not achieved. mta gave multiple reasons why this was not, but the bottom line is part of the compensation and value of the contract is maintaining these shelters and kiosks and they are not maintained at that number. there may be all sorts of community reasons or planning department reasons, but we did look in and permits had not been pulled. we did not feel there was an active case there. on the audit -- some of these we don't actually have a major disagreement. on the issue of the audit, the response, i don't believe they told us they're planning to do the audits every two years. that may very well fill the spirit of the recommendation. supervisor campos: a final question -- with respect to the

number of shelters, there is a minimum requirement in the contract and we are not meeting that requirement, i think we should either modify the contract or, it seems to me, we have to make sure the letter and spirit of the agreement is being applied. >> certainly, a supervisor. to comment on that. we definitely want shelters up for the writers where we believe it is inadequate. -- shelters up for the riders. those shelters have been removed and the communities have asked to remove shelters. having said that, our mag is so high that where we put our shoulders up are dependent on the service needs of our r iders or the system. our revenues are so high that we don't think we should put up a shelter just to put up a shelter

unless the community wants it. there are some new shelter locations and we are actively working with dpw on the new shelters which is taking much more time than we thought. we should be seeing some new shelters going up across the city soon once we resolve the power and permitting issues. supervisor campos: i appreciate that, but if that is the case, if your position in terms of what is needed is different from what is outlined in the contract, the contract should reflect that. >> i don't think the contract says -- maybe i am wrong -- i can't go back and look at that whether there is a dollar requirement or shelter requirement. supervisor campos: finally, what i would say to m theta, i'm glad there is specific responses but i feel there is room for improvement.

there has been a lot of talk about the need to improve service and the need for additional resources to make that happen. if we can make improvements and changes around this issue, you are talking about a significant amount of money that could be added to the system which could in turn helped with the service provided, so i hope they recommendations and findings are take into consideration and, to the extent improvements can be made, that those improvements are made. why don't we open it up to public comment? any member of the public would like to speak, you each have three minutes. >> good morning, supervisors. i've lived in san francisco for 59 years. i would like to thank the budget

and legislative analyst for this report. as usual, they give us the real picture. my interpretation is that it is mainly bad news. is it a fact that the ex head of public works is now the current head of mta? you can make a decision whether that is a good move for bad, but based on this report, one has to ask the question of whether this is good or not. at least the question is being asked. second, i found it interesting, the reference to the city administrator's office, why the contract was being closely watched their. i would like to pose the question as a private citizen, was a recent city administrator during such a good job as being claimed publicly? because it seems to me like today's report indicates that

was an area where there was not any monitoring, obviously, to the detriment of the city's income. thirdly, i would like to ask question, if the city is not doing a very good job here, maybe we should fund more audits on a regular basis so we can get more reports like this and find out why the city has so much alleged waste and incompetence and try to get that fixed. like a supervisor farrell says, $5 million is $5 million. if we can find it here or there are chances of finding it somewhere else like public health and general hospital is very good. as a matter of record, i would like to point out that even the

president of the united states approved enthusiastically that government assistance to cylin dra, it is a matter of fact that the government paid a visit to them this morning. it does not mean those projects are adequate or even good for the economy. what i would recommend is that this committee called the audit and oversight committee, increase its activity to make sure that we do not have more instances of cylindra coming up, because realistically in san francisco, every dollar lost hurts the poor that need it. supervisor campos: thank you very much. anybody else would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is

closed. colleagues, would it be ok to continue this? we have a motion by supervisor farrell. we can take that without question. clerk, you can call the next item. >> item number two, ordinance amended the san francisco administrative code. supervisor campos: thank you very much. this is an item that has been introduced by both myself and supervisor farrell. i want to thank supervisor farrell for his work on this item. what it does is that it addresses an issue that has come before this committee a number of times, as well as the entire board, and that is the issue of overtime. we know that in the last fiscal year, the amount of overtime that departments went above that which was budgeted, which was about $40 million, which means that city departments spend more than $40 million in overtime that was actually budgeted by

the board of supervisors and the mayor. right now, there is no process in place that requires that any amount of expenditures that goes above the budget be approved by the board of supervisors. this legislation would require that approval and would create that process. i want to thank the controller's office for their good work in helping us put this item together. from our perspective, this is a good government, best practices, a piece of legislation and makes a lot of sense. we have a budget process in place that requires presentation by the mayor to the board and approval by the board of supervisors. we want to make sure that that process is applied to the issue of overtime. supervisor farrell, i do not know if you want to add anything to that. i will turn it over to the controller's office.

