HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06271988 - T.6 T.6
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA_
Adopted this Order on June 28, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES (See Below)
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: Internal Operations Committee Report on Self-esteem and
Prevention of Community Problems
The Board on June 21, 1988, continued to this day considera-
tion of the recommendations of the Internal Operations- Committee,_
relative to the establishment of a task force on self-esteem and
prevention of community problems. In accordance with the Board' s
instructions, the County Administrator provided information on.
counties which have created a local task force, counties consider-
ing the formation of a local task force, and counties that have_.
declined to form a local task force.
Chairman Schroder, noting that there were many individuals._
desiring to speak, advised that because of time constraints the .
Board would only hear comments from those persons who did not speak .
on June 21, 1988.
Persons as noted below expressed support/opposition to the
establishment of a self-esteem task force including comments on the
importance of. fostering self-esteem in the child, thereby allowing
the child to resist the negative influences one encounters in
everyday life; questioning of the use of county resources to. fund a
self-esteem program when there are organizations with programs
promoting self-esteem; opposition to government' s control of the
family unit; the need to care about others; belief that it is the
responsibility and commitment of parents to build self-esteem; a
belief that parents should be educated as to their responsibility
to their children in providing an environment conducive to devel-
oping self-esteem as opposed to relying on the schools and govern-
ment to perform this function; concern that the plan will promote
the humanistic doctrine in the schools; and concern with the ,
possible loss of freedom of choice.
Sylvia Garrett, 1799 Baldwin Drive., Concord, supported;
Reverend Dale Ackley, Church of God, 71 Cloverleaf Court,
opposed;
Virginia Pierce, 3500 Village Road, Concord; opposed.;
Julie Johnson, 3134 Indian Way, Lafayette, opposed;
Dan Robertson, 658 Edwards Street, Crockett, supported;
Jean Sandnet, 2324 Saxon Street, Martinez, opposed;
Joanne Rizzuto, 1780 Woodside Court, Concord, opposed;
Ronald Neumann, 3265 Gloria Terrace, Lafayette, opposed;
Katherine Frank, 19 Carmello Road, Walnut Creek, opposed;
Colleen. Price, 1488 Mallard Land, Oakley, opposed;
Marilyn Novo, 166 Riverside Drive, West Pittsburg, opposed;
Valerie Judkin, 155 Morello Heights Drive, Martinez;
supported;
Cherie Hooson, 2060 Dalis Drive, Concord, opposed;
Patricia Reagan,, 363 Kinross Drive, Walnut Creek, opposed;
A. Youngkamp Harper, Thinking Humans, P. O. Box 5743,
Concord, supported;
Ralph Copperman, Gray Panthers of Contra Costa County, 3
Penrith Walk, Pleasant Hill, supported;.
Ray Atwood, (no address) , presented a petition with 24
signatures, opposed;
Doris Copperman, 3 Penrith Walk, Pleasant Hill, supported;
E. O'Brien, 1748 Sequoia Street, Martinez,. opposed;
Wilbur Duberstein, 19433 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, San
Ramon, opposed; and
Bill Mathews, 513 Boyd Road, Pleasant Hill, opposed.
The Chairman noted that the following persons submitted.
written comments:
J. Philip Harrison, 944 Hawthorn Drive, Lafayette, supported;
Susan Ballentine, 2324 Tice Valley Boulevard, Walnut Creek,
supported;
Karin Hus, 66 Marquette Court, Clayton, opposed;
Tim Hus, 66 Marquette Court, Clayton, opposed;
Dennis K. Brown, 3133 Pine Street, Martinez, opposed;
Sandra L. Brown, 3133 Pine Street, Martinez, opposed;
Charleen Rybicki, 4194 Sequoia Drive, Oakley, opposed;
Joyce Carver, 4904 Belle Drive, Antioch, opposed;
David Price, 1488 Mallard Drive, Oakley, opposed;
Mary Christ, 21 Lorie Lane, Walnut Creek, opposed;
Steve Christ, 21 Lorie Lane, Walnut Creek, opposed;
Betty Bringhurst, 760 Park Glen, Martinez, opposed;
Eric Heilmann (no address) , opposed;
M. Howard, (no address) , Martinez, opposed;
Lila F. W. Martinez, 420 Konegal Way, Lafayette, opposed;
Al Montano, 212 Gregory Lane, #34, Pleasant Hill, opposed;
Richard Ballentine, 2324 Tice Valley Boulevard, Walnut Creek,
supported;
Laurey Martinez, (no address) , Martinez, opposed;
Bill Kolinger, 320 Flaming Oak Drive, Pleasant Hill, opposed;
and
Camille Giglio, California Right to Life Committee, 1700
Oak Park Boulevard, Room C-4, Pleasant Hill, opposed. .
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Chair
closed public discussion on the proposal for a task force.
Supervisor Torlakson expressed concern that there appears to
be a misunderstanding about the purpose of establishing a self-es-
teem task force and. what the task force would do. . He stated that
he did not believe the task force would make recommendations that
would undermine the traditional values of the family, the school,
or the church. He referred to the number of minors who have been
detained at Juvenile Hall and the runaways who leave their homes :
because of various forms of abuse in the home. He commented on the .
need to reach these young people, to help them to develop a posi-
tive value system, a feeling of self-worth. Supervisor Torlakson
advised that he did not believe the establishment of a self-esteem
task force would require funding or staff time since it would be
voluntary participation. He further advised that he would vote in
support of the recommendations of the Internal Operations Commit-
tee.
Supervisor McPeak expressed her support for the establishment
of the task force that would draw from existing advisory boards and.
allow for citizen input. She noted that there would be some
involvement of county personnel who provide staff assistance to the
various boards, commissions, and committees. She pointed out that
Contra. Costa County was the first to recognize and promote the role
.of the family with emphasis on the need to strengthen the family
unit, and provided for the establishment of the Family Alliance.
She advised of the need to strengthen existing programs and that.
the work of the task force would be involved in. looking at what can
be done, what has been learned through the lessons of research and
experience, and apply these concepts. She noted that the recom-
mendations of the Internal Operations Committee did not establish a
timeframe for the completion of the work of the task force and
recommended that the report be amended to require the task force to
report to the Board no later than November 1989.
Supervisor Schroder advised that because of the many diverse
opinions and concerns related to the proposal for the establishment
of a self-esteem task force, he could not support the recommenda-
tions of the Internal Operations Committee. He noted that the