
this technology. And I think that's great for them, right? But it doesn't mean that everybody else should be involved and that everybody else is also accepting that, giving up of their privacy because one particular city or three particular cities or how many ever particular cities want to implement this. And so I have a difficult time marrying
those two ideas, right? Because there is areas where I might go into Saratoga and then, you know, be recorded or some of the license readers will look at my car and my license plate and consider me, even though I have been accepted, to waive my privacy rights. But I'll go back to, and privacy is one issue. Okay.
Supervisor, I did find the fifth zip code is 95117 in District
4. 95117?
In District 4,
yeah. In District 4. Oh, okay. Aw, all of us. All of us except for the district that's asking for these. And I'm sorry that I pointed this out. But my point is just that when we leave it to residents to determine what it is, the tool that they're going to use, I don't know that they'll use best practices. I don't know that they'll use a model. I don't know what it is that they're trying to fix. And I'm unclear about that because I'm unclear about what the problem is for Saratoga so much that it's that they're willing to tax themselves to implement this. And because this is such a controversial policy, I'm unclear about whether
we should move forward with this or not. The way the motion is right now is not strong enough for me to be able to support it. I would first venture to ask for some additional measures that could create, for me at least, some accountability from a provider. So whoever that agency is, we've determined FLOC is absolutely not it. I read all of the signs that are out in the audience. And obviously, the reputation of the company precedes them. And so what I would like to know, and this is for Tony, can we, and I know that you've answered this question, but I want to pose it anyway so that our audience can hear the conversations
that we've had and some of the information that you provided us. What I want to know is can we condition the quality of the technology contract and the provider to ensure that they haven't released any information to DHS and, one, if they could create firewalls from sharing with DHS, so in other words, that they are unable to share. If technology is that advanced, that they can, you know, I don't know how easy it was for them to toggle a button and then all of a sudden they have to wait for something to be shared. Not everybody who works for a department believes in a certain way and they might unintentionally or intentionally toggle a button
to release information. Is that something that we're able to do? So, Supervisor, the contracts that you're referring to are between the cities and FLOC, and so we don't have the authority to condition the contracts themselves. The board doesn't, but the board does have authority to condition the surveillance use policy and the sheriff's office's operation of that technology on the contracts, including assurances that that information won't be shared with the Department of Homeland Security, and there are assurances to that extent in state law, but certainly they can be, you know, added to the contract as well or obtained from the cities that the sheriff's office is working with. Great. Okay, so on the floor there isn't,
I don't think the surveillance use policy is the item that we are reviewing or that we're making changes to because at this point I hear from the motion it's no FLOC as vendor. Sheriff must report any unauthorized use. And then agendize the policy to the board. Oakland carries out the audits and reports back to the board. And then creating findings or having findings outweigh the negatives. Delegate authority to negotiate amendments with the city so that they can comply. Having a privacy officer review a report on whether the requested amendments are feasible to implement. Will raise the standard of care for surveillance use policy. Those are, that's what's on the floor, on the motion, right? Also
there was an amendment from the second maker of the motion to have the Sheriff Johnson convene with our local law enforcement agencies. Coordinate with the other police chiefs. To reveal the usage policies. And so the, I also want to clarify too, if I can add a little bit. Some more information. So the direction, the third clause. The fourth clause of this, of this five part motion now. Was direction to our chief privacy office to conduct an analysis on the requested, the proposed amendments made, heard in public record today. So I have it on the document that I'd like to read into the record so that we have a fulsome motion. So to review the feasibility
of these following standards. Require valid judicial warrants for all data searches from all law enforcement agencies. Refuse to participate in direct sharing with immigration authorities and indirect sharing of data. Infusion centers. Absent a valid judicial warrant or court order. Establish time limit of ten calendar days to data storage and retention. Prohibit all ALPR systems from integrating facial recognition or biometric analysis software. Prohibit generative artificial intelligence or facial recognition. Software technology in the ALPR systems. Undergo a detailed review of contracts for data ownership and storage. Implement stronger local controls on data access and sharing. Mandate independent audibility protocols. Confirm contract and policy safeguards. Will ensure system transparencies. Protect civil liberties and reduce cyber security risks. Refuse
to participate in direct sharing with immigration authorities.
Sorry, this is a. And then there's overlap here. And produce advance notice to workers who will be impacted by technology before an RFP comes out. So not that I vetted these requests, but these have been proposed by the audience and members of the public and our advocates. So that's part of the motion for the chief privacy officer to review and provide analysis for us as to the feasibility of these conditions. Pass this down
the way here. Okay, that wasn't clear. Maybe a memo would have. And
I just do want to clarify there's some of those recommendations are things that certainly could be incorporated into the surveillance use policy. But other elements of those are really recommendations that could only be addressed in the actual contract with the vendor. And to be clear, as I know the board knows, but just to remind the public, the county currently has no contract with any license plate vendor. And so that. You know, we certainly can have our privacy office look into each of those elements. But I just want to distinguish between those different categories of things because what you'll likely hear back there are those series of things that can be addressed in the policy versus
those series of things that are appropriately addressed in any contract. And the contract ones would be certainly things that could be addressed in the event that the county did a contract. Okay. But would not be ones that we could address in the context of the contracts that these three cities hold with whichever vendor.
It sounds like to me there's an opportunity for us to do some analysis before we actually really take some steps towards anything significant. And for me, it would be. And I understand. We can't impact the contract. And I'd like for us to delineate what those two categories are. The surveillance use policy does allow us to condition, to create some conditions. Correct, Tony? And some of those conditions I would like to see is that they don't, that vendors that are going to be under this policy or they're going to be under this policy. I don't have a history, just like how you, some of the things that you already delineated here. But, and not only just
this, but I would like to take it one step further that I would like to see if there's firewalls that could be created to not share, that it would be, make it impossible to share with outside state or outside of the jurisdictions that we said that we were in. That we would share with. And if there is any inadvertent sharing, that there is a penalty that would be imposed to the company and the city where the violation happens.
And so, Tony, this is something that I know that we spoke about and you said that this is something that could be implemented.
Supervisor, I said it would be something that we would want to look at and have to look at closely in terms of potential. An analysis, something, okay, so could we come back with an analysis of the surveillance use policy that could incorporate some of the standards that the advocates have delineated here on this memo. Along with this additional, I want to impose penalties on top of just standards.
Is that, I'm happy to include that into my motion.
Well, I want to be clear that your motion is at the moment just an analysis. That we are not approving with all of these contingencies here, but that we are first going to have a report back to us.
I
see Margaret heading, saying yes. That we are going to receive a report back before we can actually say yes. So
that
we can actually see the analysis, live, be okay with, living with what we have received back. Or to say, you know what, this doesn't work for us because actually it can't be part of the surveillance use policy. We can't impose penalties, or we can impose penalties, and this is the line that we can't cross. This is up to the line that we can't, you know, within the powers of the board. And, of course, the law. So I'd like to learn what that is before I can actually make really a support.
