>> i'm going to be your host today. i'm supervisor comen and to my right is supervisor tang. >> our clerk today is erica -- how do you say that? >> darite. it's important to

support those who support us. >> i want to thank jesse smith and larson for broadcasting this meeting. i was going to call it a show but it's a meeting. i'm channeling my inner talk show host. bare with me. we have exciting things on the agenda. madam clerk can you read the announcements. >> science all cell phones and electronic devices, complete speaker cards and any documented complete the as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. it will appear october 8th. >> could you please call item number one. >> item number one is hearing to receive updates, from various city departments who were required to provide a response, on the implementation of recommendation nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 contained in the 2011-2012 civil grand jury report, entitled "déjà vu all over again: san francisco's city technology needs a culture shock" and respond to the civil grand jury on >> item number one is hearing to receive updates, from various city departments who were required to provide a response, on the implementation

of recommendation nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 contained in the 2011-2012 civil grand jury report, entitled "déjà vu all over again: san francisco's city technology needs a culture shock" and respond to the civil grand jury on the >> item number one is hearing to receive updates, from various city departments who were required to provide a response, on the implementation of recommendation nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 contained in the 2011-2012 civil grand jury report, entitled "déjà vu all over again: san francisco's city technology needs a culture shock" and respond to the civil grand jury on the status of these implementations. >> item number one is hearing to receive updates, from various city departments who were required to provide a response, on the implementation of recommendation nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 contained in the 2011-2012 civil grand jury report, entitled "déjà vu all over again: san francisco's city technology needs a culture shock" and respond to the civil grand jury on the status of these implementations. >> that sounds exciting. déjà vu all over again. this is a hearing item. so this is -- we're going to continuing our hearing on the civil grand jury reports. item 1 is a report that we heard last year as the board responded requesting further analysis to a number of the recommendations and so today we're going to hear updates from the city department on their implementation and analysis of 13 recommendations. so that's numbers four, five, six, seven, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18. we'll need to direct the clerk to the budget an list to prepare a motion -- sorry, that's my note. okay. we're going to have a good time today. i promise you. madam clerk, who is up first. do we

have a staff presentation? no. thank you mayor's office. >> i was under the impression the grand jury was going to give an introduction. >> sure. okay. grand jury, you have ten minutes. i understand you have a brief -- >> brief short statement. >> sounds great. >> thank you supervisors for holding this meeting. i'm one of the members of the civil grand jury and the writer of the déjà vu report. on behalf of the members of the tech report committee i would like to make a few comments. we hope that you take the desha view report seriously and give it a thorough examination. we have continued to gone to meetings and talk to the chief operating officers among others. we appreciate the positive changes that have been made in the city within the department of technology and among the other departments. we applaud the choices the new city cio and hope the mayor and

board support its leadership within its own department and city wide. we also are impressed with the team city cio that they put together. the changes in tone are much more optimistic. we can hope for the best and see great potential for the future, but potential is only potential and not alkylation ult. the ceo has been in his position four to five months. our whole committee urges that you hold another hearing maybe in a year or so to see if this promise is realized. we are still concerned with the enterprise department and their leadership and the achievement of city wide initiative. if they proof to be uncorporate. a later hearing would also be a report

on the initiatives that are being put into the place. so the recommendations of the hiring committee, the institution of an it data base, the completion of the e-mail consolidation among others. we all urge you to oversee and be informed by the technology needs within the city. that's our statement. >> thank you very much for that statement. now we will hear from antonio guerra from the mayor's office. >> i have a presentation that i'm going to bring up on the screen. >> today i'm joining my presentation by my dwell and suzanne from the department of human resources. we're providing an update for the déjà vu. we thank you the grand jury for coming back one

year later and their work on that report. we're only responding to those recommendations mentioned by yourself, chair cohen that required a report back. so we're not going to read out loud every recommendation. >> thank you. >> the first group of recommendations evolve in some way the san francisco on information technology, recommendation four has been implemented. there's one public non voter member, and the appointment of the other member is underway. recommendation five ask for the development of a city it budget. this recommendation was not implemented. the feeling was that since koit approves the budget this wasn't warranted. recommendation six is implemented. they have the review process and all major

projects are monitored. so on the next slide we proved together recommendation seven, nine, ten and 17 since they involve the role and the responsibility of the city's ceo. our analysis is these recommendations will not be implemented. elevating the city cio and the hierarchy, the city cio have a roll of director -- many central administrative functions, it, hr, budget and finance, while the central body with policy making authority and over sight. as well as departmental and staff. we felt these were adopted and the city would have a new high level management. so we can't recommend adoption. moving on. >> recommendation 11 has been

implemented and will remain ongoing. over the past year surveys have been conducted. the survey focused on cloud storage. they surveyed seven departments including -- i'm going to let my dwell from the department of technology give an update on the state good morning, nice to meet you. i'm the new chief officer. the first one being implemented in regard to our opportunity to report the board of supervisors and other interested stakeholders in the city and we do so through the update of the

