coming to. in terms of deja vu let's reflect back where we were as individuals with technology or as an organization with the city. when i joined the city we didn't have a plan or a governance structure or coit and sun shet and talking about creating this structure and we were struggling how much money were we spending on it in the city? when i came here there wasn't a report? and so it has been a long and complex journey, and i think it will continue in these hearings and going forward to be one of the challenges. i think we use technology on a daily basis and work and we are engaged and are we getting our money's worth and getting the service we want? and i wanted

to revisit and my staff will tell you it's easy to hammer on the things not going well and i want to re-cap of the last five years and whether we're making progress in solving the problems and some of the projects are project related, operationally related and to your point president chiu and look back over the last four cio's and embedded in the organization and we need to talk about those in different conversations and i will be brief and i don't want this to be a marketing campaign, but we have made significant accomplishments. we developed koitd and open transparent project in the city. we have 15 engaged department heads for that do make the time to come to the meetings and you president chiu are often at those meetings and we have a dialogue that

didn't exist before. in addition we have subcommittees that meet on a monthly basis and architect subcommittee, a performance subcommittee and resources and look at how things should be permanenting and planning and budgeting committee and that is a forum for all those disinfranchised and all of those not part of this participate and members of the subcommittee and come "here are my concerns and policies we need to have in place" and have that forum to interact. we all interac informally certainly on a daily basis but it creates that forum "hey i work in the tech sector and why aren't you doing this" and it creates that forum for that dialogue. one of the challenges are and with coit and i will take responsibility and we all do is communication.

too many times i talk to groups or individuals and they're not aware of the meetings are and what the topics are and certainly we need to engage in a better communication plan how to get the word how and talk about what we're doing and actively engage in more rich communication. but despite all of that we have accomplished things in the last five years. we have a robust project and budgeting things going on and in it we're not focused and we have hundreds of projects in the city and again five years ago we had no data base. we had no list of the projects so frankly we didn't know if we were getting them on time or not and we didn't have a context and where we were spending the money. we have had the same chair for the

last five years on that subcommittee and created the effort and every year and this is what we're doing in the upcoming year. this is the money that we need. unfortunately as you know in tight budget years we can't fund everything but we have the opportunity to say so-and-so is doing a similar project and maybe collaborate with them in a joint project and we are having that dialogue. can it improve? certainly and we look to improve that every year and out of that budget committee was the genis of the plan and is it visionary? is it where we want to be in five years? even though i'm the cio i couldn't tell you where we were going to be in five years ago. if you said i was going to do work on my ipad and no phone and it's hard in the

moving word of technology to predict things so i think the it plan was certainly a stake in the ground and grew out of a laundry list of the projects that we knew were coming but we tried to put strategic context to it and when we voted we knew it would have to change. we knew we couldn't predict five years out but wanted a stepping stone and that's what the plan did and create a starting point. you have to start somewhere so it's a first draft. it was an attempt to articulate where we were going and the appendix was a lot of projects and and context. how are we going to get there financially? and i have done plans and sometimes they're dream documents on a shelf and ten years later and wonder why i thought we were going there. i think for me as

an it professional these strategic plans are more meaningful and revisit them on a regular basis and is it still valid? is this where we want to go? and just like an investment plan. you wouldn't leave them there and five years later see where it's at and i think that is important and the department of technology i have to take my cio hat off and i know there is conversation around this bigger governance structure in the city and what the department of technology is doing. as you know the department has under gone like many in the city significant changes in the last five years. like so many departments it's been tough through the budget reductions and things like that to redefine ourselves and rediscover where the best value is at the city. we had to give up traditional services and focus on core services but i think it's

improving and i would certainly own and recognize that the department of technology has had some challenges over the years and performing its duties from a performance measure stand point but i challenge you to talk to the cio's in the room as the civil grand jury has and ask them if they feel it's improving or getting worse? we all have challenges balancing the strategic and project and operational duties and sometimes we succeed and sometimes there are unfortunately failure, but i would suggest to you that if you did ask the cio's and called them up or informally in the hallway. are they heading in the right direction? is their heart in the right place? are they listening and doing what they need to be for you? i think they would say yes and to that point you could look back at our track record over the last two years. we made the budget

reductions without significant impact to our customers. we put the budget from 95 to $73 million done that without our people, our customers out in the departments not getting dial tone on their phone and still getting email and still having sfgtv broadcast 14 more commissions than in the past and we have grown our controller services and unfortunately we had to pull back on others and ones we couldn't afford to do anything or find contractors to do those or departments themselves. i know it's hard. it's a self discovery i think for an organization to look internally. i think one of the things we struggled with as a city we're are asking ourselves if we can do better and i agree. there are always opportunities to do better and the conversations around performance and are we performing to our ideals and standards? and you

have to define what those goals and standards are. the department of technology, as president chiu you pointed out, we had an audit in the controller's office and said we needed better performance measures and we have been providing those for several years now and i suggest to you because we are highly centralized organization for the city that we do that for the entire city and i think there is confusion about what we do and compare it across the city to all of the it organizations across the city, every organization that does it, then we could start developing a common understanding, common baseline of what the performance looks like, and when we are satisfied living up to our own expectations and i am happy to tell you and i know we're wondering if we are making progress, and i think externally we are making progress. the