I
mean, I'm all for
analysis. I
think that the more that we learn, the better.
It
won't only benefit these cities, but it will benefit us if, you know, let's not, let me not even put that in the universe out there. So just, I think, knowing what we can and can't do.
And some
of
the inadvertent
impacts of choosing some of these policies. I would live to learn more about this. So for the moment, if you incorporate what I've just asked for, I could be supportive of the motion. If you make it clear that it is first,
it
is just analysis of all of what you've just outlined. And that we will receive it back.
Then
have a conversation. Having all of the information in front of us.
So currently the motion that's on the floor is to, it is in lengthy parts, but it's to adopt the consolidated surveillance use policy for ALPRs for the City of Saratoga, City of Cupertino, and the Town of Los Altos Hills with the conditions that I had listed today. That no flock is to be used as a vendor.
They
are just, there is no flock. There is no use policy that will allow flock as a vendor. That if any unauthorized disclosure of ALPR data is made to the federal government agency.
So
the things that you listed earlier. So it's all that.
And then
also with direction to provide analysis. And the reason I'm asking for analysis is because even though we do have the model nation, the national model of a surveillance use policy,
the
landscape of technology continues to change. And we need to make sure that we are vigilant. And updating our policies to meet the moments. Right? And so the request that you've made, I'm happy to incorporate that. If that's something that we can do. But I wanted to clarify the motion on the floor.
Then
I couldn't support the motion. Because the motion is to approve. Approve with these conditions. Yeah.
No.
I can't approve that. Because we don't know the impact of any of those conditions. And we haven't vetted any of those conditions that the advocate mentioned. We can submit it. So for the time being, I think I will say no. I can't approve something.
I
don't know what the problem that these cities are trying to fix. And I don't know what the analysis is. So it's, to me, it's a no go.
Thank
you.
I
forget I'm the chair.
I
see your light.
Thank
you.
Does
county council want to say something first? Sure.
Go
ahead.
No.
I just wanted to clarify where the motion was at. But I think that's happened. Okay.
Wonderful.
Go ahead.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
Vice President.
I just wanted to share some insights or input that I've received as I represent all three cities that are involved with this use policy. I actually have heard quite loudly and often from these communities their interest in the ALPR system.
These cities are smaller.
They
have limited budgets. And so even though they contract with the sheriff, frankly, they don't have police officers.
We
don't have a lot of deputy sheriffs in those communities.
And
some of them that are up in the hills are rather remote. And so the residents had experienced, I think it's definitely the numbers have come down. But in the last several years, they were experiencing high property crime, break -ins, burglaries, kidnappings. So it was the residents I heard from that were very concerned and fearful, frankly, of their safety and their properties.
So
that was what I heard mostly from and about.
And
so that was their interest in doing the cameras.
They
voted for it. But I had a neighborhood in one of the other towns that have put in their own patrol company to patrol their neighborhoods.
So
that really was what the interest was from.
I
can understand. I have a neighborhood in my district where I'm included in it.
It's
in the Evergreen area. And it's quite probably one of the furthest points away from the city. It's a little bit further from the foothill division, which includes the east side of San Jose. We're southeast. And this neighborhood always gets targeted because it's a smart move.
It
takes the longest to respond to for property crimes.
There
was a string of burglaries in my house
myself. I
was preparing for my son's birthday party the next day. And I woke up in the middle of the night because I heard the garage door
opening. I
thought it was my brother -in -law. We had let him bring his little French bulldogs because he was living in an apartment
at
that time.
And
I thought, oh, he just opened up because he's going to feed the dogs. So I go out there. It's not my brother -in -law.
I
don't know who it is. I never saw a face. But somebody had stolen our garage door opener from one of our cars,
opened
up the garage.
And
we're about to. Yeah. It was a home invasion.
And
had I not gotten up, that would have happened.
And
for folks who are sleeping at night, it's a higher propensity of bodily harm, right, when people are going to do that, invade your home,
versus
somebody who does that in the morning or during the daytime when they know the houses are empty. They did end up finding, like, a couple of garage door openers. The following day,
that
means other houses got targeted. And we actually, as a council member, helped reestablish the burglary unit
once
again because we had forgone it because times were tough and we didn't have enough officers, we didn't have enough money, all of that stuff. Anyways, so for all those reasons, I get it.
I
really get it.
I
get it at a personal level.
I
just don't see what the problem that they're trying to solve. I don't see what they're trying to fix at this moment. And because we are approving before the analysis, I just can't support it.
But
I'm going to go to President Lee, if you don't mind, Supervisor
Abacoga, because I
think he's going to drop off in just a couple of minutes.
I'd
love to give him an opportunity to chime in. President Lee.
Thank
you very much. And I just want to say thank you for our colleagues for a very, very intense discussion of a very important topic. And I want to thank all the advocates who came today to talk about this really important issue for us.
I
want to thank my colleague who put together this motion. It's very well thought out.
I'm
still very uncomfortable
to
support it because of all these issues that we've been talking about because a suggestion is one thing,
but
actually adopting it so we're voting on it. That's something that I'm extremely uncomfortable about.
What
I would like to do is I will go ahead and vote for it. I have two votes. I got a third vote. I'll go forward with the understanding that those recommendations that have been advocated by so many is going to be seriously looked at so that we really are addressing those very scary
issues.
It's a different place now, right? We've seen what happened in Minneapolis.
The
abuse by the federal authorities is very, very real. I've said so many things that, you know, federal agents coming in harassing our neighbors and getting our data. To harass folks is something that we cannot tolerate. Violating the laws is something that we want to support all of our neighbors wherever they are.
So
without further ado, I just want to say I ask you to call the roll
because I do
have a meeting due. Go into right this moment.
So if
I could pass it, if I could just take the call,
I
would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Yes, sir. Okay. If there are no further comments, which it looks like there aren't.
Okay. We will go ahead and vote. All right.
A
motion of Supervisor Young, seconded by Supervisor Abacuga. Supervisor Abacuga. Aye. Supervisor Young.
Yes.
Supervisor Ellenberg. No. Vice President Arenas.
No.
President
Lee.
Aye. Motion carries three to two.
And
I apologize.
I
do need to drop off of the hard stuff. But thank you, my colleague, for accommodating. Really appreciate it.
Thank
you.
Okay. I realize there's some folks who will be late. I'm leaving the chambers. But we still have one item left. And this is our receiving the report from the Office of. Two.
We have two items, Supervisor.
Oh, two items left. One of which is.
Item.
Item nine and item 17.
Oh, my gosh.
Yes,
of course.
Nine
and seven. And nine and eight were going to be heard one after the other. That's right.
Biting at the bit, I guess.
So. Thank you. So, item nine is to receive the monthly legislative report from the Office of Intergovernmental Relations. And for those who remain and will give that report. Welcome.
