Status of the Recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury

Recommendations 7

• R1
  The Juvenile Probation Department (JPD) must develop and enforce he Board of Supervisors held hearings on the Civil Grand Jury Reports: A New Chief of the The Board of Supervisors' Government Audit and Oversight Committee conducted a public hearing on July 25, 2005, to discuss the 2004-05 soard of Will Not Be Juvenile Probation olicies and procedures that support the goal of reducing the population
• R2
  The Human Rights Commission has revised its forms to include requirements that City contractors make good faith efforts to hire economically disadvantaged individuals. Those forms are in the process of being implemented and will not include any preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The HRC will be further revising its rules, policies, publications and practices if and when the Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance becomes law. Like the Ordinance they implement, these revisions will not include any preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. 2004-05 City Contracting and The City should immediately eliminate explicit or implicit preference Recommendation Implemented July 25, 2005. The Mayor's Office continues to work closely with the Human Rights Commission, City Recommendation Mayor firmative Action based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin from City mplemented Attorney, Controller, and the Board of Supervisors to ensure that City contracting procedures comply with state law. This includes contracting rules, publications, policies and practices. development of a permanent Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ordinance, as well as review of other contracting procedures. 2004-05 . The City should negotiate with the Police Officers Association for The Board of Supervisors' Government Audits Committee conducted a public hearing June 27, 2005 to discuss the findings and he Board of Supervisors held hearings on the Civil Grand Jury Reports: Compensation Board of Will Not Be ssues in the San mination of Over Time (OT)/Compensatory Time (CT) benefits for top recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury and the Police Department's response to the Report. Police Chief Heather Fong and Philip mplemented: Not City Services and Rules Committees (2003-2004) and Government Audit Supervisors managerial staff and consider less costly alternatives such as limited Ginsburg, Director, Department of Human Resources presented at the hearings. The item was continued to the call of the chair so that and Oversight Committee (2004-2005 and 2005-02006). Francisco Police Warranted or Not administrative leave as provided by other jurisdictions and City any members of the Civil Grand Jury or members of the Committee may check in and see how various findings and recommendations teasonable Department The Board supports the recommendation of the Civil Grand Jury, but does that have been concurred to with the Police Department are being implemented over time. Pursuant to Board rules, the item was filed denartments in January 2006. not have the operational authority to implement the recommendations. Therefore, pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933.005(a) and (b), the Board will not be implementing the recommendation. . The City should negotiate with the Police Officers Association for As stated in DHR's 5/26/05 audit response, DHR concurs with this 2004-05 Compensation Department of The department elected not to respond. Requires Further limination of Over Time (OT)/Compensatory Time (CT) benefits for top ecommendation, which may be addressed through current MOU ssues in the San Human Analysis Francisco Police managerial staff and consider less costly alternatives such as limited Resources negotiations. An update can be provided when negotiations have administrative leave as provided by other jurisdictions and City concluded so as not to violate confidentiality requirements. epartment departments 2004-05 . The City should negotiate with the Police Officers Association for Will Not Be The Mayor's Office supports the responses contained in the Department of Human Resources and Police Department status reports. Does not pertain to the Mayor's Office. Compensation Mayor ssues in the San imination of Over Time (OT)/Compensatory Time (CT) benefits for top molemented: Not nanagerial staff and consider less costly alternatives such as limited Warranted or Not rancisco Police administrative leave as provided by other jurisdictions and City Department Reasonable departments. (1) "--" Department did not respond with one of the four required actions. **** Response not required: Recommendation has been implemented or abandoned. Status of the Recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury 2004-05 Response CGJ Year Report Title 2006 Response (1) 2007 Response (1) Recommendation Required 2006 Response Text 2007 Response Text The City should negotiate with the Police Officers Association for This item may be addressed in the NEW Memorandum of Understanding amongst the City and County of San Francisco, The Police his recommendation has not yet been implemented. Currently, the City is 2004-05 Compensation Vill Be Implemented Will Be Implemented negotiating the MOU with the Police Officers' Association. The Police ssues in the San imination of Over Time (OT)/Compensatory Time (CT) benefits for top n the Future commission, the Chief of Police, and the San Francisco Police Officers' Association scheduled for July I' 2007 -June 30, 2011. n the Future nanagerial staff and consider less costly alternatives such as limited Department has taken seriously the recommendations of the Civil Grand Francisco Police Department administrative leave as provided by other jurisdictions and City Jury in its preparations for negotiations. Proposals presented at this point in the negotiations are confidential. Implementation of this departments recommendation, if presented and adopted could not occur until July 1,
