San Francisco County Grand Jury

2017-2018

4 reports

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F1: 106. [Publication Date] (text may be duplicated due to spanning and CGJ (Agree/Disagree) [for F#] (text may be duplicated due to spanning and CGJ Response multiple respondent effects) [Response Due Date] multiple respondent effects) [Response Due Date] (Implementation) Open Source Voting F5 Today, only one company can operate California R6 Recommends the Office of the Controller Controller Requires further Based on the Office of Controller's preliminary in San Francisco certified Ranked Choice Voting Elections - [F5, F6] evaluate the premium San Francisco pays for its [Response due: August 28, analysis analysis, there are no California counties using [Published: June 29, Dominion Election Systems. San Francisco has a Voting System compared to (1) the price paid by 2018] Ranked Choice Voting at this time. Moreover, 2018] continuing legal obligation to purchase systems other California counties that use Ranked Choice Secretary of State has only approved Dominion's from Dominion, regardless of cost or Voting, and (2) the price paid by California voting system for conducting ranked-choice competitiveness, due to county RCV rules, counties that do not use RCV, and (3) the price voting elections. The Office of Controller's Office restrictions on procurement due to LGBT paid by cities/counties outside of California who has identified the following non-California discrimination in other states, and state use RCV. This analysis should be published by jurisdictions that currently use Ranked Choice certification requirements. April 1, 2019. Voting and could be used for future analysis, if needed: • Basalt, CO • Santa Fe, NM • Cambridge, MA • St. Louis Park, MN • Minneapolis, MN • St. Paul, MN • State of Maine • Takoma Park, MD • Portland, ME • Telluride, CO Open Source Voting F6 The operational cost charged by Dominion Department of Elections Disagree, wholly Relative to the current contract, operational in San Francisco Systems increased from 1.1 million per year to 2 [Response due: August 28, costs will decrease under the next agreement. [Published: June 29, million per year between the contracts from 2018] Although the contract with Dominion is not 2018] 2006 to 2018 and 2018 onward. San Francisco final, the expected annual cost associated with did not have a viable alternative to accepting the agreement is $2 million. The annual cost this price increase. will be comprised of both election-related services and the leasing of all equipment for voting at both polling places and vote-by-mail. Additionally, the City most likely will be able to apply funds allocated under the current State budget for counties to update voting technologies, which will further reduce costs associated with the next system. Open Source Voting F6 The operational cost charged by Dominion Mayor Disagree, wholly Although the contract with Dominion is not in San Francisco Systems increased from 1.1 million per year to 2 [Response due: August 28, final, the FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 budget [Published: June 29, million per year between the contracts from 2018] anticipates a total annual cost of $2.0 million. 2018] 2006 to 2018 and 2018 onward. San Francisco However, the annual cost of the new leased did not have a viable alternative to accepting system will be comprised of both election- this price increase. related services and the leasing of all voting equipment. As the Department transitions away from its current voting system to the new leased system, the Department will no longer need to incur the annual operating costs associated with the old system. Open Source Voting F6 The operational cost charged by Dominion R5 Recommends the Office of the Controller set up Controller Will not be The San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter in San Francisco Systems increased from 1.1 million per year to 2 [F5, F6] a process to trigger review of city RFPs that only [Response due: August 28, implemented 21, Acquisition of Commodities and Services, [Published: June 29, million per year between the contracts from receive one bidder, and, when feasible, perform 2018] because it is not already requires the City's Contracting Officers 2018] 2006 to 2018 and 2018 onward. San Francisco a market analysis to determine why the warranted or to "review solicitations to determine whether did not have a viable alternative to accepting procurement process has not induced reasonable the solicitation could be altered and reissued in this price increase. participation of additional vendors. This process a manner that would be likely to attract should be in place by April 1, 2019. responsive offers". Also, Administrative Code Chapter 6 provides guidance for construction and professional services contracting. Specifically, Section 6.23 (c), Procedure Upon Rejection or Failure of Bids, provides guidance to Department Heads on appropriate actions to take for no or one bid. Further, the Office of the Controller already conducts audits and investigations of the City's contracting procedures, including those relating to the Requests for Proposals process in fulfillment of the San Francisco Charter, Appendix F, Section
Findings & Recommendations 14 findings
F1: The City has produced more than the required market rate housing to satisfy market demand using traditional building practices, but not nearly enough below market rate housing. Taking better advantage of alternative construction methods can increase the City’s ability to narrow the below-market housing gap. (No recommendation)
F2: Construction of ADUs can add a meaningful number of moderately priced rental housing units in San Francisco, with no significant burden on City finances. Therefore, encouraging ADU development is of value to San Francisco. (R1, R2, R3, R4, R9, R10)
Related Recommendations (6)