>> good morning. monique from the controller's office. on a monthly basis and semi- annually as well, the comptroller's office provides reports to the board of supervisors as well as the department of the actual use of overtime compared to the budget. the board of supervisors did pass legislation this week also related to the maximum amount of overtime hours any employee can work. this companion measure would limit the overtime to how much is a budget and would require a real appropriation to change the amount or to increase it. because this legislation was pending before the committee during the budget process, we took a hard look at the actual overtime in each of these departments and recommended an amount that is consistent with the prior year's spending. we're hoping that the apartments will very carefully monitor

their overtime and not exceed those amounts. and if they are on a pattern to over-spend, we will certainly be monitoring it and advise those departments to come to this committee. one of the things that we have proposed that the overtime appropriation legislation pertain to annual operating funds, which is clearly the vast majority of all the funds in the city and county. we do have capital funds or special funds that are sometimes used for overtime. currently, our reporting capabilities do not allow us to separate out that over time, budget vs actual, and i think that if we limited at this to the annual operating funds, we would achieve 96% to 97% of all

of the dollars in most of the cases. >> just a couple of points. this legislation applies to the departments that spend the most in overtime, and that would include the airport, the office of emergency management, the fire department, police department, department of public health, public utilities commission, department of public works, recreation and park department, and the sheriff's department. it does not include the sfmta, because, legally, we, as a board, do not have the authority to approve specific budget items. we're limited to approving yes or no, their overall budget of an agency. >> that is correct, mr. chairman, however, we do it -- include the mta in all of the

reports. supervisor campos: which is the third item on the agenda, urging the mta to take appropriate steps, and we will get to that shortly. colleagues, any comments or questions? with respect to the issue of capital projects, my understanding is that the amount of money in overtime that is expended on capital projects is about 7% or 4%, 6%, depending on the fiscal year. >> correct. supervisor campos: i do not have a problem with that approach in terms of going forward and excluding capital projects, to the extent that we are talking about a smaller percentage of the amount of overtime. but i do think it is important for us to deal with the issue of overtime when it comes to capital projects. maybe there is a different

process that we should put in place, or at least a separate discussion. >> we can begin to report on the actual overtime within those continuing funds. often it is more efficient and cost-effective for departments to use overtime, rather than hire additional staff to complete a capital project that may take just a few months. in many instances, the overtime is preferred, rather than to hire additional staff. but we can report the dollar amount to you and work with you over the course of the next number of months if you like to make some changes to the appropriation methodology for those funds. supervisor campos: ok, thank you very much. why don't we open it up to public comment? if any member of the public would like to speak, please come forward.

>> good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas. i would like to thank the chief sponsors for this item. i think it is long overdue. in fact, when i think about it sitting here, i am asking myself why two so-called experienced fiscal watchdogs on the board have not come up with this idea sooner? this current item, so i am wondering about that. secondly, i think this is something that is long overdue. basically, if you ask a private business how they are going to control over time, they have a simple answer. the call on the employee. they tell them this is a need to be done. is it the constraints. these are the time requirements. we would like you to do good job. and if you do not do a good job, then we will find someone else who can do a good job.

