continue to figure out what are priority and what we should continue to fund. you'll remember that our 5 year plan does not have a federal reserve. this kind of information particularly if it is particularly if there is significant uncertainty it that might be a pursuant step to take. but that will be a communication that needs to continue >> so if we pass our budget before they pass theirs theirs going to a fine line. any questions? >> thank you, ms. howard i appreciate it. >> so colleagues again call for

this right now to get a preview i would like to continue to to be a call of chair. so can i take a motion? >> first any members of the public like to say nothing? seeing no one. closed. >> mr. clerk can i please call the next item 5. resolution daupd the city's 5 years plan 2013 through 2014 and section 1129 >> thank you many howard or for year financial plan?

>> hello supervisors. so when i presented to you last week, i give you a high-level overview of the financial plan. i didn't plan on an additional plan today but i'm happy to answer any questions. i believe it's on the agenda as an action item >> thank you. thank you cleegz i wanted to bring many howard up in case we had any questions. opening it to up public comment. seeing none closed this does need to be approved by

may. >> okay. please call item 6. >> privity that i have appropriating funds this appropriation is subject to two-thirds of the permanent vote of all members of supervisors. >> okay. so this is a special from the public defender's office but we don't have a public defender here. mr. clerk let's take a 5 minute recess. let's do this. can we continue - why don't we go to item 7.

let's take care of that. can i continue item 6 to the tail end of this committee meeting? no motion needed. okay >> you're asking for a motion for the item. >> so, please call item 7. item 7 the legal manipulation of the long island rate on the san francisco financial to explore options and other of him options that the city is engaged in that are excessive. >> thank you chair farrell. this item we'd to move to next wednesday and if we could have it at 1 o'clock that would be great. the public side agreed that

would be best and we could start fresh then >> we'll entertain a motion to continue this one week first, i'd like to open it up to public comment. any members of the audience wish to comment? >> i've lived in san francisco for 61 years. first, i'd like to thank this committee there were some very important items. items number 6 and item 3 which i just missed so i'll look at it on replay. i think this committee is doing very good work and i hope it keeps it up let's face it the

department of public health wastes a lot of money and it effects the poor. >> thank you. colleagues you can't can we continue this one week? >> so moved. okay. we have item number 6 before his the supplemental >> thank you for your patience here because of the way the hospital in was post we can't have 6 members of the board here

at the same time but this is a supplemental that i was proud to produce. i want to thank the supervisors for their co-sponsorship. i'll turn the bulk to the chief assistant public defender. but we're talking about expenditures that are needed. those are monies that are required for us to live up to our googsz and we're not talking about new positions being add and i was pleas to see the recommendations. where their recommending the

bulk of their requests. with that i would ask mr. gonzales >> thank you. i know it's been a long meeting. i've caught part of it and reminded one of the reasons i didn't seek re-election but i commend you for our service. i thought there is one issue that deals with temporary slalz and i thought i'd like to break it down. we're in agreement with the recommendations but some of the things in the report i'm not happy about. the savings educate is basically

two categories one is salary attritions which is typically the savings the department will have when you budgeted for an employee to be there for the entire year and it turns out i don't have to pay somebody for the whole year because of part time or leave or furlough or the employee leaves the office before you higher someone else. to give an idea last year, we had salary saving in the amount of $482,000. this year our savings are $760,000 so we've actually gotten $300,000 more savings this year, however, we're

falling short of the dollars for our budget. until a month ago when he had our first employee of the year leave our offices we have had no vacancy among our permanent employees and that employee was an investigator this month it's another investigator and we're scheduled to lose a third investigator next month. we started the year with two attorneys vacancies and we didn't fill two other vacancies. the second part of salary awe triggers is referred to in the budget analyst report is the staff adjustment. this for our department it comes

into playwrite have an automatic pay increase people's no. that an employee is going to get automatically. it has nothing to do with what the department head can do. in our case you know, we have the municipal attorney association where an employee begins at a bottom level an attorney can rise up 16 steps and they get a small increase every year. so the budget under is something our budget didn't calculate. so that shortfall is about $3,460,000 there was nothing we

could do it take care of that. in addition, the salary savings issue we had a temporary salaries issue. by comparison last year, we had a temporary salary budget of $414,000. this year we're on target to expend $375,000 which is less than last year but the mayor's office target we were supposed to meet with money above that. the recommendation we receive part of that money but the supplemental be reimbursed. i think we can cope with that and we'll do everything we can, you know, to meet our budget. i want to try to convey is true