R1: Recommends the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection jointly review their codes and submit joint recommendations to the Board of Supervisors no later than April 1, 2019 for code amendments designed to encourage homeowners to build more ADUs. (F2, F8)
R2: Recommends the Board of Supervisors amend existing City codes and ordinances, before June 30, 2019, to waive or reduce ADU permit fees, with the understanding that reduced departmental revenues would be made up from the City’s general fund. (F2, F6, F7)
R3: Recommends the Board of Supervisors structure fees separately for ADUs in single family residences and ADUs in multi-unit buildings, specifically designed to ease the permitting costs for single family homeowners. (F2, F6, F7)
R4: Recommends the five agencies involved with ADU permitting establish a shared meeting space by January 1, 2019, and not wait for the completion of the new shared agency building. This space would be used by point persons from each of the five permitting agencies to expedite the ADU permit approval process. (F2, F4, F5)
R9: Recommends the Planning Department waive parking space requirements for ADUs built in single-family residences. (F2, F8)
R10: Recommends the Planning Department expand its public outreach on ADUs to increase homeowner awareness of ADU opportunities. (F2, F9)
F3: The City has provided a program to encourage ADU construction, and as a result, the number of ADU permit applications has been growing dramatically. Further improvements to this program will help ADU construction to continue on a successful trajectory. (R6)
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Recommends the Department of Building Inspection work with the Department of the Controller to develop meaningful, outcome-based performance metrics on ADU permit approval duration, to be reported on OpenData starting January 2019. (F3, F4)
F4: The length of the permitting process for ADUs is a major factor in limiting the speed of bringing ADUs to market to help meet the housing shortage. Shortening the ADU permitting process both expedites and encourages ADU construction. (R4, R6)
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: Recommends the five agencies involved with ADU permitting establish a shared meeting space by January 1, 2019, and not wait for the completion of the new shared agency building. This space would be used by point persons from each of the five permitting agencies to expedite the ADU permit approval process. (F2, F4, F5)
R6: Recommends the Department of Building Inspection work with the Department of the Controller to develop meaningful, outcome-based performance metrics on ADU permit approval duration, to be reported on OpenData starting January 2019. (F3, F4)
F5: The Planning Department expects to establish a one-stop permit center in its new building, which would bring together all agencies involved in the permit process, and thereby expedite approvals, but the new building won’t be ready until 2020; therefore, interim measures to expedite ADU approvals are needed. (R4)
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Recommends the five agencies involved with ADU permitting establish a shared meeting space by January 1, 2019, and not wait for the completion of the new shared agency building. This space would be used by point persons from each of the five permitting agencies to expedite the ADU permit approval process. (F2, F4, F5)
F6: The City’s ADU program acknowledges the value to the City of increasing ADU construction. Homeowners who construct ADUs do so voluntarily and at their own expense. The additional burden of heavy permit fees is counterproductive to the City’s goal of increasing the rate of ADU construction, in that it represents an additional barrier to building ADUs for single family homeowners, and therefore likely reduces the number of applications. (R2, R3)
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: Recommends the Board of Supervisors amend existing City codes and ordinances, before June 30, 2019, to waive or reduce ADU permit fees, with the understanding that reduced departmental revenues would be made up from the City’s general fund. (F2, F6, F7)
R3: Recommends the Board of Supervisors structure fees separately for ADUs in single family residences and ADUs in multi-unit buildings, specifically designed to ease the permitting costs for single family homeowners. (F2, F6, F7)
F7: Cities that lower permitting fees for ADUs, as Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, BC have done, see an increase in the number of permit applications by single family homeowners; if San Francisco reduces permitting fees for that type of ADU permit applications, they are likely to increase. (R2, R3)
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: Recommends the Board of Supervisors amend existing City codes and ordinances, before June 30, 2019, to waive or reduce ADU permit fees, with the understanding that reduced departmental revenues would be made up from the City’s general fund. (F2, F6, F7)
R3: Recommends the Board of Supervisors structure fees separately for ADUs in single family residences and ADUs in multi-unit buildings, specifically designed to ease the permitting costs for single family homeowners. (F2, F6, F7)
F8: The City’s Building and related construction codes place limitations on what can be built, inhibiting some homeowners from building ADUs. Allowing exceptions from these requirements, when it can be done without compromising safety, helps homeowners add ADUs to their homes. (R1, R9)
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: Recommends the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection jointly review their codes and submit joint recommendations to the Board of Supervisors no later than April 1, 2019 for code amendments designed to encourage homeowners to build more ADUs. (F2, F8)
R9: Recommends the Planning Department waive parking space requirements for ADUs built in single-family residences. (F2, F8)
