Summary of Recommendations Part Ii The Mayor's Office should develop a standardized protocol that comports with Pc*

R1

"Additional funds could be generated for enforcement by requiring annual renewal of permits and by inspection of existing billboard signs, with a yearly charge per sign. This would facilitate and pay for discovering sites without permits, illegally altered sites, and illegal new installations."32 Response (May 2002): "Your recommendations are very important to implementation of the March 2002 ballot measure banning all new general advertising billboard construction and the June 2001 statute strengthening code enforcement for illegal general advertising. My code enforcement staff is already working with the City Attorney and Board of Supervisors to draft such legislation. I understand there is similar legislation being developed in the City of Los Angeles."33 Status of Implementation (December 2004): Not implemented because there has been no legislation as yet presented to the Board of Supervisors.

R1e

(June 2004): "Grievance forms should be placed by the inmate in a locked box or other secure location." Response (September 2004): None

R1f

(June 2004): "A history of grievance against a deputy should be maintained and forwarded when the deputy moves to another facility." Response(September 2004): None

R1g

(June 2004): "The grievance form should be simplified." Response(September 2004): None16 While we are not wed to the concept of form over substance, we are concerned by the frequency of non-compliance with the statutory mandates of Penal Code Section 933.05. To this end, it is up to each governmental respondent to insure that it is fully aware of its legal obligations and to discharge them in a responsible and meaningful way. In order to facilitate full compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 governmental respondents may want to consider using a standardized protocol when responding to CGJ reports.17 2004/05 CGJ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R2a

"Assign a separate and distinct numerical designation to all existing, active, legal outdoor advertising sign permits (to distinguish them from all other sign permits) for entry into the computer system. Flag each for automatic periodic site reviews by CPD."34 30 San Francisco Budget Analyst Report "The Management Audit of the San Francisco Planning Department (June 2002) at p. 167. The backlog of code enforcement cases has risen from 735 in the spring of 2002 to 2,668 by Feb 2005. Office of the Controller, Financial Audits, "Board of Supervisors: Status of the Implementation of the Recommendations of the 2001-2002 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury" (July 10, 2003) at p.42. Id. at p 43. Ibid. Response (May 2002): "The Planning Department Information Services staff continues to work closely with the Department of Building Inspection staff to improve coordination of data and tracking permits." Status of Implementation (December 2004): Nothing has been or will be done until pending work to integrate Department of Building Inspection and Planning Permit Tracking systems is completed. No timeline for that to occur."35

R2b

"Conduct a city-wide count and permit history of every existing billboard sign. Many of the originally grandfathered [sic] signs (prior to 1966) have no permits on file. Researching ownership (which may have changed repeatedly over time), checking the existence of permits or verifying legal status with other evidence, such as dated photos; and entering this information into the database, under the applicable numerical code, would allow staff a way to monitor continued use and to eliminate billboards without permits in a timely manner."36 Response (May 2002): "I strongly agree with the need for this inventory .The Code Enforcement staff is trying to design a survey in part using interns, not paid with City funds. Workload of the existing six-person code enforcement staff, which has one unfilled Planner/Code Enforcer position presently frozen, makes this a very challenging task. There is an increasing backlog of other types of planning code enforcement complaints."37 Status of Implementation (December 2004): Nothing has been done.

R3

"The Planning Director should hire a temporary staff person ... with special expertise to conduct a city-wide survey of all extant billboards . . . to enter the information into the electronic database described in

R6a

" [The latter being rejected by the respondent.]13 Examples of where no clear explanation of whether the recommendation will be implemented or not, and if not, why it is unwarranted or unreasonable. DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS Recommendation (June 2001): "The CGJ recommends that the Department of Elections review secrecy envelope provisions to ensure ballot privacy for the Eagle system ballots." Response (August 2001): "Each and every polling place is supplied with secrecy envelopes. Voters may keep their ballot in the envelope to maximize privacy until they enter the ballot in the Eagle. However, because the Eagle was new to voters and poll workers in the November and December elections, poll workers were instructed to have one of their colleagues stationed at the Eagle to assist voters and ensure the functioning of the machine. Poll workers are always instructed to ensure the greatest degree of privacy possible."14 OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Recommendation (June 2002): "Purchasing should receive a draft of all professional services contracts before they are sent to the supplier for signature. Earlier input should be sought from Purchasing on larger or unusual contracts." Response (May 2003): "One of the goals of the CGJ report is to increase efficiency and reduce inefficiency. Prior to your audit report published in April 2003, OCA has taken a lead role in oversight of the contracting process by issuing a Checklist for Professional Services Contracts, P-500, as well as a Checklist for Professional Services Contracts for Individual, P-501. These checklists were designed to lead the departments early in the process of drafting the contracts and lead the departments to comply with all City's rules and regulations. They include guidelines to comply with regulations implemented by Civil Service Commission, Human Rights Commission, City 13 Office of the Controller, Financial Audits, "Board of Supervisors: Status of the Implementation of the Recommendations of the 2002-2003 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury" (August 30, 2004) at pp. 112 and 110, respectively. Office of the Controller, Financial Audits, "Board of Supervisors: Status of the Implementation of the Recommendations of the 2000-2001 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury" (August 1, 2002) at p. 25. Attorney, and OCA itself. In essence, through this process, OCA has been involved in the early stages of preparing Professional Services contracts."15 Examples of where no response was provided OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF