San Francisco County Grand Jury
2016-2017
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
Rec & Parks has done a good job in addressing the need for a comprehensive and updated Strategic Plan, as recommended in the 2013 report of the Budget and Legislative Analyst.
F2:
Rec & Parks and PROSAC appear to have an improved working relationship.
F3:
It is important that the current momentum be nurtured with support of both the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.
F4:
The Strategic, Operational, and Capital Plans could be better integrated with one another to achieve Rec & Parks goal of seamless connections.
F5:
The Capital Plan does not list all of Rec & Parks planned capital investments. Including this list in the Plan would allow PROSAC to view a comprehensive picture of all of Rec & Parks present and planned capital investments at once, as was recommended in the 2013 BLA Report.
F6:
Rec & Parks continues to operate under the 2011 Acquisition Policy which was found by the 2013 BLA Report to be inconsistent with Park Code. Planning to Make Our Parks Even Better _________________________________________________________________
F7:
Rec & Parks assessment of the condition of its park assets needs to be reviewed and updated. Its planned replacement of the current COMET system should contribute to this process.
F8:
Obtaining the resources to conduct needed preventative maintenance has been a continuing challenge for many City departments, and Rec & Parks is no exception. When needed maintenance is deferred, it ends up increasing future costs. This is not just a park issue but it is a City-wide issue.
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
NO RECOMMENDATION Recreation and Parks Department
R2:
NO RECOMMENDATION Recreation and Parks Department
R3:
1: The Mayor should require Rec & Parks, at least annually, to review and, as needed, update its Strategic, Operational, and Capital Plans.
R4:
1: Rec & Parks should establish clearer linkages between the Strategic, Operational, and Capital Plans through greater cross-referencing.
R5:
Rec & Parks should include in the next version of its Capital Plan a report of all Rec & Parks planned capital investments. This report should be broken down by capital investment, timetable for completion, investment amount, maintenance vs. new acquisition, and Equity vs. Non-Equity Zones.
R6:
By January 2018, the Recreation and Parks Commission should review and, as needed, update its Acquisition Policy.
R7:
1: Rec & Parks acquisition of the replacement system for the COMET system and a reassessment of the condition of park assets should be completed by the end of 2018.
R8:
1: Rec and Parks should consider outsourcing selected park maintenance needs as part of a preventative maintenance program. Planning to Make Our Parks Even Better _________________________________________________________________
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The broader public is barely aware of the PS framework, diminishing its utility and hampering the SFG’s ability to communicate progress to San Franciscans. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 1: In order to ensure broader public access to the PS platform, and consistent with the practice of other leading cities, a clear link to the PS website should be placed on the SFG website homepage, the Office of the Mayor’s homepage and the Board of Supervisor’s homepage by January 1, 2018 (P).
F2:
Despite the Mayor’s role as the accountable executive of the SFG, the Mayor does not directly report performance results to the public, as is done in other leading cities. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 2.1: Consistent with other leading cities such as New York, beginning in 2018 the Mayor should present an annual SFG Performance report that 20 ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE concisely communicates SFG performance and progress to the public; the public transmission of which should consist of: i. Hosting a public press conference, the first of which would occur not later than January 31, 2019, announcing the SFG’s annual performance (P). ii. Posting the SFG Performance report on the Office of the Mayor’s website homepage (P). iii. Submitting the SFG Performance report to the Board of Supervisors for comment (P). iv. Within 30 days of the Board of Supervisors response, the Controller’s Office should update the PS website to reflect annual SFG performance, with comments from the Board of Supervisors and responses from the Office of the Mayor included online for the public’s reference (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 2.2: Commencing in 2018, the Controller’s Office should prepare quarterly updates of the PS framework, inclusive of: i. Submission of the quarterly update to the Board of Supervisor’s Government Audit and Oversight Committee (GAO) and the Office of the Mayor, inviting comment (N). ii. Posting a quarterly update on the PS website homepage, with comments from the Board of Supervisors and Mayor’s Office included for public reference (N).
F3:
The PS framework encompasses too many indicators – some of the indicators are of great importance, whereas others are much less significant. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 3.1: In consultation with other SFG entities and community groups, the Controller’s Office should propose a narrowed set of PS indicators, likely not exceeding 30 total, by October 1, 2017; the Board of Supervisor’s GAO Committee should be invited to comment on the revised indicators prior to submission to the Office of the Mayor for review and approval (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 3.2: In consultation with other SFG entities and community groups, the Controller’s Office should evaluate, no later than July 1, 2018, the feasibility of including district level reporting for some or all indicators and posting this information within the online PS platform, enabling citizens to understand progress in their own neighborhoods (N).