Is
that you, James?
No. They'll all be online from Washington, D .C.
So,
turn it over to the team. Okay.
Well,
welcome from the cold. Thank you very much, Madam Vice President, Vice President Arenas, President. Lee, members of the Board of Supervisors, David Campos, Deputy County Executive.
We're
here in Washington, D .C., where it has been extremely cold. And we look forward to returning to somewhat sunnier and warmer California very shortly. We will be presenting this report. And I have a number of folks who will be speaking. But just to let you know, and I know that Elaine Trinh will be giving more information about the work we're doing in Washington, we are here for the NACO Conference, the National Association of Counties, and also to conduct a number of visits with our delegation. And earlier today, we met with Congressman
Liccardo,
Congresswoman Lofgren.
We
met with the Office of Congressman Khanna and as well as Senators Padilla and Schiff. You will hear shortly a report on the work that is being done in Sacramento and Washington, D .C. It is a very critical time, as you know, based on the actions of the federal government. And in fact, we
expect
some perhaps important decisions being announced today. Today is the State of the Union Address by President Trump. And so we will be watching that as well. So with that in mind, we're going to try to keep it brief, given everything that transpired today.
And
I will turn it over to Monica Tong.
Thanks, David. So get within the state situation right now. The state legislature's bill introduction deadline was this past Friday, February 20th.
And
we'll share an update on the county's activities in a bit. But this year, the Assembly introduced over 1 ,200 bills, and the Senate introduced over 600 bills. So we are looking at over 1 ,800 bills that we will be reviewing.
Nearly
600 of them are spot bills, so we will have to wait another few weeks to fully understand the bill's intent.
And
then during the March -April time, policy
committees
will be meeting and evaluating the bills.
This
is a critical time for the county to review bills and identify their impacts. And
the
second batch of referrals to departments will be going out in the next week.
This
is the time of year where things move fairly quickly. So IGR looks forward to working closely with our departments on any of the impacts.
And
related to budget, the next major milestone is the second week of May, when the Governor's May revision is due to be released.
Related to state budget advocacy, we are still in the pre -May revision timeframe. In its February finance bulletin, it says, The Department of Finance is reporting that January revenues are stronger than expected,
with
general fund cash totaling $3 .4 billion above the Governor's budget forecast and $6 .9 billion above projections year -to -date.
This
is due to a variety of reasons, but not all categories outperformed expectations.
The
DOF is reporting that sales and use tax receipts were below forecast for January.
This
is positive. Positive news, but the budget situation remains concerning.
About
a week ago, the Governor signed SB 106 that appropriated $90 million to Planned Parenthood to address their federal funding cuts.
The
legislature continues to hold information hearings on budget and H .R. 1 impacts. And our Sacramento team, including Erin and David, provide public comment where it is possible. Some hearings have been so long that they have not allowed for public comment. But we continue. We continue to offer that where it is a possibility.
The
legislature is looking for solutions related to H .R. 1 and HAP funding accountability measures, which IGR continues to work with departments on.
And
our focus remains on the H .R. 1 mitigation requests.
At
this time, I'll hand it over to Erin.
Thanks, Monica, and good afternoon to the Board. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to discuss the Board's legislative priorities.
We've been developing strategies over the past month since receiving the Board's direction on these important priorities. Key to this work, as Monica mentioned, is mitigating the impacts of H .R. 1 and protecting and expanding state funding opportunities. Work on the remaining priorities falls into a few categories. We have sponsored bills and bills we're preparing to support. Several priorities that are taking administrative pathways that are set aside. We're also looking at other items that are supported by our teams, as well as other items that are on an implementation or coalition building track. So, for example, the county has one sponsored bill that was introduced by Assemblymember Kalra. AB 1658 makes permanent an authority that was first
granted to the county in 2023 related to large construction projects. We're also looking at opportunities to strongly support another bill that would protect the county's infrastructure. We're also looking at the ability to spend local resources on all populations, including those immigrant communities that are targeted by the federal administration. An example of a proposal that's taking a more administrative pathway is the concept related to transitional shelter care facilities emergency planning. While working up this bill proposal with a likely author, we actually made really important headway with the California Department of Social Services, and therefore decided to transition this work. And continue the work through that administrative channel rather than introducing a new bill. I'm happy to
walk through these or any other of the priorities further if that's of interest to the board. And I'll turn it now to Elaine.
Thank you.
Thank you, Erin. Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. I'm here to provide a federal update. At the last federal update, since then, the federal government has passed a majority of the fiscal year 26 appropriation bill. But there still remains a partial shutdown due to the Homeland Security Act. A few favorable items that pass in the appropriation bills includes a delay of dish cuts, extension of telehealth coverage, provision in the HUD bill that will ensure continuity of the continuum of care funding. And we have secured several congressional direct spending and community project funding awarded to the county, which includes the $1 million for our vast small business resource center by Senators Padilla and Schiff, $3 million for
10 PERC from Representative Ro Khanna. Additionally, Representative Ro Khanna secured $175 ,000. For our sexual forensics exams program. And $850 ,000 from Representative Zoe Loftin for an agriculture resource center. And $250 ,000 from Representative Jean Panetta from Marshall Caudill Park. As David mentioned earlier, the team is here in Colt, Washington, D .C. As part of the National Association of Counties legislative conference. IGR, along with President Lee, met with members of our congressional delegation to continue advocating for key programs to support the county and the residents we serve. Thank you. Thank you,
everybody. We also took the opportunity to raise additional federal funding requests through the community project funding and congressional direct spending process. AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM, DEPARTMENTS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT IDEAS FOR CONSIDERATION.
