San Francisco County Grand Jury
2018-2019
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (12)
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
ACC has not received any complaints from SFPD
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Recommends the Executive Director of the San Using the formula recommended by the Disagree, partially Inimal Care and Control Animal Care and Control Will not be Dogs and Public SFACC ACOs during the hours between 1:00 AM Response due: August 24, and no examples have been provided to [F1, F2] Francisco Animal Care and Control (SFACC) study [Response due: August 24, National Animal Care and Control Association mplemented Safety in San and 6:00 AM can increase the risk to SFPD 20181 substantiate this finding. Initial indications are ACC would need an additional three officers to methods to provide 24-hour ACO coverage. 20181 hecause it is not Francisco officers and the public from difficult and that ACC receives most of its calls when the either by full staffing or by on-call staffing, and warranted or be on duty [Published: June 25] dangerous dogs. public is out and about in the city report on this matter to the City Administrator reasonable an additional six hours a day, seven days a 2018] week. Using that same model, ACC is already. by April 1, 2019. wo officers below recommended levels for Our Lovable Pets
F2:
Lack of support for SFPD officers by trained Animal Care and Control Disagree, wholly ACC is not aware of SFPD officers remaining
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Dogs and Public (e.g. previous dog behavior, owner location) by [Response due: August 24, than a year ago. SFPD reports that its firewall provide the SFPD VDD Unit with RDP (remote than a year ago. SFPD reports that its firewall [F3] Response due: August 24, implemented the SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog unit officer 2018] Safety in San prevents access to Chameleon and that the desktop protocol) or VPN (virtual private 20181 prevents access to Chameleon and that the rancisco causes delays in dog attack and dog bite condition is unlikely to be remedied. As a network) access to Chameleon, one seat license condition is unlikely to be remedied. As a [Published: June 25] result. SEPD will continue to call in for result. SEPD will continue to call in for investigations, compromising public safety and a login to Chameleon, by January 1, 2019. 2018] against dog attacks. information or may come to the ACC squad information or may come to the ACC squad Our Lovable Pets: Access to statistics about whether a dog was Will not be ACC records this data from the bite reports, if it
F4:
Public access to statistics about the Animal Care and Control Disagree, wholly Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC Animal Care and Control
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Dogs and Public and/or photos of dogs officially designated [Response due: August 24, and dangerous are already required to wear [F5] publish on their website up-to-date information [Response due: August 24, implemented However, we believe that public notice has Safety in San Vicious and Dangerous would improve the safety 20181 special tags, and their houses are required to for all dogs that have been deemed Vicious and 20181 because it is not already been served by the existing Francisco have warning signs posted. None of the of the public against future dog attacks and Dangerous by an authorized Hearing Officer and warranted or requirements of a special dog tag and the Published: June 25 bites. Such access is available in many other jurisdictions listed are in California. for which that status is still in effect. This reasonable signage on the house. Posting this information 20181 information to include the residential address of on ACC's website seems to be an unwarranted urisdictions the dog and/or its location on a man, the name nvasion of privacy, disproportionate to the of the dog, the breed of the dog, either a potential harm. If a resident has concerns about description or a photo of the dog, and the date a particular dog, ACC is available to provide that of the most recent enforcement field visit by an nformation ACO. This to be implemented no later than January 1, 2020. Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC Our Lovable Pets
F6:
The SFACC practice of favoring dog owner Animal Care and Control Disagree, wholly There is no data to support this finding. ACC has
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Recommends the City Administrator instruct the City Administrator Has been The Office of the City Attorney already provides
F7:
Dogs and Public to a case, or someone involved with a party, Response due: August 24, finding [F7] VDD Hearing Officers that Ex Parte Response due: August 24, this instruction in its annual training for hearing implemented Safety in San talks, writes or otherwise communicates with 20181 communications involving any issue in any case 20181 officers. The hearing officer who violated this the Hearing Officer about issues in a case or are not allowable outside the Hearing unless all Francisco procedure is no longer actively hearing cases. Published: June 25, Decision, without the other parties' knowledge parties to the Hearing are present. These 20181 or consent. Consequently, such communications instructions to be given as soon as practicable, violate due process of law and deprive the and no later than January 1, 2019. parties of a fair Hearing, and are therefore mpermissible. Our Lovable Pets: Where inaccurate data exists in Chameleon Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC Animal Care and Control Will be implemented There is a manual for Chameleon, but the