i think the very real excuse to keep hearing around city hall that it is cheaper to pay overtime then bring in new employees is a false idea. did it ever occur to anyone that may be those new employees will be better employees than the employees you currently have? because if you take that point of view and follow successful companies, like apple and google, companies like that do not tolerate or even keep employees that cannot meet budgets and goals. i think is pretty simple. if you ask a doughnut shop operator how he controls over time, he is basically going to say either the job gets done within the goals and requirements or else we're going to find much to do a better job than the people we have now. so maybe, maybe, you should ask steve jobs to volunteer for the

city, have him sit down and look at all these operations and say, maybe you can come up with a few suggestions for the benefit of the city of san francisco. realistically, i do not think it takes a lot to figure out if you cannot do the job within the restraints, maybe you should not have that job. what is the problem with bringing in outsiders from the city government? is it a fear that maybe those outsiders are better workers than most of the city workers we have now? [bell chimes] is a politically correct to ask the question that maybe we should be hiring based on merit other than so-called agenda connections, which always gets us stuck in city hall but nothing gets done about it. what is done with hiring people that can get the job done on time? thank you. supervisor campos: thank you

very much. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we had the legislation before us. the question has been raised on making sure that the legislation reflects that we are talking about operating an operating budget. is there a motion to make that change? >> motion to amend. >supervisor campos: motion by supervisor farrell. for purposes of the public and the folks watching this hearing, it would be adding the words with an annual operating fundswi operatingthin annual operating funds." it would read, the annual a pretentiousness shall contain a separate appropriation within an annual operating funds for overtime. i am concerning with the city

attorney and the controllers that that is the language that would be added. >> correct. supervisor campos: we take the motion without objection. and now on the underlying legislation, as amended. we have a motion by supervisor farrell. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. again, thank you to the controller's office, to lead to the city attorney. thank you to supervisor farrell and his staff. thank you to sheila and my staff for working on this. and thank you to president chiu for your support. madam clerk, call item 3. >> item number 3, resolution encouraging the san francisco municipal transportation agency to develop a plan to manage overtime expenditures in 2011- 2012 and subsequent fiscal years. supervisor campos: first, a quick question on item two, and that would be a motion to move forward with the recommendation. that is not going as a committee

report. item three, please. let me say that, with respect to item 3, this is an item related to item two, as was just noted. we on the board of supervisors do not have direct oversight of line-item budgets within the san francisco municipal transportation agency, which is why we are accompanying the legislation with this resolution that is urging the sfmta to take all necessary steps to address the issue of overtime. as has been noted before, the sfmta, at this point, accounts for 41.52% of the city's total overtime for fiscal year 2010- 2011. that is a pretty significant amount. and with respect to the amount of money, that $40 million

that exceeded the overtime expenditure that was budgeted, mta for fiscal year 2009-2010 spent $11.9 million more in overtime. that was actually budgeted. and so when we talk about overtime being an issue and being a problem for the city and county of san francisco, the one agency that really stand out is the sfmta, which is why this resolution is here, which is why we're having this hearing today. let me note that i have met with the new sec -- the new executive director for the sfmta, and he has indicated to me that he understands the gravity of this issue and that he is going to take all the steps that are necessary to address it. i know that he wanted to be here. there is a tjpa meeting right

now that is happening, and depending on when that ends, he may be able to be here. but i see that ms. bose is here. so i would like to ask you to please come forward and to talk to us about this issue of overtime. because it is a pretty significant issue. again, in the last few years, we have seen pretty significant cuts to service in this system. in my view, to be able to restore a lot of those service cuts, we have to get our hands around this issue and tackle the issue of overtime. i think we owe that to the ridership. >> thank you. the director of transportation would have liked to been here, you're right. because he's committed to do what you suggested, looking at the overtime issue. it has been a significant issue for the mta. i know the new directors

committed to not only looking at managing over time but assessing our budget impacts and holding our manager accountable. he has had several meetings already about the overtime within the agency. he has received a significant number of reports already. the mta has given him reports. he has requested monthly reports, toning down on the details. he has already expressed interest in what to look at this issue of overtime. supervisor campos: the resolution calls upon the mta to actually develop a plan for dealing with overtime. as i understand it, there's not a plant per se that actually does that. can you comment on how long it would take for the sfmta to do something like that? >> i think what we will do next is we have a policy adviser group meeting tomorrow with the board. over time is on the agenda. we will bring this resolution before them and suggest that we

