San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2013-2014
Survey of San Francisco Commission Websites-July 9, 2014
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
A statement that informs the process of requesting accommodation for physical disability and/or language support is not easily found or present on many commission websites.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a
The Mayor's Office on Disability should coordinate with commissions to ensure that statements for accommodation are easily located on commission websites.
R1b
When commission websites are developed to include language support, that support should be provided in the same languages used in the voter’s guide. Accountability Annual Report
F2
Fewer than 50% of the commissions post an annual report as required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Mayor should ensure that each commission posts its annual report on the commission website and provides a URL link to the SFPL, promptly. Attendance
F3
Commissioner Attendance records are not readily available to the public. To discover this information after the fact is difficult.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
7 All commissions should keep and post to their website a record of commissioner attendance. Maintenance of an ongoing record should be required. List of Commissions
F4
There is no easy reference to all of the commissions in San Francisco. The most complete list the Jury was able to find is located in the Index of the City Attorney Opinion 2010-01, (pages 98-99).
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The City Attorney should ensure that there is an annual list of active commissions that is complete and listed alphabetically. 8 1 RESPONSE MATRIX 2 Accessibility