F4:
Having performance indicators without associated goals goes against practice in other leading cities, and limits the public’s ability to understand the SFG’s progress. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 4.1: The Mayor’s Office should ensure that by January 1, 2018 every PS indicator has a linked goal, with all goals approved by the Mayor – these goals comprise the SFG’s overarching annual operational plan (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 4.2: The Controller’s Office should ensure that by January 1, 2018 the PS framework includes comparative performance figures against prior year goals alongside current year goals, so citizens can see the trend of progress (P).
F5:
Citizens have almost no means by which to regularly and systematically assess the SFG’s performance relative to other leading cities; in contrast, other leading cities provide this information to their citizens. ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE ❖ RECOMMENDATION 5: The Controller’s Office should identify the top 3-5 rankings/indices relevant to each scorecard, and add these to the PS framework by January 1, 2018 (N).
F6:
The PS framework is not formally integrated into the SFG’s planning process other than occasional budget discussions, whereas its true value is the extent to which SFG planning and budgeting is directly linked to achieving the goals within the PS framework. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 6: Beginning in fiscal year 2018 the revised PS framework should be formally incorporated into the SFG department strategic planning and budgeting process – in particular, the Office of the Mayor should require each department to: i. Specify within their departmental strategic plans which initiatives directly support the SFG’s PS goals most relevant to their operational mandate, and what improvement they project in achieving that goal (N). ii. Specify within their departmental budget submission how their budget request is directly supportive of improved SFG performance against the PS goals most relevant to their operational mandate (N).
F7:
The specific indicators used within the SFG’s PS framework to track performance in the areas of the gravest public concern should be updated to better reflect what the SFG is doing to address the public’s gravest concerns. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 7.1: The Controller’s Office should update, by January 1, 2018, the current housing affordability indicators based on recommendations from the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, and submit the revisions to the Mayor’s Office for review and approval (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 7.2: The Controller’s Office should update, by January 1, 2018, the current homelessness indicators based on recommendations from the DHSH Director and the examples of other leading cities, and submit the revised indicators to the Office of the Mayor for review and approval (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 7.3: The Controller’s Office should update, by January 1, 2018, the current crime and street safety indicators based on recommendations from the Chief of Police and the examples of other leading cities, and submit the revised indicators to the Office of the Mayor for review and approval (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 7.4: Consistent with Recommendation P4 above, the Office of the Mayor should ensure that, by January 1, 2018, each of the primary housing, homelessness and crime indicators have associated goals (P).
F8:
Noting the severe economic inequality within and between various neighborhoods and communities in the City, and consistent with the City’s long-standing reputation for socially inclusive policies, the PS framework should more directly gauge SFG progress in addressing social, gender and racial equity. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 8: In consultation with other SFG entities and community organizations, the Controller’s Office should ensure that, by January 1, 2018, one or more PS indicators are amended or added to ensure the SFG is tracking and reporting on the equitable distribution of government spending and services (N). ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
In order to ensure broader public access to the PS platform, and consistent with the Office of the Mayor practice of other leading cities, a clear link to the PS website should be placed on the Board of Supervisors SFG website homepage, the Office of the Mayor’s homepage and the Board of Supervisor’s homepage by January 1, 2018.
R2:
1 Consistent with other leading cities, beginning in 2018 the Mayor should present an annual SFG Performance report that concisely communicates SFG performance and progress to the public; the public transmission of which should consist of: i. Hosting a public press conference, the first of which would occur not later than January 31, 2019, announcing the SFG’s annual performance. Office of the Mayor ii. Posting the SFG Performance report, not later than January 31, 2019, on the Board of Supervisors Office of the Mayor’s website homepage. Office of the iii. Submitting the SFG Performance report to the Board of Supervisors for Controller comment. iv. Within 30 days of the Board of Supervisors response, the Controller’s Office should update the PS website to reflect annual SFG performance, with comments from the Board of Supervisors and responses from the Office of the Mayor included online for the public’s reference.
R3:
1 In consultation with other SFG entities and community groups, the Office of the Office of the Controller should propose a narrowed set of PS indicators, likely not exceeding 30 Controller total, by October 1, 2017; the Board of Supervisor’s GAO Committee should be Office of the Mayor invited to comment on the revised indicators prior to submission to the Office of the Board of Supervisors Mayor for review and approval. ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
R4:
1 The Mayor’s Office should ensure that by January 1, 2018 every PS indicator has a Office of the Mayor linked goal, with all goals approved by the Mayor – these goals comprise the SFG’s Board of Supervisors overarching annual operational plan.