AT
THIS TIME, THERE ISN'T OFFICIAL GUIDANCE ON ELIGIBLE ACCOUNTS AND ACTIVITIES, AND WE EXPECT GUIDANCE TO COME IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. AND UNTIL THEN, WE ARE ADVOCATING FOR FUNDING FOR THE HOMESTEAD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT AS WELL AS A FIRE HAZARDS MITIGATION PROGRAM THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY SEPA THAT WOULD AID THAT WOULD PROVIDE AID TO QUALIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS SUCH AS SENIORS, INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES AND OR LOW INCOME PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY IN A FIRE SAFE MANNER. AND WITH THAT, WE 'LL TURN IT BACK TO DAVID. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I WILL
SIMPLY CONCLUDE BY NOTING THAT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE VARIOUS REPORTS FROM MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM, WE ARE
PUSHING
ON ALL FRONTS. IN WASHINGTON, D .C., WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN IN THESE TOUGH BUDGET TIMES. TO GET AS MANY RESOURCES AS WE CAN FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE ALSO SPENT A LOT OF TIME EDUCATING MEMBERS OF OUR DELEGATION IN WASHINGTON, D .C., ABOUT THE BUDGET CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE FACING. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO SACRAMENTO, IT IS REALLY ALL HANDS ON DECK. AS ERIN NOTED, NOT ONLY HAVE WE
BEEN
ABLE TO GET A BILL INTRODUCED, BUT ON A COUPLE OF FRONTS, OUR SUCCESS MEANT THAT WE IN FACT DID NOT EVEN HAVE TO PURSUE LITIGATION, LEGISLATION, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A SIGN OF SUCCESS. BUT THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE FOR ALL OF US, BOTH IN D .C. AND IN WASHINGTON AND IN SACRAMENTO, IS THE BUDGET. MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE TRYING, THAT WE GET AS MUCH SUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND FROM THE STATE AS THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAS PREVIOUSLY NOTED. WE'RE LOOKING AT A BILLION DOLLARS AS A DEFICIT. AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT NO COUNTY IN THIS STATE IS BEING MORE PROACTIVE THAN WE ARE IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT THE STATE STEPS IN
TO ADDRESS THE GAP THAT WAS CREATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THE ENGAGEMENT FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND AS WE PROCEED WITH OUR STRATEGY, WE WILL BE REACHING OUT TO EACH ONE OF YOUR OFFICES TO SEE HOW YOU CAN HELP WITH OUR ADVOCACY, GIVEN THE RELATIONSHIPS, THE CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU BRING TO THE TABLE. WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE USE EVERY RESOURCE AND EVERY RELATIONSHIP AVAILABLE TO US TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF OUR TWO MILLION RESIDENTS. SO WITH THAT, I 'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE BOARD, WE'RE GOING TO CHECK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, RONDA.
NEW
SPEAKER I CURRENTLY HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. NEW SPEAKER OKAY, WONDERFUL. SUPERVISOR EMELBURG, GO AHEAD.
NEW SPEAKER
THANK YOU. HELLO TO THE IGR TEAM, AND I DO HOPE YOU'RE FINDING WAYS TO STAY WARM THERE. I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE PROPOSED CUTS TO IHSS THAT WERE IN THE GOVERNOR'S JANUARY BUDGET FOR GENERAL PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. IN OUR COUNTY, MORE THAN 36 ,000 RECIPIENTS USE IHSS SERVICES AND MORE THAN 38 ,000 PROVIDERS ARE DELIVERING THAT CARE. AND THE GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED NOT TO FUND THE ADDITIONAL HOURS THAT RECIPIENTS NEED, AND THAT UNFUNDED MANDATED GAP
IS
GOING TO BE, IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE COVERED BY OUR GENERAL FUND. IN ADDITION, THE GOVERNOR'S
NEW
BUDGET PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE THE STATEWIDE BACKUP PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES EMERGENCY CAREGIVERS KIND OF RESPITE CARE FOR IHSS RECIPIENTS WHEN A REGULAR PROVIDER IS UNAVAILABLE. OR UPON
HOSPITAL
DISCHARGE. I THINK BOTH OF THESE CUTS ARE DRAMATICALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND REALLY HAVE ADDED TO THE TENSION AND STRESS OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR LOCAL 2015 CAREGIVERS. ON MARCH 25TH, THE JOIN ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE 2 WILL BE HOLDING A HEARING ON THE ITEMS. I know that individual members of the IHSS Public Authority Board will be traveling to Sacramento to testify about how the cuts will affect them personally, and I applaud their actions for speaking out. My request, and I can make a motion to receive the report and do this as direction,
if
not already scheduled, either our lobbyists or contract lobbyists should plan to testify before that joint assembly budget subcommittee number two to deliver the county's strenuous opposition to the governor's proposal, and that similar testimony be made to the Senate budget subcommittee on March 26th, and that either IGR or county council prepare a letter from this board of supervisors to both the assembly and the Senate budget subcommittees detailing our strong opposition to the cuts. Thank you.
Thank you. I will second that. Thank you.
If I could just add something on the IHSS proposals. One of the things that's really concerning about the
proposal
related to the increase in hours is that it's a growing obligation that would be imposed on counties. One of the challenges with the IHSS program is that it is a huge unfunded mandate that's imposed on counties. This year alone, the general fund is spending about $147 million
of
discretionary local money to put up the county's match for this program,
and
the county doesn't have control over the benefit or the hours determinations, and what the state is essentially saying is it will no longer put up a match for this program. So the state has to participate with state share
in
increases in hours. That amount, even though it's scored as a relatively modest number for state savings in the upcoming year budget, is actually something that will grow and grow and grow
over
time. So it's only, I think, a few hundred million dollars is the savings to the state in year one. But because the number of hours will continue to grow year over year over year, it basically is a cap on the state's liability for that expansion and shifts all of that burden to counties. And for this program to be a program that works in the long run,
the
state needs to be a much more active participant.
So
it's actually the opposite direction of where things need to go.
And
you know, one of the challenges with the IHSS program is that it's going to be a lot of work. And one of the challenges, I think, structurally with this program is
we
hear in these chambers from the folks who make up the program, from the beneficiaries and from the IHSS workers.
But most of the decisions regarding the financing, most of the decisions regarding the criteria, these are decisions that are not made in these chambers. They're made at the legislative level. And that disconnect is one that this proposal would worsen significantly. So we very much share the concerns, Supervisor, that you flagged. And I just want to make sure that we're focused on the fact that this fiscal impact would grow and grow and grow
with
each passing year and not just focus on the specific number for the upcoming year.
I
think that makes sense, and certainly the letter, if the Board approves my motion, the letter should reflect that ongoing and growing concern. Thank you.
Supervisor, just a clarifying question. We are preparing a
very
comprehensive budget letter that includes a number of items, and this is actually one of the items that's included. Do you want us to do a separate letter beyond that?
I
just want to make sure that if this motion passes, that we receive it. I don't know if it's going to be a separate letter, but I just want to make sure that
David, I think that's a good question. When is that letter being delivered and to whom?
It
would be delivered prior to any hearing that any of the subcommittees hold.
So
it would be in the next few days, and we do plan
to
be at the subcommittee hearing. But we just want to make sure that we're
following
the Board's direction on this. So two questions, and thank you. One, I'm not sure if this is going to be a separate letter. The option is to say that the big letter, the omnibus letter, is sufficient and that at the hearings you could point out the section that references IHSS. The other question is whether
there
is more or different power
in
having a separate letter specifically from the Board of Supervisors. I assume the omnibus, well I shouldn't assume, who is the omnibus letter signed by? Is it on behalf of the supervisors? Is it signed by James or by you?
It's
signed
by the intergovernmental relations team. So it would be me or the county executive. Then I
do think it would
be impactful to have a separate letter from the Board. And on that note,
we
should be thinking about other places where that might be impactful, too. I don't want to overuse that. But where there is something that the Board is particularly focused on, if it would add more impact to have a separate letter specifically from the Board of Supervisors, I would recommend that track.
If I
may just add two things, and obviously that's a county council question as well.
From
our perspective, when we take a position
as
an office, it is on behalf of the county and that's on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.
The
only question that I would have with respect to an individual. The only question that I would have with respect to an individual letter on this topic
is
to make sure that it's not seen as somehow taking away from some of the other topics,
including
the HR1 cuts, which of course are a top priority for us.
Absolutely. No, I hear that. And we don't want to elevate this to the possible exclusion of anything else. But I certainly want our IHSS folks to hear and understand that we really do have their backs on this.
I think rather than directing the letter, I'm going to leave that
to
IGR's discretion. And I appreciate that you will be in both hearings and in every hearing you go to, I'm sure you'll be pointing out the section of the omnibus letter that applies there and
referencing always the actions on behalf of and in the name of the Board of Supervisors. So I'll soften that motion a little bit. And it sounds like I don't need direction for you to go to the hearings since you'll be at both of those. That's correct. So I'm going to pull back my own motion and just move receipt of the report. Thank you, Supervisor. Thank
you. And we are committed to being at all of these hearings on all of these items and having a very vigorous presence. These are very significant issues for us. Yeah. I
really appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Could I also add, could we create kind of a modeling forecast of what that would mean in terms of incurring costs to the county as we have an aging population?
And I know it's not based only on age, it's based on disability, but with age comes some level of disability. We can work to try to, I mean,
I think what we can do is we can show the growth over the last decade.
Okay.
And you can kind of extrapolate from that. But there's been tremendous growth in the program over the last decade. And I think it is fair to, it is a fair estimate to assume that for the foreseeable future, especially because of the demographic trends you've noted,
that
we would expect that baseline trend to continue.
Okay.
If
the state didn't approve... Okay. Would we provide
the service anyways?
Well,
it's a mandate. So this is the challenge.
No, I know it's a mandate, but say it wasn't a mandate. Say they're going to pull out and we're going to be mainly responsible for... If there was, if without federal and state participation in this
program, we would not be able to afford the operation of this program. We just wouldn't.
But we would have to take those recipients on
some
way or another. It would impact our system eventually.
It would absolutely impact our system. But the difference is
our
level of service provision through our own staff is limited to what we can provide with the staffing level that we have.
So
the challenge with entitlement programs is that there's no cap per se
for
anyone who's eligible and meets criteria qualifies for the entitlement program.
So
for instance, I could give another kind of counterfactual hypothetical. Let's assume
that
there was a world in which Medi -Cal itself just went away altogether, just was eliminated by the federal and state government. Well, we would continue to provide healthcare to those who had no insurance, but the provision of that healthcare is limited by our actual facilities.
And
so we would lose a significant revenue source in that event. We would undoubtedly be having to
make
very substantial reductions to the service that we provide. And then what would happen is there would be, and this is why these programs are so critical and so critically important to people's health and well -being, is that we would have an unimaginably long line outside of our emergency department, but we'd only be seeing the people we would be staffed to be able to see. So the reality is these kinds of entitlement programs, whether we're talking about CalFresh, CalWorks, Medi -Cal, these are all programs. Social Security is another example. Medicare is another example. All of these types of programs inherently are absolutely dependent on the federal government. And even leaving that. And I think the county
piece aside, there's no state, even a state as wealthy as the state of California,
that
could operate those entitlement programs without federal participation because it's the federal government that has that financial component that makes those programs possible. And that's why that fiscal interrelationship between the federal and states on all of these programs is so pivotal.
And
I understand that
yet,
and I understand that these mandates put us in a difficult position. And we can, it sounds like what you're saying is that we meet, we provide the services based on our capacity, but I challenge that because you've challenged us in the purchases of hospitals to grow our capacity to actually serve the community.
And so I think in the same, in the same line of thinking, I think we would rise to the occasion not to say that we should just sit down and accept the cuts. Absolutely. I agree with Supervisor Ellenberg. All I'm saying is that if the funding didn't exist, the value of those services still remain important to us in the same way that, you know, the basic income is not a mandate, but yet we choose to impose it, not impose it, but to implement it because we know the value. And we know what it will prevent. So I just, I want us to be very careful about how we view the IHSS. And yes, this is
a mandate from the state, but it also provides a value to our community. That even if the state, I dare to say that even if the state decided to draw their money away from us, that you are the type of leader that would be challenged to find a way to cover this and to address it. Not to say that this is where we're going, but I just, I know that this is the spirit of this county and your leadership has shown me this. All I'm saying is that there's value in the IHSS services that we need to continue to invest in a very meaningful way. And so I appreciate that we'll be creating a letter
or we'll be part of the letter and then we'll have testimony elevated to express our concern about this.
I just want to say thank you. I just, anyways,
I'm conflicted about this piece. I'm conflicted about IHSS workers because they're stuck in the middle. They're stuck in the middle between budget concerns and restraints that the county and the state have. Yeah, and just
to clarify, the state budget related item is about a cost shift from the state to counties. It's not a proposal to change the program. Yeah, yeah. Not in any way. It's just a proposal by the governor to impose additional mandates onto counties
without state participation. Yeah, the gap that we'll have to continue to pick up. Well, we already have a gap and I didn't realize it was 147 million.
Yeah, and to put that in context, that's the size of some of our larger departments, entire budget, including some of our significant public safety departments.
Thank you. Okay. Seeing that there's no more comments. Only mine. I will ask Rhonda to go ahead and take a roll call. Thank you. I'm sorry. I think I missed who made the second on that. It was me. All right. Thank you. So moved by Supervisor Ellenberg. Seconded by Vice President Arenas. Supervisor Abacoga. Aye. Supervisor Young. Yes. Supervisor Ellenberg. Yes. Vice President Arenas. Yes. And President Lee has left. So that motion carries four to zero. Wonderful. Okay. So we're going to move to the very last one. And I'm so sorry it's last but not least. You are all winners here in our eyes. This is to receive the report from the Office of the County
Executive relating to an update on South County Youth Task Force Strategic Plan Implementation. Welcome.
It's really great to see you on this side of the woods.
Good
afternoon. I'm just getting settled in California. Getting my presentation ready. Casey Halkin, Deputy County Executive. And I'll let my colleagues introduce themselves.
It isn't working.
It has to get lit up red. Oh, there we go. Okay. Yeah. Figured it out. Thank you. Ooh. Stay really close because you sound really far away.
Is that better? Ooh. Perfect. Wonderful. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Adam Flores. I'm a Supervising Deputy District Attorney with the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. I supervise the Community Prosecution Unit, which also includes the South County Task Force. Thank you. Good afternoon, Vice President Aranaz and members of the board. My name is Bernice Guaschewit Aguilera -Toni. I am the Program Manager that serves the South County Task Force by way of the District Attorney's Office.
And we are very happy to be here today to provide you with an update on the implementation of the current South County Youth Task Force Strategic Plan.
