stated that her community does in the receive any benefit and that mis ellis should not have become an administrator, my correction would be to that last sentence, she thought that miss ellis would be good for the community, the lady did not say that. everything that she said was critical of miss ellis, so they definitely did not make the statement that she thought that miss ellis would be good for the community. >> if i recall i believe that they said when she was new she thought that she would be good for the community but it turned out not to be that way. >> the way that it is characterized here it has her making a statement saying that they thought that she thought she would be good for the community. >> i agree. >> that mischaracterizes the tone. >> we will review the taped record and fix that. >> okay. >> any other corrections or

changes? >> any public comment on the minutes? >> commissioners, ray hartz director of san francisco open government. i only on these minutes want to comment on item number 2. first i want to acknowledge dr. derek hur for all that he did and continues to do to raise the ethical level of city government. what dr. kurr endured sends a large and clear message for the employees of the city, don't report wrong doing and don't trust the whistle blower program and don't trust the people that you work for who are doing the illegal actions that you are trying to report. follow the example of this ethics commission and just look the other way. the ethics commission handles of this matter at best was incompetent, my personal opinion it was nothing less than the collusion with other city entities to cover up wrong

doing and illegalties. the final out come, not one city employee was held accountable. they took retribution against dr. kurr and fired dr. kurr and did not give him three quarters of a million dollars because he was treated well. the only losers in this whole evolution were the citizens of san francisco, who ended up paying $750,000 in a lawsuit, and god only knows how much in legal fees to bring this matter to a conclusion. my question to you is, if this is the way you chose to handle it, what the hell are we paying you for? >> i myself have experienced coming before this board, you have even heard items where you had a conflict of interest. deciding matters against me, that if you had favored, taken my side of it, would have found yourself in violation of the sunshine ordinance. so what you did is you just

basically said well we will find this other person not in violation and that way we are what our executive director off the hook and that was one of the 16 cases that i showed you earlier, that was referred here. the bottom line is, i don't know you, as individual people, and i am probably sure that you are a nice group of people as individuals. but as a group, you are a collective disaster. and i will keep saying it again, not one of you ever answers and i think that members of the public think that sometimes it is because you don't feel you need to, but the bottom line is, what in the hell do you do to make this city a more ethical entity? you don't, you know, the people... want to go to take another job, six weeks after they quit the city job and you say, sure, go ahead. and you know there is not much that you do really that helps

this city. and at least, there are people like dr. derek kurr who are willing to take the heat and take the actions necessary to actually do something. >> thank you. >> any further discussion on the minutes? >> do i hear a motion to approve the minutes as corrected by commissioner keane? >> so moved. >> corrections. >> okay. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> and the motion passes. and mr. st. croix will make a note of that correction. >> yes. >> all right. >> and on the report i want to point first two typos on page 2, under section revenue report, where it says 0.65 percent, and it should just be 65 percent. in that paragraph before the xhart and where it says 0.62

percent it should be 62.5 percent. and i apologize for those typos. and last month, commissioner keane asked about the bdo referrals. and i just want to give you an update on those first one and two have already been litigated. and in favor of the city. and the bdr is conducting collection efforts at this point and the third one, will be, is set for the litigation but has not come to court yet. >> okay. >> and then, i just wanted to make sure that the commission knows because of the comments that have been made, statements of economic interest and the section seven and i don't have a comment on that but under the state law, we are allowed to assess late fines for people who violate, but we have no enforcement authority over form 700 and their constant, the ethics commission can cannot

investigate or take action on those, we have to defer them to the state. >> so we can levy five, and i don't understand. >> when the people file late, we can levy late fines, but if people falsify the documents, and don't report the things that they are supposed to or refused to file and that is out of our hands. >> okay, that is all that i have for today. >> any questions or comments? >> well, interest to the hear about and you look at the variance, particularly your actuals compared to budgets and under the lobby that was a significant variance in our favor and at least on the budget. and then under campaign consultant fees, we budgeted for 18 kind of okay with that and that was okay. so talk to me, a little bit more mr. st. croix about the

