referred to on page 30, it said this manager position does not have any supervisor of responsibility. can you respond to that? >> that is true. this position does not surprise anyone. -- supervise thanyone. she is my sunshine officer. she manages the annual communications plan. she serves as the liaison to 311. she does dignitary our reach and thetreach and tours of the 91 os that an integral part of my staff. -- tours of tehe 911 center and an integral part of my staff. >supervisor chu: it sounds to me like from what you described

earlier it really was a process by which the department of human resources consulted with off your department, and during the course of the process actually made a classification recommendation to have it at this level. is that correct? >> that is correct. of the 32 positions that dhr identified, 28 remained at the same level or were decreased. five of them dhr recommended an upgrade in the position. this was one of them. supervisor chu: for this issue, is said dhr recommended job recommendation based on skill level. >> thank you. correct. >> madam chair and members of the committee, regarding policy

recommendations on page 31, that his policy. we are not recommending a cut, but historically had it -- it has always been the policy of the board of supervisors directed to the budget analyst to point out when a grand-funded position no longer is supported by a grant funds, to always bring that to be attention of the board of supervisors, and that is what we're doing. with respect to the manager position, i would like miss campbell to respond. >> supervisor and members of the committee. it has already been discussed we of consistently been instructed that those that do not have supervisory oversight be classified as something else. this is -- dhr did the classification study looking at many different positions within the organization. we do consistently recommend pointing out management

positions in other management roles. that is what we're recommending here. supervisor chu: to the budget analyst, with regard to that, how you deado you deal with dr h's recommendation? it sounds like they may recommend different positions whether their managers or otherwise. it sounds like from the budget analyst policy it is if you are not managing people, we do not want to give you a title of manager. >> just for clarification, it is my understanding, maybe this is different, that all of the items in the budget for all departments, it is not the department of human resources that initiates a substitution or reclassification at all. it is the department that goes

to the department of human- resources and request a reclassification. this may be different, but that historically has always been the case. supervisor chu: that does not answer the question about how you reconcile classifications verses management. ok. >> if i may respond, this is a different situation. we submitted a jaq for every single one of these 33 positions in the exempt transition project. they came back to us after analyzing the jaq and set the appropriate classification is a manager. we did not recommend that or go forward and ask for an upgrade. that is what dhr told us. supervisor chu: thank you. we do have a number of items with us with regards to the

department being in agreement. that is on page 29. do we have a motion to except those recommendations. two remaining items. the management item in the policy recommendation. supervisor avalos: motion to except on manager 1. i do not think it makes efficient cents to approve that position, especially when we want to be on board with the principles about not having positions of managers when there is no one there managing. supervisor chu: supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i was second at motion. supervisor chu: we will accept the budget analyst recommendation on manager 1 services coordinator. simply from my perspective, if

we have a classification project that was done through the department of human resources were they actually took a look and careful detail about the skill levels necessitated by positions and have come up with a number of recommendations, some of them to stay the same classification levels and some to have a lower classification level, and to have a higher classification level based on the skills, i would recommend we do follow the department of human resources recommendations, so i will vote against that motion and wanted to speak to that. >>supervisor wiener: thank you. i will be voting against this recommendation. we have a number of critical departments coming before us today. we will have potential cost saving discussions. sometimes the way we do this is

challenging because there are times where it is a very unclear. sometimes we are asked to make the cut before we really know how we are then going to reallocate those funds. i know we have a lot of different opinions about how funds that we availed bailable should be allocated and what are good or critical uses and some that are not as critical. but for me in what may be a close call like this one to make the cuts where i do not know where this committee will be going in terms of the reallocation given the request we have had, which are rather large. i am not comfortable doing that. given that it is hard to view this in the full context, i am

not going to be supporting this cut. supervisor chu: thank you. roll-call on the motion. motion to except manager 1 cuts that is on page 30. >> [calling roll] the motion fails. supervisor chu: on the issue of the policy recommendations, any thoughts on this area? my thoughts are that currently these are current existing- filled positions with the department that is doing the emergency coordination work of the city as the department has indicated, not all projects will be requested in terms of continuing them with general fund of dollars. however, emergency coordination

work, i think the city has a lot of work to do still in this area. i would be supportive of these positions. if there are no thoughts on this -- any thoughts? he is notif not, we will pass on this. this is a concern i brought up the previous week, but given the uncertainty that has been announced in the past two months and the federal government has indicated it is suspending the funding. i do think -- i would suggest we put the city general fund support of $226,000 that has been allocated and fiscal year 2012 at a minimum be put on budget committee reserve as we learn more information from the federal government as to the

ongoing developments. >> i did watch the hearing last week. i am sorry i was not able to be here, i was at a fellowship program and harvard. this parkiprogram has not been suspended but slowed down by the federal government because of the initiative that was passed by congress in february, which is actually right after i came here and address this with you. the government is setting up a board called the first-net board, which will be established by august 17. that will determine the criteria for how under tea national systm will be put together. what they're telling us to slow down on is the purchase of the

lte equipment is sold. there will be a national system that comes on line in the next couple of years. what congress is allowing us to continue to do is build out this site of where the antennas will go. that is the work that has to be done before the equipment is purchased. i am assuming after the first board is established in the middle of august that they will take that suspension away, and if we're not doing it now, that it will put us that many more months behind. supervisor chu: to that point, i appreciate that. it was indicated in a may 16 memo that the federal government had partially suspended them money. i would have made a motion that we reduce the spending by