R5:
Office of the The Controller’s Office should identify the top 3-5 rankings/indices relevant to each Controller scorecard, and add these to the PS framework by January 1, 2018.
R6:
Beginning in fiscal year 2018, the revised PS framework should be formally incorporated into the SFG department strategic planning and budgeting process – in particular, the Office of the Mayor should require each department to: i. Specify within their departmental strategic plans which initiatives directly Office of the Mayor support the SFG’s PS goals most relevant to their operational mandate, and Board of Supervisors what improvement they project in achieving that goal. ii. Specify within their departmental budget submission how their budget request is directly supportive of improved SFG performance against the PS goals most relevant to their operational mandate. ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
R7:
1 The Controller’s Office should update, by January 1, 2018, the current housing Office of the affordability indicators based on recommendations from the Director of the Mayor’s Controller Office of Housing and Community Development, and submit the revisions to the Office of the Mayor Office of the Mayor for review and approval.
R8:
In consultation with other SFG entities and community organizations, the Office of the Controller Controller’s Office should ensure that, by January 1, 2018, one or more PS indicators Board of Supervisors are amended or added to ensure the SFG is tracking and reporting on the equitable distribution of government spending and services. ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
That there are multiple causes for the City’s $5.81 billion debt to its Retirement System, including investment losses ($1.4 billion), a court ruling on Supplemental Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) in the 2011 Proposition C ($1.3 billion), and changes in demographic assumptions ($1.1 billion)31. However, the principal underlying cause is the estimated $3.5 billion32 in retroactive retirement benefit increases implemented by voter-approved propositions between 1996 and 2008.
F2:
1) That the City’s Retirement System diligently protects the retirement- related interests of the City’s employees and retirees; 2) that the Retirement Board has a majority of members who are also members of the Retirement System (they receive, or will receive, pensions); 3) that when it came to retroactive retirement benefit increase propositions between 1996 and 2008, the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, Retirement Board, and Controller did not fulfill their responsibility to watch out for the interests of the City and its residents; and 4) that despite previous Retirement System-related propositions (2010 Proposition D and 2011 Proposition C) that reduced future pension liabilities, the Retirement System remains seriously underfunded, threatening the fiscal status of the City.
F3:
That the Voter Information Pamphlets for retroactive retirement benefit increase propositions between 1996 and 2008 did not provide voters with complete estimates of the propositions’ costs, who would pay those costs, how those costs were financed, and what the interest rates were.
F4:
The Controller and the Retirement System provide extensive reports about the Retirement System, but they are too complex for the average citizen, employee, or retiree to understand. The data in the Retirement System reports is not available to the Retirement System or the public in a dataset, making research and analysis more difficult.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Name: Retirement System Oversight Committee
R2:
Purpose a. Develop a comprehensive, long-term solution for the Retirement System’s unfunded liabilities that is fair to both employees, retirees, and taxpayers, and present it to voters in a proposition by the end of
R3:
Public Meetings a. The Board of Supervisors shall provide the committee with any necessary technical assistance and shall provide administrative assistance in furtherance of its purpose and sufficient resources to publicize the conclusions of the committee. b. All committee proceedings shall be subject to the California Public Records Act (Section 6254, et seq., of the Government Code of the State of California) and the City's Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of this Code). The committee shall issue regular reports on the results of its activities. A report shall be issued at least once a year. Minutes of the proceedings of the committee and all documents received and reports issued shall be a matter of public record and be made available on the Board's website.
R4:
Membership a. Two-thirds of the members will be Public members and one-third will be Representative members. b. Public members. i. Public members must be voters. ii. Public members cannot be members of the Retirement System. iii. Each Supervisor will appoint a single Public member. iv. The Mayor will appoint all other Public members. v. Public members can only be removed for cause. vi. Public members shall be experienced in life insurance, actuarial science, employee pension planning, investment portfolio management, labor negotiations, accounting, mathematics, statistics, economics, or finance. vii. Public members will receive no compensation. viii. Four-year term, staggered so that one-fourth of the Public members’ terms expire each year. THE SAN FRANCISCO RETIREMENT SYSTEM – INCREASING UNDERSTANDING & ADDING VOTER OVERSIGHT ix. No more than two consecutive terms. c. Representative members i. Mayor’s Office representative. ii. Board of Supervisors’ representative. iii. Controller’s Office representative. iv. Human Resources Department representative. v. Safety Unions’ representative. vi. Miscellaneous Unions’ representative.
R5:
Committee Costs a. The Board of Supervisors will decide how best to fund the Committee. Recommendation R2.2: That by the end of 2018, the Mayor and Board of Supervisors submit a Charter amendment proposition to the voters to add three additional public members who are not Retirement System members to the Retirement Board.