• R3
  The City should negotiate to pay CT balances prior to the effective As stated in DHR's 5/26/05 audit response, DHR concurs with this Compensation Department of The department elected not to respond. Requires Further sues in the San date of promotions to limit the inflationary effect of carrying CT balances ecommendation, which may be addressed through current MOU Human Analysis negotiations. An update can be provided when negotiations have Francisco Police for long periods of time. Resources concluded so as not to violate confidentiality requirements. Department
• R4
  The Community Assessment Referral Center (CARC) should be open SFPD Will Not Be his is not a Police issue. CARC guidelines for operation fall under the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice. Juvenile Probation 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and staffed by POs. This will Implemented: Not accomplish the original intention for it to be the single screening point of Department: An Warranted or Not Opportunity for entry into the juvenile justice system. Reasonable Reform 2004-05 A New Chief of the 5. CARC should be moved closer to the Youth Guidance Center (YGC) The Board of Supervisors held hearings on the Civil Grand Jury Reports: Board of The Board of Supervisors' Government Audit and Oversight Committee conducted a public hearing on July 25, 2005, to discuss the Will Not Be Juvenile Probation to facilitate activities with YGC and to make transportation of arrested
• R5
  Given that rank and file officers will have had four years to reduce Compensation Department of The department elected not to respond. Recommendation heir CT balances to 480 hours by the end of the current MOU, the City MOU, which states; employees with more than 480 hours of CT off as of Issues in the San Human mplemented Francisco Police should negotiate for the next MOU, some penalty for continuing to Resources 7/1/03 may not accrue additional CT off until and unless their CT off naintain a CT balance greater than 480 hours, such as forfeiture of Department balances fall below 480 hours. hours above 480. 2004-05 Compensation i. Given that rank and file officers will have had four years to reduce The Mayor's Office supports the responses contained in the Department of Human Resources and Police Department status reports. Will Not Be Does not pertain to the Mayor's Office. Mayor eir CT balances to 480 hours by the end of the current MOU, the City ssues in the San mplemented: Not Francisco Police should negotiate for the next MOU, some penalty for continuing to Warranted or Not maintain a CT balance greater than 480 hours, such as forfeiture of Department Reasonable hours above 480 (1) "--" Department did not respond with one of the four required actions. **** Response not required: Recommendation has been implemented or abandoned. Status of the Recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury 2004-05 Response CGJ Year 2007 Response (1) Report Title Recommendation Required 2006 Response (1) 2006 Response Text 2007 Response Text This item may be addressed in the NEW Memorandum of Understanding amongst the City and County of San Francisco, The Police his recommendation has not yet been implemented. Currently, the City is . Given that rank and file officers will have had four years to reduce 2004-05 Compensation Vill Be Implemented Will Be Implemented negotiating the MOU with the Police Officers' Association. The Police ssues in the San heir CT balances to 480 hours by the end of the current MOU, the City n the Future Commission, the Chief of Police, and the San Francisco Police Officers' Association scheduled for July 1, 2007-June 30,2011. n the Future should negotiate for the next MOU, some penalty for continuing to Department has taken seriously the recommendations of the Civil Grand Francisco Police naintain a CT balance greater than 480 hours, such as forfeiture of Jury in its preparations for negotiations. Proposals presented at this point Department in the negotiations are confidential. Implementation of this hours above 480 recommendation, if presented and adopted could not occur until July 1,
• R6
  The SFPD must manage their vehicle fleet in accordance with Will Not Be The Mayor's Office supports the responses contained in the Department of Human Resources and Police Department status reports. Does not pertain to the Mayor's Office. Compensation Mayor ssues in the San Administrative Code 4.11 as well as optimize the use of this valuable mplemented: Not Francisco Police Warranted or Not resource for police protection. Reasonable Department
• R9
