supervisor campos: good morning and welcome to the september 22, 2011 meeting of the board of supervisors government, , audit, and as a committee. my name is david campos. i am the chair of the committee. we're joined by president chiu. we will be joined shortly by supervisor farrell. the clerk is andrea. we want to thank the following members of sfgtv for covering this meeting. we want to thank them for their continued good work. carolyn and nona. do we have any announcements? >> yes. i would like to ask that all cell phone ringers be turned off. if you wish to speak during public comment, fill in a speaker card and place it at the podium. items acted upon today will appear on the october 4 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. supervisor campos: pete -- please call item number 1.

>> hearing on the 2010-2011 civil grand jury report entitled "hiring practices of the city and county of san francisco." supervisor campos: thank you very much. in the next few weeks, the government audits and oversight committee will be holding a series of meetings on various reports from the civil grand jury. i want to begin by thanking the members of the civil grand jury for their service to the city and county of san francisco. this is important work, and we know it is very time-consuming. again, we want to thank you. with that, i will turn it over to the civil grand jury for their report. >> good morning. my name is linda, and i served as the foreperson of the 2010- 2011 san francisco civil grand jury. initially i would like to abolish several members of the jury who happen to be sitting on the back bench this morning. they're here with us today. in an addition, there are

several members of past injuries and a member of this year's current jury. i would like to welcome all of them here today. our initial reports this morning is on the civil service commission, and i would like to turn that report over to the juror whommtee, richard rothman. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much, madam 4%. good morning. >> thank you for having the hearings today. my name is richard rothman, and i happen to serve as the said committee chair of the report about civil service commission. just a little background about the grand jury, because i found that there was some misinformation that the grand jury is composed of 19 members, and it takes 12 members to approve any report topic. someone said that we hired a consultant. just to let you know, all this work was done by the members of the grand jury. we pick the topics and do all

the writing ourselves and do all the interviews, with some support from the staff of the courts. but for the most part, all the writing and everything is all done by the 12 members, by the 19 members, and it takes 12 members to approve a report. one of the subcommittee's, the members of the subcommittee was myself, a retired steelworker, a retired banker, lawyer, and a gentle man who is in the newspaper industry, a reporter. we decided to look about -- in 1905, civil service and human resources -- and civil service approved a reform which cover many areas. due to our limited time, we decided to focus on the hiring process.

and also, we just focus on the miscellaneous workers, and we left out the police and fire intentionally, because they have different rules about hiring. so, basically, our report was about the hiring process in the miscellaneous workers. the purpose of the civil service reform was to speed up the hiring process and to do with provisional appointments, which are unfair to the workers and unfair to the department. we do acknowledge that the departments of the altman hiring authority but that human resources in the civil service commission are in place to see that the rules are followed and the procedures are followed. in our report, we asked for some letters, and we intentionally did not want to know the names

of the people on the appeal letters that we review. this was a deliver it on our part that we did not know the names -- this was a deliberate on our part that we do not know the names of the applicants. in preparing for our committee report, i want to thank all the departments, from hr to civil service and public health. also, we interviewed a wide variety of people. although i cannot list the names, we did interview -- tried to interview all different parties who have stakes in the hiring process, from union business managers to rank-and- file city workers who work for the city. with that, i would like to read our findings. we have five findings.

the first finding, under the traditional class-based testing, an applicant has the right to appeal to the commission at almost every point during the examination process. an applicant taking a position based testing can appeal only three points in the process. these differences can be confusing to the applicant. recommendation one, on all job applicants -- applications, there should be a single link or a single sheet of paper outlining in plain english under what conditions the job application can appeal to human resources and ultimately to the civil service commission. finding two, dhr is not always in forming applicants of their rights to appeal decisions of the hr director to the civil

service commission. recommendation two, dhr should establish tighter procedures to ensure that all letters sent to applicants and denying their appeal are mailed properly. where appropriate, they should apply applicants of their right to appeal the decisions to the civil service commission. as a further back up, the jury urges the commission to include in these letters to the applicants, setting the date of their hearing, a reminder that they are entitled to copies of the dhr report free of charge. finding number 3, training and education testing realize too heavy on training and experience, listed on the applicant form in evaluating whether an applicant is eligible for the position.

this is an inefficient method for evaluating job applicants. testing in education does not verify whether an applicant can actually possess the training and education and experience claimed on the form. dhr as indicated that is in the process of reducing its reliance on training and education exams. recommendation three, the city should continue its move away from testing and education exams and return to the more knowledge-based examinations. finding number four, besides a job applicant's description, position-based testing applicants -- pbd job announcements sometimes advises

applicants of the eligibility lists from this examination could be used by other city departments for hiring staff. however, the advisor does not identify those departments. this process can deny an applicant the information required to become aware of an application for a position within the city government. recommendation four, position- based job announcements should identify each city department that might be used -- that might use the examination eligibility list. this would assist potential applicants in deciding whether or not to participate in the examinations and to get on an eligibility list. otherwise, a list should be used solely by the departments designated on the job announcement. finally, finding five. as the hiring process in the

city becomes increasingly decentralized and position-based testing becomes more prevailing, there is a growing doubt among some city workers that the commission, as currently staffed, is able to protect their rights. the commission should be authorized to hire one additional senior analyst position. and just to comment, as far as i know, we never received a response from the mayor's office about recommendation five. and two, the current positions in the civil service budget, one is staff, one paid for by puc, and one paid for by the mea. since the airport's enterprise zone, there's no reason why the airport cannot find this new