ict plan which we intend to do on an ongoing basis. the normal budget hearing and several committee hearings and also the coit meeting and sub-committees involved with coit. 13 will be implemented. we're working on a system plan. we're documenting the appropriate path to take with regard to managing its at city wide. we're developing a completely comprehensive plan to implement that solution and that will be presented at that appropriate time but that's ongoing and very soon coming. >> thank you. >> finally last recommendations involve it hiring and both recommendations 14 and 15 were

not implemented. recommendations 14 ask for the creation of the city wide it skills data base. we didn't feel like this was necessary since the city will track employee credentials and training and personnel records. >> quick question. when you say the city will soon be able to track it. >> i believe a pilot program is going to start in the spring. if this recommendation were adopted we'd have two systems in the city. 15 apps for charter revision, so that's all vacant and technology position were exempt positions. we have a service department for many reasons and if you adopt this recommendations, we'll have to go back to the voters and i wouldn't recommend that. i like to call suzanne from dhr.

>> good evening, i'm suzanne and the chief for human resources. we've been working on communication operations, the mayor's office and the department -- has and puc and our partners at local 21. there are two goals that we have at the it hiring committee. the first is to produce process improvements and to improve the hiring timelines for it professionals and recruitment improvement. we want to market the city's job and brand them in a way that's more attractive to it professionals using social media and other tools. of course all of this is challenging to stream line a system. we have the merit system rules and we have the challenges of creatingy fish ept sees within that framework. there's different ways we're

looking at it. in terms of the process improvement the first thing we want to do is stream line hiring and we're working hand and hand with the department of technology and we'll see if we can make changes in the process within the current structure of the civil service rules that will speed up the hiring process. the second is we're going to ask for a rule change from the civil service commission. one of the things that's required by the rule is -- we would ask for a rule change that would allow that if a candidate has been interviewed within a specific period of time that you not have to then go back and ^ canvass canvas them to ask them if they're interested in the job they just interviewed for. that's coming forward in the near future and then on a long term basis, we're working on a project for continuous testing online. so this would be unproctored,

online, on demand. and we would identify people based on the skill sets they possess. so the future is -- the future vision is that it professionals will be able to take an exam online, they'll be qualified, we'll address the specific needs of the job and we'll be able to have a continuous testing process that allows for faster hiring and an ongoing refresh of the hiring pool. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that concludes our presentation. we're happy to take any presentations you have. >> thank you. are there any questions. seeing none. oh, excuse me. >> thank you madam. >> speak loudly. >> i think someone is trying to send me a message here. good morning, everyone. want to thank again -- my apologies for

being late. i had a prior meeting. i want to thank the civil members of the grand jury. this is the most important functions that we have in this committee when we have citizens volunteering their time to look at how we do things in san francisco. and i also want to thank the mayor's office for all their work. i do have a couple of questions about a couple of the recommendations whereas the recommendations aren't going to be implemented and i want to have more information in the thinking because i do see the point that the civil grand jury is trying to make. that has to do with the roles and the responsibilities of the different technology leaders in

the various city agencies, recommendation seven is that the city cio position be elevated in that authority by creating a functional dotted line between the chief information officer and department cio's. in a way it kind of make sense to me that in addition to the independent authority that each department has, that there be someone that has some say in terms of how the city collectively makes these investments. my experience in terms of technology having as a lawyer representing many of departments that some are doing better than others. some departments have made the right investments in technology. some have not. and so i think the point of this is recommendation is that at some

point there has to be some accountability not only to the individual department but to the larger city and so i'm just wondering if you can expand on why you believe that this recommendation should not be implemented because i think it makes sense what they're trying to accomplish. >> yes. thank you supervisor campos for the question. i think first through coyet they can communicate with other cio and the city can make technology decisions and i understand that having a dotted line relationship in reporting would strengthen the ability of the city cio enforce their decisions. we hope with the new team at the department of technology and greater collaboration that the correction city decisions will be made.

>> i see this recommendation being directed connected to recommendation 17 saying that the cio needs to be included in it personnel. what i mean by that is that i think a consideration for analyzing on someone who is doing the analyzing should be how well they're coordinating with other city agencies and other city departments. i'm not necessarily of the belief that the city cio has to be involved in that evaluation but i do think that level of coordination should be a component. i would be shocked if it is. i don't think in assessing the performance of the head of the their it, they're not going to ask if you're working well with your

partners and coordinating with them. i think it should be apart of the equation because unless you include it in the performance evaluation, then there is no expectation that you in fact do it. and that's why i think that i would hope that there is more consideration of what the civil grand jury is trying to do here because unless you actually hold people's feet to the fire i don't think it's enough to simply hope that they do the right thing. i think there has to be some kind of ability to make them do the right thing and i say that because i think that by virtue of how agencies operate coordination is the last thing they think about so i don't necessarily dispute the response but i would like to

see if maybe the mayor's office or someone else can think about a way of doing more than just hoping that they corporate because i think it's an important point that the civil grand jury is making. >> understood and the mayor's office want technology to succeed in the city. if you want to talk off line about ways to do that, we can. >> great. >> thank you. >> all right. seeing the colleagues have no other comments. let's open up this meeting for public comment. public comment is open. >> i'm wondering how much time do i have? >> everyone has two minutes. >> okay. thank you.

