Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Shelter Monitoring topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Shelter monitoring report continued after public commenters urge meal funding and policy changes

Rules Committee, San Francisco Board of Supervisors · October 11, 2011
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Rules Committee continued the Shelter Monitoring Committee quarterly report to the call of the chair after public comment criticized the report as light on recommendations and urged clearer meal funding, attention to transgender shelter policies and prioritization of the most chronically homeless.

The Rules Committee reopened public comment on the Shelter Monitoring Committee quarterly report and then continued the item to the call of the chair after a public commenter raised programmatic concerns.

Chair Sean Ellsburn had earlier continued the quarterly-report hearing because staff and Supervisor Jane Kim were not present; he later reopened public comment to allow Mr. Pitts to speak. Pitts said he found the quarterly report short on recommendations and urged specific policy changes, including a line-item for meal funding (he said one shelter was paying about $0.50 per meal), more discussion of transgender shelter policies in a newly opened shelter, and greater focus on the "top 40" chronically homeless to move them into permanent housing and free up shelter capacity.

No staff response to those specific claims appears on the record and the committee kept Item 6 continued to allow staff and the absent supervisor to participate in a future hearing. The committee also postponed final action on Item 7 (appointments to the Shelter Monitoring Committee) because only three of nine applicants were present; the Chair said continuing the items to the call of the chair would give absent applicants a fair chance to present.

Public commenters during the shelter-related portion included applicants and advocates who described lived experience in shelters and related work, and speakers asked about residency and nomination requirements for committee seats. The record shows the committee opted for fairness by continuing both the quarterly report and the shelter appointments rather than act with many candidates absent.

The continued hearings will return at the call of the chair; no new date was provided in the transcript.