Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board sustains mayor's veto of Community Justice Center funding
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors considered an override of the mayor's veto on funding tied to the Community Justice Center but ultimately sustained the veto after a roll-call vote.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on a vote sustained the mayor's veto of an ordinance related to funding for the Community Justice Center, preserving the mayor’s earlier action and keeping the challenged de-appropriation in place.
The matter (item 6 on the agenda) concerned an ordinance that would have de‑appropriated approximately $998,000 in general fund from the Mayor's Office of Community Justice and roughly $761,000 in federal direct grant revenue in the Department of Public Health for the Community Justice Center. The board considered a motion to override that veto; the roll call recorded 6 ayes and 5 noes and the president announced, “the mayor's veto is sustained.”
Why it matters: supporters of the Community Justice Center framed it as a program meant to place people into services as alternatives to incarceration. Opponents and some supervisors raised concerns about timing and the city's broader fiscal constraints, arguing that launching new programs during a severe budget shortfall could require cuts elsewhere.
Supervisor Daley argued in favor of maintaining funding, emphasizing the program's role in placing people into services as alternatives to incarceration and urging consistency with campaign commitments. “This item is not gonna make that list,” Daley said of the midyear budget list, warning that a delayed start would require additional cuts elsewhere to fund the center.
President Chu explained her position and background, noting experience as a prosecutor and her interest in accountability for the program. Supervisor Avalos said she opposed overriding the veto, saying this was not the time to start new initiatives given the city’s budget strain and the likelihood that service referrals from the court would face cuts.
There was no amendment to the ordinance and no additional direction adopted; the board’s vote sustained the mayor’s veto, so the prior de‑appropriation remains in effect.
The discussion on the item was substantive and included back‑and‑forth over the program’s timing, accountability measures, and the effect of broader cuts to mental‑health and substance‑abuse services scheduled to take effect in the coming weeks.