F9: The Planning Department’s current public outreach program is a good start, but the material needs to be updated, and it is not reaching enough people. Better outreach directed to more homeowners will likely lead to an increase in applications for construction of ADUs in single family homes. (R10)
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: Recommends the Planning Department expand its public outreach on ADUs to increase homeowner awareness of ADU opportunities. (F2, F9)
F10: Spaces at the 1068 Mission and possibly the Mission Bay Block 9 homeless housing projects may be suitable for construction trade “soft skills” training—preparatory training for construction work. This could be facilitated by DHSH as part of the CityBuild program. The end result could be a strengthened labor force. (R5)
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Recommends that MOHCD and OCII require the managers of 1068 Mission Street and possibly Mission Bay Block 9 to reserve ground floor space for use in training construction workers, including training in ADU construction methods and modular unit construction work. (F10)
F11: When the City is building housing using factory-constructed modules from outside the City, the factory construction of those modules is subject to state building codes but not local building codes. If local building codes are not taken into account at the factory, there can be code compliance problems at the project site. (R8)
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Recommends the Department of Building Inspection regularly inspect modular factories outside the City, if those factories are building housing for the City, to ensure construction is built to comply with City codes. (F11)
F12: Some current trade union contracts prevent the City from using modular construction for City-sponsored below market housing projects, and further slow progress on below market housing. (R11)
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: Recommends the Mayor support the establishment of a union-staffed modular housing factory in San Francisco. (F12, F14)
F13: It may take as many as five residential modular construction projects for the City to accurately assess this alternate construction method, including an assessment of cost and time benefits. In addition to the 1068 Mission project, it will be helpful to this assessment if the pending homeless housing project at Mission Bay Block 9 is built using modular construction methods. (R7)
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Recommends the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure make its best effort to encourage the developer to use modular construction for the Mission Bay Block 9 homeless housing project. (F13)
F14: The building trade unions are open to talks with the City to establish a factory for modular unit construction in San Francisco, staffed by union workers, and committed to best practices, and this is a promising start to trade union acceptance of modular construction technology. (R11)
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: Recommends the Mayor support the establishment of a union-staffed modular housing factory in San Francisco. (F12, F14)
Findings & Recommendations 22 findings
F1: There is not a clear project owner that is responsible for building an Open Source Voting System in San Francisco, which prevents the project from making any progress.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Recommends that the Mayor include funding in their next budgeting cycle to hire a “Program Manager” dedicated to shepherd the project forward and own the project. Regardless of the department they report to, the Program Manager will be responsible for communicating with collaborating jurisdictions, engaging experts, managing and tracking project risks, and establishing cost and timeline targets. The Program Manager would need qualifications in technology management, design thinking, and procurement. Funding should be allocated for this process in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F3, F8)
F2: Progress on the Open Source Voting project has been limited because responsibility has consistently and ambiguously been passed around between organizations without a clear source of funding or a mandate for completion.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1: Recommends that the Mayor include funding in their next budgeting cycle to hire a “Program Manager” dedicated to shepherd the project forward and own the project. Regardless of the department they report to, the Program Manager will be responsible for communicating with collaborating jurisdictions, engaging experts, managing and tracking project risks, and establishing cost and timeline targets. The Program Manager would need qualifications in technology management, design thinking, and procurement. Funding should be allocated for this process in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F3, F8)
R2: Recommends the Mayor's Office set up a working group responsible to centralize the expertise relevant for the OSV project and approve structural decisions made by the Program Manager. The working group should contain (at minimum) a representative from the Mayor’s office, DoE, OSVTAC, COIT, and DoT.37 After planning completes, funding requests for the OSVS would be recommended to the working group by the Program Manager, and would then be recommended to the Mayor for inclusion in the city budget. This group should be formally constructed by October 1, 2018, and should begin a hiring process for a Program Manager as soon as funding is allocated. (F2, F3, F4)
R3: Recommends the Election Commission's OSVTAC should organize and maintain a website to serve as an informational portal on the OSV project. This should include links to (and summaries of) all reports written on the subject (including by the SoS, EC, OSVTAC, CGJ, Slalom, BoS). This resource should be completed by October, 1 2018, and be updated consistently. (F2, F3)
