over and over we have to replace interior panels and that has a cost. what we are doing and back to the timing. first of all with the two-year budget for july includes an additional resources for cleaning. and also we will introduce first at the two division operating, woods and kirkland a zero-tolerance program. what that means and basically, that's where the new vehicles are and the rehab vehicles. vehicles will be held in if they have any kind of graffiti. we are reinforcing standards in that regard. we have employed 12-14 hours a day at this point mobile cleaning crews. so we are encouraging people to report it and see if we can clean it up in the field. we have made a huge investment in upgrading the onboard videos, that will help us in follow-up

and penalties. i think one thing we have do a better job of is public outreach on this and inreach as well. one of the things over a period of years, we haven't been proactive and encouraged and expected people to report graffiti. all employees, not just operators. but we need to do that. and we have been working with pd, not only to make arrests, but also to use our existing arrangement with them. to get more police presence on the system as a preventive measure, not just for arrests. but to deter any kind of anti-social behavior including graffiti. so with that, i want to thank you again for your leadership with this legislation. and for us, we will do our part to help address what is a very

serious and problem that impacts us both financially and our image very negatively. i thank you for your time and i am happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. okay, so we are going to open this item for public comment. if any member of the public who would like to speak on this item. please come on up. i just want to acknowledge, i think we have someone here from the arts commission, that i know dede workman is here from the san francisco chamber and members from the graffiti advisory board as well as san francisco beautiful. feel free, and bright business alliance is another group of folks who are here. why don't you come on up. yes. come on up. >> good morning, supervisors, i am allison cummings with the san

francisco art commission, i manage the art collection. and i want to thank you supervisor breed for bringing this forward. the support was unanimously approved by the arts commission in the last meeting. and you know that we spend our entire maintenance budget dealing with vandalism abatem t abatement, and any efforts in our ability and supporting our ability to deal with graffiti and deal with vandalism at all levels is tremendously helpful for us. our collection is nationally known, internationally known cultural asset. we struggle to maintain it with our limited resources. and it's expensive to maintain. these are materials that require expertise to clean.

we can't just paint over the vandalism. because of this and because of our abilities in the past to not bring criminal charges against vandals to the collection. we do document extensively when it happens and filed many please reports. we are encouraged for this legislation that allows for civil prosecution, and if any questions, i am happy to take care of them. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, i am dede workman, with the san francisco chamber of commerce. we want to applaud supervisor breed for bringing this legislation forward. representing businesses in san

francisco, and the vast majority are small businesses. many struggle daily with recurring graffiti on there is properties. and i can tell you after talking to the owners of these businesses, they feel doubly victimized, by the graffiti and the process which they are responsible for eradicating the graffiti. and they try hard to do that, but they can't keep up with it. and many don't have the resources to do that. so this ordinance will make the graffiti vandals financially responsible for the destruction of property they are causing. and we feel that is appropriate. the price tag to the city is astonishing, and where that money could be spent makes this legislation important. this legislation works in other cities, we know that it works

well. it's very overdue here in san francisco, so the chamber supports it, and we urge the board of supervisors to support it as well, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, chair, vice chair and president, i am the executive director of san francisco beautiful. i want to thank supervisor breed for bring forward this legislation. san francisco beautiful's board and membership supports this legislation which will reduce costs that could be otherwise spent protecting our public investment. whether it be park land or our transit system or public furnitur furniture. graffiti vandals cost the city money and impact our private property owners and business owners in the way that mrs. workman described. we support this legislation and encourage the board of supervisors as well.

and we thank you supervisor breed to bring on this nuance approach, that works not to punish artists but rather to fight the problem, which is vicious vandalism, thank you and for your good work. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors, i am stephanie greenberg, and i represent district 3 on the graffiti advisory board. i must say that i was thrilled when i heard about supervisor breed's legislation, i couldn't wait to get involved and this is game-changing for the city. for too long this burden has fell on the city and property owners. and there is a general feeling that there is too few consequences for graffiti vandals. and this is true for repeat offenders. with the legislation offering new ways for graffiti offenders.

all is important as the information streaming and costs, and the ability for the city to seek civil and administrative actions against the offenders. and of course better protection of our parks and public vehicles against graffiti vandals. i hope that you support this effort to hold graffiti offenders for the damage they cause this city. it's a step in the right direction to shift the burden from the victim to the offender. and it sends a message that san francisco is able and willing to take steps to address the offensive and destructive graffiti problem. this is the right thing to do for the city and thank you for your effort and time. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> good morning, madam chair,

london breed and board president chiu and board of supervisors tang, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. i am here to represent, i am a member of the graffiti advisory board and a long-time resident and property owner of san francisco, where i live and work. i have been a member of the graffiti advisory board for over six yearyears, and i have seen challenges in terms of its hope to control graffiti vandalism in san francisco. and i am really delighted and in support of supervisor breed's legislation to prevent graffiti vandalism and shift policies to penalize vandals than victims. back in 2007 when i joined the graffiti advisory board. it was said that the city was