city has won seven awards for it excellence this year and we have struggles but we are making progress around mobility and open data and transparency is which are significant and when you talk to other large cities and i work with new york and l.a. and boston and we talk about what we're working on and san francisco is one of the leaders they look up to and how to do it and we are doing things on a national scale people are taking notice of and doing that and i heard a lot of talk, and i come from the private sector so when i first got here one of the questions i got "how is government different from the private sector" from the it standpoint. it's night and day. you have hard time drawing parallels and from the private

sector come to government thinking that a lot of our ideas and methods of success in the private sector are directly applicable to how we do work in government, and it's a different problem to solve frankly. it's something i have to relearn frequently that the large company i came from was a large monolithic corporation and 1ceo and pyramid up and trickled and everyone did what they did. government as you know we're are a highly decentralized independently elected, independently operated with our boards and commissions. as much as i would like to say i had the authority or will or desire to cast my will on the organization and have things happen it's not as simple as that, so a lot of my jobs and our jobs come down to partnership and discussion and consensus building and meetings and more meetings and

unfortunately that takes more time than a linear top down structure so when i talk at conferences -- i was at dream force not long ago and having lunch with people "i don't understand government and how this works". i spent time educating people how government is today and how we're trying to change it and streamline it and maybe it more efficient but it's a challenge and it's a transition for a organization. i think like a battle ship city government is not easy to turn quickly. it's going to take us years of hard work and partnership and dedication to make that happen. i think we are forging those partnerships. i think there will be debated about centralize and decentralization but in the interim period or department heads make a determination about that i think it boils down to partnerships and i think department of technology and cio and coit we spend time creating

these partnerships and the consolidation project is a great one. i also want to acknowledge the airport and the emergency management center and we have a great partnership with. we have a great partnership with labor and reclassify it positions and training program whereas in the past it was done on a department by department basis so i think we're creating those partnerships for success, but i think at the end of the day it's a transitional challenge for the organization to go from thinking of itself as minicorporations as they view themselves at times in independent departments to work together as a cohesive unit. it just grew up. we started in the main frame days and monolithic and those terminals and pc revolution game and it was different overnight and everyone had a pc and the expert on how

to work things so we are looking for a balance. we are bringing your own device to work and still balance that and what does it make sense to have centralized and do from a security confidential standpoint and it's exciting time. i welcome the dialogue. i welcome the question. i certainly want to continue the dialogue. i think we are making progress. there are challenges and what we can do and i will own what we can do to make things better but these things to happen, the open conversations, the honest conversation bs what is working, what is not working and will help us in the future in the city. thank you president chiu. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your work you have done at department of technology and tough economic times and the fact of the matter is your

department has been subjected to the lion's share of budget cuts we were forced to do and not asking departments to make similar cuts in their it situation and i think that is part of the tension and why we shouldn't know been able to make headway. you allude to the fact until you get direction from the top about need of centralization you had to form partnerships and you as the head of department of technology can't tell other heads to cooperate and you have to work out and partnership. one of the things that i wished the grand jury spent more time on. this is the trend we're seeing in agencies and governments around the country. by in large most governments have a growing decentralization and we know we're not doing that

for everything but there are to be decentralized and we know there are successes here in california and the state is expected to save $3 billion. denver went through a great consolidation and saving millions of dollars. what are those entities doing that we're not? what cultural changes or cultural values have they implemented from a leadership standpoint that we're lacking? >> to be frank i think the organizational stomach really for how much it up sets the organization to go through the changes? the company i worked before did out sowzing of it and we went into states and took over the it operations and we could save a government millions of dollars by doing that, but

for a government to centralize or out source it it's disruptive, up setting project to have happen, and i think the majority of us in the city feel enough progress is being made to not take that drastic step and whereas you talk about denver or california and i was familiar with michigan when they consolidated their data centers there and i came to know the head there, and there was a willingness and whether driven by the budget or political desire to upset the entire model. kind of blow it up and put it back together again. if you think it's that broken and it takes political will power to make that happen. we have partnerships and i think i have good partnerships with the cio's and the department heads and that drastic change which i he

alluded to is up setting and unsettling and usually two years and we struggled with large projects and i would ask if this organization is mature enough to take on those initiative disblis think one thing i want to observe and in my first coit meeting in 2009 the body decided we were going to consolidate our email. that was four years ago, and as you know, and as i think many folks in this room knows every few months we got an update why things weren't moving and i wanted to quote a part of the civil grand jury report want the jury has been told that some members vote yes on the policy and with their department drag their heels in implementing that