>> my name is douglas ship. i would like to thank civil grand jury for today's presentations. in my opinion they are defend white blind in san francisco and so far i think it's a losing battle against corruption and in that regard i would like to suggest that the san francisco civil grand jury be given subpoena powers to force any city employee including members of the board of supervisors and mayor to give testimony at any request of the civil grand jury. i think if they had that authority we would see a lot less corruption in local politics. secondly this report with discussing should be influenced and credit given to past supervisor tom. i

remember when i talked with him a few years ago he was one of the few supervisors willing to discuss the subject of why it was so bad in san francisco. i worked at general hospital for 20 years starting in 1989 and it was really silly how bad the system was. in fact if you want to see the difference between the past and the current i would suggest that you speak with san francisco police department. they would be giving you plenty of examples of how the system was so bad in the past and how it's getting better in the present. a last suggestion in regards to it is in regards to the subject of city attorneys patient dumping case. he could have done with case a long time ago but chose not to. i would suggest that maybe this committee should try to give him a hand and discuss it in a

future hearing. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that like to comment on this item. please do so. >> good morning supervisors. thank you for taking the time. in the response to the supervisors campos comments and what i've heard so far, i'm concerned about coyt and looking at their meeting schedule and they don't meet a lot and there isn't a lot of inner department communication. usually deligates are sent. i know there's still one member not appointed, citizen or public member. that's been over a year. and the one that has been appointed i haven't seen anything, any production, any comments from this member.

i wonder how affective the implementation of past have been. >> any other public comments. seeing none. public comment is close. >> mr. campos. >> that's a very important point that the coordination is responsible on coy t. first of all, how many members are there, is there a full compliment of its members. how often does it meet? has it met? >> that's excellent question supervisor campos. to the second point of public comments, scott from goggle.org and a second member, there was

a resident see concern, so the process has been reopened. i believe koit meets monthly and there's sub-committeesment >> that's right. >> do we know that they have met in the last year. >> okay. and the other public member, how long has that position been vacant. >> i believe they were actually -- they were about to be appointed, david had a concern about residency because he lived in oakland i believe. the process was reopened and i believe they're in the process of evaluating applications right now unless it's still open. >> in terms of how long its been open? >> i think since the last year, the recommendation was given by the civil grand jury. the members of the koit attempted

to --the mayor's office, are they done with presenting. this is item number 1. >> i want to add one comment. on coit i think it would be great to fill the -- vacant see and we invite the it tech

community to apply for thatcy and we invite the it tech community to apply for that i think the sooner we do that the better. >> colleagues we need to provide new responses for 13 recommendations to the presiding judge. so are there thoughts on any of these suggestions in the matrix? looks like the updates response from the mayor's office is been acceptable. i don't know -- >> i guess starting with recommendation 4. recommendation has been implemented and of course as we mentioned there's one other soul coming. i don't know if we should word interest as recommendation as implemented and ongoing. >> and what?

>> ongoing. >> okay. you only need to say it's been implemented and that should cover it. >> okay. so it has been implemented. recommendation number five will not be implemented. >> i agree with that. >> it will not be implemented because it's not warranted or not reasonable. >> that's right. >> and so recommendation number 6, is implemented. seven will not be implemented because it's not warranted. recommendation nine, ten will not be implemented. nine and ten will not be implemented and recommendation number 11 implemented and non going. okay. recommendation number 12 is implemented. recommendation number 13 will be implemented

in the future. and we have recommendation 14, 15, and 17 will not be implemented. and finally recommendation number 18 will be implemented. our recommendation implemented. >> yes, thank you. >> so is there a motion on any of these recommendations. >> chair. >> yes. >> may i clarify and go through them. recommendation four you agree it has been implemented. recommendation five, six, seven, nine and ten will not be implemented. they are not -- it's not warranted. >> i'm sorry, recommendation number six is implemented. >> oh, implemented, okay. i apologize. >> five should not be implemented. six is implemented. seven will not be implemented. and the reason

would be that it's not warranted is that correct? >> correct. >> number nine will not be implemented. the reason it doesn't warrant. number ten will not be implemented. the reason is not warranted, correct. >> number 11 is implemented and ongoing. number 12 have been implemented. >> yes. >> 13, i believe the committee said will be implemented in the future. is there a date or time for that or -- >> i think within six months, is that right? i'm sorry. maybe i'll ^ did refer to the mayor's office. >> mayor's office, six months is fine. >> all right. number 14 will not be implemented. number 15 will not be implemented. number 17 will not be implemented and number 18 will

be implemented. >> okay. so at this time i would like to direct the clerk and the budget analyst to prepare a motion that we made to update these to the recommendations. is there a supervisor tang, did you make the motion. >> no, i did not, but i like to make a motion to, i guess update these recommendations. >> thank you. is there a second. >> second. >> excellent. thank you so much. >> all right. motion has been made and unanimously passes. thank you. okay. we're going to lose supervisor campos. thank you for your services. wonderful to have you. don't worry everyone. madam clerk, can you call item two and three together. >> item