San Francisco County Grand Jury

1999-2000

13 reports

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F1: Recent police actions to suspend or revoke club permits are in part based upon incidents that are not fairly attributable to club management. The basic premises of the SFPD with respect to clubs that are negligently managed are: (1) the clubs constitute a "threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the community" by bringing in the wrong element (either patrons or persons who prey on patrons) to the city; (2) the clubs are a "repeated disruption to the neighborhood" and especially to residents who live nearby; and (3) the clubs are a constant "strain on police services" because police resources are expended to respond to complaints and calls related to the clubs. [7] The SFPD's present practice is to cite all incidents which they believe are related to a club as evidence of negligent management. So, when a club's security staff calls the police to arrest an unruly person trying to get into the club or the paramedics to assist a drunk and dehydrated dancer, these responsible acts on the part of club management are used by the police against the club at a later date. Even incidents which take place outside of a club's premises and over which club management has little or no control, such as car break-ins in alleys on nearby streets or "suspicious" persons hanging around the club's premises, are cited in the police complaints and permit hearings to suspend or revoke a club's permits. Anonymous third-party complaints about a club may also be used to institute permit suspension or revocation proceedings. Earlier this year, the Maritime Hall received notice that its permits were under threat of suspension based on 22 incidents alleged by the police to have occurred over the course of five years. The police complaint appears to be based upon incidents which arguably are not directly attributed to the club's management because they involve the acts of individuals outside of the club's premises or because they lack independent substantiation. The incidents include, for example, reports of persons loitering outside, fights between patrons, and a police officer allegedly smelling the odor of marijuana in the club. Music and live entertainment venues add significantly to the culture of the City, as they have for years. Much of the new music being created today is electronic music that is played in and supported by the clubs in SOMA and the rest of the City. Clubs can be seen as a vital part of the City's culture. Unfortunately, drug use is a part of the club scene. But while there may be a correlation between clubs and drugs, the presumption of a cause-and-effect relationship is mistaken. The problem of drugs extends beyond the club environment. The London Drug Policy Forum has reported that with drug-taking prevalent throughout modern youth culture and not just amongst clubgoers, efforts to stop drug use outright are less effective than harm-reduction efforts such as educating users about the effects of drugs and how to prevent overdoses. The Forum also reported that good relationships between the police and clubs lead to increased reporting of drug-related incidents to local authorities. A senior epidemiologist with the San Francisco Community Substance Abuse Center who has studied the use of GHB informed Civil Grand Jury members of their belief that while people take GHB in club settings, people would frequent private parties and raves instead if there were no clubs open late. In his opinion, people are actually at greater risk of harm if they use GHB and other drugs outside of the clubs because private, unregulated parties will not have staff who can work with the police and call for help in emergencies. Police services are paid for by taxpayers, which include clubowners, employees, and clubgoers. One club reported to the Civil Grand Jury that it employed 63 people in 1999 and paid over $14,000 in local payroll, business, and property taxes and over $130,000 in sales tax. Another reported that it drew an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 people every year and had patrons coming from all over the world to attend promoted events. Clubs are legitimate businesses which generate sizable revenues for the City. Admittedly, their operations also generate public health and welfare issues which need to be addressed. But removing the permit process from the police who could focus on enforcement of the laws applicable to clubs, instead of on the administration and adjudication of permits, is a sensible solution that recognizes the rights of clubs that operate responsibly and the efforts of the police in protecting citizens and maintaining the peace.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The City should establish a permit commission based on the model presented by the ISCOTT licensing commission. Attempting to address the issue of fairness in the permit suspension and revocation process, Supervisor Mark Leno recently proposed legislation to create a "safe haven" for owners and event promoters who call 911 in emergencies. [9] Because 911 calls were being counted as black marks against the clubs and used by the SFPD to justify the revocation of club operating permits, club owners were deterred from calling 911. Such a situation not only penalizes those owners who act responsibly towards their customers by calling for help, but jeopardizes the health of those who need emergency medical care. The legislation proposed by Supervisor Leno also calls for Legislative Analyst research on the creation of an entertainment commission which could potentially address all issues related to late-night entertainment venues such as dance clubs, such as permitting, labor, health, consumer, planning, and public nuisance issues. [10] Because the creation of an all-encompassing entertainment commission may prove to be unworkable, the Grand Jury recommends that a new, smaller commission be established exclusively to handle entertainment venue permits in San Francisco. This commission could be modeled after the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation (ISCOTT), established in 1983 to consider all applications for the temporary use or occupancy of public streets for street fairs or athletic events such as the annual Bay to Breakers race. [11] ISCOTT consists of the department heads, or their designated representatives, from the departments of Parking and Traffic, Public