$226,000, but giving it is just so halting as you like to articulate, that is why i am suggesting we put it on budget reserve so you can come back to us after the august meeting to indicate what the federal government has finally decided. i think there has been a lot of uncertainty on at the nationwide publications network. of course, we're moving in the right direction, but i think you will have adequate time to come back after some decisions have been made so we have more information before we invest in a system that we do not know what is going to be. >> that is a policy decision of the board. supervisor chu: if we were going to put this money on reserve and intend to bring it back afterwards, how did that impact your schedule, and is there a schedule we should be concerned with? are you, at this moment, i process of securing those sites? is there something that would be problematic with us reserving it

until a later time, like september, when we hear back more information? >> most of that money to pay for stepping in dt -- staffing in dt for the city and realistic. so real-estate would not be able to negotiate those leases until september, and department of technology staff when not be able to do what they need to do at the site. so, yes, it would put us basically three months behind schedule if we do not have the money beginning in july. it is very difficult to talk about, because it has been a very confusing project. ntia told us, and i think last time i came to you, our yeah, we have to spend the money by august. we have to have two-thirds of the project complete. we have been pushing, pushing, pushing, and then you get a different story from the federal

government. it is very difficult to understand. i totally get that. i do believe that there are things that we could and should be doing right now to keep the project moving forward. but, again, that is a policy call of the board. supervisor chu: from what i am hearing, the federal government has not said that they do not want to invest in an interoperable. that is not the direction? >> quite the opposite. they have come out strongly and said they're going to build a national network. supervisor chu: ok, so that is still the same objective. the area where they have a halt is an actual type -- >> of purchasing the equipment because they want to make sure it is all interoperable across the country. san francisco is actually, at this point, one of the four series -- cities that the feds are looking at to be a pilot. there are a few others.

i feel that if we have this funding allocated and we can begin the work, we will be one of the, i hope, one of those municipalities that will be leading the federal government as this develops and showing best practices. supervisor chu: irrespective of the technology being used, the department will still have to continue moving forward with building up the course site. >> absolutely. supervisor chu: and it is just a matter of the technology. >> that is correct. supervisor kim: i completely understand. but as a policymaker, i feel uncomfortable investing in a system that i have no understanding of what is going to look like. given, a kind of, the surprising need by the federal government over the last six months, i have little faith that they will not make other changes in august on a system that we are intending to build. i am very sympathetic to the

position you are in. also wanting us to move forward and not having perhaps the three-month delay. but it does not seem like there is this level of urgency to build the system when the federal government has not made decisions around what type of system it is building. i guess i am worried that there will be other changes that will come out in august, so i think three months is not a huge price to pay to get a little more certainty. i am not asking to reduce the budget of the department of emergency management because i understand the importance of supporting a public safety communications network. for me, personally, i have some questions about where the federal government is heading and would like as many answers before we invest in that system. supervisor chu: to the department, with regards to the amount, you talked about how it really pays for staffing at dt and real estate. do you know what portion is needed to allow the department of real-estate to begin conversations and to be able to

move forward in getting us ready in case a decision is made and we're able to move forward with it? i do think and interoperable system is necessary and good for the region. so from a high level concept, i agree with that. there are concerns that there are a lot of moving parts to the federal government, so what will really end up being with the federal government wants? are we building something or investing something that will not look like that? i think there are those legitimate questions. at the same time, it sounds like the sites are going to procure, and it will be the same no matter what. you are still going to need the real estate to have an interoperable system, no matter what it is. is there a value on this $226 ,000 that was still allow the real-estate department to continue negotiations and make sure we're not that much behind if we do get clarity from the federal government about the

technology and other things? >> i appreciate the question. we think the process will take about six months. if you think $226,000, three months' worth is $113,000 -- i mean, if we had a portion we could begin spending july 1, you know, $100,000 to get realistic going immediately and put the rest on reserve, i would be very comfortable with that. supervisor avalos: i am confused. because i thought earlier this year in march we approved leases. so i am not sure what needs to happen between real estate in the sights -- >> we approved the sites, not the actual leases. this is the negotiation now with the department of real estate over the sites and the leases. we have worked very hard to

bring down the cost of those. we have been substituting as we have gone along because we want to keep the cost as low as possible. but that is real estate's job to negotiate with those non-city sides with the leases will be. we brought you a list of what the sites were in march. supervisor chu: thank you. i think that supervisor kim and supervisor avalos have a good point in wanting more clarity in the project, but i would not want to hamper the ability for the real-estate department to be about to finalize those leases and do negotiations. perhaps if i can ask the makers of the motion that there would be willing to intimate -- entertain perhaps half of it being on reserve, so $113,000 on reserve? to the makers of the motion, would that be something you

would entertain? ok. so if you can, perhaps what we would like to do -- a seconder. so i will make a motion to reserve $113,000 of that funding on budget committee reserve. >> thank you so much. i appreciate it. supervisor chu: we will take that without objection. thank you. our next department is the police department's budget. from my understanding, the bulk of the recommendations are the police department's budget. however, there is one of recommendation, i believe, that is related to the occ, and that is on page 39. correct? >> correct. >> supervisor chu: i would like director hicks.