R4: Recommends publishing a quarterly summary of the state of the OSV project. The report should include: an estimate of the completion date, current cost projections, and highlight emerging issues. Until a Program Manager is hired, the reports should be authored by the EC, and afterwards, the report should be authored by the program manager. Reports should commence October 1, 2018, and continue at the start of each quarter until project completion. (F2, F3)
F3: Progress on the Open Source Voting project has been slow because of the large number of stakeholders, and the dispersal of their expertise, and the uncertainty each party has about the overall project.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1: Recommends that the Mayor include funding in their next budgeting cycle to hire a “Program Manager” dedicated to shepherd the project forward and own the project. Regardless of the department they report to, the Program Manager will be responsible for communicating with collaborating jurisdictions, engaging experts, managing and tracking project risks, and establishing cost and timeline targets. The Program Manager would need qualifications in technology management, design thinking, and procurement. Funding should be allocated for this process in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F3, F8)
R2: Recommends the Mayor's Office set up a working group responsible to centralize the expertise relevant for the OSV project and approve structural decisions made by the Program Manager. The working group should contain (at minimum) a representative from the Mayor’s office, DoE, OSVTAC, COIT, and DoT.37 After planning completes, funding requests for the OSVS would be recommended to the working group by the Program Manager, and would then be recommended to the Mayor for inclusion in the city budget. This group should be formally constructed by October 1, 2018, and should begin a hiring process for a Program Manager as soon as funding is allocated. (F2, F3, F4)
R3: Recommends the Election Commission's OSVTAC should organize and maintain a website to serve as an informational portal on the OSV project. This should include links to (and summaries of) all reports written on the subject (including by the SoS, EC, OSVTAC, CGJ, Slalom, BoS). This resource should be completed by October, 1 2018, and be updated consistently. (F2, F3)
R4: Recommends publishing a quarterly summary of the state of the OSV project. The report should include: an estimate of the completion date, current cost projections, and highlight emerging issues. Until a Program Manager is hired, the reports should be authored by the EC, and afterwards, the report should be authored by the program manager. Reports should commence October 1, 2018, and continue at the start of each quarter until project completion. (F2, F3)
F4: Progress on the Open Source Voting project has been slow because all parties are appropriately concerned about security, and few within San Francisco government have the technical background to accurately evaluate security concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Recommends the Mayor's Office set up a working group responsible to centralize the expertise relevant for the OSV project and approve structural decisions made by the Program Manager. The working group should contain (at minimum) a representative from the Mayor’s office, DoE, OSVTAC, COIT, and DoT.37 After planning completes, funding requests for the OSVS would be recommended to the working group by the Program Manager, and would then be recommended to the Mayor for inclusion in the city budget. This group should be formally constructed by October 1, 2018, and should begin a hiring process for a Program Manager as soon as funding is allocated. (F2, F3, F4)
F5: Today, only one company can operate California certified Ranked Choice Voting Elections - Dominion Election Systems. San Francisco has a continuing legal obligation to purchase systems from Dominion, regardless of cost or competitiveness, due to county RCV rules, restrictions on procurement due to LGBT discrimination in other states, and state certification requirements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5: Recommends the Office of the Controller set up a process to trigger review of city RFPs that only receive one bidder, and, when feasible, perform a market analysis to determine why the procurement process has not induced participation of additional vendors. This process should be in place by April 1, 2019. (F5, F6) 37 The DoE would function as the expert on election administration and certification; the DoT as the expert on open source software and technology development; COIT for weighing city funding priorities, and the OSVTAC as the expert on open source election software.
R6: Recommends the Office of the Controller evaluate the premium San Francisco pays for its Voting System compared to (1) the price paid by other California counties that use Ranked Choice Voting, and (2) the price paid by California counties that do not use RCV, and (3) the price paid by cities/counties outside of California who use RCV. This analysis should be published by April 1, 2019. (F5, F6)
F6: The operational cost charged by Dominion Systems increased from 1.1 million per year to 2 million per year between the contracts from 2006 to 2018 and 2018 onward. San Francisco did not have a viable alternative to accepting this price increase.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5: Recommends the Office of the Controller set up a process to trigger review of city RFPs that only receive one bidder, and, when feasible, perform a market analysis to determine why the procurement process has not induced participation of additional vendors. This process should be in place by April 1, 2019. (F5, F6) 37 The DoE would function as the expert on election administration and certification; the DoT as the expert on open source software and technology development; COIT for weighing city funding priorities, and the OSVTAC as the expert on open source election software.