  The Ethics Commission should recommend a Charter Amendment to Board of The Board of Supervisors' Government Audit and Oversight Committee conducted a public hearing on September 12, 2005, to discuss Will Not Be The Board of Supervisors held hearings on the Civil Grand Jury Reports: Difference Between the voters that would remove an exemption for grants from Charter Supervisors the findings and recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury and the responses of the Controller's Office, City Attorney's Office, and Ethics | Implemented: Not City Services and Rules Committees (2003-2004) and Government Audit a Contract and a Section 3.2220 regarding conflict of interest of public employees and Commission to the report. Ed Harrington, Controller, and Robert Bryan, Deputy City Attorney, presented at the hearing. The Warranted or Not and Oversight Committee (2004-2005 and 2005-02006). Controller's Office and the City Attorney's Office will work on this matter. The Committee filed this item. Grant? officials Reasonable The Board supports the recommendation of the Civil Grand Jury, but does not have the operational authority to implement the recommendations. Therefore, pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933.005(a) and (b), the Board will not be implementing the recommendation. 2004-05 The Ethics Commission should recommend a Charter Amendment to City Attorney This recommendation is not directed to the City Attorney's Office. The correct citation, however, is Campaign and Government Conduct Recommendation This recommendation is not directed to the City Attorney's Office. The What is the Difference Between the voters that would remove an exemption for grants from Charter Code Section 3.222. This is a question of policy directed to the Board of Supervisors and the Ethics Commission. The Code may be City Attorney's Office already has responded to all recommendations that Implemented a Contract and a Section 3.2220 regarding conflict of interest of public employees and amended by a 2/3 vote of the Board and approved by a 4/5 vote of the Ethics Commission. pertain to its functions. Grant? officials 2004-05 The Ethics Commission should recommend a Charter Amendment to Controller's Office Will Not Be Recommendation not addressed to the controller. What is the N/A the voters that would remove an exemption for grants from Charter Implemented: Not Difference Between a Contract and a Section 3.2220 regarding conflict of interest of public employees and Warranted or Not Grant? officials Reasonable (1) "--" Department did not respond with one of the four required actions "**" Response not required: Recommendation has been implemented or abandoned. Status of the Recommendations by the Civil Grand Jury 2004-05 Response CGJ Year Report Title Required 2006 Response (1) 2007 Response (1) Recommendation 2006 Response Text 2007 Response Text . The Ethics Commission should recommend a Charter Amendment to Ethics 2004-05 What is the he Commission does not know whether this recommendation is Vill Be Implemented In the Commission's July 2005 response, the Commission stated the following: Will Not Be Difference Between the voters that would remove an exemption for grants from Charter Commission in the Future, Implemented: Not warranted and the task of determining whether to make such a The Ethics Commission believes that the Civil Grand Jury meant to address section 3.222 of the San Francisco Campaign and a Contract and a Section 3.2220 regarding conflict of interest of public employees and Requires Further Warranted or Not recommendation is currently beyond the scope of the Commission's Governmental Conduct Code ("S.F. C&GC Code"), which prohibits members of boards and commissions from contracting with the City Grant? Analysis, Will Not Be officials Reasonable resources. and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, the San Francisco Housing Authority, the San Francisco Implemented: Not Unified School District or the San Francisco Community College District, where the amount of the contract or subcontract exceeds Warranted or Not $10,000. Under subsection (a)(4), a contract is "any agreement to which the City and County is a party, other than a grant funded in Reasonable whole or in part by the City and County or an agreement for employment with the City and County in exchange for salary and benefits." By prohibiting members of boards and commissions of the City and County from contracting with the City and County, the ordinance sought to eliminate both actual and perceived favoritism and preferential treatment in contracting. However, the ordinance also sought to ensure that no unnecessary barriers to public service were created by its enactment. See S.F. C&GC Code § 3.200(d) (formerly § 3.200(a)). Thus, the exception of "grant" in the definition of "contracts" was made after a balancing of the interest of eliminating preferential treatment and the need to get qualified persons to serve on boards and commissions took place. The Civil Grand Jury has recommended that the Controller's Office and the City Attorney's Office conduct an analysis of grants made from City resources to determine if there is - or ought to be - any legal or functional distinction between contracts and grants. The Grand Jury has also recommended that if there is a meaningful or functional distinction between contracts and grants, the Board of Supervisors should pass legislation to define "grants" and provide for procedures for the application and award process for grants to ensure the most efficient use of public funds. The Ethics Commission supports the Grand Jury's recommendations and will recommend the removal of the exemption of grants from section 3.222 if this change to the law would address actual or perceived favoritism or preferential treatment in the award of grants and at the same time, ensure that qualified persons are available to serve on the City's boards and commissions. Pending the receipt of recommendations from the other appropriate departments, the Commission will consider legislation to remove the exemption of grants from section 3.222 if this change to the law will address actual or perceived favoritism or preferential treatment in the award of grants and, at the same time, ensure that qualified persons are available to serve on the City's boards and commissions. (1) "--" Department did not respond with one of the four required actions. **** Response not required: Recommendation has been implemented or abandoned.