So the South County Youth Task Force is a youth -focused violence prevention and intervention collaborative serving South County communities, including the City of Morgan Hill, the City of Gilroy, and the community of San Martin and our unincorporated areas. The task force seeks to promote a safe and nurturing community that creates and ensures sustainable access to opportunity, resources, and services for South County youth and their families while empowering their voice and supporting their growth and success.
Led by my colleagues in the Office of the District Attorney, several of which are sitting here with me today, the task force works with South County communities, affiliated school districts, and several county departments, including probation and the public health department, to structure effective programs and interventions. South County's task force staff, services, and activities are funded through various funding sources and include general fund monies, grant funding, and in -kind support.
So the current strategic plan outlines five primary goals, which you can see on the slide, and an accompanying work plan that was attached as an attachment to this presentation outlines specific activities.
The task force has made significant progress in completing the work plan goals, with nearly 90 % of all activities on track or completed as of September 2025.
I would like to highlight a few key achievements from this past year. So one that I think gets a lot of interest in our community is our restorative diversion program, which is in its fifth year, and it's been incredibly successful in working with youth who have low -level offenses. Thank you. And thank you for a wonderful work plan that helps us to keep those young young people in safe and safe places, and helping to divert them from being further entrenched in the criminal system. Also, they've had a deepening of partnerships and collaboration with our South County school districts to include school -based violence interruption services at the impacted schools in Morgan Hill and Gilroy, and
are currently in discussion to develop a community government academy to help build trust between our impacted youth and the leaders that serve them. Also, last but not least, is our close partnership with public health and community partners to support our promotora model in south county which is about health access and equity so
the task force is in the process of developing their next strategic plan which will be for 2027 to 2029 and the processes will include focus groups with community -based partners other critical stakeholders to ensure the plan is responsive to youth needs and any service gaps i know it was previously mentioned today by our partners at the social services agency and the office of children and family policy but we are hearing in south county that there's a tremendous amount of fear in our south county communities related to the recent aggressive federal efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants across the country and so we anticipate that any of these focus groups will likely have some level
of engagement about goals related to federal activities and this includes significant state and local deficits related to hr1 which we recognize may limit future funding opportunities
so these next two slides outline the development timeline for the new strategic plan so the task force anticipates that the final draft will be circulated to stakeholders there we go to solicit their feedback next winter with the final draft presented to partners in late december and then implemented in january of 2027. so this concludes our presentation but we're certainly happy to answer any questions you may have
i was feeling like you were just getting into it i know tell us how the county youth task force we're still more please um okay but before you tell us more i'm going to check in with public comment and see if we have anybody who wants to contribute that way
i currently have no public speakers okay well this is all about showcasing you all now i don't see any lights lit up and i think we've lost our president
i'm gonna on the phone we've lost them on the phone that's what i meant to say
um so i'll i'll go ahead and begin i think that you were just beginning to um you know you're scratching the surface in terms of what the south county youth task force actually does and what it represents and what it means to the community because all of those three things i think i don't know we would need another hour but i know we don't have it to actually share with with our public and with my board members
what it is that you're actually doing um in south county and what you're doing is is on you're really undoing some of the the policies that kept south county as a separate entity as a you know a step brother uh city for the rest of the county and really integrating bringing folks into the fold about what the county actually does for them serves them and
by not just listening to folks, but you're very data -driven. If they actually had a full -fledged presentation for you all, you'd be very, very impressed about their data collection process, their grants that they have applied for, the way that they pull partners together and stakeholders together. Bernice, I have seen you when there's things that happen on the ground that you actually go out there and you talk to folks and try to de -escalate. And so you're not only just leading, you're also making sure that you are working with the community and the spirit that we want to work with, and that is all about collaboration and non -punitive and very healing pathways. And so
for that, I just am in awe of what you do. You remind me of what... Yay, the Mayor's Gang Task Force Youth Empowerment. And I forget what the A is for, but I'll yay it anyways. When they first started out, it was very much like the South County Youth Task Force. And probably, you know, there's a huge difference. The attribute that you have that San Jose certainly does not is that you have a very small community that's very, you know, just... You're braided into your community. Whether you agree or not, you all know each other, you recognize each other, and you work with one another, and I think there's so much value to that. And
so I think that's the other secret sauce to what you're doing is that this small, you know, community feel is also part of the strength of the South County Youth Task Force. Anyway, so that's just me elevating myself. You're the person that's leading you to where you should actually be, and that is you're creating a change within our community by investing in our youth, by making sure you're understanding the patterns, the needs, and wants of the community, and that the programs and services that we offer are responsive and actually connect to those things. And you also do this all very data -driven, in an outcome -based manner, which I highly respect. Okay, so I'm going
to end my accolades for you
and ask, you know, that because you've all done just a really great work, can you, whoever wants to answer this, but can you tell us why South County continues to be a hot spot for public safety issues despite all the wonderful work? Absolutely. I think we have generations and generations of issues and harms. You know, it's no secret that a lot of the residents feel like, oh, we're the stepchildren to the county, right? And that's something that we've been working on very, very hard each and every day to incorporate voice and agency. Poverty and other social... Social indicators of health, environmental issues, right? Opportunities that are in South County, there's not as many as opportunities.