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Does and Public there will be inaccurate statistical reporting and [Response due: August 24, [F8, F9] establish a data entry manual that includes Response due: August 24, department, would benefit from improved indine Safety in San other undesirable results. For example, 2018] standard procedures written for all Chameleon 2018] documentation. ACC is in the midst of making Francisco duplicate or obviously invalid dog owner revisions to Chameleon and will update data entry, no later than July 1, 2019. Published: June 25. addresses make it more difficult to contact dog naterials afterwards. 2018] owners with dog license reminders. Our Lovable Pets: Dogs and Public Safety in San Francisco 2017-2018 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESPONSES TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Report Title
F8:
Animal Care and Control Agree with the
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Animal Care and Control Animal Care and Control Has been Dogs and Public there will be inaccurate statistical reporting and [Response due: August 24, [F8, F9] establish data entry training and supervision Response due: August 24, and manuals will be updated. ACC audits and
F9:
Data entry into Chameleon is not well regulated Animal Care and Control Disagree, wholly ACC audits and corrects shelter data monthly. Animal Care and Control Has been Staff are trained and supervised on data entry, [F8, F9] establish data entry training and supervision and manuals will be undated. ACC audits and Dogs and Public by current training, supervision or by the current (Response due: August 24) Response due: August 24. implemented 2018] Safety in San oftware implementation. over data entry procedures in Chameleon, to 20181 corrects shelter data monthly Francisco ensure accurate and uniform data entry, no late [Published: June 25, than July 1, 2019. 2018]
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Dogs and Public [F8, F10] authorize and work with the Information there will be inaccurate statistical reporting and [Response due: August 24.
F10:
Implementing the software changes Animal Care and Control Agree with the Dogs and Public recommended by the consultant — hired to Response due: August 24, indine [F8, F10] authorize and work with the Information [Response due: August 24, Delaney's recommendations. She made 29 20181 20181
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Dogs and Public ervices area of Chameleon and implementation services area of Chameleon. For example, the request Friends of SFACC to fund a study by a Response due: August 24 [F11] Response due: August 24, mplemented Civil Grand Jury asked ACC to run a report on qualified expert of Chameleon data entry for the 2018] Safety in San of valid recommendations would improve the 20181 because it is not Francisco integrity of the data in this area and improve the how many notices of violation were issued for a Field activity division, and to authorize and work warranted or Published: June 25. accuracy of reports about dog attacks and bites. particular infraction. ACC ran the report and with the Information Technology Director of San reasonable 20181 supported the results with physical copies of Francisco Department of Administrative Services the notices. 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. Our Lovable Pets
F11:
Animal Care and Control Disagree, wholly
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
ACC has been actively exploring alternatives to Inimal Care and Control Animal Care and Control Will not be Dogs and Public icense and license renewal letters reduces the Response due: August 24, icensing compliance. This is a nationwide [F12, F13, study methods to increase compliance with dog [Response due: August 24, mplemented the current on-line system. When current Safety in San rate of compliance for dog licensing in San 20181
F12:
Disagree, partially ACC has been exploring ways to improve
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Recommends the San Francisco Chief of Police Will be implemented The General Order is being revised to meet Police Department Police Department Dogs and Public issued 7/27/94) are out of date and contradict Response due: August 24, [F16] modify General Order 6.07 to bring it into [Response due: August 24, today's and future standards for the members
F13:
The technologically out-of-date and clumsy Animal Care and Control Disagree, partially ACC has no data on how many users abandon
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
the tasks identified by the CGJ in F17. However. Dogs and Public assumed many of the clerical and ministerial Response due: August 24, [F17] the San Francisco Chief of Police agree on a [Response due: August 24, mplemented Department, and Department of Public Health Safety in San SFPD is in discussions with the Office of the City Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) functions of the Vicious and Dangerous Dog 2018] 20181 because it is not will establish policies, procedures, and Hearing process. The GSA sets the framework of Administrator to identify the proper city specifying that San Francisco Police Department Francisco warranted or agreements as needed to enumerate each Published: June 25, Hearings schedules (days, times, locations, agencies and staff to facilitate due process for will continue to be in charge of the enumerated department's responsibilities related to vicious reasonable 2018] assigned Hearing Officers), while the VDD Unit the parties involved with Vicious and Dangerous clerical and ministerial function for the Hearing and dangerous dogs. officer does the following: coordinates specific Dog Hearings. Officers of the Vicious and Dangerous Dogs cases and the parties thereof to specific Hearing Hearings. This MoU to be completed by July 1, 2019. 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.