Works, Police, Fire, Public Health, Municipal Railway, and City Planning. The Director of the Department of Public Works, or his or her designee, serves as the Chair of the committee. Although not on the committee, the Director of Administrative Services, or his or her designee, reviews the recycling plan for the proposed event and makes a recommendation to the committee about whether or not the committee should approve the application. A permit commission could consist of the same department heads or representatives as those serving on ISCOTT. Not only would the participation of other departments make the permit process less partisan because of the diversification of views, but it would eliminate the inherent conflict caused when the same department issuing the permits and retaining authority to revoke or suspend permits also builds cases against permit holders. Under the current process, the police act as "judge, jury, and executioner." Moreover, the inclusion of other departments in the process would be beneficial in addressing larger issues of municipal services and planning for the SOMA area. For example, if MUNI were to participate in such a commission, the department might be alerted to the need for the area to have additional public transportation on certain nights. The scheduling of additional bus routes might thereby reduce some of the car traffic in the area and, subsequently, traffic violations would be reduced. The San Francisco Traffic Code sections that govern ISCOTT and its application review and approval process set out the prerequisites for applying for and the conditions for obtaining permission for the temporary use or occupancy of a public street. A process similar to that used by ISCOTT could be established for a permit commission. The commission could review applications and decide, by majority vote, whether to grant, conditionally grant, or deny the application. Examples of conditions imposed by ISCOTT on the grant of an application include the applicant's payment for the cost of Parking Control officers and 10(B) police officers, the development of a limousine and shuttle bus plan mutually acceptable to the Mayor's Office and the SFPD, or payment for the cost of advance warning signs. [12] Club permit applications could also be conditioned upon the applicant's satisfaction of specific security, noise, health, and other conditions. Suspensions or revocations of permits could similarly be decided. An appeal of a decision could be made first to the director chosen to chair the commission, who, after conducting a hearing, would affirm, reverse, or modify the commission's decision. A further appeal could be taken to the Board of Appeals, which currently hears these appeals. As part of an interdepartmental commission, the SFPD would no longer control the permit process. However, as a part of the commission, the SFPD would be able to present evidence and reasons in support of their position on a given application. Each department could also bring a suspension or revocation action against a permit holder, by submitting a factual report to the commission for its consideration. In this proposed model, the Department of Public Health could argue for the suspension of a club permit because the club does not provide a safe dance environment (e.g., by failing to employ emergency medical technicians or to supply free or low-cost water to patrons). Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors The SFPD
F2: The permit process as established appears to allow the police to set public policy regarding the existence of after-hours clubs. One case in point is that of the DNA Lounge nightclub. Last August, the club was purchased by a new owner who applied to the Southern District's permit office for a transfer of the club's existing operating permits. The permit office approved the application, but made the issuance of the permits contingent upon 18 new conditions. The conditions effectively revoked the club's after-hours operating permit, which allowed the club to stay open until 6 a.m. every day and without which the club would have had to close at 2 a.m. on weekdays and Sundays and prohibit people from entering after 2 a.m. on all nights. The new owner brought an appeal to the Board of Appeals, which overturned the police decision. One of the charges of the new owner was that the police were imposing a de facto moratorium on after-hours clubs. While there is no official moratorium, no after-hours permits appears to have been granted in SOMA in the last five years. The reason for this is not clear. One police officer acknowledged to the Civil Grand Jury that the problems with clubs are not correlated to the holding of after-hours permits. In fact, with many clubs closing at the same time, at 2 a.m., the police often have difficulty dealing with incidents occurring at different places at the same time. [8] Occasionally, the district will run out of officers and have to draw on other districts to respond to calls. However, after-hours clubs, however, close at different hours, which can reduce the burden on police at concentrated times. By enforcing the permit process in the manner that it does, the Southern District of the SFPD essentially sets policy on after-hours entertainment in SOMA. While the desire of the police to reduce problems related to clubs is laudable, the role of the police is to protect the public and preserve the peace, not to set public policy on the hours that businesses are permitted to remain open. If elected officials make the legislative determination that after-hours clubs are detrimental to the public's health and welfare and should be eliminated, that is the proper function of that branch of government and not a proper function of law enforcement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The conditions for clubs to meet should be standardized and specified in the Police Code, as with the conditions imposed on applicants for street use permits. [13] Currently, the conditions imposed upon permit holders vary in type and severity depending upon the permit officer's personal determination and opinion about an applicant or permit holder. Department heads provide only verbal guidance to permit officers; there are no written guidelines for permit officers to follow. Instead, the permit officer interviewed by the Civil Grand Jury said that the conditions imposed on permit holders are based on "good sense and good police work." Such vague and subjective bases for setting permit conditions do not make for just decisions about business permits. The club owners interviewed by the Civil Grand Jury report frustration in their dealings with the police over the policing of permits because they do not know what standards they are being measured against or what requirements will next be instituted by a permit officer and a district captain. As one owner put it, the police are constantly presenting club owners with a "moving target" when it comes to permit conditions. