other municipal agencies to make sure we are pursuing cases better in the public interest. but to be clear, there are huge responsibilities. and so, there are very few city attorney's that actively pursue consumer litigation to the extent that san francisco has. if you look at where we have been able to make some of our most ground-breaking impacts, it is through cases we have developed on our own. the amount of litigation we pursue depends on what we do. my office has funded a litigation program to the tune of $6 million per year for the

general fund. last year, because of settlements obtained by my office, which contributed -- we took responsibility away from the general fund -- and we contributed about $1.6 million from that $2.7 million. the next year, again, we were contributing $1.8 million, an increase of about $375,000 to fund two dedicated positions. these moneys are restricted. the purposes of state law are for the exclusive purposes of the state attorney to enforce consumer protection laws. my ambition is to expand our program and make it a larger interagency effort. we will work with other agencies such as dph. we already work with these

agencies. some of these cases you may know about are those like to our car wash -- tower car wash, where we went after them for there longstanding business practices that denied a full and fair wage to there employees -- their employees. i anticipate that by dedicating one attorney and one legal assistant to coordinate this effort will result in better communication, better use of city resources, and my hope is this small investment will have brought in additional penalties that will fund and expand the program, similar to what we have done with our existing resources in our code enforcement efforts through the last five fiscal years.

i just come back to saying this, supervisors. we find what we do. i continue to be willing to do it. i think there is nothing but false savings if you cut those positions. that money is not going anywhere else. i can guarantee it will lead to accountability, because if i am wrong, which i don't think i am, i too will have the opportunity to judge me by the results that i deliver. you will be accountable for this small investment. thank you, supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you. we do have a question.

supervisor kim? supervisor kim: you to agree with this above the policy recommendation? >> yes. that number was not there last week. it's what i put forward to reach a good settlement. i still want to go forward on that. i just disagree with the pollyanna -- with the policy analyst. supervisor kim: the money listed as the potential general fund safety, you're saying that is not. that is typically allocated to you through the consumer protection fund? >> that is correct. if you don't approve the positions, that money is restricted. supervisor chu: ok. that is a point of clarification.

you are bringing in fees or penalties or money that comes in for the purpose of $1.5 million? correct? >> no, that's incorrect, supervisor. let me tell you. there are two points. last year, i received settlements of $1.6 million, and in my effort to contribute to the general fund, i said, you know what? i will find $1.6 million. i will find that out of the penalties that i receive. so, you can take that away and you can use that for something -- not of better use, but i understand you have a budget situation and you can use it for

something else. this year, i continue to do that. the mayor's office is continuing to fund -- in there proposal -- i'm already paying $1.9 million out of the city attorney's budget. what is it? about $800,000. historically, -- yes, that's right. that was me taking the responsibility of the general fund that had previously been there. supervisor chu: thank you. if i understand correctly, $2.7 million in general litigation expenses generally, and in the past, you have seen $1.6 million applied for the general fund

express -- expense generally? >> they don't come in with a great deal of predictability. it depends on what it is. whether we have a good year or not, right? i will tell you there are some years where it's more. last year, i had a sufficient settlement to think that i had at least $1.6 million when that number was funded. i can tell you more recently, i have brought in even more money, and that is restricted. i cannot get to the general fund, i can only spend that on behalf of the enforcement protection efforts. for example, we brought in $5 million for faulty arbitrations, but that can only be used for my purposes. >> and only for the current

year? the $5 million settlement? >> yes, that's what funding the $1.8 million for the two years. supervisor chu: ok. for the two additional positions, one is an attorney position and the other is a paralegal and that would expand your affirmative litigation budget, correct? >> it would be within our affirmative litigation responsibilities. >> wouldn't let go to the budget analyst? >> madam chair, members of the committee, yes. >> no, it would not. hold on. >> we can clarify that, if you would like, madam chair. our statement is it is not.

>> because of the demands of other areas, they have been moving the attorneys to do other work. this would be a dedicated attorney and paralegal. that would stay in that affirmative consumer protection unit. however, if they took the existing affirmative litigation back and used them and dedicated them to the consumer protection activity instead of the demands that they are able to move people from affirmative litigation, then there would be general funds savings. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i beg to differ with the budget analyst. the fact of the matter is, our affirmative litigation budget for lawyers deals with issues that, unfortunately, we talk about ada litigation, other

responsibilities that the general fund increasingly looks to the city attorney's office to fill. you look at how general fund contribution has been reduced over the course of the last five years and fiscal year 2006-2007, we received a $10.5 million general fund contribution, where last year, we would all the way up to $5 million. supervisors, you know, because you see my budget reports to you on your behalf. city attorneys are doing more and more and more with less and less and less. we take on more general fund responsibilities.

i'm looking at ways to take that away from the general fund, and that's exactly what these positions are designed to do, so you can also see results and hold it accountable for what we are doing. i think is something important and in the public interest. supervisor chu: just a question. it's either general fund or it's not. can you provide clarity on what it is? >> supervisors, we would be happy to take a look at the specifics of that settlement, but of course, we don't have information to answer your question directly. we are happy to do homework on it. supervisor chu: ok.

