February 19, 2003 -- SF Health Commission Approves Base-line Cuts to 03-04 Budget


As expected, the San Francisco Health Commission passed its proposed
budget/cutback program. Once again, scores of people presented appeals not
to cut the department's programs. Some were impassioned, some were
carefully reasoned, and many were based on personal experiences. Many
called on the Health Commission to exercise leadership by refusing to
co-operate with the City's program to eviscerate health.

The Commission was clearly uncomfortable. After public commentary, they
skirted around the central issue for quite a while, tinkering with the
"whereas" clauses and "therefore" clauses of the budget acceptance
resolution to make it more politically palatable.

The gist of the final resolution to be voted on was (1) The Health
Commission didn't want to recommend a budget that cut valuable services,
(2 ) they urged the City to find new revenue sources, (3) the Mayor
should prioritize preserving health services, but (4 ) in the absence of
prioritization or new revenue, these are the cuts are the ones the
Commission recommends.

At this point, they could no longer avoid discussion on approving the
proposed budget. At this point, the discussion became very interesting and
revealing.

Commission Vice President Guy said she had considered simply voting "No" to
a program of cuts, but had decided that the Commission, as medical experts,
had to give guidance and leadership to the City in making the right cuts.
She said that once again, she was glad the Department had drawn up a
Strategic Plan, because it enabled the Department to do what it had to do.

Commission President Chow amplified on Commissioner Guy's theme of needing
to provide guidance and leadership to the City, by reminding the
Commissioners that the Commission had been actually been created at the
behest of the Board of Supervisors during another time when the City's tax
base could not support health services, meaning that the Commission owed
its birth to the need of the supervisors to cut health costs.

Director Katz talked about how San Francisco was more fortunate than Los
Angeles, because in Los Angeles there was no Health Commission to make
necessary cuts. There, the Board of Supervisors had to make the cuts, and
they were unwilling to do it for fear of not being re-elected, and we should
be thankful we have a Health Commission that can make cuts without being
afraid of political consequences.

The final vote was unanimous. By March 15th, the Commission is due to
approve the Contingency Budget, and additional $27million in cuts, to be
applied if the cuts just approved are insufficient to meet the budget
shortfall.