San Francisco County Grand Jury

1998-1999

6 reports

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Maintaining MUNI as a City Department, as it is now; 2. A City Department to control policy, with MUNI to be operated by a non-profit organization; 3. A Municipal Transit Agency; and 4. An independent transit district. Under Option 3, creation of the Municipal Transit Agency, which is recommended by both the Task Force and Rescue MUNI, the Report states that it "would provide more autonomy and managerial scope than the present City department (Option 1), but less independence than a completely separate transit district (see Option 4 below.)" The Mayor would appoint the Agency's seven board members and their appointment would be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. They could be removed by a concurrence of the Mayor and two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors. The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors would appoint a Community Advisory Committee. Option 4 would create an Independent Transit District, analogous to BART, the San Mateo Transit District or the Golden Gate Bridge District. It would be created by state legislation. The Task Force Plan does not state how the directors of such a district would be chosen. Under the Rescue Muni Plan, the Agency Board would also be appointed by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, but directors could only be removed for cause. The Task Force proposes that the new Agency would merge with the City's Department of Parking and Traffic three years after its creation. Its plan would set specific goals which the Agency would be expected to meet three to five years after its creation. The Agency would honor Transit First provisions, placing the needs of public transportation over the needs of private vehicles. The Task Force plan would empower the Board of Directors of the Agency to develop and negotiate with the union(s) to establish principles for merit pay and employee incentives, based on achieving service and performance goals. It would also establish a Community Advisory Council of representative citizens and handicapped persons. Certain issues separate the two groups. First, Rescue MUNI wants the merger of the Agency and the Department of Parking and Traffic to occur at the outset. The Task Force wants the merger of the two functions to wait for a period of three years, allowing the Director of the Agency time to launch it and resurrect MUNI from its present morass. The merit pay and incentive issue is a thorny one. While it is not clear from the proposed ordinance, apparently payments for merit pay under the Rescue MUNI plan are to be authorized only on a group basis, not on an individual basis. There is also a difference of opinion as to whether union work rules should be written into the legislation or to be negotiated between the union(s) and the new Board. Rescue MUNI favors writing the union work rules into the legislation, while the Task Force favors negotiation by the unions and the Board. Under either scheme, union work rules will no longer be directly negotiated between the union and elected officials who depend on union support for their reelection. Both groups agree that there must be service and performance standards, but there is disagreement as to whether the standards should be written into the legislation, set forth as objectives to be negotiated or be adopted by ordinance. Finally, the two groups differ on how to further Transit First policies. The Task Force believes that the policies should be developed by the Board of Supervisors. FINDINGS The Grand Jury agrees that MUNI should become a separate, independent agency, as recommended by the Task Force and Rescue MUNI. The Grand Jury prefers Option Four, not Option Three, in the Task Force Report. Option Four would create a truly independent Agency, allowing the Agency to be further insulated from the politically motivated Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. Apparently the members of the Task Force also believe that Option Four would be preferable, but believe that it is not politically attainable. The Task Force suggests that establishment of a truly independent agency would also raise certain funding complexities. Both plans represent a substantial improvement over the present system. Failure to adopt some plan at this point will probably ensure a continuation of mediocre to bad transit in San Francisco. Removing the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor from the operations of MUNI is the first (and only the first) step in resolving the problem. [3] Whatever system is adopted, it should not be a system involving divided authority. All authority should rest with the new Agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Maintaining MUNI as a City Department, as it is now;
F2: SAFETY HAZARDS The Grand Jury noted that most drums storing fluids are not properly grounded and that wires are often left lying on the ground. Often drums are not stored on double- containment pallets, as required. These hazards were particularly noted at the new Marin Avenue facility. At Marin Avenue, a Safety Shut-off Switch for a large double- contained concrete tank was located behind a column, accessible only by climbing over drums stored around the column. Employees were found smoking inside shop areas, near possibly dangerous liquid chemicals. In one case a supervisor, when notified of such a problem, seemed unconcerned, replying that the offender was not a MUNI employee, but a contract employee working on a Breda car. The Grand Jury frequently noted accumulations of dirty rags thrown into empty boxes rather than being stored in safe, enclosed containers. Old florescent tubes were seen discarded in open trash containers, instead of being crushed and disposed of safely. At one location, the Grand Jury found an out-dated hazardous material certificate which was twenty-two months overdue. FINDING MUNI seems to lack a dedication towards safety in its yards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: A City Department to control policy, with MUNI to be operated by a non-profit organization;