position. that is my report. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer them. supervisor campos: thank you very much for the report. there may be specific questions, but i wanted to get a clarification from the city attorney in terms of the process. my understanding is that with respect to this report, the civil grand jury has asked the board of supervisors to respond to recommendation 5, to find number 5 and recommendation 5, and that the way that the rules work, that we in this committee as a board would have to respond to specific items. ok. great. colleagues, any questions for the civil grand jury? let's do it this way, if there's someone from the department who would like to present the department's perspective, and maybe we can follow up with

questions. >> that would be fine, thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. i am from the mayor's office. i wanted to actually correct one thing that the grand jury mentioned. we actually did respond to recommendation 5. unfortunately, it was mislabeled in our response. so if you do look at the mayor's response, we did address that particular recommendation. supervisor campos: supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: committee may be read into the record so people are aware? -- can you may be read into the records of people are aware? >> yes. the recommendation was deficient and the commission should be onerous to hire at least one additional senior analyst, and the mayor's response is the recommendation requires further analysis.

the determination of appropriate staffing levels required an analysis by the mayor's office and the department as to whether the department is able to perform core functions, as well as a consideration of the budgetary resources available annually. the commission has stated that it takes seriously its role and responsibility to oversee the city's merit system and does believe its staff response to complaints and concerns in a timely manner. it has indicated that any additional staffing would only enhance operations. any discussion related to increasing staffing will have to be made in the course of the budget development process. supervisor campos: so that i understand the point, does that mean that you do not believe that staffing is needed? i guess this was still not clear. >> we have not had that discussion with the civil

service commission. over the course of the budget process, we do take into account what the purpose staffing level may be to have the department meet its core functions. with respect to additional staffing, we have not had that discussion yet. this is the first i am hearing of an additional staffing. supervisor campos: i mean, the finding is that as the hiring process becomes increasingly decentralized, or release that is the finding, that there is concern about the ability the commission, as currently staffed, to protect individual'' rights. i mean, what is the civil service commission's perspective on that? >> i have anita. what i would like to point out very quickly with respect to the finding is that the finding that the civil grand jury mentioned is based on a misreading of the 2005 dhr report on civil service

reform. i can give you a copy of the actual reportdhr . but on page 6 of the report, under the heading summary of findings, dhr listed the following, the centralized authority for personal positions, especially for hiring. with the civil grand jury did was they concluded that that was a recommendation that was implemented by dhr, and that is not the case. i have jennifer johnson here from dhr, who can further elaborate on that. supervisor campos: thank you. if we can hear from ms. anita sanchez. >> we thank the grand jury for their review the hiring process of the city. the civil service commission takes a very seriously the findings of the civil grand jury. and to ensure that there is a

fair and impartial process in that the hiring of our city employees who are permanent civil servants. with regard to the recommendations, i will address item number 5. the commission agrees with the civil grand jury's recommendation of an additional staff person for the civil service commission. i do, however, want to assure this committee that our office is ensuring that any concerns or issues brought to the civil service commission is being handled in a timely manner. we would be able to expedite our analysis and review the concerns that are brought to us in terms of the appeal or whether there is an appeal process available to the employees or whether this can be handled through what we call and inspection service,

which we look into matters that are not appealable to the commission. however, we would discuss with the department in the department of human resources whether merit system principles, rules, and policies have been followed by and that employment transaction. and an additional staff person would expedite our analysis and also give us an opportunity to review the department's analysis or reports that they present to the commission, and we can advise the commission whether merit system principles and policies have been followed. supervisor farrell: thank you. to get your opinion on it this, you know, is the second edition, from your point of view, is this nice to have or need to have? as you talk about expediting processes, i completely understand, and i would want to support it really respect what the civil grand jury -- all of

their work. i think about our process and the board of supervisors, everything else in city hall, and our city government. obviously, we're in a huge budget deficit times. and we're all having big austerity measures. so is this completely necessary to function? or can you bucshon without it? >> i think all of us have cut our belts and tighten our belts. we do with what we have. this department can certainly do that, and it is not the recommendation that we thought that is what the finding of the civil grand jury is, and the commission agrees with that. but they do feel that there should be additional staff for the commission. but i also want to assure everyone that anything that is brought to our office is addressed and not put aside. supervisor farrell: ok. >> it is not absolutely

necessary, like a lot of things. but it would be nice to have. supervisor farrell: thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. i know there was someone from the department of human resources -- i do not know if you wanted to add anything. >> good morning, jennifer johnson from the department of human resources. we have nothing more to add. we think the civil service commission does an outstanding job of insuring principles are followed, as with dhr. there is one misconception bit of the civil grand jury was operating under the assumption that it was the civil service commission that oversees examinations. it is actually the department of human resources. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i am wondering if there is any additional information or comment from the civil grand jury?

>> sir, we knew that the civil service commission role is to make rules and to edifies, you know, to see that hr is following its procedures. hr does the operational and sets the, you know, is the one who monitors the exams and the decentralization process is hr to ensure that departments follow the policies and procedures of the civil service commission and the operation rules of hr. supervisor campos: thank you very much. why don't we open it up to public comment? if a member of the public would like to speak, please come forward.

let me see if there's anyone for -- i know mr. da costa signed up for item number one, and if there's anyone else who would like to speak, please come forward. mr. da costa, good morning. >> for those people at home, i am in addressing this to you, because really, we get no representation here at city hall. and to you here, you know your responsibilities doing legislation. you have the executive branch, and by 1996, billy browned clipped the wings of the city administrator, so we really have the ying and the yang. but when we few advocates come here, all we get is a ding dong. having said that, the only vestige in this adjudication process