that august 11 is law enforcement appreciation night with a game at the giants? >> that is correct. president marshall: i guess asking if we want to continue that this year. that would be august 11. vice president mazzucco: if it would let officers attend the game, i would be in favor of that. commissioner hammer: i have attended the game before and the giants put on a good production. our law enforcement officers families who died in the line of duty in oakland, san jose, san francisco, the surrounding areas, it is a class act. it in honor of those officers and officers who want to attend, i think that would be a good idea. president marshall: i think that is agreed by everyone. commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: thank you. two minor matters. we had discussion here about the

possibility of tweaking the rules in terms of discipline. one of the weaknesses is the hearing officer procedure, the case is set out, it floats, and it drags on at times. there's also a provision that the hearing officer then files a report with us. i'm told that can take two, three months at times. i like to put on an agenda of discussion and possible action on two possible tweaks to that. one is setting a timeline on a case that is set to a hearing officer, perhaps 14 days or so, that if a trial date does not come up we could come back to us. the second would be the hearing so that within 10 days, a much shorter report. we'll have to read these transcripts. i don't think we need somebody else to read them and digest them to read them ourselves. i like to put on the agenda a couple of minor tweaks to that hearing officer provision so what would work better for us.

i am open to whatever commissioners would want. vice president mazzucco: i agree. it also made to expedite it further, maybe we should ask for the hearing officer to come to the commission in closed session and have the hearing officer explain to us what their position on the case is without having to put it in writing. obviously, the ultimate decision is made by the commission after reviewing evidence and transcripts. the written report is merely a recommendation, and to do that verbally and is much more expeditious. commissioner hammer: that is a better idea than i have. we want the flavor, the color of what happened. there is no reason we cannot have a 10-minute oral report. i just see that sometimes we wait three times for the report and we have to read the transcript anyhow. whatever is best, so we could put that on the agenda, i think would be a change we should talk about. president marshall: so review

and craft something? is that readily agreeable? commissioner hammer: i would be happy to. president marshall: i am assuming we discussed this with occ? commissioner hammer: there was a meet and confer. president marshall: so we want run into that issue if we tweak it. why don't we get that all of that in order before you bring it back, ok? commissioner hammer: i will work with commissioner mazzucco, and if we have to me, i would add to process. am i would just like it at a signing a commissioner to each and every case, even if there is a hearing officer, just like the regular court world when you have a magistrate judge is still assigned to a regular judge. so the commissioner does not do

much work, but there should be someone tasked with knowing what is going on. commissioner hammer: we will put that in the draft as well. the only thing i would suggest, i know we are ready have in the rules the first meeting of the month we get the full reading of all the cases on the docket. i think it would be helpful to us, one of the numbers that came out i think the last count, there were 10 officers on light duty because of discipline charges pending. that is far down, but that is costing the city a lot of money and gives less people for the chief to deploy on the street. i think if lieutenant bradley could help us prioritize that it, so they can get back on the street or which it -- or whatever should happen with them. perhaps lieutenant riley can report back on the first meeting in august. president marshall: all right, anything else? all right, we will take public

comment on the item 4 a * b. none. we will move to item no. 5. >> item number five, mr. president, is public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. closed session is described under items 7a, b, and c. 7a is pursuant to government code 54957 administrative code 67.10, personal exception, discussion and possible action to adopt findings of fact supporting the commission's decision given march 17, 2010 in case number kmo d08-013 and jwf c08-014.

the second item is pursuant to government code 54957 and 67.10, discussion only conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation. the city as defendant, number of potential cases being one. president marshall: i don't think we're going to need item 7c. we will just plan to go into closed session on a and b. so we move to item no. 6. >> item six is to vote on whether to hold closed session. vice president mazzucco: so moved. commissioner hammer: second. president marshall: without objection, so ordered. we will move in to closed section here. >> ladies and german, the commission will be retiring into closed session at 6:15 p.m. on items 7 and b on the agenda. it president marshall:

[6:52] >> commissioner, it is 6:52 p.m. and the police commission is returning from item's 7-a and 7-b. commissioners mazzucco and hammer are here. and with permission, we could mope move to heam 8. vice president mazzucco: item 8. >> item 8 is vote to elect whether to delose any or all discussion held in closed session. >> item 9. >> item 9 is adjournment. vice president mazzucco: and the meeting is adjourned.

secretary reilly: and the meeting is adjourned at 6:52 p.m.supervisor mar: good mornin,

everyone. this is the july 22, 2010 meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. are there any announcements?