F14:
A current dog license provides no additional Animal Care and Control Agree with the
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Decision options available to hearing officers Disagree, wholly City Administrator City Administrator Will not be Dogs and Public Vicious and Dangerous, but holding the Decision [Response due: August 24, implement and the department can seek [F18, F19] Administrator instruct Hearing Officers for the [Response due: August 24, implemented vere reviewed and approved by the Office of clarificiation if needed. Safety in San in abeyance, or placing a dog on probation, 2018] Vicious and Dangerous Dogs Hearings that it is 2018] because it is not the City Attorney. ACC will consult with the City Francisco without further explanation in the Decision, their responsibility, pursuant to SF Health Code warranted or Attorney's office to determine if revisions [Published: June 25, does not make clear to any of the parties sections 42.3(C)(i) and (ii), to find a dog either reasonable should be made. 2018] whether the provisions of SF Health Code Vicious or Dangerous or not Vicious and section 42.2, et seq., apply (e.g. registration of Dangerous, and that holding such Decisions "in the dog, payment of a $250 fine, permanently abeyance" is no longer an option. This affixed identification, prominent display of instruction to be given no later than March 31, signage, etc.). 2019. Our Lovable Pets:
F15:
A higher compliance rate for dog licensing would Animal Care and Control Agree with the
F17:
Current practice is that SFPD VDD Unit has Police Department Disagree, partially SFPD does not conduct or carry out several of Recommends the City Administrator's Office and Police Department Will not be The City Administrator's Office, Police
F18:
Generally the decision specifies what ACC should
F19:
A Decision by a Hearing Officer that a dog is This option effectively holds that the dog is not
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
Dogs and Public circumstances of dog bites would improve public [Response due: August 24 eashed or a bite was provoked will not imp [F4] publish on their website, for each of the most Response due: August 24. is available, but we do not believe it to be usefu mnlemented Safety in San policy decisions that affect the safety of the 20181 public policy decisions. Dogs are already current five years, statistics about dog bites 2018] because it is not for formulating policy. For example, dogs who Francisco public against dog bites. These statistics would required to be on leash and are not considered against humans in San Francisco, divided into warranted or bite people when they are on their guardian's Published: June 25. nclude the circumstance of whether the dog vicious and dangerous if they bite when categories based on whether the bites were reasonable property are often off-leash, but this is what 2018] hite was provoked or upprovoked, and whether provoked. A hite report usually does not provoked, and whether the hiting dog was on a would be expected. The hite report was include enough information to determine if the leash at the time of the bite. This to be developed to obtain data for rabies prevention, the biting dog was on or off a leash. not for behavior analysis. dog was provoked. implemented no later than July 1, 2019. Our Lovable Pets: Public access to the locations and descriptions Animal Care and Control Dogs who are officially designated as vicious Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC Animal Care and Control Will not be ACC could post this information on its website.