F3: SAFETY ON THE STREETS The Grand Jury did not spend significant time investigating the problem of safety of MUNI vehicles while operating on the streets. However, it is apparent that, in the past twelve to twenty four months, there have been a number of serious accidents. Many accidents have involved drivers with inferior driving records. Mr. Burns advised the Grand Jury that it is his intention to create a Safety and Training Department which will report directly to the General Manager.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: A Municipal Transit Agency; and
F4: SECURITY The Grand Jury found security to be incredibly lax in the various MUNI yards. For example, at the Woods yard, where many vehicles are stored, there is a ten foot high chain link fence, topped with razor wire, but the gate is wide open and unmanned. It is an open invitation for vandals and graffiti artists (taggers) to damage vehicles. Despite the fact that, in the past, a MUNI vehicle was stolen for a joyride, there are no obvious procedures to prevent other vehicle thefts. At the Marin Avenue yard, there appeared to be no attempt to prevent unauthorized access to the facility Employees park their cars in MUNI yards. While available parking space in neighborhoods near the yards may be limited or non-existent, parking of private cars in the yards may present a security risk. Also, employees wash their cars in the yards, creating liability problems. The Grand Jury was advised that employees service their own cars or the cars of others in yards and on working time. There is no confirmation of that information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: An independent transit district. Under Option 3, creation of the Municipal Transit Agency, which is recommended by both the Task Force and Rescue MUNI, the Report states that it "would provide more autonomy and managerial scope than the present City department (Option 1), but less independence than a completely separate transit district (see Option 4 below.)" The Mayor would appoint the Agency's seven board members and their appointment would be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. They could be removed by a concurrence of the Mayor and two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors. The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors would appoint a Community Advisory Committee. Option 4 would create an Independent Transit District, analogous to BART, the San Mateo Transit District or the Golden Gate Bridge District. It would be created by state legislation. The Task Force Plan does not state how the directors of such a district would be chosen. Under the Rescue Muni Plan, the Agency Board would also be appointed by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, but directors could only be removed for cause. The Task Force proposes that the new Agency would merge with the City's Department of Parking and Traffic three years after its creation. Its plan would set specific goals which the Agency would be expected to meet three to five years after its creation. The Agency would honor Transit First provisions, placing the needs of public transportation over the needs of private vehicles. The Task Force plan would empower the Board of Directors of the Agency to develop and negotiate with the union(s) to establish principles for merit pay and employee incentives, based on achieving service and performance goals. It would also establish a Community Advisory Council of representative citizens and handicapped persons. Certain issues separate the two groups. First, Rescue MUNI wants the merger of the Agency and the Department of Parking and Traffic to occur at the outset. The Task Force wants the merger of the two functions to wait for a period of three years, allowing the Director of the Agency time to launch it and resurrect MUNI from its present morass. The merit pay and incentive issue is a thorny one. While it is not clear from the proposed ordinance, apparently payments for merit pay under the Rescue MUNI plan are to be authorized only on a group basis, not on an individual basis. There is also a difference of opinion as to whether union work rules should be written into the legislation or to be negotiated between the union(s) and the new Board. Rescue MUNI favors writing the union work rules into the legislation, while the Task Force favors negotiation by the unions and the Board. Under either scheme, union work rules will no longer be directly negotiated between the union and elected officials who depend on union support for their reelection. Both groups agree that there must be service and performance standards, but there is disagreement as to whether the standards should be written into the legislation, set forth as objectives to be negotiated or be adopted by ordinance. Finally, the two groups differ on how to further Transit First policies. The Task Force believes that the policies should be developed by the Board of Supervisors.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: The Grand Jury feels that the Navy has left the City an enormous cash eating machine.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City should negotiate with the Trust for extensions.
F2: Amenities such as food services, recreational facilities, and heating all require large outlays in money and personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: More information on the costs and effects of the Bay Bridge Alignment is needed.
F3: It could take more time than what the Tidelands Trust allows for the project to break even.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Analysis of the cost of the rentals against the cost of the replacement of the utilities and what happens after seven years or 2006 is needed. Treasure Island is definitely a jewel, but could carry a curse like the Hope diamond.