>> yes, please remember to turn off all cell phone to and pagers. items act and on today will be forwarded to the august 3 full board agenda. supervisor mar: we are waiting for supervisor alioto-pier or someone from her office to lead the hearings on items 1, and connected to 2. let's move on to item 3. >> motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to audit the department of children, youth and their families. supervisor mar: supervisor chu? supervisor chu: supervisor alioto-pier will not be able to make it today, but there is someone from the office of the stability here who will be doing

the presentations for items 1 and 2. item 3, legislative aide will be coming for that item. supervisor mar: why don't we delay item 3 and go through the top of the agenda. >> item 1. hearing on the recently published 2009-2010 civil grand jury report entitled "americans with disabilities act: is san francisco in compliance?" item 2. resolution responding to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the 2009-2010 civil grand jury report entitled "americans with disabilities act: is san francisco in compliance?" supervisor chu: this is an item that was brought to us by supervisor alioto-pier. i know that you have also co- sponsored item 2. this is simply a hearing on the

disability act. the mayor's office will be here to give us the findings and recommendations on that. >> i believe we have someone here from the mayor's office. i would be happy to follow-up. >> thank you. i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the mayor of regarding the civil grand jury report. i want to thank everyone toward work on this report as well as the san francisco police department, city attorney's office, as well as others, for helping to track responses to this report and committing to insuring that the city addresses

all of the needs of the disabled community. we have the most stringent standards for access review, construction, renovation. we are one of the nation's leaders when it comes to accessibility signals. in our capital plan, we prioritized improvements to city facilities for disabled people. we also allocate money, city fund, and we also have state and federal dollars to comply with the americans with disabilities act transition plan. one thing the report alludes to is the level of funding dictate our progress. so depending on level of funding

the city has every year, that will tell how quickly we can implement some of the recommendations, requirements of the ada. the mayor is committed to maintaining the public right of way. one thing, and dealing with complaints on the public right of way -- given what we have on hand, that will dictate our compliance. again, the mayor is committed to doing all he can to make sure that we address all the complaints. the mayor's office also believes city departments are implementing training and are providing assistance to the civil community, but more can be done. we are cognizant of that. we are also working with different departments to update the program to train not only

top managers, but others as well. i am happy to answer any questions. bob will turn it over to susan now. -- i will turn it over to susan now. >> thank you, supervisors. mayor's office on disability. if you would like, i could walk through each of the findings and recommendations, our response on this ability. i want to start by thanking the civil grand jury. it is helpful to have them take a focused look on disability issues in the city. i feel like they did so with a very good faith effort. we are great -- are very grateful that the report was as

thorough and gracious as it was. they had six findings, six recommendations. the first finding was a request from the city attorney's office to come up with an assessment, how in compliance the city was with the americans with disabilities act. my understanding is because we are currently under litigation, that response will occur after the response has been made. the ada requires that we have a grievance procedure in place to address any potential this ability -- disability rights problems. we do have that grievance procedure.

we did lose the dedicated position to take those complaints and work with department around the city. this of a grand jury's recommendation is to reinstate staff so there is greater support for that work half. we always appreciate more staffing, but we recognize in these tough times, the choice needs to be made on where the city is putting its resources. currently we have in turn to a are being trained by some permanent staff. we believe we are responding to complaints adequately and efficiently. it does take time away from other activities, and perhaps what the civil grand jury has been most eager to see -- it

takes away from the belt region in the community in terms of what we can do the educating folks, what is appropriate to bring as a grievance, what is not. the third finding was to look at the other requirement under the ada that are not totatitle ii. because there are few options for people who experienced discrimination in the private sector with businesses, shops, private employers, private housing, a civil jury expressed a need to expand capacity to handle those grievances as well. while we would love to be

helpful in that regard, that would be a significant increase in our offices responsibility and would require major increases in staff and. -- staffing. that was a recommendation we did not agree with, but we did point out there are three entities within the city that help with these complaints. one is the department of building construction. the other is the police, mainly around service complaints. then the human rights commission is tasked with helping to settle civil rights violation of all kinds, including disability rights violations. supervisor mar: the board of supervisors is not required to respond to this funding and