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the conditions that clubs must meet in order to operate, and that the police should enforce, should be standardized and specified in the Police Code. For example, clubs, depending upon their size, could be required to have a certain number of security guards or trained medical personnel for a given number of patrons. They could be required to secure the area surrounding their premises up to a specified number of feet and to monitor patrons waiting in line to get into the club. Clubs could also be prohibited from allowing patrons to go in and out, or required to provide a "cooling-off" room with air conditioning and water. Closing all clubs at 2 a.m. is not the answer to the drug problem and it may displace the problem to unregulated, non-commercial locations. Instead, a working relationship between police and club owners is likely to be more effective in the fight against drugs. When club owners are made aware of the standards to which they will be held before the permits which they need to operate are jeopardized, they will not only be more likely to meet those standards, they will be more likely to cooperate with the police on all matters. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors The SFPD
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: Applicants and permit holders should be treated equally throughout the permit process. One club owner told the Civil Grand Jury that he would welcome a permit process that treated all clubs the same, so that he could operate his club on a "level playing field" with his competitors. Allowing some clubs to operate between the hours of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. but not others places those that do not at a disadvantage because they lose the customers who want to stay out late. After-hours and all other permits should be issued in a fair and equal manner, with permit holders being subject to the same conditions. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors The SFPD
R4: Permit holders should be fully informed as to the types of incidents that will be attributed to them as permit violations and subject them to a permit hearing for the suspension or revocation of permits. Presently, the SFPD does not have any rules or published guidelines on what should constitute a complaint attributable to nightclubs. Therefore, the police may cite incidents or crimes occurring on neighboring streets to clubs, in the belief that these incidents and crimes happen there because the clubs attract people to the area. This practice appears to be flawed and unfair to clubs because, by extension, the merchants in Union Square, the San Francisco Giants at PacBell Park, or the operator of any large venue in the City should likewise be held responsible for the incidents and crime occurring near their premises due to the crowds that they draw. SFPD permit officers are given only general guidance by department heads about what incidents may be used in a permit hearing. The police have stated that they attribute the drug activity outside of a club to that club because the club attracts people who "might be predisposed to late-night drug use." [14] Thus, the SFPD, by threatening to revoke the permits which clubs need to operate, effectively hold the clubs responsible for the acts committed by a handful of individuals, some of whom may not even be club patrons.[15] Club owners should be held to be negligent in maintaining their clubs if criminal activity occurs inside of the clubs and is documented.[16] The Los Angeles police permit regulation holds permittees responsible "for the actions of their agents or employees in the conduct of the permitee's business." [17] A distinction should be made between incidents which are fairly attributable to clubs and their operation and those incidents which are not because they are caused by individuals outside of the control of club management. The following list presents examples of the general distinction that could be made: POSSIBLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO CLUB POSSIBLY NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO CLUB MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT  Knowledge or reasonable suspicion of, and  Assaults/fights amongst patrons or failure to prevent, drug use and dealing inside perpetrated by patrons outside of a club club  Thefts from cars in alleys or streets near a  Failure to assist patrons or provide adequate club security  Theft within a club (e.g., pickpocketing) in  Failure to operate lawfully (e.g., admitting spite of efforts of club security minors, operating without proper permits)  Traffic congestion around clubs  Service of alcohol to minors or after last call  Loitering of suspicious persons on streets  Incidents related to employee behavior or around the club actions  Overcrowding of club  Violating noise ordinances With general guidance, club owners can operate knowing what they are responsible for and when their permits may be at risk. Thus, for example, a club that institutes pat-down searches of patrons by private security guards would not risk having its permits suspended when someone waiting to get in the club leaves the line to avoid the pat-down, but is stopped by police officers watching the club and found to have drugs in their possession. At present, the permit officer can record this incident as a mark against the club and use it as evidence to hold a permit hearing because that person was drawn to the club. But arguably, the club attempted to operate responsibly by searching would-be entrants and preventing those with drugs from entering and the incident should not be held against them. With established guidelines, the police and club owners will have a better idea of what will and what won't be grounds for the suspension or termination of permits. Additionally, increased fairness will promote faith in and support for the permit system and police enforcement, and hopefully foster more cooperation between the police and club owners. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors The SFPD