R6: Recommends the Office of the Controller evaluate the premium San Francisco pays for its Voting System compared to (1) the price paid by other California counties that use Ranked Choice Voting, and (2) the price paid by California counties that do not use RCV, and (3) the price paid by cities/counties outside of California who use RCV. This analysis should be published by April 1, 2019. (F5, F6)
F7: The California counties that use Ranked Choice Voting are in the same financial predicament as San Francisco when it comes to procuring their voting system software. This makes them ideal partnership candidates, as they face the same set of challenges under the same regulatory authority.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9: Recommends that San Francisco’s Elections Commission conduct a systematic evaluation of partner interest in using the OSV system developed in SF. This evaluation should reach out to all Departments of Elections in all counties within California, focusing on potential use and cost sharing. This analysis and reporting should be completed by April 1st, 2019. (F7, F9, F10, F11)
R13: Recommends that the Department of Elections, working with the Elections Commission, establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Secretary of State that addresses how the California certification process will accommodate modular development and vulnerability patches, to align the SoS’s process with open source best practices. The discussion of this memo should begin by January 1st, 2019. (F7, F12, F13, F17, F18)
F8: Too many variables remain unresolved to draw confident analysis about completion cost or timeline of the OSV project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Recommends that the Mayor include funding in their next budgeting cycle to hire a “Program Manager” dedicated to shepherd the project forward and own the project. Regardless of the department they report to, the Program Manager will be responsible for communicating with collaborating jurisdictions, engaging experts, managing and tracking project risks, and establishing cost and timeline targets. The Program Manager would need qualifications in technology management, design thinking, and procurement. Funding should be allocated for this process in the next budget cycle. (F1, F2, F3, F8)
F9: Though certification by the California Secretary of State is an indication that an election system is reasonably secure, certification does not guarantee election system security.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Recommends that San Francisco’s Elections Commission conduct a systematic evaluation of partner interest in using the OSV system developed in SF. This evaluation should reach out to all Departments of Elections in all counties within California, focusing on potential use and cost sharing. This analysis and reporting should be completed by April 1st, 2019. (F7, F9, F10, F11)
F10: The security of an Open Source Voting System would reflect the ratio of the number of good actors to bad actors that are looking at it to find vulnerabilities, which makes getting the attention of external security experts a top level priority for the OSV project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Recommends that San Francisco’s Elections Commission conduct a systematic evaluation of partner interest in using the OSV system developed in SF. This evaluation should reach out to all Departments of Elections in all counties within California, focusing on potential use and cost sharing. This analysis and reporting should be completed by April 1st, 2019. (F7, F9, F10, F11)
F11: If an Open Source Voting system is going to be used only by San Francisco, it is unlikely to attract the requisite attention of security experts and white-hat engineers necessary to be confident in its security.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Recommends that San Francisco’s Elections Commission conduct a systematic evaluation of partner interest in using the OSV system developed in SF. This evaluation should reach out to all Departments of Elections in all counties within California, focusing on potential use and cost sharing. This analysis and reporting should be completed by April 1st, 2019. (F7, F9, F10, F11)
F12: The ability to efficiently patch vulnerabilities in open source software is a foundational property of successful and secure open source projects, and certification by the Secretary of State poses an unscoped period of delay to any patch to an OSVS system.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: Recommends that the Department of Elections, working with the Elections Commission, establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Secretary of State that addresses how the California certification process will accommodate modular development and vulnerability patches, to align the SoS’s process with open source best practices. The discussion of this memo should begin by January 1st, 2019. (F7, F12, F13, F17, F18)
F13: Although patches to open source systems are common, any patch of an election system will necessitate recertification by the California Secretary of State. The timeline and cost of this recertification can vary wildly depending on the size of the fix, and its urgency. There is some evidence that modular certification can be supported by the Secretary of State.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: Recommends that the Department of Elections, working with the Elections Commission, establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Secretary of State that addresses how the California certification process will accommodate modular development and vulnerability patches, to align the SoS’s process with open source best practices. The discussion of this memo should begin by January 1st, 2019. (F7, F12, F13, F17, F18)
F14: There are a large number of non-profit organizations that are willing and eager to help develop an OSV system, as both developers and advisors.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11: Recommends that the Department of Elections, along with the Election Commission, reach out to 18F and the USDS to evaluate a possible partnership to build the OSV system with them. These communications should be issued by October 1st, 2018, and the results of those inquiries should be made publicly available after discussion concludes. (F14, F15)