spending over $20 million in the control of graffiti vandalism in the city. and that money could be better spent towards education for the kids. or for food for the elderly or homes for the homeless. and so there are many, many things we could think of to better use that money. but instead we are becoming reactionary to someone's whim and desire to disrespect our properties [bell] it's not one cure of the problem, it takes a village to resolve it. i am happy that we have the city and the residents and all of us to control vandalism. thank you. >> thank you, any other members of the public that wish to comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. again, everyone thank you for coming out today. i am excited that we have an opportunity to really change the

face of san francisco by reducing graffiti throughout our city. i am looking forward to just the visible changes i know will come in the next couple of months, i am sure. with that colleagues, i have before you a few amendments that you received from the city attorney today. do you want to explain quickly what those specifics are? >> sure, deputy city attorney, just as you described clerical fixes. the title of the ordinance didn't exactly reflect the content of the ordinance, so we fixed the title to make it matchup. so that it accurately described the prohibition on graffiti materials and parks. and then just removing language in a few provisions in the park's code that referred to

prescribed materials, a term that is in the definition of graffiti. >> thank you, colleagues, can i have a motion to support. >> motion to amend. >> without objection, the motion p passes. is there a motion to move to the full board. i will recognize supervisor tang. >> thank you, i want to mention about this legislation, we have heard about those who have hit transit corder -- corridors, and i appreciate it and we are trying to take different steps. whether working with the arts commission or other entities to prevent graffiti by painting beautiful murals that represents our district's character. again i am really glad that we

are taking this to the next level so we can be sure that the people committing these offenses are hopefully deterred if the -- in the future, i am happy to support this and move to the full board. >> thank you, supervisor chiu. >> thank you, i want to echo supervisor tang's comments, and want to thank those working on this issue. i was first confronted with the challenge of graffiti in the d.a.'s office and know how difficult it is to go after the perpetrators of graffiti. i have been working with my district and i want to thank my reps, who have been working diligently for years, thinking of solution to move forward. this not only reflects a

wonderful effort of the city departments but smart tools for the city. i want to thank supervisor breed for your efforts and i am happy to support and add my name as a co-sponsor. >> thank you, supervisor chiu, with that we have a motion on the floor, and without objection this item moves to the full board for consideration, thank you. next item. >> item 2, hearing to receive an update from the city services auditor on the status of audit recommendations. >> okay. hello. >> good morning, chair breed. and supervisor tang and supervisor chiu. i am tonya letitur, and director of the city services auditor

division. today i have an associate auditor, skogin, and i am here to highlight my office's work to follow up on recommendations we issued. and a summary of our follow-up that we reported is on the summary page. the benefit is not in the findings but in the implementation of corrective action. and by conducting follow-ups it helps ensure that departments are implementing change and helps city management. and it allows us to assess the value of our audit work. and our office does two types of follow-up work, regular and field follow up. we do follow ups for two years after they are issued. in these follow-ups we periodically ask departments to report to us on the

implementation status. we may select certain high-risk audits for the field follow up. where we go back into the department and gather evidence and determine if each is implemented. for details of our follow-up process you can refer to the report. for the next slides i will provide a follow-up activity for the second quarter, and provide highlights for specific reports in the memorandum for the follow-up activity. and i will give an overview of the follow-up work. and i will highlight the recently issued report. for the second quarter of the fiscal year, we conducted 24 follow-ups, and nine recommendations. the follow-ups are responsive to the follow-up status. and with one recommendation open and contested by the department,

six of these follow ups are still open. if still open after the two-year follow up, and we give a report on recommendations not implemented after two years. two follow-ups had still open recommendations after two years, all had a status of closed and six of these are now closed. after we receive our response from the department and an auditor reviews the response and based on the reported actions. we determine if those actions would resolve the problem underlying recommendations. whether the department has fully implemented the recommendation or that the department has provided a specific alternative to the recommendation, or if the recommendation is not relevant due to an operational change. the department closed 82 of the

109 recommendations that we followed up. 22 recommendations remain open. three recommendations are elaps elapsed. that means they are over our regular two-year follow-up process. and contested means that the department has indicated that it would not implement recommendations, which we have two on this quarter. the report of the follow-up activity is on the controller website. today i want to highlight two of the 16 follow ups here. the 2011 record looked at different managements. the review found that many employees were working outside of their classification. some policies did not meet best

practices and that the department needed control of his financial management and education of his cultural equity grants program. we better aligned the department and to provide for management of the grants program. in the report, cfa found that boondocks underpaid on its lease, and on the report found that they overpaid for the audit period. and first i would like to show what allows the department to establish multiyear contracts for maintenance and minor construction work based on predetermined tasking of tasks and supplies.