R5: The 10(b) program should be made available to all club owners, after a restructuring of program to remove the potential for conflicts of interest. The 10(b) program is a voluntary overtime program which allows the use of uniformed police officers as security personnel at special events, sports matches, construction sites, filming sites, dance clubs, department stores. A moratorium was placed on the 10(b) program for clubs because the Chief of Police perceived a conflict of interest in having a police officer work for a club on a regular basis and be paid by the club through the program. Such an ongoing relationship could create a conflict for the officer when observing criminal activity or problems in the club. Only two clubs, both owned by the same owner, are currently allowed 10(b) officers, the Sound Factory and City Lights. The moratorium should be lifted and all clubs should be offered the use of officers. The conflict problem could be reduced by imposing a limit on number of overtime hours an individual officer can work under this program. Alternatively, clubs could form a trade association to fund the use of 10(b) officers. Such an association could also represent the clubs' legitimate business interests and set up community projects to mitigate some of the negative effects of the presence of clubgoers in the neighborhood, such as cleaning trash and debris from streets or deploying trained health staff to distribute anti-drug literature and informational materials at club events. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors The SFPD
R6: Decibel levels should be standardized for all clubs and based upon up-to-date engineering criteria. Presently, the SFPD does not have firm criteria to measure the noise emanating from a club. Different noise stipulations are therefore placed on permits. As a general rule, noise should not be audible on another person's premises. Noise problems usually result when a club opens its windows or doors. The SFPD Central Dispatch handles noise complaints related to loud music or noise from dance clubs. After a documented warning, an officer can issue a citation under Section 415(2) of the Penal Code and arrest the offender. If noise is a chronic problem, the SFPD's Noise Abatement Unit assists in resolving the situation.[18] A few police officers have attended a special noise evaluation training class at Rutgers University in New Jersey. However, the SFPD acknowledges that standard noise guidelines are not used, claiming that to do so is not feasible as club locations and sites differ. Notwithstanding location and site variation, standardized criteria as to acceptable noise decibel and occupancy levels should be developed to eliminate differences in the treatment of permit holders. The Civil Grand Jury was informed that the SFPD and the Department of Public Health have worked on redrafting the current noise regulations. The two departments should move forward to complete their redraft of the regulations with appropriate input from parties that would be subject to them. Required Response The SFPD Department of Public Health Footnotes [1] Most of the media coverage over the SFPD's permit actions have centered around two clubs with after-hours permits, Ten 15 Folsom and the Endup. Other clubs whose permits have been suspended or threatened with suspension include Six and Maritime Hall. [2] The San Jose Chief of Police also reviews applications for and issues public dancehall and public entertainment permits. In Los Angeles, applicants apply to the Board of Police Commissioners (which includes civilians appointed to serve on the commission), which issues all police permits required for certain types of businesses, such as dance clubs. [3] Emulating SOMA, the area south of First Street in downtown San Jose is being marketed as "SOFA (South First Area), The Bay Area's Newest Entertainment District," featuring live music, dancing clubs, dining, pool, and art galleries. [4] See, e.g., "Status Report: GHB Use In San Francisco," Department of Public Health, Community Substance Abuse Services, October 21, 1997. [5] Raves are all-night indoor or outdoor dance parties often held illegally in large private spaces without permits and primarily attended by teenagers and young adults who listen to electronic and trance music. [6] See "Status Report: GHB Use In San Francisco," supra. [7] SFPD Complaint against Vincent Healy Bino, et al. (d.b.a. Annie's Bar & Grill), March 6, 1999; SFPD Complaint against Carl F. Hanken (d.b.a. "End Up"), October 18,
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Support should be sought from the Mayor's Office for immediate infrastructure upgrade. Required Response Mayor The Art Commission Department of Public Works Conclusion 2 The Bayview Opera House does not meet the standards of the ADA as to the bathrooms on the first floor, the photography lab and the main entrance. The main entrance of SOMARTS is not in compliance with the ADA. The Mission Cultural Center and SOMARTS are in need of new elevators.
R2: Support should be sought from the Mayor's Office for funds to bring the Bayview Opera House and the main entrance of SOMARTS into compliance with the ADA. The Art Commission should advise as to the steps being taken to secure funds for new elevators for the Mission Cultural Center and SOMARTS. Required Response Mayor The Art Commission Department of Public Works Conclusion 3 SOMARTS is in need of soundproofing.
R3: The Art Commission should advise as to the steps being taken to secure funds for soundproofing for SOMARTS. Required Response Mayor The Art Commission Department of Public Works Conclusion 4 The Community Support Boards of the cultural centers have been unsuccessful in obtaining the wide support needed to ensure the passage of bonds necessary to properly fund the cultural centers. Wide support for funding is also needed in order to complete upgrading of the facilities and to enhance their programs. The Community Support Boards of the cultural centers have also been unsuccessful in educating the public through community outreach to the local community as well as to the entire city. Further review of the cultural center reports to the Art Commission does not clearly reflect that the cultural centers are meeting the funding requirements as outlined in Section 515 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code.