lobby fees that we, they jump so quickly. >> and we were able to, we only budgeted for 27 and it is 53. and are they or is it just because it is a particular year? or if it is an election year? and is it just because more people have identified that because there is more enforcement and more folks feel the need to register as lobbyists in. >> or else, i would say, if you are going on, like you do the budgeting year over year and you look at what the past was and you put in a conservative number in there. and we are already with only two months into the year, or however far we are in the year. >> 7 months. >> we are 53, but we budgeted for 27. >> yeah. >> so that is great. >> but i was just wondering if you saw some kind of... >> go ahead. >> i don't know when the budget for that or this year is fixed,

but last year, we had a significant increase in the number of people who were registered as lobbyists due to various efforts. everybody has to register in january and reregister and that is why that increase happens in january, usually you will see the first six months of the fiscal year be low and all of the revenue hits in one month and i believe that the budget is being revised up due to the number that we expect to continually register who has the increase. >> and i think that there are more people lobbying because of the lobbyist changes and the lobbyist ordinance that were made and more people are lobbying and more people are registering and many of us don't have to and many of whom report no activities but i think that people are more cautious. >> there is proposed

legislation that is there. >> but going back a couple of years, we did a fairly big upgrade of the lobbyist ordinance in terms of requiring additional reporting requirements from quarterly to monthly filing and going all electronic filing too and i think that all of the electronic filing seemed problem matter for the people in the regulated community but once they were introduced they decided it was actually a benefit and made it easier to file. >> that reminds me of a proposed legislation that was sent to the board of supervisors, where is that? >> go ahead. >> it is still being amended and there is i think that it was last like april that it was sent and there is a committee meeting tomorrow, and before the gao. and then, so basically the revision process was kind of well under way and we are hoping that it will come to... or that we are hoping that we can make significant progress in march >> any idea when it will

actually be finalized and the board will vote on it? >> i would hope, i would hope at some point in march but i am not sure, yet. >> any other questions? >> comments? >> any public comment on the executive director's report? >> commissioners, ray hartz, director of san francisco open government, there are two items that i would like to discuss, item two where we see that everyone has finally learned the sunshine ordinance to you is a pointless exercise. i will look at these from month to month and i see the number one again and again and i will be honest with you that i can't help but wonder if it is just one complaint that you let sit there and they get hit by a bus and make it go away. the second is item 7 where i would like to ask a question, what do you train the city employees about the responsibilities and i may be incorrect in what i just heard from the executive director,

but what he said was if the city employees file statements of economic interest and they commit perjury and lie there is nothing that you can do about it. is that what you tell the city employees when training them on filling out the sri you can put down anything and purger yourself and so there is nothing that we can do about it so go right ahead? i previously showed herrera's false filing for 2009, 10, and 11, and as you saw, herrera filed statements under penalty of perjury where he claimed that he received nothing of value and the revised form showed that he received thousands of dollars from the friends and then proceeded to lie and say that he received nothing. what makes this most agregus is

that two years of public records disclosed that he or the public library has any document to show where $60 million raised by the friends in the name of the public library between 2000 and 2013 went. >> nothing. >> the friends came in and gave a report they never asked me questions about, and said that we gave you, 750,000 this year, and it turns out that it was not 750, it was half of that because half of the money, of the 750,000 were directed donations, and restricted funds that they could not do anything but turnover to the library, so out of the 6 to 6 and a half million dollars a year the friends raised, the library got $375,000. sounds like a real good deal to me but the interesting thing is that i knew that from looking at the filings they did with the state attorney general. the library commission would have you believe that we are bookkeeping errors as opposed

to knowing and willful violations of the law, they had meetings and illegal conversations and issued a press release saying that they supported mr. herrera even though he had committed perjury and then when someone said what you just did was illegal, they said, well, we will withdraw it. and they act $as if they thought that he was too stupid a department head, too stupid to know that thousands that he was getting were reportable. >> thank you. >> any other comments? or corrections or changes to the executive director's report? >> anything that you want to add mr. st. croix? >> thank you very much. and i think any items that commissioners would like to bring up for future meetings for discussion? for consideration, mr. kean e. >> yes, madam chair, i am going