finding that the program had some strengths but also had room for improvement. the program found some projects that did not meet the intent of the program. the audit recommended the program mission and establishing more rigid and specific criteria for using the job program. additionally asking for improvements in policies and procedures and how assigned to contractors and for better monitoring of contractor reports. the contested recommendation related to invoice review and to ask for staff outside of the job program and the contract administration bureau review for accurate pricing. the reason we did that, because it's best practices to separate the duties of awarding contracts

and approving payment on the contra contracts, if one person has the ability to award a contract to a contractor, and receive and review invoice from that contractor. there is increased opportunity to cause fraud to the city, we are here to review those recommendations. >> good morning, i am the director of assurance control of the cfpsc. i am joined by the manager of construction and management of bureau. in february we provided the responses of the contract program. and of the three recommendations that are still open, we had implemented one and contested

two. the reason why two were contested were due to alternative internal controls in place. the first primarily recommendation, 10 and 11, were for a separate bureau, the contract administration bureau to have access to the trojan software, with pre-priced costs for individual items that managers can use on their projects. what i understand there is a level of review that is provided by the project managers for that, and that's part of the alternative internal control. for the other item, no. 11, also related to using the contract administration staff, that's satisfied by the cost in the trojan software, and i will

provide with more input into the program. >> good morning, i am the program manager for the bureau. the software consists of pre-priced items. so when a task order is issued, the price for that project is based on pre-priced items. therefore the focus actually should be checking the duration of the work, or the amount of volume or the quantity of items that were invoiced. the line items do not change. and therefore it should be the project managers who are independent of construction management bureau. the project managers are aided

by the construction managers who are the primary auditors i will say -- sorry, nervous, inspecting the contents of the invoices. but the line items are already pre-priced. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay and the controller's officer response to that. >> i will spend a little more time exploring their response. there are a couple of things i want to get clarity on as it relates to where the program manager sits. they are within the program, and we are still looking for an appropriate segregation of duty. because they are overseeing the project that this individual is approving within the job spectrum. so we want to be able to still

see where that level of separation of duties. >> based on what they are proposing it doesn't sound like that's the case. >> yeah. >> it sounds like it's still continuing, just an additional layer added to the system. >> yes. >> okay, you want to address that? because that's what i heard. >> we love work with csa, i will make sure personally to work. >> we need that extra layer of checks and balances in order to address the concerns there. it's a concern that i also have. and it's clearly missing. and based on what you provided us in terms of your solution, it just doesn't cut it. >> i will work with the bureau manager to be sure that something is put in place or a response to resolve their concern. >> okay, so the next time we come back to the hearing for the

controller's office we are highlight what is done since then. >> okay. >> the next report i would like to discuss is the 2013 audit for the public health structures. the audit found that the structure of dph purposing, and they implemented solutions for medical supply purchasing in some divisions but not all. as a result transaction was not imperial for purchasing wide. policies were inconsistent across divisions and in some cases not clear. though dph allows them to bypass the city competitive, and with

the discount on members behalf, the department did not have controls in place to be sure that the pricing was in fact competitive. as a result dph is here today to speak of their progress in implementing these recommendations. >> thank you, good morning, right off the bat there are nine recommendation its that the dph wholeheartedly concurs and suppor supports. for the agenda to bring the entire dph in line with industry standards and expectations around technology and comparing benchmarks. we have been working diligently in my role around the hospital in contract management, and with changes and i work in an effort to collaborate and accocoordina

across dph in the processes and as well sharing the tools around the authority. the bigger piece is getting the infrastructure in place at the various divisions. that is still utilizing paper and pencil across orders, and to bring that up to speed and in par with other systems of technology. and we need to follow up with the education around the tool that is a topic, to ensura that we have benchmarks and industry pricing. everything is slowly coming together for us, and we hope to have policies and procedures to share in the next report. >> when are we talking about? what is the time line?

because you still have nine open recommendations? >> of the nine, the latter, i believe 4-9 are around developing codify policies and procedures and to have a process to compare quarterly reports. that's the next report to the controller's office will closed. the first one or two require a recommendation of personalized structure whether at san francisco general or dph that will acquire additional software. a previous update to this system took 24 months. now this contractor is sitting in a review process with the city attorney and oca. we are looking at i would say 12-18 months to have a full electronic system to have comparable data. >> can i mention something in

your report? you mentioned there was no clear , can you provide this process. >> oca has provided a waiver for the process, what is an admin-code -- i apologize, it's in the admin-code that aprovides for allowance for dph to have a different kind of bidding process. they belong to a medical group where that group is bidding for services. >> we talked about that for medication as well. >> right, in order to be effective for dph they need this centralized method to assess what they need. so we are buying at a better rate. >> but they have not done any