>> frankly, as i understand ms. newman's statement, and she will correct me, even if the funding source is restricted, that the city attorney's office in essence has the authority to reassign its staff to that work, pulling them off of other general fund work to free a general fund money. i understand that to be the budget analysts statement. >> supervisors, it all sounds great in theory. just pull city attorney's office and do other things. i can tell you, that is easier said than done when you look at the fact that our general fund contribution has been reduced by over $5 million over the last five years and we are being asked to do more and more. now let me just say something else. and that is, in an attempt to

recognize something, and i don't know if ms. howard is here -- she is here -- i'm sorry, the budget analysts report, and there was some discussion about how these conditions were not requested in the mayor's budget. i want to clarify things, because that's not true. if you go back and look at our february submission, we talked in very general terms about our desire to create this unit. we didn't going to be exact details, because i want to have a conversation with the mayor's office about how we can settle the money to accomplish our goals, but also take money off the general fund. in concept, the mayor's office would be in agreement with the proposal. they want to see how it all works out. from my perspective, what i

wanted to see was a greatly expanded unit where i could defray costs to the olse to help us investigate these cases, where i would be able to pay for the services i could a tribute to these cases and take that responsibility of the general fund. understandably, the mayor's office wanted to see how this would all play out. and the compromise that we reached it was -- which i thought was too small, but i was willing to work with them -- i said i would be willing to take an attorney and a paralegal because i am so confident in what we do. there's more money sitting there that no one else can use.

the assistance we're getting from other general fund responsibilities -- i can pay for those myself. and that's what i want to do. supervisor wiener: i just want to be sure i understand the budget analyst's explanation here. the staffing could be diverted from general funds to this unit without hiring the positions as proposed by the city attorney? >> des moines understanding from the discussion with the city attorney -- my understanding from the discussion with the city attorney is they have been moving from affirmative litigation to do other city attorney responsibilities. what they need is an additional attorney and paralegal to be

dedicated within the affirmative litigation unit to consumer protection. what i am suggesting is taking the existing attorney and paralegal and dedicating them to the consumer protection unit, which would be the dedicated funding. instead of taking them away to do other demands, because it is acknowledged these two other positions are an expansion. supervisor wiener: right. but by pulling people off of other responsibilities, that could be taking them off the trial team, evaluating whichever department? >> that is correct. but that is what has been happening here for. i would also note that is discussed in our recommendations.

it is an expansion. as you know, in the department budget, there is an increase in general fund costs of the next two years. in fact, over the two year period, there is an 80% general fund increase. supervisor wiener: from what to what? >> $6 million this year to $9 million. supervisor wiener: when you're talking about a small part of the department to budget -- >> wright. it is $6 million to $9 million. supervisor wiener: i'm just talking about the city attorney resources because the department provides critical resources, and so that is a zero sum game. >> that is why we did not put it on the ship and made it a policy

decision, because it is an expansion of what they do, the way they presented it in that regard. we are presenting it as "this is the way it is," and we're not offering it as part about. supervisor wiener: right, and i'm not being critical at all. i'm just trying to make sure. >> the budget analyst's office i have no dispute with. she described it exactly right. in theory. that would be a great thing. that is what i have been doing. that is what i have been doing. diverting people to do other critical city work and that has gone by the wayside now. my people are stretched too

thin to do the work that is in the best interests of the residents of the city and county of san francisco and at the risk of the tremendous financial benefit already brought to the city's general fund. $8 million. $4 million invested. that which is measured, gets done. here, you can hold me accountable. you can hold me accountable for the production. if you say, ok, how much have you brought in? what have you developed? with what it is i gave you -- and judging by the results, i can guarantee it will be a worthwhile investment for this board of supervisors and residents of the city and county of san francisco. supervisor chu: thank you. i appreciate the comment on the accountability component. i think that is something we all look for.