R5:
Animal Care and Control Will not be ACC currently issues off leash citations if a dog is Dogs and Public change the current practice of only teaching dog [Response due: August 24, education on the benefits of dog leashes in lieu [Response due: August 24. no information on the percentage of dogs who [F6] implemented actively causing a problem or if the dog is so far Safety in San of issuing off-leash citations has not increased owners about the benefits of keeping their away from the guardian that the officer has 2018] are leashed; nor does it have any trend data. 2018] ecause it is not the percentage of leashed dogs in San Francisco dog(s) on a leash, to include issuing a citation to difficulty matching the dog with the guardian. Francisco warranted or Published: June 25, mproving leash compliance will improve dog those dog owners whose dogs are in violation of reasonable Successfully implementing a more stringent 2018] welfare and increase public safety regarding the city leash law, as provided in Health Code level of enforcement would require public Sections 41.12(a) and 41.13. This to be unleashed dog attacks. comment and support. mplemented no later than January 1, 2019. Our Lovable Pets "Ex Parte" communications occur when a party City Administrator Agree with the
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2019:
Police Department [Response due: August 28, 2018] Will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
R7 Recommends SFPD command staff be allowed Police Department Will be implementedSFPD is now scheduling CIT training based on a Bridging Police and and complete the 40-hour CIT training program, [Response due: August 28,
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The elected officials, agency heads, and governing bodies of the City and County of San Francisco are appropriately complying with the statutory requirement for response to Civil Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations within 60/90 days.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
For purposes of Penal Code Section 933.05, the Superior Court and City Services Auditor should record this Recommendation as “Implemented.”
F2:
There is significant lack of compliance by the elected officials, agency heads, and governing bodies of the City and County of San Francisco with the statutory requirements for designating timeframes for promised implementation, providing the details of further analysis, and completing that analysis within six months of the date of issuance of the Civil Grand Jury report. This is complicated by the lack of a statutory requirement to bring the response to “final status.” (B) Prior Civil Grand Jury Responses Where Additional Follow-Up by Responder is Necessary
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1: That the Board of Supervisors establishes a permanent Retirement System Oversight Committee to develop a comprehensive, long-term solution for the Retirement System that is fair to both employees and taxpayers and present it to the voters in a proposition by 2018. All options for reducing pension liabilities must be considered, including a hybrid Defined Benefit/Defined Contribution plan. The Mayor and the BoS responded that Recommendation R.2.1 would not be implemented, asserting that it was unreasonable or unwarranted. BoS Response to R.2.1: The Mayor and Board of Supervisors have oversight over the Retirement System and review financials and projections regularly, including during the annual City budget process. Mayor's Response to R2.1: The City already has a Retirement Board which functions as oversight to the Retirement System, and the Mayor’s Office has no authority to establish or empanel a new Board committee. (The Mayor) worked to pass major pension reform legislation in 2011 and the City's long-term pension obligations would be much worse if it was not for these measures. Lastly, the City closely monitors pension costs in our long-range financial planning through the 5-year financial planning process, deficit projections as well as through the 2-year budget process, which are developed by the Mayor's Office in collaboration with the Controller's Office and the Board of Supervisors. We closely monitor the impact of our pension obligations on our long-term deficit and will continue to seek to reduce projected deficits over time. The 2016-17 Civil Grand Jury report also included Recommendation R2.2, addressed to the same parties: That 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. Following are excerpts from the separate responses to Recommendation R2.2 submitted by the cited respondents: Mayor: Trustees are always obligated to act only in the fiduciary interests of the beneficiaries. Controller: Retirement Board members are fiduciaries that have a duty to the system's participants and not to "watch out for the interests of the City and its residents." SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 14 - Retirement Board: Under trust law, the Retirement Board's duty to its participants and their beneficiaries takes precedence over any other duty, including any duty to the City or its residents. The responses to R2.1 by the Mayor and the BoS appear to overlook the fact that under the current rules the Retirement Board’s fiduciary responsibility