policy and one refused to go along with the full implementation of projects" and i bring this up because i often find there seems to be on the service support for what we are trying to achieve versus centralization of these functions but when it comes to actual implementation doesn't seem like there is much accountability and again i don't put that on you. i think that is a broader conversation of the management of our agencies and i think that direction needs to come from the top and when we decide as policy makers this is what we're going to do to create accountability and that's the piece i think is really missing in many of these project and getting them done. >> john, quick question for you, and i appreciate all your comments and responses and the time we have worked together on certain projects. i think backing up on the civil grand jury report and president chiu's question you talk about

organizational and operational questions and the dialogue and whether it's a structural issue, the centralization? to me it's real. i appreciate your budget has been slashed 25% and brutal in any environment and especially when other budgets hasn't been slashed as much, and understanding it might upset the apple cart so to speak, but i don't think we can be afraid of that in g we have to innovate. to some degree and maybe your department faces a challenge and labeled innovation capital of the world, however you want to label it and in the center of technology globally and i think we are expected to innovate. so what are some of the things that have to happen? what environments do you have to

see -- let's say it's a centralization issue. what are issues that have to take place to have that dialogue happening? to me as i read through the report and i don't know about you president chiu, there seems to be an issue here. and progress is being made and that is great but is it fast enough? when i tell people i am on lotus notes for email it's a round laughter all along and what needs to take place. >> let me say two things about the conversation and let me put it out there how i perceive the comments and the reports and supervisor your comments. number one is we did studies if we're spending enough on it in

the city. if you look at the budget city wide and north of $7 billion a year we spend on city services which is frankly a huge amount of money, so when you look at the percentage whether it's $150 million or $250 million depending which report you read from it -- >> by the way if i can make one note and we can't figure out that number is astonishing to me and i ask every year in the budget process and this report points to $250 million i think is more accurate and ongoing question to the mayor's office and the controller's office and how we get a handle of that. my apologies for interrupting. >> what do we want to do? do we want to save money? is that our goal in san francisco? i suggest to you and i am not embarrassed by the fact we're

are the innovation city and it's a lot of money and i think we should be innovative with that money and don't you feel bad because you're government and always a lagger? i don't feel i am. i come from the private sector and i can be as innovative as others and granted i don't have certain challenges and i don't have shareholders breathing down my neck but i have other challenges and remember that most organizations that centralize to do it to save money. most are about the performance they're achieving and they out source to inch krimentally save more money and a cost savings discussion and

if we use technology as a driver and this is from the department's perspective i think we're kind of squeezing blood out of a turnip at that point. i think the question is are we getting our money's worth? do we clear clee understand for the money that we spend on it in the city are we achieving what we want to achieve? for that money should you be on the old email system or a new one? i think one the challenges is how much are we spending all the time are we making wise investments and getting our money out of spend something and when we compare to other cities and we are spending about -- a little less than other bigger cities and do than per capita, per person, per population, per employee our

numbers are slightly lower on the scale, t are we getting the money's worth? i think that is the frustration and it's a lot of money and some departments are on old systems and others are on new and the equity. >> i agree with the comments. my question is not how much we spend. i think it spending is worth the investment, but is it are we getting our money's worth? and to your example though how much different email systems are we're running here? is centralized the better way? that is revamping but that question needs to be asked and what i am wondering what are the bigger obstacles in your mind and? and there are different

groups responsible and maybe the mayor's office needs to take a look or push with this and if we have so many systems it doesn't mens sense -- >> >> make sense. >> i think it goes to why we're updating the plan and how we're updating. the original plan -- one of the weakness was there wasn't connection between the department and it is bigger goals to achieve as a city, so there wasn't the direct connection between departmental initiatives and spending and koid and with enterprise systems and collaboration and the things that we spend auto meetings i of in in the last 60 days and the revised plan which will come

next year is making that connection. certainly you could do it through organizational structure and easier to tell people to go interest one group and fall into line and even though i like that simple approach and i have seen others suggest it and it not go anywhere. one thing for koid -- there is one belief we focus and manage they're on time and on budget and i think that is important, but perhaps the bigger challenge for coit and the subcommittee is clearly articulating the goals. one email system as the vision and how does it align to that vision? i see now a laundry list of what departments do and not what coit does and i understand that we don't want to punitive for not participating and all of the projects are

important, but in the nextittereration can make that connection and these five projects are the highest priority and continue to the goal but the structure is less important than the focus and the positive reinforcement giving to departments and this is better than this and we need to help people see what they do. >> thank you. i appreciate your responses. president chiu any other questions right now? okay. we have to go to item two but first i will open it up to public comment on the hearing, so if there are any members of the public that wish to speak on item one, the item we have been going through, please line up if there is anyone at all. crickets. okay. before i

close it are there any other department representatives that -- i know we only called a few folks that want to speak that haven't been offered an opportunity. i know people are here and in a responsive community and if anyone wants to speak. anybody? with they will say public comment is closed. president chiu can we -- what do you want to do with item number one? >> why don't we -- i guess why don't we table this item. >> okay. we can do that without objection. and to item number two. for members of the public that don't witness these normally with the civil grand jury report they ask the board of supervisors to respond to findings and recommendations of their reports. this one regarding the technology system is quite extensive. i want