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. this would give about 46 new cases per year per investigator. that is less than one per week. we did not get any evidence that a second investigator was going to be necessary given their current caseload. supervisor chu: thank you very much. thank you, supervisor wiener. colleagues, from my

understanding, the department is in agreement with most items. the occ is not in agreement with the investigator cut on page 39. to the comptroller's office, last week we asked you to look at the civilianization work and to true up some of the information on the reports. that was previously done by your office. i am wondering if you had any information to share? >> you have a copy of the revised memo which we drop off this morning. we worked with the police department during the last week to ensure that we're netting out of it, for example, civilians that are at the occ. it does show, as you can see on table b of the memo, it shows a growth in budgeted civilians since opposition c was passed in 2004. 222 to 326 currently.

and the proposed budget as the additional positions for the current year. we worked with the police department to clarify which -- in which cases civilian positions that are proposed in the budget or that we reviewed in the past are currently being staffed by light duty officers, and almost uniformly throughout the proposed budget in cases where the police department and the mayor's office have not proposed to civilianize a position that has been part of a previous review, that position is being staffed to the light duty officer, which makes some sense. so civilianizing the majority of positions that we recommended the past that have not been proposed will not allow the department to redeploy folded the officers because functions are currently being staffed with light duty officers. i would be happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. these are the positions you looked at in the last iteration

of your analysis that showed roughly 65 positions that were civilian positions. the mayor's budget does propose a number of those to be civilianized, as you have in the budget proposal. so in the areas where there was not a proposed civilian position to be funded, you did do an analysis with the department and it shows generally that in those positions that were not proposed to be funded by the mayor's budget office in terms of a civilianized position, there are currently assigned with a light duty is on a police officer. so we would not be able to hire a civilian, the mighty, and put that light duty officer back on the beat because there light duty. >> that is correct almost uniformly. i think there're five positions not being staffed by light duty officers. the vast majority are. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. any questions from the committee? ok. colleagues, we do have recommendations before us. i'd think in terms of the

civilianization question, i do have some outstanding questions about options outside of these positions, whether there are any positions that are currently being done by uniformed officers where it might make sense for civilians to fit in those. i am wondering if the chief had talked about that? do not have a proposal in this moment, the future there may be positions that are currently uniformed officers fulfilling those duties, but it may make sense operationally to have civilians do that work. >> thank you, supervisor. yes, i have a list here. we had 18 officers currently right now that are part of the first-year civilianization plan, and then we're looking at other positions like the compstat officers who came into play after the fact that would probably be better as a police service aid or crime analysts, and i would be happy to have a conversation with you in the future. supervisor chu: so there are

other positions potentially other that we can discuss. >> yes, like facilities, coordinators, vehicle officers, compstat officers. supervisor chu: ok. thank you. we look forward to having those conversations. colleagues, any thoughts on the area of this agreement at the moment? thoughts, directions? no thoughts, no directions, ok. what i will suggest, perhaps, colleagues, in terms of all of the different items that are here, i would suggest that we take the recommendations with the occ position -- and no thoughts? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: given that there is one increase position in occ -- i really value the

work at the occ, but given that we're seeing declining caseloads, i would approve that one position and will take the budget analyst recommendation on at the other. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. there is one thought with regard to allowing the department or the occ to add one investigator. i think what we can do, given that the budget analyst has spoken very briefly about the drop in caseloads and the fact that we are increasing it by one, perhaps we can revisit this issue this year. so we will have one position you'll be able to hire up, and we will revisit the issue in a year. director hicks? >> thank you very much. i would very much appreciate if we could revisit that in one year, and in response --

although it may not change where you're going today, in response to the comment by the analyst, the occ has, in fact, had many conversations and has presented evidence that what our pending cases are, with the caseload is today, and how the addition of both investigator positions would reduce the caseload to 18 or 19, as opposed to 20. so i will stop at this point and in the next budget year, i would hope that we could revisit or not fund for this year and perhaps put in funding for the following year. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you,

director, for your presentation and information. we have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendation. can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. thank you to the police department. let's go to the district attorney's office. >> good morning, members of the committee, chaired chu. i am the cfo of the district attorney's office. we are in full agreement with the budget analyst recommendation for $162,17000- $170,000 for this fiscal year. we're not in agreement with policy recommendations as it would have a detrimental impact on our ability to serve victims

in the community. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. mr. rose, is there anything you would add to the presentation? >> madam chair, members, with respect to the policy, it is the same issue as you previously heard. these are grant-funded positions which now become general fund positions. as a matter of course, we always advise the board of supervisors about that. should the board want to continue as general fund, that is the policy decision of the board. supervisor chu: thank you very much. given that the district attorney's office is in agreement with the recommendation on page 46, do we have a motion to accept the recommendations? we will do that without objection. with regards to the policy options, any thoughts about that? my preference perhaps is to continue this item or not take action on this item today as we see the rest of our

