City and County of SAN Francisco

R1

For purposes of Penal Code Section 933.05, the Superior Court and City Services Auditor should record this Recommendation as “Implemented.”

R2

1: That the Board of Supervisors establishes a permanent Retirement System Oversight Committee to develop a comprehensive, long-term solution for the Retirement System that is fair to both employees and taxpayers and present it to the voters in a proposition by 2018. All options for reducing pension liabilities must be considered, including a hybrid Defined Benefit/Defined Contribution plan. The Mayor and the BoS responded that Recommendation R.2.1 would not be implemented, asserting that it was unreasonable or unwarranted. BoS Response to R.2.1: The Mayor and Board of Supervisors have oversight over the Retirement System and review financials and projections regularly, including during the annual City budget process. Mayor's Response to R2.1: The City already has a Retirement Board which functions as oversight to the Retirement System, and the Mayor’s Office has no authority to establish or empanel a new Board committee. (The Mayor) worked to pass major pension reform legislation in 2011 and the City's long-term pension obligations would be much worse if it was not for these measures. Lastly, the City closely monitors pension costs in our long-range financial planning through the 5-year financial planning process, deficit projections as well as through the 2-year budget process, which are developed by the Mayor's Office in collaboration with the Controller's Office and the Board of Supervisors. We closely monitor the impact of our pension obligations on our long-term deficit and will continue to seek to reduce projected deficits over time. The 2016-17 Civil Grand Jury report also included Recommendation R2.2, addressed to the same parties: That the Mayor and Board of Supervisors submit a Charter amendment proposition to the voters, to add three additional public members who are not Retirement System members to the Retirement Board. Following are excerpts from the separate responses to Recommendation R2.2 submitted by the cited respondents: Mayor: Trustees are always obligated to act only in the fiduciary interests of the beneficiaries. Controller: Retirement Board members are fiduciaries that have a duty to the system's participants and not to "watch out for the interests of the City and its residents." SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 14 - Retirement Board: Under trust law, the Retirement Board's duty to its participants and their beneficiaries takes precedence over any other duty, including any duty to the City or its residents. The responses to R2.1 by the Mayor and the BoS appear to overlook the fact that under the current rules the Retirement Board’s fiduciary responsibility to the Plan beneficiaries overrides any consideration of minimizing cost to voters, even as their responses to R2.2 indicate their awareness of this fact. In the present situation, the Retirement Board is not in a position to develop a “comprehensive, long-term solution for the Retirement System that is fair to both employees and taxpayers,” which the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury identified as the problem needing addressing and which underlies its Recommendation that a permanent Retirement System Oversight Committee be established. The 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Mayor and Board of Supervisors reconsider and resubmit their responses to 2016-2017 Recommendation R2.1 in the light of this consideration. The recommended Oversight Committee would be a significant contribution to the goal, set forth in the Mayor's 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 Proposed Budget, of “making government more accountable to residents." 21 3. 2016-2017 Report: Educational Parity in Custody (EPIC): Ensuring Equality of Women’s Education in the SF Jail System This 2016-2017 report examined the educational services provided for female inmates in the San Francisco County Jails. An apparent transcription error resulted in recommendation R10’s citing the “Five Keys” program instead of the SISTER program. Recommendation R10 in the body of the 2016-2017 report provided as follows: We recommend that the Sheriff’s Department, working in conjunction with the SISTER program, set up guidelines to measure the success of this program, in whatever quantitative way the Department decides to measure that success and document the results each semester and /or year. We suggest implementing this Recommendation by July 2018. Unfortunately, the Sheriff apparently received an incorrect version of the Recommendation, citing the Five Keys and not the SISTER program, and therefore responded regarding the wrong program. Although this error was not the fault of the Sheriff’s Department, the 2018-19 Civil Grand Jury invites the Sheriff to respond to Recommendation R10 as written in the 2016-17 report. Mayor's 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 Proposed Budget https://sfmayor.org/mayors-office-public-policy-and-finance-0 SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 15 - C. Improving Year-to-Year Continuity Process Effectiveness The California Penal Code (933, 933.05) delineates specific timeframes for initial responses to Civil Grand Jury Recommendations. It further dictates timeframes for responses requiring additional time for implementation or analysis. However, it does not designate responsibility or accountability for enforcement of these provisions. Finally, it does not consider the fidelity of the responses to the specifics and intent of the Recommendations. It falls to the Civil Grand Jury, with the support of the Superior Court and County Government, to provide implementation follow-up and fulfill the oversight function mandated by the Code. There have been Continuity reports in 14 of the past 23 years. Many of the reports support the sentiment best expressed by the 2001-2002 CGJ: "to subject a City department/agency/office to intense scrutiny and then to publish Findings and Recommendations intended to affect the future is a responsibility that should not end with the published report."22 The last published Continuity report by the SFCGJ was in the term of 2014-2015.23 Inconsistent follow-up is not limited to the City and County of San Francisco. It has also been reported in other counties, such as Orange County and San Diego County. To quote the 2002- 2003 Orange County Civil Grand Jury: “The follow-up procedure is not a simple task . . . ”24 In San Francisco, the Administrative Code requires25 the Controller (City Services Auditor, or CSA) to follow up on the responses to Recommendations pertaining to fiscal matters that were considered at a public hearing of the Board of Supervisors. The CSA posts the follow-up responses, beginning one year after the BoS hearing, in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet which is posted with the original responses on the Controller's website.26 The Civil Grand Jury website is hyperlinked to the Controller's website. Given the Civil Grand Jury's one-year term and the turnover in individual jurors, it is essential to develop an efficient system to systematically gather and update responses to Civil Grand Jury