R4: The Art Commission should determine what steps the Community Support Boards of the four cultural centers have taken and need to take in order to carry out their responsibility to obtain funds for the cultural center and advertise the unique activities of the Centers. The Art Commission should require that each cultural center set up a formal Community Support Board composed of both local community members and city-wide members who are able to help the center meet its financial goals and increase city-wide recognition of each of the cultural centers. Required Response Art Commission Mayor's Office of Community Development The Board of Directors of the South of Market Cultural Center The Board of Directors of the Mission Cultural Center The Board of Directors of the Bayview Opera House The Board of Directors of the Center for African and African-American Art and Culture -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT 1 1993 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REPORT, Prepared by the Cervantes Design Associates in association with the Saylor Consulting Group, Art Commission/Cultural Centers

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: There be formalized some permanent process, within city government, to analyze and plan for Recreation and Park facilities and site repair.
R2: There be developed long-range funding plans that don’t substantially depend on annual General Fund support. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Recreation and Park Department Conclusion (4) There is a growing consensus that neighborhood parks are the ones that residents use most, warranting substantial involvement of residents in the planning of improvements and changes. Recommendation The Civil Grand Jury recommends that, within the Recreation and Park Department, some form of ongoing advisory or consultation process involving neighborhood park users and nearby residents be developed. Required Response Recreation and Park Department Conclusion (5) The multi-source capital-funding plan together to meet the needs outlined in the report in
Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Convert the director's position of the OES and the five staff from appointive to competetive civil service positions to ensure continuity in the coordination of emergency services. One solution could be to move the OES from the Mayor's Office to another City department with a civil service infrastructure, such as the Department of Administrative Services. Required Response Mayor Human Resources Department
R2: Devise a logistical plan to ensure that sufficient fire and police personnel living outside San Francisco can be transported to the City in an emergency. Required Response Director of the Office of Emergency Services Fire Department Police Department
R3: Increase the availability of information — via mass media, websites, community organizations, and public schools — on emergency services, NERT training programs, the food and material components of emergency survival kits, and avenues of communication during major emergencies. Required Response Director of the Office of Emergency Services
R4: The Department of Public Health and other pertinent City officials need to review the loss in recent years of hospital beds and emergency room care and take appropriate measures to ensure that there are sufficient hospital beds and emergency treatment facilities to meet ongoing needs and emergency situations. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Director of the Office of Emergency Services Department of Public Health
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: possible reduction in duplicative administrative functions that will allow more emphasis on operational duties, which could be achieved without reduction in staff (other locales have moderate to substantial benefit here)
Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Instead of closing or privatizing the pharmacy, SFGH should open a second pharmacy. SFGH should also replicate, wherever feasible, Kaiser Permanente’s efficiency measures in dispensing prescriptions. The goal is to minimize the excessively long waiting time for prescriptions. Required Response Department of Public Health Health Commission
R2: DPH should approach major software producers for their expertise and assistance in upgrading its computer system since a highly efficient and sophisticated computer system, like Kaiser's and that of many neighborhood pharmacies, would make dispensing medication more efficient. Required Response Department of Public Health Health Commission
R3: Fill the staffing vacancies in the clinics to cut the long delays in getting an appointment. A reasonable goal would be to set an appointment within seven to fifteen days after a patient makes a request by telephone or consults a doctor. Required Response Department of Public Health Health Commission
R4: Ensure that neighborhood health centers function at full staffing levels since they provide critical preventive care and language assistance in the neighborhoods that they serve. Required Response Department of Public Health Health Commission
R5: Provide urgent clinical care and extend the hours to eliminate or minimize the need for patients requiring non-acute care to seek treatment in the emergency room. Doing so would provide some relief to overextended emergency room staff and would decrease the need to divert patients who need critical and immediate emergency care to other hospitals. Required Response Department of Public Health Health Commission
R6: Continue providing the current level of in-house psychiatric care to the mentally ill since the strong family involvement program, the specialized and culturally sensitive care to a diverse population, and the multilingual capabilities to help the limited-English speaking and monolingual patients have all contributed significantly to the quality of the care. Required Response Department of Public Health Health Commission
R7: Develop a comprehensive citywide plan to ensure that the residents of San Francisco have access to essential emergency room services during normal circumstances and during crises arising from earthquakes, other natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or any other emergency, and present that comprehensive plan to the Health Commission. Required Response Board of Supervisors Department of Public Health Health Commission Office of Emergency Services
R8: Take the necessary procedural steps to separate administratively and actually the budget of SFGH and clinics from the budget of DPH to ensure that funding to provide essential medical care is not diverted to other well-intentioned programs and services that address broader societal concerns but are peripheral to the health care that SFGH has provided in the past and should continue to provide to the people of San Francisco. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Department of Public Health Health Commission
R9: Based on the perception of the CGJ that there is a critical lack of long-range planning in DPH; DPH should comply with the City Charter requirement that all departments have a functional three-year plan, thus enabling DPH to make realistic budget projections rather than reacting precipitously to recurring deficits. DPH should formulate this plan after there is sufficient input, via public forums, from all affected parties. Required Response Board of Supervisors Department of Public Health Health Commission
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: Many agencies do not appear to be following the requirements of Administrative Code 8.16.