to speak to that item. >> good morning. the police department is in agreement with the budget and their recommendations for a nearly $1.9 million cut in one- time and ongoing reductions. this year, just under $1.61 million of on going and one-time costs. next year, again, with the exception of the matter that director hicks will speak to. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. let's go to director hicks. >> good morning, members of the committee. i would first like to think you're analysts office for working with me on other proposed reductions in which we resolved, but there remains one and that is an admission all the investigator for the occ. i spoke with you last week about

the reasons why the offices needed two and additional investigator positions, and that is to reduce the investigator's caseload to 16 cases per investigator as recommended as best practices by the controller in the audit in 2007. without a reduced caseload, the investigators would continue to be hampered, particularly in their complex investigations of officer-involved shootings, as well as alleged violations of fourth amendment rights. recently, the federal agency subpoenaed occ records as they related to allegations -- investigations of violations of fourth amendment rights. these cases require as additional time and attention. one additional issue with regard

to investigators caseloads is that, because the police department achieves a savings in overtime by only allowing officers to be interviewed by the occ during the officers shift, occ investigators must conduct nighttime interview. in the first six months of this year, investigators conducted an average of one at nighttime interview a week. that means an interview after 8:00 p.m.. occ investigators are not paid overtime. instead, they receive, time -- comp time. i conclude by saying these two additional positions were added in the mayor's proposed budget when the mayor looked at reducing a temporary allocation that was made to the public

defender's office to investigate police misconduct allegations. the public defender temporarily had a budget that allowed for an attorney, an investigator, and a paralegal. that is no longer being funded, and those moneys were proposed for the occ. that concludes my remarks. supervisor chu: thank you very much. budget analyst, is there anything you would add? >> the budget included two new investigator positions for the office of city complains. we are recommending one. not recommending the second position. we continue to not recommend the second position. this office has added two positions since the audit to their overall budget. but, more importantly, as we look at caseload, we have seen a decline in caseload over the

last three years. from 16% from 2009 to two dozen 10. an additional 8% from 2010 to 2011. overall, the caseload is declining. we believe that one additional position is sufficient to meet their current requirements. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you to ms. hicks. i would like to respond in terms of declining caseload. i preface this with my own perspective, having spent years and years as a trial lawyer in the city attorney's office representing police officers in many cases. my experience, and straddling the time span from years before you arrived and then after your arrival, and my experience for a number of years with the occ was

that a lot of the -- a number of investigations that i saw, because there would be a lawsuit and then a companion occ complained that usually the investigation occurred before the lawsuit was filed, frequently. so we would see parts of the occ file to the investigation, and there were a number of instances when the investigation was wholly inadequate. there is one case that i will not name where there was a lawsuit against several police officers who i was representing and we went through, and there was an occ complaint that had been sustained were the occ had not spoken to any of the witnesses outside of the complainant and the police officers. even the ones listed in the police report. we went through an entire case of the trial, and the complainant's lawyer realize

that his client completely made up the whole story. it was clear from our discovery. yeah, the occ complaint continued. and when you came in, i noticed that there was a real change in terms of really trying to beef up the occ to be more meticulous, and i compliment you on that. because it is not in the interest of police officers to have an adequate investigations by the occ. it is in their interest to have solid investigations so if the police officer did something wrong, they can be quickly and efficiently considered for discipline, and if they did not do anything wrong, they can be quickly and efficiently cleared. i am curious just to know if there has been in decline, have you have seen that correlating for the current staffing and the requested staffing. >> thank you very much, supervisor wiener. i would agree with the analyst

that the first year of the decline was 14%. but then it dropped down last year to 8%. the projections based on the cases we received today is it the decline continues, it would only be 3%. so it has leveled off. it mirrors the national trend. and the way we determine the caseload is by looking at the pending cases and dividing those pending cases by the number of investigators that we have. and, currently, doing that with 16 investigators, the caseload is still 21 cases per investigator. again, with each case over the 16 cases per investigator, it degrades the quality of investigations that an occ investigator can do. as supervisor wiener pointed

out, a case that was investigated before i arrived at the office of citizen complaints when investigator's caseloads were 31 cases per investigator, some 40 cases per investigators, investigators were doing a lot of investigation from their desks. with 1000 cases coming in a year, they cannot escape the office to get out and pound the pavement and look for witnesses. so what i would say in response to the decline of complaints is that the decline is declining, and we still have the pending cases that we have. based on my projections, it would be right around the same number. >> i do want to reemphasize the recommendation. we are recommending one additional position even in the case of declining caseload. is