to the Plan beneficiaries overrides any consideration of minimizing cost to voters, even as their responses to R2.2 indicate their awareness of this fact. In the present situation, the Retirement Board is not in a position to develop a “comprehensive, long-term solution for the Retirement System that is fair to both employees and taxpayers,” which the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury identified as the problem needing addressing and which underlies its Recommendation that a permanent Retirement System Oversight Committee be established. The 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Mayor and Board of Supervisors reconsider and resubmit their responses to 2016-2017 Recommendation R2.1 in the light of this consideration. The recommended Oversight Committee would be a significant contribution to the goal, set forth in the Mayor's 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 Proposed Budget, of “making government more accountable to residents." 21 3. 2016-2017 Report: Educational Parity in Custody (EPIC): Ensuring Equality of Women’s Education in the SF Jail System This 2016-2017 report examined the educational services provided for female inmates in the San Francisco County Jails. An apparent transcription error resulted in recommendation R10’s citing the “Five Keys” program instead of the SISTER program. Recommendation R10 in the body of the 2016-2017 report provided as follows: We recommend that the Sheriff’s Department, working in conjunction with the SISTER program, set up guidelines to measure the success of this program, in whatever quantitative way the Department decides to measure that success and document the results each semester and /or year. We suggest implementing this Recommendation by July 2018. Unfortunately, the Sheriff apparently received an incorrect version of the Recommendation, citing the Five Keys and not the SISTER program, and therefore responded regarding the wrong program. Although this error was not the fault of the Sheriff’s Department, the 2018-19 Civil Grand Jury invites the Sheriff to respond to Recommendation R10 as written in the 2016-17 report. Mayor's 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 Proposed Budget https://sfmayor.org/mayors-office-public-policy-and-finance-0 SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 15 - C. Improving Year-to-Year Continuity Process Effectiveness The California Penal Code (933, 933.05) delineates specific timeframes for initial responses to Civil Grand Jury Recommendations. It further dictates timeframes for responses requiring additional time for implementation or analysis. However, it does not designate responsibility or accountability for enforcement of these provisions. Finally, it does not consider the fidelity of the responses to the specifics and intent of the Recommendations. It falls to the Civil Grand Jury, with the support of the Superior Court and County Government, to provide implementation follow-up and fulfill the oversight function mandated by the Code. There have been Continuity reports in 14 of the past 23 years. Many of the reports support the sentiment best expressed by the 2001-2002 CGJ: "to subject a City department/agency/office to intense scrutiny and then to publish Findings and Recommendations intended to affect the future is a responsibility that should not end with the published report."22 The last published Continuity report by the SFCGJ was in the term of 2014-2015.23 Inconsistent follow-up is not limited to the City and County of San Francisco. It has also been reported in other counties, such as Orange County and San Diego County. To quote the 2002- 2003 Orange County Civil Grand Jury: “The follow-up procedure is not a simple task . . . ”24 In San Francisco, the Administrative Code requires25 the Controller (City Services Auditor, or CSA) to follow up on the responses to Recommendations pertaining to fiscal matters that were considered at a public hearing of the Board of Supervisors. The CSA posts the follow-up responses, beginning one year after the BoS hearing, in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet which is posted with the original responses on the Controller's website.26 The Civil Grand Jury website is hyperlinked to the Controller's website. Given the Civil Grand Jury's one-year term and the turnover in individual jurors, it is essential to develop an efficient system to systematically gather and update responses to Civil Grand Jury
F3:
Recommendation R.F.2 of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury report San Francisco's Crime Lab: Promoting Confidence and Building Credibility, that an external review be performed by an outside expert agreed upon by all stakeholders of the Lab, has not, as far as the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury can determine, been implemented, despite the SFPD’s assertion that it was implemented.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
No later than March 31, 2020, the SFPD should fully and completely respond to Recommendation R.F.2 of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury report San Francisco's Crime Lab: Promoting Confidence and Building Credibility, remedying the contradictory responses submitted previously (elaborated in Discussion Section B above).