what's going on. we've actually, only hired a simple new temporary employee in this focus year and that's a parallel who work for our on behalf of hearth care. we lost a parallel and investigator all part of the police unit and we've carried on temporary employees from the previous focus years. we've identified one position we're not going to have in next year's budget but the primary challenge is to get through with the positions say we have. some of the analysts believe that the core function

responsibility are those core employees. we disagree we think those positions save money in the long run or address the needs the departments have. i'll give you a couple of examples. instead of hiring a investigator we've created a parallel slash vovr they get paid less who's primary function is to serve subpoenas. it works for us we think it saves money. one of the positions is a court

alternative specialist. i think the budget analysts believes this isn't something we should have. we're handling tens of thousands of case a year we get press calls everyday and city attorney have permanent employee that handles this function we don't and we'd like to see that permanent. the third category the tear salaries are the folks if the mask programs. that is programs we've been working with at babies point and fillmore addition. this services families and

coordinated services in those neighborhood. we have one of the largest juvenile law offenders offices certainly in the area many youth who are in need of reentry or support for their needs and i also consider it services a population that is contacted to some of our adult clients. it's a policy matter for the board we're happy to talk with you about at any time. it readily comes up but anyone who's seen the program up close has any doubt of his effectiveness.

bob dunlap is here if there's any questions he, certainly address that. we've seen an increase in serious cases he has dealt with. and there's budgetary matters over the last 10 years. from what i saw the das budget it has gone up but percent wise it shows a advantage for the da's office. in 2003 the controller come forward with a budget that showed clearly that our office needs to have more funding and

we think that's captured in that 10 year figure. in our 10 year period we've only expand by 10 attorneys so it's not a situation where the money is going to those employees. bob you want to sigh something >> yeah. some questions. you know, your - what you're requesting was i understand the reason we need to do a two-thirds vote to pass this because this appropriation was not accepted in the last meeting. the presentation you've made is a perfectly legitimate by it

strikes me as a bit odd when we talk about that it's normally unanticipated things that happen where you need to do something in the middle of the year and from what i can tell there this was something that wasn't budgeted in the last year and they moved forward anyway and is now asking for that money. and that i think raises a bit of a red flag. i think someone in his office made a conscious budget choice to do something and is now asking for 0 supplemental. i asked for this from 2000 and i did it because i thought it was

important to have that prospective. i say that as a former deputy attorney i'm supported in having high caliber law offices. but with that said i mean those numbers are pretty stark and i think the das office was under supported and needs support so i'm not disputing that but the fact is since 2000 staffing and the public defender's office has gone up and the da handles about twice the caseload as the public

defender's office because.

you can't overly manipulate the salary but we're coming in beneath what we had last year. if we zero in on some of those positions we think they serve core functions >> so your argument.

i'm not sure i really agree for example. so see that's some of the issue i think your encountering here. >> we have not brought open a horde of employees under this category we're maintaining employees we've had everyone's been aware of and we're trying to meet target like leaves and furloughs. it just so happens we're not in a position we're going to have salary savings applied in this other category. i hear you loud well, we're truly doing the best we can.

it's a learning experience and we're certainly trying to address that. as for the comparison of the da and public defender office let me >> one more thing. i think part of the other - at any time more atmospheric it's not a little bit apples and oranges by on a general level it's not. about a month ago in this committee there was a supplemental for the understaffed for domestic violence and your boss came in here and went after that pretty hard.

can say that to suggest we're overstaffed it's not accurate so if you just take that out of, you know, hurry presentation etc., we won't go to the meeting. that's the back story. you can call the da we're not in a fight with him and we certainly think that both offices do something that's important. we truly have a good relationship with him. >> just a followup on some of the conversation we've had and

the rejection that was made. i don't think it's quite as clear-cut but as something similar before we had not an exact discussion it was actually on top of the rejection from the request from the public defender that issue was in the mayor's office. we didn't have that before us so it wasn't a clear up to the time rejection that's being referred to. it's pretty significant that the controller and i've talked to the controller it's very

significant when it comes from the controllers off. also, we had a fremgs the budget native as well that we put money forward that the existing staff where their salaries can be made wool. it's a prebudget districts we make all the time. and to me the fact that we have those salaries built in within the public defender's office we have to make a it whole. but to me it seems moving forward there hasn't been a clear kit discussion on whether

we're talking about those salaries being whole in the budget. it's not even a special step we're making we're making this to be made whole we're doing our basic budget work. >> supervisor wiener. >> i appreciate those remarks i have trouble believing that this committee or this board would seriously consider an appropriation for this department and said i'd like to hire a press person because we should have one please give me a supplemental. i don't see that happening. so again, this is an example. i do appreciate