F2: Many people are unaware of the many report requirements in the Municipal Codes.
F3: Many people are unaware of the requirements of Administrative Code 8.16 requirements to send copies to the Public Library.
F4: There is no list of all reports and documents that should be available at the Public Library and that also could be used by the library staff to send out reminders or otherwise contact departments to get copies.
F5: City Attorney overview material does not provide any information regarding Section 8.16.
F6: There is a lack of clarity as to who within San Francisco City government should be responsible for ensuring that all government agencies are informed of all their requirements. There also is a lack of clarity as to who should monitor compliance with Municipal Code requirements, and enforce the requirements as necessary.
F7: Municipal Code requirements sometimes are not easy to find. Report requirements are sometimes not well labeled, the indexes for the Municipal Codes are sometimes deficient, and sometimes responsibilities for reports are called out in a part of the Municipal Codes that a given agency would not expect (e.g., Police Department report requirements called out in the Traffic Code).
F8: Some agencies send their reports directly to each of the Supervisors, rather than sending the reports to the Supervisors through the Clerk's Office.
F9: Municipal Code Annual Report requirements are not well-defined (see Appendix A for details).

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings
F1: court appearances by arresting officer after shift ends or on day off
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Police Officer court appearances should be coordinated with the District Attorney’s Office and the courts to attempt to arrange appearances on a scheduled workday with a realistic time scheduled for the appearance. Required Response Police Department District Attorney
F2: report writing when an arrest is made near end of shift
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Sheriff’s Department should be responsible for custody of all prisoners delivered to the jail or to a medical facility while awaiting treatment. Individual officers should be relieved of this responsibility. Required Response Police Department Police Commission Sheriff’s Department
F3: arrested person in need of medical treatment is routinely rejected by the Sheriff's
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Street fairs consume substantial overtime and the entity conducting the fair is only responsible to contribute a maximum of $2,500 toward the costs incurred by the City. This contribution is sometimes waived by the Board of Supervisors depending on political considerations. The fee should be increased and guidelines established for the uniform waiver of fees. Required Response Police Department Board of Supervisors
F4: Department causing the officer, who may be at the end of his shift, to accompany the prisoner to medical facility and to wait until the facility accepts the prisoner City emergencies
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The use of police officers for private functions under Administrative Code section 10b results in some reimbursement to the City for overtime incurred. The Board of Supervisors recently repealed the requirement that a 20 percent fee be charged in addition to the overtime incurred. The repealed fee was not uniformly charged and that served as a reason for its repeal. Currently no charge is assessed for the cost of administering the program or for the use of City equipment by police officers hired under the 10b program. The 20 percent fee should be reinstated and assessed equally in all instances. If a waiver is justified it should be pursuant to established guidelines and not waived on the basis of political considerations. Required Response Police Department Board of Supervisors
F5: supplying officers for private events*
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Studies should be made to determine whether some of the current Deputy assignments could be appropriately and adequately performed by non-law enforcement personnel. Required Response Sheriff’s Department Fire Department
F6: filming of movies and commercials*
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Work rules should be re-examined to determine whether the current requirements unnecessarily contribute to overtime requirements. Required Response Fire Department Fire Commission
F7: private security needs of businesses.*
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The Department should increase its vigilance in curtailing and prosecuting fraudulent sickness and compensation claims. Required Response Fire Department Fire Commission
F8: (*in some instances, the City may receive reimbursement of some of the overtime costs) FIRE DEPARTMENT: Understaffing emergencies
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Investigate incidents determined to be a tactic to discredit the chief, responsible personnel should be identified and disciplined or terminated. Required Response Fire Department Fire Commission
F9: absences due to fraudulent worker's compensation claims .