F4:
Recommendation R.F.3 of the 2015-2016 Civil Grand Jury report San Francisco's Crime Lab: Promoting Confidence and Building Credibility, that "The external review should be conducted by experts who have been identified as trustworthy to all stakeholders rather than selected by a competitive bidding process based on cost," was contravened by SFPD's action in issuing an RFP for competitive bidding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
No later than March 31, 2020, the SFPD should resubmit its response to Recommendation R.F.3 of the abovementioned report, providing insight into the processes surrounding the issuance of the RFP for consulting services by outside experts agreed upon by all stakeholders for a review of the policies and procedures of the Crime Lab. This should specifically address two issues: the possibilities for exemption from requirements for competitive bidding, and whether all stakeholders were consulted in reaching the decision to abandon implementation of the Recommendation.
F5:
In their responses to Recommendation R.2.1 of the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury report The San Francisco Retirement System: Increasing Understanding and Adding Voter Oversight, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors did not take into account that the Retirement Board's fiduciary responsibility for investing the assets of the Retirement System and maximizing the returns for the beneficiaries supersedes any responsibility to the voters and citizens of San Francisco, nor acknowledge that it prevents the Board, and possibly themselves, from acting with an appropriate fiduciary responsibility to the voters and taxpayers of San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should reconsider and resubmit their responses by no later than December 31, 2019, to Recommendation R2.1 of the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury report The San Francisco Retirement System: Increasing Understanding and Adding Voter Oversight, remedying the deficiencies in the previous responses that are noted in this report.
F6:
In the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury report Educational Parity in Custody (EPIC): Ensuring the Quality of Women's Education in the SF Jail System, an apparent transcription error citing the "Five Keys" program instead of the "Sister" program led to an inaccurate Recommendation and resultant erroneous response. SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 20 - (C) Improving Year-to-Year Continuity Effectiveness
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By no later than December 31, 2019, the Sheriff should respond to recommendation R10 as it appears in the body of the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury report Educational Parity in Custody (EPIC): Ensuring the Quality of Women's Education in the SF Jail System. SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 22 - (C) Improving Year-to-Year Continuity Effectiveness:
F7:
Lack of consistent, sustained follow-up on Civil Grand Jury reports undermines both the effectiveness and the value of the Civil Grand Jury process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By no later than December 31, 2019, the City Services Auditor and the Superior Court should create an application using a database, to support core functions of the Civil Grand Jury. The City Services Auditor, the Superior Court, and the Civil Grand Jury would be the key stakeholders giving input for system development. System features should include: • A database containing CGJ report data, Findings and Recommendations, respondent data, response tracking data, and up-to-date tracking status information. The database’s reporting function should have the capacity to create all reports and summaries needed by the Superior Court, City Services Auditor, and the impaneled Civil Grand Jury. • The capability to automatically notify all stakeholders and respondents when responses are due. • Conversion, within approximately two years, to a “cloud application,” to allow stakeholders and respondents to directly access and update the data in the database. This in turn would improve the timeliness of responses and drastically reduce the typing and cut-and-paste errors that result from multi-party handling of the same data.
F8:
The current process of Continuity follow-up has a significant defect: the elected officials, agency heads, and governing bodies of the City and County of San Francisco do not provide the Superior Court and Civil Grand Jury timely information regarding the ongoing status of their responses across jury terms. To be effective, the Continuity process needs to be continued until the response has reached final status (either "implemented", with summary of actions taken, or "will not be implemented," with explanation).
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Starting in 2019, the Superior Court should advise incoming Civil Grand Juries that their Continuity Committee is a Standing Committee, charged with reviewing responses to the Recommendations of prior Civil Grand Juries for compliance with both the law and the intent of the Recommendations, and with maintaining complete and up-to-date records of all pertinent CGJ activities in the database recommended above, and the CGJ should establish such committee.
F9:
Creating tabulated summaries without having a repository for storing the response data is extremely labor-intensive and inefficient, and makes the follow-up process far more difficult than need be.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By no later than September 30, 2020, the City Services Auditor and Superior Court should adopt the RACI (Responsible-Accountable-Consulted-Informed) chart as presented in this report, or agree to appropriate changes in the chart, and execute a memorandum of understanding documenting their agreed-upon roles.
