Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reentry Council topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances ordinance to add formerly incarcerated officer and update language on Reentry Council
Summary
The rules committee advanced an ordinance to amend the Administrative Code to allow one formerly incarcerated Reentry Council member to serve as an officer, add inclusive language replacing references to "inmate," adjust quorum from 12 to 13, and include a 90-day conflict-of-interest resignation clause when a member is hired by a council department.
Get email alerts on the Reentry Council topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Rules Committee on March 9 advanced an ordinance that would amend the Administrative Code to change appointment expirations, increase the number of Reentry Council officers from four to five (including at least one formerly incarcerated officer), and raise the quorum threshold from 12 to 13.
Anne Frigozzi, legislative aide to Supervisor Fewer, said the legislation was sponsored at the request of the Reentry Council and aims to "coordinate local efforts to support adults exiting San Francisco County Jail" and other correctional systems. She said the council unanimously requested the power for one formerly incarcerated member to serve as an additional officer.
A council representative described a newly added conflict-of-interest clause that requires a member who is hired by one of the city departments that sit on the council to resign within 90 days to avoid the appearance of dual votes. As the representative explained, "You can work for the city, just not 1 of the departments that sit on the council." The representative also said the council sought to replace noninclusive language in the ordinance that referred to members as "inmates" or "former inmates."
Committee discussion focused on clarifying the conflict-of-interest language and quorum math; a supervisor offered to cosponsor and moved to send the item forward with a positive recommendation, which passed unanimously without objection.
The ordinance was forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors for further consideration.