In Guerrero, we still don't have a full, robust community center. It's without a community pool. So just very simple factors that really make a mark, right? And we know, for example, summer, if our children don't know how to swim, we see more drownings. That's exactly the same analogy across the board. Right? Lesser pro -social activities, lesser free and low -cost opportunities. You know, if we look at the data and community indicators, we know we have a lot of single -family households. We know we have a lot of households that have multiple jobs, creating less structured parents at home and more youth in the community. And so what we pride ourselves in doing is working very
closely with ages 5 to 95. So really ensuring that that we're working with the elders, with the adults, with youth. And we're looking at issues that not just affect the youth, but the entire home. So utilizing and leaning into and leveraging resources at the county has been more and more crucial, as well as having residents realize how the wealth of our county and the services that we have and how we can connect them more locally in South County. Thank you. And one of the reasons I asked this for you, to detail out what some of those challenges are, is that I recently went to a public meeting where it was stated that South County Youth
Task Force may be impacted, right? And some of the interventions that we have in South County, such as the Children's Advocacy Center, is also at peril of possibly getting deleted. Now, I don't know whether that public claim will translate to an actual cut on the budget, but I wanted my board colleagues to understand that there's so, even though you're just beginning, you guys are fabulous, and you're doing God's work, or the universe's work, there's still a lot of work to be done. And so the reason I asked you to talk about that is because the work is not finished. And you're at peril for a budget cut. And so, what would that mean for the
community if you all, if South County Youth Task Force didn't exist? What do you think, how do you think that would unfold? Well, one important thing, and I can start, Adam. Please don't tell me if you want me to stop. Our strategic plan, which we view as a document that so many voices are incorporated, you know, complete and destructive, strategic plan in December, being 90 % completed on this specific strategic plan is one foot in the right direction. Starting the work for a new strategic plan basically makes the promise that we have to continue. And breakage of that can be very detrimental to the relationship we have within and inside community. You know, so that
alone, because the voice and the history that we've had, it's always been cities, school districts, community, in partnership with county. So I think that's why we're successful in pushing boundaries in, you know, the restorative justice program, looking at misdemeanors. And now that we're in pre -diversion, some of the funding, you know, with CalVIP went away, unfortunately. But we're looking at pilot sites and finding, you know, we can, cut suspensions. You know, in a reduction of one year, you know, we saw 63 suspensions to the date, and this year it's only 23, with a 1 % increase in attendance for that school, which means a lot for that school. So you're saying there were 63 suspensions
in one year, in one school year? One school year. And then after restorative justice, we're seeing there's only 22. Not only still one is still too much, but we're headed in the right direction. And I think because our community is small, and we're able to be a little bit more daring because we lean into the relationships we've built in collaboration with all the agencies, which there's more than 35 city departments, faith -based collaborators and more, we're able to go in and really look at issues. You know, so I think the things that work need to continue, whether it is here or somewhere else. The commitments that county agencies, that our school districts, that our cities
have, must continue in order to see progress. This is our second strategic plan. Actually, third? 2012? Third. So the update is going to be critical because where we haven't been able to meet the mark, where we're not pushing the needle, and now with the challenges that we have, it's more important now to lean in more than ever and make more and do more with less. And Supervisor, if I may continue. I'd like to put this out in the א gå soitk. I think Bernice's highlights, the strategic plan, which is again our promise to the community to collect this is what we're going to collectively do for the next three years. And I think what's so
crucial to highlight is further budget reductions, the 8 .5 million dollar budget reddiection that is being asked of the District Attorney's office has forced us to prayer we let cops violence crime prosecutions. To be clear, that means a reduction of be clear, that means a reduction of sall ruh county task force budget and personnel as well and to be clear that is not what the district attorney's office wants to do and that budget reduction has not only south county task force but also goes into even core prosecution a core prosecution as well what that means is the leadership of south county new task force the leadership that our team does to create the strategic plan
to draft it to to provide it to the policy team then to implement it over three years plus with leading collective community groups committees would essentially go by the wayside and not even exist because the district attorney's office provides the leadership and legitimacy provides the unity of the cities the school districts bringing them all together and also helping to bring county resources through our department to south county and we've grown into this position seven eight years ago it was being with the policy team they were looking towards an entity that would provide the leadership of south county task force and they look to our office to the district attorney's office so these budget reductions are
would be doing away with not just the strategic plan but also crucial structure such that we won't even be talking about a strategic plan because the existence of south county task force would cease to exist would be called into question yes and i know that that there is an impending budget conversation about that but what we already know is that the hr1 impacts have made it really difficult for you all to continue to do the work that you're doing and so you'll continue to be talented Now, the board will decide, you know, in terms of cuts in the upcoming budget the way that we need to do, but what I wanted the board to hear
is that what you're doing is really interrupting that pipeline that we have seen, the school -to -prison pipeline, in a way that, I mean, you just delineated the 63 versus the 22. That might not sound like very much, but that gives, you know, 40 -something kids an opportunity to be on the right track, right? When you don't have suspensions, when the school district isn't vilifying you or pushing you to leave or asking you to be in a continuation school instead of a mainstream school, it gives hope, and you rise to the occasion. And so we must also rise to the occasion. Because there's a lot of challenges that are coming up, that are coming your
way. And so because of that and because we know that there's, you know, you're number one or you're at least in the top three for so many different things that you don't want to be in the top three or top four for, you heard us talk about gun violence. It's also referrals to probation in a way that is very upsetting, but also feasible. And so I think that there's a lot of things that we can do, and it all needs that pipeline. And so this is the counter. This is the anti -racist policies in real life, right? Just you are all doing that so that we can make sure that we undo policies from the
past. So I wanted to draw attention to the importance of what you're doing and the impacts that you're having. Only because we all have received from the district attorney a proposal that has a tiered, you know, the tiered policies, but also other policies. approach. And in those tears, you will cause us tears because you will no longer exist, right? And for the south part of my county, that is devastating, devastating. So anyways, I have a motion that I want to make and hopefully earn the support of my colleagues, and that is to the directed administration to protect public safety in south county by including funding in the upcoming 26 -27 proposed budget that is effectively
at the same level of funding and services as the current fiscal year, and direct the administration to bring the task force upcoming 27 -2027 through 2029 strategic plan back to the board of supervisors once it is approved by the task force policy. And that is my motion.
Supervisor,
if I could share some comments. Sure.
We obviously recognize the importance of the south county youth task force. We're aware that the district attorney's office has made a proposal with respect to that as part of his suggested recommendations to me on items that he believes are the ones that should be included in the recommended budget. Thank you.
And I would like to make sure that we're having conversations in the right order of operations. For example, I'm not meeting with the district attorney's office until tomorrow for him to actually present his proposals and have an opportunity to ask questions about those series of proposals. And I would once again just surface publicly because I think it's very problematic how departmental proposals are talked about out in the community. That proposals from departments to the county executive may or may not be included in a recommended budget and certainly may or may not be included in the form that they're presented. And that's true across county departments. And that's true across fiscal years, by the way, not
even just in a context of budget reduction years. But that's certainly been absolutely the case in my entire tenure at the county over every single budget cycle. So what I can tell the board is that we will be looking very closely at the proposals from the district attorney's office, very mindful of community impacts regarding those. And we'll also be looking at whether there are alternative proposals that make sense to present to the board for the board to have options for consideration. And so I just want to make sure we're not getting in front of that process, including ensuring that we have the opportunity to do announcements. And that we have the opportunity to present different
options to the board in a holistic manner. Because no one should think that because a particular department has presented a particular menu that that's the only set of things that might move forward or that that's the order in which things might move forward. I understand. So I just want to be really clear on that point. That's definitely true for this particular item. But it's actually true generically across the board. Mm -hmm. It's true across budget -related conversations. And so don't want to get in front of that. Absolutely we can bring the strategic plan in front of the board. And we absolutely recognize the importance of this program. But I just want to make sure we
have the space to bring forward our recommendations, which will be administration's recommendations on, you know, how to proceed, obviously cognizant of what the district attorney is suggesting.
Sure.
And I hear you. You haven't had that conversation yet. What I'm asking is for this program to be protected. Now, I don't know how you'll continue to exist. But you'll continue to exist in some way or another.
I understand that we need to make a budget decision holistically. And I don't know where my board members are or my colleagues are. But I guess what I could say at this point is that you all could live under any roof.