F2007: The Grand Jury sees problems in the long term as the best sites, i.e., most solid, have been appropriated by the state for programs such as the Youth Job Corps leaving mainly the land fill area around the northern perimeter of the island for housing development. There is a problem with the current water and sewer lines because they were originally installed using Navy "standards" that are well below the standards and specifications of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The John Stewart Co., with the direction of the TI Project Director, AnnMarie Conroy, is on a "fix as needed" program with regard to pipe repair and replacement. If a pipe bursts for any reason, the PUC or Department of Public Works are contacted for repairs. As now exists in San Francisco, there is no five-year plan for the replacement of old pipes on Treasure Island. The problem of broken sewer and water pipes will worsen as the land fill naturally compacts and is further compacted by increased vehicle traffic and the settling of buildings and roads causing the substandard piping to stretch and break. Additionally, on TI the PUC is responsible for the repair of pipe all the way to the outside wall of the buildings. Within San Francisco, the PUC is responsible only for repairs from the street to the curb of the sidewalk and the owner of the property is responsible for repairs between the curb and the building. THE BRIG It is the Grand Jury's understanding that as part of the City's agreement with the Navy, the brig on Treasure Island had to be brought up to code before any other considerations for the island's use and staffing could be implemented. Details regarding this topic can be found in the Grand Jury's report on the Sheriff's Department. MARINA Bids for a general developer are presently being reviewed, but as of now, no activity other than this current program is in effect. BAY BRIDGE The Bay Bridge retrofit has become a political football with Mayor Willie Brown, Jr., and Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland against Governor Davis. Governor Davis is striving for acceptance of the state and CALTRANS' plan for the relocation of the bridge, while both mayors oppose the plan and endorse their own plans. While the bridge does not directly affect Treasure Island because it crosses Yerba Buena Island, it has some side effects that could. Building a bypass will be necessary before the old span can be removed and the new bridge can be built. This bypass would be built north of the present roadway and could interfere with future marina development. FACILITIES Presently, to make TI an ongoing and profitable enterprise, programs are in place to generate revenue through the use of its facilities. Private parties, concerts, corporate events, and similar events have been held in the main terminal building or adjacent facilities and have been a success. One problem apparently is that much of the public is unaware these facilities are available for public use. The Sunday flea market has also provided the public with access to TI and could be used as a source of advertising for TI and its facilities. The Walt Disney Company and the Nash Bridges television show are regular users of the facilities and they are attracting other film and television companies to TI. POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING FACILITIES Two facilities left by the Navy relate to training. The fire training facility is state of the art but designed for ship fires. It could be modified for training in high rise fire fighting. Another facility is being considered as the new site of the Police Department Academy which also trains members of the Sheriff's Department. The reasoning to move the Police Academy from its present location in Diamond Heights to Treasure Island is that a bigger and more modern school could be built. This would enable the SFPD to solicit other law enforcement agencies from around the state to send their trainees to San Francisco for training. The Grand Jury doubts that this is viable since other metropolitan police departments around the state already solicit and provide training to personnel from other communities. However, we commend the Police Department's efforts and ideas to maximize the use of the proposed training facility on Treasure Island. FINDINGS 1. The Grand Jury feels that the Navy has left the City an enormous cash eating machine.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Interview the District controller and chief financial officer.
R2: Interview members of the School Board.
R3: Analyze in depth the various statistics on language programs conducted by the District.
R4: Look into the allegation that the District discriminates against Chinese students.
R5: Review the consents of parents to have their children taught in a language other than English.
R6: The SFUSD should keep track of the attrition rates as well as their presently defined dropout rates. The SFUSD should determine how many of the attritions between eleventh and twelfth grades are attending continuation high schools. These statistics would be useful in assessing the utility of the education they have received.
R7: Determine what the requirements are for language programs being offered by the District, with the end in mind of determining if there is compliance.
R8: The Grand Jury should be authorized to retain its own independent counsel. The excuse given by the City Attorney for not providing the Grand Jury with legal representation was that the City Attorney represents the District. This would apply to any legal issues raised by any other department of city government. The City Attorney purports to represent all of City and County Government. The stance taken by the City Attorney leaves the Grand Jury with no legal representation in its investigation of City and County Government.
R9: The issue of social promotion and the use of the schools in summer rather than blindly promote, should be reviewed.
R10: Visit at least a dozen additional schools including those that teach in a language other than English as well as those that teach partially in English. 11.Subpoena all SFUSD administrators to be interviewed instead of running the risk of failure to appear in response to an informal request.