to make a motion for our next meeting in regards to one of the matters that we did the last time, the matter having to do with juliet ellis. i have informed that the puc, gave miss ellis something like a five-day suspension. and we have accepted a stipulation in which she admitted to some fairly important and agregious corrupt conduct in my opinion, influencing a government decision in which the official has a financial interest, so my motion for next time for discussion is going to be that we recommend to the puc, in light of her admissions, contained in the stipulation, that she did indeed commit these violations of influencing a government decision in which

the official has a financial interest, that we recommend to the puc that she be terminated. >> is that something that we need to vote on? >> you can't, this is a discussion item only, that is for the in-coming chair to take under advisement when he and i plan the next month's agenda. >> thanks. >> dually noted commissioner keane. >> anyone else? >> and any public comment on matters appearing before the commission, or not appearing on the agenda? >> actually, you have to have public comment for items for future meetings. >> okay. >> comments on the matter for future comment? >> again, ray hartz, director of san francisco open government, you know what i would like to say on future ago

agenda that you would actively solicit impute from the citizens from san francisco about what they would expect you to be doing and one of the things that you don't see on tv is that i and one other person are the only two members of the public that bothered to come tonight, i think that most people after a while they come to these meetings and look at what you do and watch what you do and listen to what you say and make a decision that is just not worth their time or energy to be here. and but they would like to see you from you, in my opinion, is that you would actually give them some hope that you intend to raise the ethical standards in san francisco government, from my percent, anything and everything that you do is based on some hidden agenda, given to you by your political masters. your political appointees. and each of you and each and every one of you answered your appointing authority, and rather than to the citizens of san francisco. and as far as i can tell, your

existence is worse than meaningless, because it sets up a false hope that a citizen of this city who has a problem with this city can come to you and get assistance, when all that they are going to get is a long drawn run around where you cover the back sides of the people they are having a problem with. this body does everything when it is in its power, in addition to stand in the way of those who we try to clean up the city. and i watched dr. kurr go through what he went with you and all the man was trying to do was say that there were people at the department of health that were stealing money from the patient's funds and using it for their own purposes. something illegal, something immoral. and what you did is you just treated him like dirt. and i think that sends a message to every employee of this city, that if you really see something wrong, and you

think that there is somebody to turn to, to get help from, gets again. the whistle blower program will screw you, and the ethics commission will screw you, i will give you this the sunshine task force will, listen to you and give you an order of determination but they will send it here and you will dismiss it. you are here to protect the city employees from the citizens of this city that is all that you are here for. now, i think that the citizens probably expect a lot more. but in reality, that is all they get. and if you think that i am just a nasty old man and unpleasant old man, you ought to sit home and watch yourself on sfgtv you don't do much of anything, you come in here, and you have a meeting, and you go through the motions, and at the end, this city is just as bad a shape as it was when it started. >> thank you. >> mr. hartz, i am not sure why there are not more people here,

but i would note for the record that you spoke by far, more than any member of the commission did tonight. and many times. >> any further public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on our agenda? >> okay. with that, do i hear a motion it adjourn? >> i move that we adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank

>> good morning, this meeting will come to order. this is the regular meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm supervisor london breed and the chair of the committee and supervisor tang and supervisor chiu will be joining us now. and i also want to thank sfgtv jim smith and jonathan. madam clerk, do

we have any announcements? city clerk: please silence all cell phones and electronic devices and please include in the copies into the file to the clerk. >>supervisor london breed: thank you madam clerk please call the first item. city clerk: agenda[hearing - implementation of audit recommendations status]1310431.sponsor: cohenhearing on the update by the city services auditor on the status of implementation sf 11234 >> good morning supervisors. my name is tonya, i'm the director of city audit of the controllers office and with me is cat skog an. we are going to talk about our follow up process for audit and memorandum issue. the benefit from audit work is not only in the findings or

recommendations made but in the implementation of those recommendations. by conducting audit follow up ensures our department to enhance change and city agencies and city management and assess the value of our work. our office does two kinds of follow up work. regular and field follow up. our regular follow up procedures are done for all of our reports and memorandums and auditees are required to report at 6 months, 12 months and 2 years. after 2 years, the department if they have not yet resolved those issues we will include those recommendations in our annual report of recommendations not implemented after 2 years which we will begin this process at the end of this fiscal year and we'll present 245 -- that report to you.