R3

No later than March 31, 2020, the SFPD should fully and completely respond to Recommendation R.F.2 of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury report San Francisco's Crime Lab: Promoting Confidence and Building Credibility, remedying the contradictory responses submitted previously (elaborated in Discussion Section B above).

R4

No later than March 31, 2020, the SFPD should resubmit its response to Recommendation R.F.3 of the abovementioned report, providing insight into the processes surrounding the issuance of the RFP for consulting services by outside experts agreed upon by all stakeholders for a review of the policies and procedures of the Crime Lab. This should specifically address two issues: the possibilities for exemption from requirements for competitive bidding, and whether all stakeholders were consulted in reaching the decision to abandon implementation of the Recommendation.

R5

The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should reconsider and resubmit their responses by no later than December 31, 2019, to Recommendation R2.1 of the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury report The San Francisco Retirement System: Increasing Understanding and Adding Voter Oversight, remedying the deficiencies in the previous responses that are noted in this report.

R6

By no later than December 31, 2019, the Sheriff should respond to recommendation R10 as it appears in the body of the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury report Educational Parity in Custody (EPIC): Ensuring the Quality of Women's Education in the SF Jail System. SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 22 - (C) Improving Year-to-Year Continuity Effectiveness:

R7

By no later than December 31, 2019, the City Services Auditor and the Superior Court should create an application using a database, to support core functions of the Civil Grand Jury. The City Services Auditor, the Superior Court, and the Civil Grand Jury would be the key stakeholders giving input for system development. System features should include: • A database containing CGJ report data, Findings and Recommendations, respondent data, response tracking data, and up-to-date tracking status information. The database’s reporting function should have the capacity to create all reports and summaries needed by the Superior Court, City Services Auditor, and the impaneled Civil Grand Jury. • The capability to automatically notify all stakeholders and respondents when responses are due. • Conversion, within approximately two years, to a “cloud application,” to allow stakeholders and respondents to directly access and update the data in the database. This in turn would improve the timeliness of responses and drastically reduce the typing and cut-and-paste errors that result from multi-party handling of the same data.

R8

Starting in 2019, the Superior Court should advise incoming Civil Grand Juries that their Continuity Committee is a Standing Committee, charged with reviewing responses to the Recommendations of prior Civil Grand Juries for compliance with both the law and the intent of the Recommendations, and with maintaining complete and up-to-date records of all pertinent CGJ activities in the database recommended above, and the CGJ should establish such committee.

R9

By no later than September 30, 2020, the City Services Auditor and Superior Court should adopt the RACI (Responsible-Accountable-Consulted-Informed) chart as presented in this report, or agree to appropriate changes in the chart, and execute a memorandum of understanding documenting their agreed-upon roles.

R10

Since application development will span multiple years, a Continuity System Consultant should be engaged to support the development efforts. The Civil Grand Jury should select the individual to fill the position, to be funded from the Civil Grand Jury budget, for the first two to three years. Afterwards, the position could be renewed each year as needed. To ensure the necessary understanding of CGJ operations, the Continuity System Consultant should be a current or former CGJ member. SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 23 -