the consumer protection dollars, roughly $5 million, but that leaves a balance in the pot of money. are there other eligible expenses he might be able to use out of that? i'm imagining it is not restricted to say it has to be for the city attorney? >> yes. i was thinking of one settlement, supervisor. i have more. supervisor chu: great. >> i have about $8 million there, but it is restricted. this goes back to the discussion with ms. howard. i appreciate all of her help. i appreciate a greatly expanded program. in your standing mayor wants to see how something will work -- i understand the mayor was to see how something will work. there are things it can be used for, but it has to be used on behalf of the city attorney's

efforts. what i am telling you is in use -- i am willing to use that money for what our general fund responsibilities to help me investigate and prosecute and pursue consumer protection cases. ultimately, if i am paying for that out of money that is restricted that i can utilize, you are going to be able to free up other general fund money, to do other things that are a priority to you. and i'm willing to pursue that. >> thank you. to the comptroller's office, with regard to the $8 million -- whatever the balance is, maybe $8 million for consumer protection work -- do you have a sense of where that money could be spent? are there other general fund expenses we could offset with that finding? >> supervisors. i'm not aware of the balance. i would be happy to work with the city attorney's office, but

this is somewhat news to me. supervisor chu: ok, if i could ask for you to work with the city attorney to analyze what that money could be used for, or if there is an additional balance, and if there are other general fund expenses that can be offset against that restricted funding? i think that would be something the committee could look at. so, colleagues, given that the city attorney has agreed to some of the budget analyst recommendations, can we entertain a motion to accept the $220,000 roughly worth of recommendations currently? we take that without objection? and with regards to the policy? no thoughts? would you folks like to carry this over? supervisor kim? supervisor kim: this is actually

one that i do, that i would like to carry over with regard to the issues that have been brought up. supervisor chu: ok, supervisors, why don't we carry over and not take action on this item at the moment and ask the city attorney to follow-up with committee members on there questions -- their questions. in supervisor avalos as questions. >> thank you, supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i am wondering if we have the department of technology here? i would actually like to call dt, dpw, and then we will come back to admin services, because i think they do have a number of outstanding issues. >> the afternoon, supervisors.

we're here to follow up after last week's meeting. we are here to report to you today that we are in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations and to answer any additional questions you might have. supervisor chu: the department is in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: is there anything else you would like to add, mr. rose? >> madam chair, nothing at this time. supervisor chu: colleagues, can we meet kaine -- can we entertain a motion? we will do that without objection. department of public works. >> good afternoon. so, we were able to work with the budget analyst, and we are in agreement with the budget analyst. supervisor chu: the department

of public works is in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. i was so happy to see that. i did want to raise my own personal concern about the $1 million in reserve for the law library. given the discussions we have had come up we think that is a very high amount. certainly, we would not want to spend general fund dollars to that extent. we can look at this by relocating location such as the library, and i hope that that would be a consideration in the following year, and that this committee would consider such a large allocation. i know this is for the next fiscal year, but i wanted to

bring that concern up today. >> supervisors, we will come back and talk about what happens with the law library. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you. i just want to clarify one thing. the cleaning crew positions -- those are not funded, so those are being eliminated. >> so, the agreement is for four labor positions. supervisor wiener: and so, i am very interested in picking up dpw staffing around cleaning crews for the city, as well as gardening and landscaping work. i think dpw is very under- resources in those areas. we have seen a hollowing out in recent years in those functions.

i would love to have more. i just want to raise that point. this is more a technical adjustment and would not in any way -- it is not really an ad back, but doing whatever we can to increase those positions so we have even more cleaning capacity. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose, any comments? >> no, madam chair. supervisor chu: ok, colleagues, can we take a motion for dpw. without objection. to ethics commission. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

the commission agrees with the revised recommendations from the budget analyst. supervisor chu: any comments? >> madam chair, and no additional comments. supervisor chu: 2 we have a motion to accept a budget analyst recommendations? we have a motion. we do that without objection. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. in the past week, the city administrator's office work with the budget analyst and came to agreement on many things. on the current cut list, we agreed to the recommendations on page 68. however, there are four items we would like to discuss today. the city manager 0932 position, the

earthquake safety implementation program, the community specialists that would go into the neighborhood power network division, and attrition for gsa hr. supervisor chu: can you just speak to the items you're saying you're not an agreement with? >> yes, those four. supervisor chu: can you specify which ones on which page they are? >> sure. on page 69, that is -- attritions savings from the general services agency, a human-resources department. the key issue for us with the attrition as whether or not we have enough salary to support the positions currently listed in the budget. the budget and