R12: Recommends that the Elections Commission establish a coalition of supportive non-profit organizations in a formal structure to support the project. This list of collaborators and contacts should be constructed and published by January 1st, 2019. (F14, F16)
F15: Federal agencies specializing in developing reusable Open Source Technologies, such as the USDS and 18F, are ideal partnership candidates for an OSV project, but their involvement would require that some federal funds be used for the project.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10: Recommends that the Department of Elections evaluate the possibility of incorporating 2018 HAVA funding into the development of the OSV system, so that federal technology agencies have jurisdiction to help develop the project. The feasibility of this should be formally evaluated and published by the Department of Elections by January 1st, 2019. (F15)
R11: Recommends that the Department of Elections, along with the Election Commission, reach out to 18F and the USDS to evaluate a possible partnership to build the OSV system with them. These communications should be issued by October 1st, 2018, and the results of those inquiries should be made publicly available after discussion concludes. (F14, F15)
F16: No organization within San Francisco government has formed formal partnerships with non-profit organizations to develop, test, or to advise on OSVS best practices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12: Recommends that the Elections Commission establish a coalition of supportive non-profit organizations in a formal structure to support the project. This list of collaborators and contacts should be constructed and published by January 1st, 2019. (F14, F16)
F17: No organization within San Francisco government has begun formal discussions with the Secretary of State about the potential for partnership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: Recommends that the Department of Elections, working with the Elections Commission, establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Secretary of State that addresses how the California certification process will accommodate modular development and vulnerability patches, to align the SoS’s process with open source best practices. The discussion of this memo should begin by January 1st, 2019. (F7, F12, F13, F17, F18)
F18: The Department of Elections has familiarity with the election system certification process, as most recently demonstrated by their work with Dominion in 2017 to get a patch for the “spectre/meltdown” bugs certified by the California Secretary of State.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: Recommends that the Department of Elections, working with the Elections Commission, establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the California Secretary of State that addresses how the California certification process will accommodate modular development and vulnerability patches, to align the SoS’s process with open source best practices. The discussion of this memo should begin by January 1st, 2019. (F7, F12, F13, F17, F18)
F19: Developing Election Systems is currently outside of the mandate for San Francisco's Department of Elections.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Recommends that the DoE not directly build the software for an Open Source Voting system in the near future, because they lack in-house critical faculties and experience in software development. (F19, F20)
F20: San Francisco's Department of Elections has no experience developing critical software.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Recommends that the DoE not directly build the software for an Open Source Voting system in the near future, because they lack in-house critical faculties and experience in software development. (F19, F20)
F21: San Francisco's Department of Technology has demonstrated willingness to undertake open source projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Recommends that the DoT not directly build the software for an Open Source Voting system in the near future, because they have not demonstrated the in-house capacity to tackle a software development task of this magnitude. (F21, F22)
F22: San Francisco's Department of Technology does not have extensive experience developing open source technology that is in use beyond San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Recommends that the DoT not directly build the software for an Open Source Voting system in the near future, because they have not demonstrated the in-house capacity to tackle a software development task of this magnitude. (F21, F22)
Findings & Recommendations 19 findings
F1: Lack of support for SFPD officers by trained SFACC ACOs during the hours between 1:00 AM and 6:00 AM can increase the risk to SFPD officers and the public from difficult and dangerous dogs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Recommends the Executive Director of the San Francisco Animal Care and Control (SFACC) study methods to provide 24-hour ACO coverage, either by full staffing or by on- call staffing, and report on this matter to the City Administrator by April 1, 2019. (F1, F2)
F2: Lack of support for SFPD officers by trained SFACC ACOs during the hours between 1:00 AM and 6:00 AM can cause delays and waste time for SFPD officers who may have to stay with a dog that they are unable to capture until an ACO is on duty and can pick up the dog.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Recommends the Executive Director of the San Francisco Animal Care and Control (SFACC) study methods to provide 24-hour ACO coverage, either by full staffing or by on- call staffing, and report on this matter to the City Administrator by April 1, 2019. (F1, F2)
F3: Lack of immediate access to Chameleon data (e.g. previous dog behavior, owner location) by the SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog unit officer causes delays in dog attack and dog bite investigations, compromising public safety against dog attacks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC provide the SFPD VDD Unit with RDP (remote desktop protocol) or VPN (virtual private network) access to Chameleon, one seat license and a login to Chameleon, by January 1, 2019. (F3)
