Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Services Dignity Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays vote on Dignity Fund charter amendment after late amendment fight; sponsors to continue negotiations
Summary
A proposed Charter amendment to create a long‑term Dignity Fund for seniors and adults with disabilities drew extended debate over appointment authority and advisory‑committee appointments; an attempt to change appointment rules failed and the item was continued for one week for more negotiation.
A charter amendment to create a Dignity Fund — a new dedicated revenue vehicle to support seniors and adults with disabilities — drew lengthy debate on July 12 after supervisors and advocacy coalition members disagreed over how appointments to the new advisory bodies should be split between the mayor and the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Malia Cohen introduced the draft charter amendment (item 61) after a months‑long coalition process that produced a proposal for a multi‑year funding schedule and a new Aging and Adult Services Commission. In committee the proposal was the result of negotiations among advocates and the mayor’s office.
At the full Board, Supervisor Norman Yee proposed late amendments that would require the mayor to “invite” or consider the Board’s recommendations for the three at‑large advisory‑committee seats and commission members. Sponsors and coalition representatives said they had not been consulted on the last‑minute language and opposed changing the agreed structure at the meeting.
A motion to adopt the first set of amendments failed on a roll call. After further discussion, Supervisor Cohen moved to continue the charter amendment to give all parties more time to reconcile language; the Board voted to continue the item for one week to July 19.
Why it matters: The charter amendment would commit recurring city dollars to a multi‑year Dignity Fund, change the city charter to create an oversight and advisory structure, and would have substantial long‑term budget implications. Supporters said the fund would provide reliable revenue for services and create a public planning process; some supervisors and advocacy members pressed for clearer shared‑appointment language.
Next steps: The item was continued to the July 19 Board meeting so sponsors, mayoral staff and coalition partners can reconcile appointment language and other technical issues before returning the measure for final Board action and potential placement on the November ballot.