Because you are the glue that brings life to the group and to our community. And so my purpose here is so that you can continue to exist. No matter what. Because my county, I mean, my south county needs you. Obviously our community needs you. And so that's my commitment to you. I understand that maybe this is cart before the horse. So I'll stick with my motion to direct administration to bring back the task force upcoming strategic plan to the supervisors once it's approved by the task force policy team. And then, you know, the commitment from you. And I'll have that as motion. And so hopefully I can get a second on that.
Just to bring back the plan.
Just to bring back. Just to bring back the
plan. I'm happy to second that. I just repeated that. And so the second part of that ask from you, James, is when you have that conversation, my direction is that, and just like I finished saying, that this body exists no matter what. And it doesn't matter to me what roof they live under. This is a community. This is a community. And so I want you to be very clear about that. I am not really moved by people threatening to do things, especially in a public setting. And I've said this before. I mean, you know, if the consequences to our community will be vast if misdemeanors are not prosecuted in the same manner as they have
before.
And the impact to our community. And the impact to our community. They'll make a decision about who they elect if that happens.
As the same for me, right? Our community decides we serve at the will of voters. So that to me is just bottom line. You have my commitment, Supervisor,
that we're going to be looking very closely. We're going to be asking tough questions. We're going to be doing some analysis. We're going to be getting creative. As we will throughout. We're going to be looking at other pieces of the budget, too. Just to be clear for all members of the board. You know, there's it's not only the district attorney's office. There's other offices that have made proposals that we have serious concerns and questions about. And where we may develop on a countywide basis other types of proposals in different departments, too, or where we see other opportunities. So that is, you know, we have very limited time to do so. But that is very much
the work that we do between the time of receiving departmental recommendations and preparing the recommended budget. And we're well aware of the important role of the South County Youth Task Force and the work that it does. And that will be very much part of those conversations and analysis. Perfect.
I appreciate it. And thank you so much for presenting to us. For sharing what you do for our community. And for staying with us until the very, very end of this. I apologize it took us this long to get to you.
But I appreciate that. I don't know that we have any additional comments. Is there anything that you would like to add?
One thing we could do is we are going to true up our 2023 to 2026 strategic plans. So everything that has been done. Units of service. Right? I mean, it's important to know that, you know, we've seen or supported over 12 ,000 residents. All of that. So when we return, we'll make sure we submit that report, too. And maybe this is something that we can learn from. And I don't know what my board colleagues think about this. But we just finished seeing, you know, the child and youth master plan. And maybe some lack of clarity in terms of outcomes and maybe strategic plan.
The South County Youth Task Force has a very clear plan. And very clear objectives. And maybe we could learn from them if that's okay to share some of what they have done. Would you be willing to put that together and send it to us? Just so that we I'm not saying that, you know, South County does it better.
No, I'm not saying that. Everybody has attributes. And everybody does things in a slightly different manner. But we are doing this partnership. I don't know if you heard this item earlier. But we're doing this partnership with the city of San Jose. That I started on the other side when I was a city council member. But I think when there's two different entities as huge as the city and then as immensely complex as the county, I think things start, I don't know, maybe not being as clear as we would like them to be. So it would be wonderful if you could share what we could learn from you. Supervisor, I just wanted to. Say a few
words just in response to. I know there is the consideration of the South County task force potentially being in other locations and other departments. And I did want to just highlight for the board, for everybody. I can't stress enough about why it is that the district attorney's office, why the South County task force staying within the district attorney's office does help and actually let South County task force stay within the district attorney's office. And I think that's what we need to do. We need to help the district attorney's office thrive and do its work. Casey had highlighted the diversion program, for example. That is a program that our task force, South County, takes so much
pride in. That type of program could not have happened if it was not in the district attorney's office. That work, that's prevention work. That's intervention work. That helps so many underrepresented that have been in the district attorney's office. That helps the Latino youth in South County not enter the juvenile justice system. Bringing so many people together. Bringing schools together. Bringing law enforcement together. Bringing community based organizations together. Bringing community together. Our office has the opportunity and has the leadership and legitimacy, unlike others, to be able to do that. Those types of programs that are moving. Moving the needle cannot happen if they were not under the district attorney's office. Because of our ability to move
and speak and bring together so many organizations, unlike other departments. I can't stress that enough. And the work we do is in line with the Latino health assessment and the cost of gun violence. But I did just want to point that out. I appreciate that. Adam, did you mean to press your button, Supervisor Ellenberg?
Supervisor, if I could just say one thing. I'm not going to disagree in any way with the comments about the good work of the district attorney's office here. But I do just want to just note for the record there are many, many county departments that do tremendous work in coordination and collaboration with school districts, with cities, with community organizations. And in partnership with many entities. And so I do respectfully disagree with the notion that there are not other parts of our county organization that can help collaborate and work in joint coordination with all of these entities. So I don't want to get in a big back and forth about that. Sure. But just did not
want to leave unresponded the notion that we don't have many parts of our organization, including the district attorney's office. Of course.
But there are many departments in our county that do very important collaborative work. Supervisor
Ellenberg. Thank you, James. That was the comment I was debating whether to make. It was actually somewhat offensive. I see tremendous partnership and great work coming from multiple departments across our county organization. So I would ask you to not diminish other work. While I think it's fantastic for you to be very proud of what your office does.
Understood, Supervisor. And I take that and I understand. My apologies. I was simply trying to just highlight the work for the diversion program and things that we do collaboratively. But in no way meant to diminish the work of the other counties, which I have absolutely full and heartfelt respect. I appreciate that. We have the Youth Empowerment Alliance. That's what it is. Alliance, which is formerly the San Jose Mayor's Gang Task Force. They generate some really wonderful work. And like I said, we have this two demonstration sites that we just talked about earlier today. And, you know, that is a huge step in the right direction with two entities like ours. Government entities are doing something
together that are part and parcel to the safety net services. And we are going to make this work because we want to. We want to make sure that we support our community in a very place -based manner. And make it as flexible and as easy to access city and county services. Which is very similar to what you are all doing in your respective area. And we will learn from each other in terms of what each other's strengths are. We can't emulate Gilroy or Morgan Hill. Because they are very different. They are very specific communities. But we can learn from each other overall. I think in general, there is, I think, an opportunity for us to
continue to learn from each other. And have conversations where we understand the approach can be different. I think that's what you are seeing, Adam. So we will just leave it there. And we will go ahead and just call roll call for the vote.
Thank you. A motion of Supervisor Arenas, seconded by Supervisor Allenberg. Supervisor Abacoga. Aye.
Supervisor Yoon. Yes. Supervisor Allenberg. Yes. Vice President Arenas. Yes. Motion carries four to zero. Wonderful. Well listen. We've come to the end of the road here.
We are going to go ahead.
public comment that is going to go to the end of our agenda and next time you will see your president once again up here thank you so much for the presentation have a good rest of the evening everyone meeting
adjourned