F4: Public access to statistics about the circumstances of dog bites would improve public policy decisions that affect the safety of the public against dog bites. These statistics would include the circumstance of whether the dog bite was provoked or unprovoked, and whether the biting dog was on or off a leash.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC publish on their website, for each of the most current five years, statistics about dog bites against humans in San Francisco, divided into categories based on whether the bites were provoked, and whether the biting dog was on a leash at the time of the bite. This to be implemented no later than July 1, 2019. (F4)
F5: Public access to the locations and descriptions and/or photos of dogs officially designated Vicious and Dangerous would improve the safety of the public against future dog attacks and bites. Such access is available in many other jurisdictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC publish on their website up-to-date information for all dogs that have been deemed Vicious and Dangerous by an authorized Hearing Officer and for which that status is still in effect. This information to include the residential address of the dog and/or its location on a map, the name of the dog, the breed of the dog, either a description or a photo of the dog, and the date of the most recent enforcement field visit by an ACO. This to be implemented no later than January 1, 2020. (F5)
F6: The SFACC practice of favoring dog owner education on the benefits of dog leashes in lieu of issuing off-leash citations has not increased the percentage of leashed dogs in San Francisco. Improving leash compliance will improve dog welfare and increase public safety regarding unleashed dog attacks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC change the current practice of only teaching dog owners about the benefits of keeping their dog(s) on a leash, to include issuing a citation to those dog owners whose dogs are in violation of the city leash law, as provided in Health Code Sections 41.12(a) and 41.13. This to be implemented no later than January 1, 2019. (F6)
F7: “Ex Parte” communications occur when a party to a case, or someone involved with a party, talks, writes or otherwise communicates with the Hearing Officer about issues in a case or Decision, without the other parties’ knowledge or consent. Consequently, such communications violate due process of law and deprive the parties of a fair Hearing, and are therefore impermissible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Recommends the City Administrator instruct the VDD Hearing Officers that Ex Parte communications involving any issue in any case are not allowable outside the Hearing unless all parties to the Hearing are present. These instructions to be given as soon as practicable, and no later than January 1, 2019. (F7)
F8: Where inaccurate data exists in Chameleon there will be inaccurate statistical reporting and other undesirable results. For example, duplicate or obviously invalid dog owner addresses make it more difficult to contact dog owners with dog license reminders.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC establish a data entry manual that includes standard procedures written for all Chameleon data entry, no later than July 1, 2019. (F8,
R8: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC establish data entry training and supervision over data entry procedures in Chameleon, to ensure accurate and uniform data entry, no later than July 1, 2019. (F8, F9)
R9: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC authorize and work with the Information Technology Director of San Francisco Department of Administrative Services to implement the changes in Chameleon data entry setup which were recommended by the paid consultant, Dr. Delany; this work to be finished no later than July 1, 2019. (F8, F10)
F9: Data entry into Chameleon is not well regulated by current training, supervision or by the current software implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC establish data entry training and supervision over data entry procedures in Chameleon, to ensure accurate and uniform data entry, no later than July 1, 2019. (F8, F9)
F10: Implementing the software changes recommended by the consultant — hired to identify potential improvements to Chameleon — would improve the integrity of data in the animal shelter activity area of Chameleon.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC authorize and work with the Information Technology Director of San Francisco Department of Administrative Services to implement the changes in Chameleon data entry setup which were recommended by the paid consultant, Dr. Delany; this work to be finished no later than July 1, 2019. (F8, F10)
F11: A study of data entry improvements in the field services area of Chameleon and implementation of valid recommendations would improve the integrity of the data in this area and improve the accuracy of reports about dog attacks and bites.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC request Friends of SFACC to fund a study by a qualified expert of Chameleon data entry for the Field activity division, and to authorize and work with the Information Technology Director of San Francisco Department of Administrative Services to implement those changes in Chameleon that will improve data entry accuracy and integrity. This work to be concluded no later than January 1, 2021. (F11)
F12: Failure to follow up on the "Final Notice" dog license and license renewal letters reduces the rate of compliance for dog licensing in San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC study methods to increase compliance with dog license laws in San Francisco by at least 50% as measured by the number of active dog licenses as of December 31, 2017; the study to include but not limited to such options as lowering license fees across the board, adding some benefit(s) to dog owners for having dogs licensed, instituting a meaningful follow-up to the "final notice" automated dog license letters, and finding a better online interface for dog license applications, plus any other means that may occur to them. This study to be completed and submitted to the City Administrator no later than July 1, 2019. (F12, F13, F14, F15)