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: While Fire Department personnel understandably wish to witness the joy of a child receiving a toy, the City could arrange for the toys to be delivered in a less costly manner. Required Response Fire Department Fire Commission
F10: for some absenteeism Overtime paid to employees who participate in the delivery of toys during the
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: A comprehensive study ought to be made of Fire Department activities and policies to determine the root causes of its continuing heavy use of overtime. Required Response Fire Department Fire Commission
F11: Department's Toys for Tots program Alleged incidents of racism directed at the Chief may have resulted in overtime
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: An independent committee should be appointed to work with the Department to establish controls aimed at reducing overtime. Required Response Fire Department Fire Commission Municipal Railway
F12: abuses in order to call into question the Chief's management skills. MUNICIPAL RAILWAY: Understaffing
Related Recommendations (1)
R12: Legislation is required that would limit payment for overtime only where the workweek exceeds 40 hours. Employees should not be able to be absent during a regular workday and then receive overtime for working on their regular day off during the same workweek. Required Response Board of Supervisors Public Transportation Department
F13: unexcused absenteeism
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: Overtime incurred for special events should be budgeted separately thereby allowing management to focus on other root causes of overtime not related to special events. Required Response Public Transportation Department
F14: fraudulent worker's compensation claims
Related Recommendations (1)
R14: Management has a problem obtaining current data due to its use of technologically outdated information systems. Other departments have similar complaints. The City should analyze its information systems and include in its budget funding for a state-of- the-art management information system that potentially can be shared with all departments having similar needs. Required Response Public Transportation Department Human Resources Department General Recommendations In addition to the specific recommendations above, we have the following general recommendations that cover all departments. Department heads are responsible for controlling overtime. The budget process consists of departments budgeting for overtime by generally basing the request upon the prior year’s experience. As a result, overtime has become institutionalized as part of the budget. Common experience suggests that a department will find ways to use overtime funds awarded to it in the budget. The City will not be able to control overtime unless the systemic institutionalized process can be diverted to a process which views overtime as an extraordinary expenditure and there is an independent review for all overtime awarded.
F15: outdated management information systems
Related Recommendations (1)
R15: The Civil Grand Jury believes that there are several job classifications that could provide additional employment opportunities while reducing overtime hours. One possibility is the General Laborer (7514) job classification, which appears in the Port Authority, Water Department, and rather extensively in the Department of Public Works. The other consists of the Security Guards (8202), Institutional Police Officers (8204) and even Museum Guards (8226) who received significant overtime hours in various City departments. Additional persons hired into these job classifications could significantly reduce the risks and expenses involved with the dependency on overtime used to deliver necessary City services. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Controller
F16: poor hiring practices
Related Recommendations (1)
R16: Discretionary and emergency overtime should be budgeted separately. Only unforeseen events should be considered in the emergency category. Required Response Board of Supervisors Controller
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R17: Currently biannual reports are required where overtime for an employee exceeds 16 percent of base pay. Departments should be required to submit the report at the end of each month. The report should document the name of the employee, the amount of overtime pay earned, the reasons for the overtime and the department’s plan of action to eliminate future discretionary overtime. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Controller
R18: Although the offices of the mayor and the controller have recently initiated monthly overtime expenditure reports, monitoring of the report requires that it be submitted for review by an independent body, the responsible commission, the mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Overtime expenditures for all departments should be reviewed by an independent oversight committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors. If the overtime expenditure is found to be excessive, the department head and oversight committee should work together to develop a plan to control future overtime expenditures. Multiple incidents of excessive overtime expenditures should be brought to the attention of the mayor for possible counseling of the department head. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors
R19: The Mayor, who has the power to hire and who can influence his or her appointed commissioners to fire department heads, has the ultimate responsibility for controlling overtime abuses. The cycle of overtime use, abuses and pension enhancement can be broken if the Mayor exerts leadership by letting department heads know it is City policy that the need for overtime is an extraordinary event and is to be kept to a minimum. It should be the City’s goal to have appropriate staffing to fill the justifiable employee needs of the City, to budget for appropriate staffing, and to seek to reduce overtime as a way of life for City employees. Required Response Mayor
Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: CARC is presently not underutilized, but rather a pilot project that is improving with time. CARC should be continued following completion of the pilot project. One of the earlier criticisms of CARC was that it was greatly underutilized. This may have been true during the time period when the U.C. Study was undertaken, but since then this finding has changed significantly. As noted in the Results above, CARC was establishing the various components of its trial program during the time that research for the U.C. Study was performed. As such, CARC could not be expected to demonstrate the level of utilization expected by those performing the U.C. Study. Based on our review of this pilot project, we find that CARC is beginning to show its value. The number of juveniles served has increased, and more City districts are being served. Further, the Probation Department also does not feel that CARC is underutilized because it is set up as a pilot project, which will be properly evaluated by the NCCD, sometime in June 2000. RECOMMENDATION CARC should be continued after the pilot program period. A meeting should be set as soon as possible after the NCCD evaluation. This meeting should give all interested parties an opportunity to be heard on issues that will be addressed in the NCCD evaluation and raised in this CGJ investigation. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Commission Delinquency Prevention Commission 2.Despite a drop in juvenile crime in San Francisco since 1988, the census at Juvenile Hall has remained consistently high. One of CARC’s goals is to decrease the number of juveniles detained at the YGC. RECOMMENDATION In light of the fact that despite the drop in juvenile crime and the success of CARC there continues to be a high number of juveniles detained at YGC, we would recommend that the Board of Supervisors obtain copies of the population management investigation of both the Implementation Team and the Probation Department and schedule a hearing as to why there has not been a decease in the number of juveniles detained at YGC. Required Response Board of Supervisors Delinquency Prevention Commission 3.There are exceptions as to which juvenile offenders are referred to CARC (see Attachment 4). The Implementation Team should identify resources needed to service "high-risk" youths and those with mental health needs. RECOMMENDATION If CARC is continued after the NCCD evaluation, the issue of the type of cases that should be referred to CARC should be made clear. While the decision of the exception of juveniles from who are referred to CARC may be that of the CBC, it is recommended that leadership be taken either by the Implementation Team or the Coordinating Council of the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council in order to provide the CBC with information so that a well-informed decision can be made. Required Response Mayor Juvenile Probation Department San Francisco Police Department Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Commission District Attorney Public Defender Department of Public Health
R2: Despite a drop in juvenile crime in San Francisco since 1988, the census at Juvenile Hall has remained consistently high. One of CARC's goals is to decrease the number of juveniles detained at the YGC. RECOMMENDATION In light of the fact that despite the drop in juvenile crime and the success of CARC there continues to be a high number of juveniles detained at YGC, we would recommend that the Board of Supervisors obtain copies of the population management investigation of both the Implementation Team and the Probation Department and schedule a hearing as to why there has not been a decease in the number of juveniles detained at YGC.