put something together for their approval before bringing it to you. i do not anticipate, given the level of interest in the agency and the new director, that it would take a long time. we request that the mta board weigh in on it before we actually bring you the plan. i would feel comfortable with this and a 60-day timeframe to bring something back for your review. supervisor campos: ok, and part of the request is that in creating that plan bee, you proe some level of detail about how overtime is actually managed. >> absolutely. supervisor campos: i just want to make sure that is included. is there a specific target in terms of the kind of reduction that you would be aiming for, or is this something you are still working on? >> supervisor, this fiscal year,

we spent about $15 million in revenue. if we could even get back to the budget number of $30 million or somewhere in that range, i would say that is a significant achievement. in addition to over time, one of the major reasons for overtime as the individuals who do not show up to work every day. mostly in the front-line areas. so we have to manage the absence of individuals. that would be part of the program. it will require assistance from our human resources folks in terms of how much of these are manageable and how much are legally required. we have not officially declared a target, but we can certainly bring that before the board and the director of transportation for discussion and come back to you and hopefully give you a more solid target. from the cfo perspective, i am eager to see that dollar never increase.

-- i am eager to see that dollar amount decrease. supervisor campos: colleagues, any questions? from my perspective, i think coming back to this item sooner rather than later is really important. if we're talking about 60 days, you're talking about coming back sometime in early november. >> yes, if that is 60 days. i am trying to count. yes. mid-november is probably a good time. i would like to pick the first tuesday in november for the board meeting. supervisor campos: a final question. one of the things that we found when we conducted the budget -- the budget analyst conducted a performance audit of the mta, looking two years prior to the completion of that audit, the sfmta board had actually not even entered talks about the

issue of overtime in its meeting speeded you have any idea on whether or not that item has been on the agenda for the mta board? at they discussed that issue? >> for the last five or six months at least, the policy advisory group with three board members has done that every month. they're asking staff to report every month on overtime. it has not gone to the full board for discussion, but the three active board members regularly reviewed this every month. >> i would encourage the full board of the mta to tackle this issue. i think when you constitutes 40% + of the cities over time that you haven't obligation to make sure you continue to monitor this closely. president chiu? why don't we open it up to public comment? thank you, ms. bose.

>> good morning. my name is douglas. i would like to make one suggestion on how you can handle this problem immediately. i would like to suggest that the mayor take charge. calling the relevant department heads, said in a room, and work something out before anybody gets the lead. i think that is the kind of leadership needed to solve a problem like this that has been going on and on and on. it is pretty obvious that some of our past leaders, which i suspect are doing it for political reasons, have not touched this item efficiently enough. so what is wrong with calling all the people that are the decision makers, putting them in a room, and say you're not leaving until we make some progress on this? i think the people would

appreciate something like that, and it is a first step to solving this problem. i think it is reasonable to ask that. people have an excuse for not showing up for whatever reason, then i think that reflects and tells the people in san francisco that we have leaders session not be our leaders. secondly, this problem has been ongoing for so long. it is obvious that it has not been solved. i would like to suggest that there are solutions, but for political reasons, those solutions are not being discussed. i think it comes down to, are we going to waste more money where we could be using that same money for the poor and needy? i think everybody in charge of san francisco needs to sit down and say, are we going to spend money on the poor and needy that spend -- that deserve the money

or are we going to continually tolerate what has been going on at the mta? i would like to further suggest that maybe we should call in somebody that has run a smaller mta-type organization, may be in the midwest where common sense prevails and ask them how they would solve the problem that we have in san francisco. i can guarantee you that they have some pretty common-sense solutions that may be san francisco would consider politically incorrect. [bell chimes] are we going to commit to waste more money? or are we going to use the same money to the poor and needy? a think everybody would agree that the poor and needy need that money rather than the politically connected. our past leaders have not solved the problem. i have a suspicion that they're very interesting reasons why the problem has not been solved. today's hearing ive