deliberations. ok, why don't we pass through that? thank you very much. our next department is the adult probation department. >> said morning, supervisors. thank you. first, i would like to think harvey rose's office. the chief adult probation officer. i'd like to think -- i think harvey rose's office for working with our staff on the budget. we have three remaining open issues. first off, i will say that we do agree with one of the recommended reductions, which is the $97,000 in attrition savings on a one-time basis. but the three open issues that we have are, one, our temporary health salaries. as i mentioned at our last

hearing, and all of our issues are related to realignment funding that came from sacramento that we successfully increased from what was to be $10 million up to $70 million to cover the city's expenses. the first item is on temporary help. partially funding our temporary help request. the department had no overtime since i have been chief. what we really rely upon doing is using the lowest cost salary that we can. we have hired prop f to help with the workload. we have hired probation aids. in essence, what we have is we have a need for increased temporary help as we build on the alignment. adult probation is that the court of -- core of the realignment. we provide a lot of support to that. we have created the realignment

plan itself. the second-year plan will be coming back to the board in july. in terms of our overall needs, our forecast for our temporary help includes basically the mayor's summer program for interns, probation aids, safety and equipment. all of our stuff coming to work with this, which are 85% high- risk clients, need to be equipped with safety gear. pepper spray and a whole litany of equipment we have not had before and that we have to increase. staff are going through training and maintain impeccable records related to that. a policy analyst, we're having to go back through all of our policies, not only for sb 678, which we weren't successful in receiving funding for a grant, but now for all the realignment and the project with berkeley. the department's old policies

when i came there, basically from the 1980's and 1990's, so realignment has forced upon us a whole new workload. and not only from supervision but also from a legal aspect and everything else as these laws continue to change. it is not like we have realignment and everything is clear and we have one set policy. they continue to be redefined as the court and legislature are changing the laws. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i want to make sure gasol following on with the same line-item. i am is soon we're speaking about the first item that the budget analyst has put in. >> that is correct. supervisor kim: i appreciate you speaking about how you have not used overtime and you try to always use the lowest base salary. i appreciate that level of

fiscal accountability. thank you for that. but the analyst as reported and there is a projected salary savings of about $1 million, which could easily cover all of these positions. so you would still be able to hire all of these positions with the projected salary savings. >> what the projection was based upon his last year, there was -- this year, currently year, a savings of $1 million. that was swept in terms of the savings overall to help the city with overall bottom line budget. because i do not use extreme overtime and all of that to cover the caseload, because we had so many vacancies associated with our realignment positions, it generated that amount of salary savings, so that money is gone. we have done a salary projection for the coming year, and my cfo is outstanding. we went through our numbers, in those positions are going to be filled in july. the only reason they have not

been filled before we finished our interviews in april was because of the fact that we have to do a 90-day background. those will be finished by the sheriff in early july. we will make amendments, hire, and have the staff report, and they will immediately need to go into academies for their nine weeks of training. supervisor kim: you're saying the $1 million and projected salary savings has already been swept? >> yes, by the controller's office, it sure has. supervisor chu: to the budget director, would you like to respond to that? >> supervisor, through the chair, the chief is correct. as you know, throughout the year, the controller's office works with our office and departments to identify current- year savings in spending or overage is in spending, and the department was unable to hire as quickly as they had originally

projected and will generate approximately $900,000 in salary savings that has already assumed as part of the nine-month report and is included as part of our fund balance that is in the budget before you. supervisor chu: just to be clear, the department did have roughly $900,000 in current year salary savings which has already been assumed with the fund balance? ok. to the budget analyst, on the temporary, miscellaneous -- >> yes, the department is asking for a significant increase in temporary salaries this year to pay for temporary positions that they put into place in 2011- 2012. i want to point out, and this is a serious issue, the reason we have salary savings is that this committee and this board approved a supplemental

appropriation to hire probation officers. there were 15 and age were not hired. that generated salary savings. the department's then took that money and used it to hire temporary staff, support administrative staff that are not in the budget. these are not positions that are in the budget, and they are not probation officer positions, not direct service positions. and basically to do these other functions. they actually now need to hire up these vacant probation officer positions. they will not be generating the same salary savings if they hire the vacant probation officer positions that they did not hide your last year. however, the positions that they are not asking for tiberi salaries, we do not see the justification. they are not direct service. they are an increase that they hired into without actually having the budget authority to hire those positions.

they would retain enough temporary salaries to meet some of their program objectives. they have -- they are maintaining the $130,000 they had in last year's budget, plus an increase of $100,000 that could pay for extra salaries. on at the overtime issue, this is a department that has historically not had overtime. i looked at their budget a couple years ago and they did not have an overtime budget. >> one other point is that these positions that were hired were done so, as ms. campbell says, without budget authority, without board or supervisor approval. >> i would like to speak to that if i could. if they will go back, there will see that probation aides, which are administrative positions, but they do workload associated -- because i have not had the officers to be able to