recommendation, is that correct? >> i apologize. i have been told that the board would be responding to all of them. supervisor chu: if i might, it looks like we are responsible for responding to item 1, finding 4, 5, and 6, recommendations 4, 5, and 6. >> we have two ada transition planned. one is for the city office buildings, the other is the public right away. what they refer to is sidewalks and curb ramps. there is an enormous amount of work that is estimated to be

done in this area. $500 million was, at what point one pointm, the amount that was cited. we have made quite a bit of progress and we have been able to count some of the progress that had not been counted before. that estimate is not entirely correct. it is much closer to $120 million, $150 billion for curb ramps, another $100 million for sidewalks. it is recommended we look at stable funding for this work. we have tried to get on the money several times over the last 10 years and those efforts have not succeeded, so much of that money comes from the general fund, but not all.

we have had federal projects including sidewalks, curb ramps, paving, when they get non-general dollars, include to curb ramps as well. the main response we have to this is we agree this is a priority for the city. we need a dedicated and stable funding stream. the 10-year capital plan has allocated, stable funding streams for this. there are some financial issue glitches but we have always prioritized this work second only to safety in this city. the fifth recommendation was not something that we had to respond to. it was the department of public works. it was a response to barriers that arise in the public right

of way, usually from construction or activities. i would like to refer to the department of public works on that. the sixth recommendation was to look at how the city's training of disability rights issues is done, especially with respect to the police department and municipal transportation agency. clearly, they deal with a broad swath of people. the disability community is understandably invested that they handle these issues well when they come up. we have done training for both the san francisco police department and mta, and both departments have their own internal training programs which include disability rights issues. both departments are here to talk about that in detail, if you would like.

the mayor's office on disability has conducted training for trainers and managers for every department in the city, with the exception of police and mta. those have been scheduled. me requested timeline should be met, in terms of the director and manager training, for those departments. i will be happy to answer any questions you have. supervisor chu: thank you. if i could perhaps go to finding 5 and have dpw come up for a response to that one. >> good morning, supervisors.

we also want to thank the civil grand jury for the fairness of the reports, dedication to improving access in the city. item 5 is related to enforcement, the entering of the incursion. it could be a barricade in the way of someone with a disability try to make a passage on the public right-of-way. recommendation was to more fully fund the city's enforcement team. we are in difficult times, as you know. but we will continue to do everything we can to innovate funding sources. i think all of you are aware of the efforts taken to dedicate funding to sidewalk repair and

improvement. i think it was a couple of weeks ago at the full board where we had a program to do rather progressive sidewalk inspection and repair programs, a systematic way to look at correcting defects that could be considered access issues. we just want to give our assurances, we will continue to work as hard and as quickly as we can given the budget constraints that we have to make our inspection more effective and cost-effective. supervisor chu: what is the current process under which different individuals are experiencing problems with private contractors, even with public projects, with regard to access? how can people contact dpw? what is the process to resolve these issues?

>> there are two avenues. you can get in touch with the mayor's office of disability. if you feel there is an access complaint, 311. they are good at capturing that data and getting it to the appropriate and see. if is a construction-related defect -- it is a construction- related defect, we will go out there and inspect, get the contractor to move their equipment. in the case of sidewalk defects, we inspect sidewalks which are typically the responsibility of the home owner, and then we work with them to stress that they get these things fixed. there are also cases where the city is actually responsible for the repair, such as around tree

basins and curbs. supervisor chu: thank you. i probably should have alled to see -- called to see if there are any officials who want to respond to the report. >> we are pleased that you will be considering the findings and recommendations of the americans with disabilities act report. thank you for your time and consideration. overall, the jury had six responses and recommendations. it responded for the office of the mayor, the mayor office of disability, department of public works, mayor this ability council, and transportation

agency. today, the government oversight audit committee is asked to ratify four, five, and six. i want to introduce the chair of the ada committee. >> good morning. thank you for taking the time to review the report. i am jim kiknidell. the purpose of the report was to review the compliance with the 1990 with disabilities act and to support the mayor's office in disability and achieving that mandate within a reasonable time. title two requires the facilities, programs, activities, and services of the state and local government should be made accessible to should be made accessible to persons with disabilitie