F10:
Definition of the roles and responsibilities of all the stakeholders in the Civil Grand Jury process would improve functionality, efficiency, and output. SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 21 -
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Since application development will span multiple years, a Continuity System Consultant should be engaged to support the development efforts. The Civil Grand Jury should select the individual to fill the position, to be funded from the Civil Grand Jury budget, for the first two to three years. Afterwards, the position could be renewed each year as needed. To ensure the necessary understanding of CGJ operations, the Continuity System Consultant should be a current or former CGJ member. SFCGJ 2018-2019: SF Civil Grand Jury Continuity Report - 23 -
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The 2007 MOU providing for JTTF participation expired by operation of the CCSF Charter. The Chief of Police agreed the MOU must be revised for it to be approved by the PC. The Chief acknowledged the concern of civil liberties groups to include oversight that is more transparent.
F2:
Communication and coordination between SFPD and federal authorities is less efficient and more cumbersome than when SFPD was part of the JTTF.
F3:
In the period of 2002-2017 SFPD participated on the JTTF, few formal complaints were made against officers conducting JTTF activities.
F4:
The Civil Grand Jury’s investigation did not detect any instance of non-compliance with a DGO by SFPD officers that had been assigned to the JTTF. Likewise, this investigation did not find any evidence that SFPD officers assigned to the JTTF were engaged in any form of enforcement associated with federal immigration laws.
F5:
The secrecy obligations of SFPD officers in the JTTF require officers not disclose the classified material to individuals without an appropriate level of clearance and a need to know. These secrecy obligations are necessary but allow or cause speculation and concern by parties without access to classified material. Police Commission Findings
F6:
The PC is an essential party to SFPD’s future participation in the JTTF. The PC has the authority to bring any proposed MOU and any related DGO up for discussion and public comment at an open meeting. In addition, the Chief of Police is required to provide them a public report every year with appropriate public information on the Police Department’s work with the JTTF.
F7:
Presently, the PC does not have a representative for JTTF matters. It would be beneficial to have a designated commissioner as a point of contact for all parties interested in this issue. DGO 8.10 Findings
F8:
SFPD DGO 8.10 was described as confusing and ambiguous by several law enforcement witnesses. It does not contain clear and concise wording and references are inaccurate. In order for SFPD officers to comply with DGO 8.10, it needs to be revised and updated.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Mayor and the Chief of Police should decide if rejoining the JTTF is in the best interest of the residents of our City and make this publicly known by February 3, 2020.
R2:
In the event that the Mayor and Chief of Police decide to re-join the JTTF, the Chief of Police should negotiate a revised MOU with the FBI and submit this to the PC for discussion and public comment at an open meeting. This should be done no later than July 1, 2020.
R3:
The President of the PC should designate a commissioner as a point of contact for all JTTF interested parties. This appointment should be completed by April 3, 2020
R4:
The Chief of Police should instruct the WDU to expedite the revision process of DGO 8.10 immediately but no later than the first week of January 2020. The WDU in considering the revisions to DGO 8.10 should include a review of the R4a-f recommendations before submitting the revisions to the Chief of Police. The revised DGO should be forwarded to the PC for approval no later than July 1, 2020.
R5:
Physical surveillance from places open to the public. C. If the techniques listed in Section B are inadequate or obviously would be futile under the circumstances, the Department may use techniques such as the following:
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F6:
Current terms and conditions in the Skip agreement expose
F7:
A key obligation of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
SFMTA in coordination with Vision Zero SF should design a
R2:
Signage, stencils, visual symbols illustrating e-scooters,
R3:
SFPD Traffic Company should implement one or more
R4:
ZSFG, SFDPH, SFPD, and TNCs should collectively
R5:
SFMTA, City Attorney, and TNCs should review all related
R6:
The Board of Supervisors should allow the Public Safety