in the follow up process we may select certain audits in the field follow up. we go back to gather evidence to go by whether each method was implemented. we tuesday approach for the candidates for the field follow up and the factors that could qualify an audit for high risk is large financial impact and weaknesses, to errors, safety issues and high risk of slides. over the next few slides i will provide information for the last quarter and overview of follow up activities and finally some high risk audits in greater details. we followed up on 20 reports and memorandum uams and more are directed at one

department. we conducted 22 follow ups that conducted 22 open or contested recommendations. departments responded to 70 percent of those 22 follow up request within the 2-week deadlines. we did not receive two follow up responses at the time of this report, but the department has since responded. so the follow up status is based on the department's responses of the status report of the recommendation. active needs the department never provided a response to our follow up request and we will continue to follow up even beyond our 2-year process until we received a response. as of the writing of this report two follow ups were still active. we recently received those follow ups and open means the department

provided a response but at least one recommendation remains open or contested. aft these follow ups are still opened, elapsed if not all recommendations are given at the follow up period. yet, as i stated earlier we give those follow ups on those recommendations to the reporting mechanism. two of those follow ups have open recommendations after 2 years. all of those recommendations have a status of closed. two are now closed. so after we receive a response from the department, our process is to have an auditor review the response and based on the department's self reporting actions, then we determine if the actions that the department have taken will that actually resolve the problem underlying the recommendation. close means the department has implemented

the recommendation, the department has implemented a sufficient recommendation or the recommendation is no longer relevant due to the change within the department system. department's closed 62 of the 146 recommendations we followed up on which is 46 percent and 70 percent of the recommendations remain open and they have elapsed an will be included in the report after 2 years. the contested means it will not implement the recommendation and could be due lack of resources or disagreeing with the recommendation or believing that the process was sufficient when csa has identified problems that need to be addressed. as a result four recommendations were contested and i will discuss those more in depth as we go through the presentation. there are summaries of all

the follow up in the local business audit report. i want to highlight 10. the 2010 audit looked at three factors in the enterprise provisions of their contracts and the audit findings indicate their contractors used non-lbe contractors or subcontract or that was possibly in eligible for lbe status. the contract monitoring division investigated sanctions against the contractors. in one instance the contracting monitoring division did not find the contract or at fault but the issue did not materially impacts it's compliance with lbe go. therefore cmbd did not impose any sanctions. however they did address weaknesses by the

oversight by the department. they conducted training for the department staff so with hopes this would not occur again. in addition cmd implemented a web base monitoring tool to help track lbe compliance. for our follow ups, our office we use a risk base approach to select specific recommendations that the departments report for field testing. this is where we actually go out to the office and we go in to test. we gather evidence to determine if the department's implementation resolved the problem underlying the recommendation and issue a memo reporting our findings. our follow up go through the same process as the report. we company a follow up at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. this time we actually go out into field and again do a

testation work. during the first quarter of this year we had one follow up of process and sf puc management with lease with aggregate which leases a rock query. what we found was that puc has significant weaknesses in its oversight and owed the city more than $64,000. the greater detail will be provided in our report for the fiscal year. we did find that the 11 recommendations we did test to be fully implemented and the remaining 38 recommendations did not require follow up. puc has collected $34,000 from has hassan son and addressed the

personnel and the issues that had resulted in poor management of the lease. since the audit they have done significant work and continue to have significant improvement in that particular area of their organization. in july 2012 we issued a report on our audit of sf mta having fully implemented 33 -- 23 of the 29 recommendations. however the department is contesting the implement of one recommendation. this recommendation comes from the audited finding revenue to not seeking reimbursement for providing traffic control activities for some street fares and festivals. recommendation 2 asks sf mta to include a traffic control fee as part of the permit fee