R3: There are exceptions as to which juvenile offenders are referred to CARC (see Attachment 4). The Implementation Team should identify resources needed to service "high-risk" youths and those with mental health needs. RECOMMENDATION If CARC is continued after the NCCD evaluation, the issue of the type of cases that should be referred to CARC should be made clear. While the decision of the exception of juveniles from who are referred to CARC may be that of the CBC, it is recommended that leadership be taken either by the Implementation Team or the Coordinating Council of the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council in order to provide the CBC with information so that a well-informed decision can be made.
R4: A proper public forum is needed to present the NCCD evaluation and ensure enlightened dialogue with and input from the public. RECOMMENDATION A meeting should be set as soon as possible after the NCCD evaluation before either the Implementation Team or the Mayor’s Criminal Justice Council. Consideration should be given to soliciting help from the signatories of the Action Plan as well as San Francisco State University and Golden Gate University (Attachments 7 and 8). This meeting should give all interested parties an opportunity to be heard on issues that will be addressed in the NCCD evaluation and raised in this CGJ investigation namely: usage of CARC; the stable population at Juvenile Hall over the years; exceptions to juvenile offenders who are referred to CARC; programs that target "high-risk" youth; removing any impediments to success; mediating differences and misunderstandings thereby ensuring coordination among agencies; optimizing the allocation of funds among the various service providers; implementing effective leadership to ensure accountability, coordination and communication; requiring accountability of all participants by demanding detailed reports that measures performance; and lastly, getting consensus from all the participants as to the future of CARC. Required Response Mayor Board of Supervisors Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Commission
R5: There is no easy method to update or amend the Action Plan or otherwise reach consensus. For instance, there are no regularly scheduled meetings of the Action Plan signatories, nor are any planned. There should be a formalized method by which significant issues can be referred to all participants in the Implementation Team, which was established by the Mayor as an objective body to implement the Action Plan and which is in the best position to try to reach resolution in a manner which is of greatest benefit to the juvenile offenders. RECOMMENDATION The Implementation Team should agree to meet on a regular basis, at least twice a year, to discuss significant issues related to the Action Plan. Required Response Mayor Juvenile Probation Department Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice Commission ATTACHMENT 1 COORDINATING COUNCIL’S LETTER OF COMMITMENT ATTACHMENT 2 JUVENILE JUSTICE COMPREHENSIVE CIRCLE IMPLEMENTATION CHART ATTACHMENT 3 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND REFERRAL CENTER PROGRAM NARRATIVE PROGRESS REPORT #1 7/1/97 TO 12/31/97 ATTACHMENT 4 CARC REFERRAL CENTER GUIDELINES FOR TAKING YOUTH TO EITHER CARC OR YOUTH GUIDANCE CENTER BASED ON TYPE OF CHARGE ATTACHMENT 5 LETTER DATED AUGUST 24, 1999, FROM SUPERVISOR MICHAEL YAKI TO JESSE WILLIAMS, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER ATTACHMENT 6 LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1999, FROM SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE KEVIN MCCARTHY TO SUPERVISOR MICHAEL YAKI ATTACHMENT 7 LETTER DATED MARCH 13, 1997, FROM ROBERT A. CORRIGAN, PRESIDENT, SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY TO MIMI SILBERT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DELANCEY STREET FOUNDATION ATTACHMENT 8 LETTER DATED MARCH 14, 1997, FROM THOMAS M. STAUFFER, PRESIDENT, GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY TO GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY COLLEAGUES