F13: The technologically out-of-date and clumsy version of licensepet.com that SFAC uses results in many users abandoning online attempts to license their dogs. This reduces the dog license compliance rate in San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC study methods to increase compliance with dog license laws in San Francisco by at least 50% as measured by the number of active dog licenses as of December 31, 2017; the study to include but not limited to such options as lowering license fees across the board, adding some benefit(s) to dog owners for having dogs licensed, instituting a meaningful follow-up to the "final notice" automated dog license letters, and finding a better online interface for dog license applications, plus any other means that may occur to them. This study to be completed and submitted to the City Administrator no later than July 1, 2019. (F12, F13, F14, F15)
F14: A current dog license provides no additional benefit to the dog owner if the dog is already microchipped and vaccinated, a fact which tends to further reduce the dog license compliance rate in San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC study methods to increase compliance with dog license laws in San Francisco by at least 50% as measured by the number of active dog licenses as of December 31, 2017; the study to include but not limited to such options as lowering license fees across the board, adding some benefit(s) to dog owners for having dogs licensed, instituting a meaningful follow-up to the "final notice" automated dog license letters, and finding a better online interface for dog license applications, plus any other means that may occur to them. This study to be completed and submitted to the City Administrator no later than July 1, 2019. (F12, F13, F14, F15)
F15: A higher compliance rate for dog licensing would be a positive outcome for San Francisco and its residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC study methods to increase compliance with dog license laws in San Francisco by at least 50% as measured by the number of active dog licenses as of December 31, 2017; the study to include but not limited to such options as lowering license fees across the board, adding some benefit(s) to dog owners for having dogs licensed, instituting a meaningful follow-up to the "final notice" automated dog license letters, and finding a better online interface for dog license applications, plus any other means that may occur to them. This study to be completed and submitted to the City Administrator no later than July 1, 2019. (F12, F13, F14, F15)
F16: Some sections of SFPD General Order 6.07 (issued 7/27/94) are out of date and contradict either current practice or relevant local ordinances or both. Updating or re-issuing this General Order would help avoid confusion among SFPD officers about their duties regarding dog complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12: Recommends the San Francisco Chief of Police modify General Order 6.07 to bring it into compliance with local ordinances and with current practice. The General Order will also be modified to include the existence and function of the SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit. These changes, either incorporated into the existing General Order or into a new superseding General Order, to be presented to the Police Commission for approval no later than April 1, 2019. (F16)
F17: Current practice is that SFPD VDD Unit has assumed many of the clerical and ministerial functions of the Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing process. The GSA sets the framework of Hearings schedules (days, times, locations, assigned Hearing Officers), while the VDD Unit officer does the following: coordinates specific cases and the parties thereof to specific Hearing dates; notifies parties and witnesses to each case when their case will be heard; receives Decisions from Hearing Officers, keeps a file of the originals, and sends copies to the parties of each case and to SFACC; and maintains the Hearing audio recording archive. Only custom obliges SFPD to continue performing these functions. This situation is inherently unstable, and if both parties wish the arrangement to continue, it needs to be regularized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: Recommends the City Administrator's Office and the San Francisco Chief of Police agree on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) specifying that San Francisco Police Department will continue to be in charge of the enumerated clerical and ministerial function for the Hearing Officers of the Vicious and Dangerous Dogs Hearings. This MoU to be completed by July 1, 2019. (F17)
F18: A Decision by a Hearing Officer that a dog is Vicious and Dangerous, but holding the Decision in abeyance, or placing a dog on probation, without further explanation in the Decision, does not make clear to any of the parties whether the provisions of SF Health Code section 42.2, et seq., apply (e.g. registration of the dog, payment of a $250 fine, permanently affixed identification, prominent display of signage, etc.).
Related Recommendations (1)
R14: Recommends the San Francisco City Administrator instruct Hearing Officers for the Vicious and Dangerous Dogs Hearings that it is their responsibility, pursuant to SF Health Code sections 42.3(C)(i) and (ii), to find a dog either Vicious or Dangerous or not Vicious and Dangerous, and that holding such Decisions "in abeyance" is no longer an option. This instruction to be given no later than March 31, 2019. (F18, F19)
F19: A Decision by a Hearing Officer that a dog is Vicious and Dangerous but holding the Decision in abeyance, or placing a dog on probation, is not within the Hearing Officer's jurisdiction, and does not address the public safety requirements of SF Health Code section 42.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14: Recommends the San Francisco City Administrator instruct Hearing Officers for the Vicious and Dangerous Dogs Hearings that it is their responsibility, pursuant to SF Health Code sections 42.3(C)(i) and (ii), to find a dog either Vicious or Dangerous or not Vicious and Dangerous, and that holding such Decisions "in abeyance" is no longer an option. This instruction to be given no later than March 31, 2019. (F18, F19)