during this period of time i know that you had asked for it is to have the audit ors come in and take a look and we are happy to report concured with 9 of the eleven recommendations and we think that all along we have been trying to advocate our position. and i think clearly that we agreed on most of their points and we are as you know, bringing in 16 new people and that was the exact recommendation of the budget analyst and we, i think that the disagreement would be that the feeling is that 16 more people will fall and get to 80 percent and we don't believe that it will and our methodology is slightly different and that is why i think that the beauty of the work group to take a look at how the envision of 16 more people will work for us and then, maybe have a saved approach and hire more people in the next fiscal here. what is the other thing? let's see, i did want to

address and i know that people have had the particular questions and i had some questions as well, regarding you are probably wondering we had the ability to purchase the ambulances and why are they on the streets and that is my question as well. it is a work in progress, but the office of contract administration and they have been hugely tied up with a lot of projects and one of them was our fire boat project and we had a requisition that went into the oca and we are doing good work, but i think that there is some delays in november we requested the ten ambulances and i am now hearing that it was closer than it was in november. >> november of what year? >> 2013. >> okay. >> and as part of the... >> but it was allocated in.. >> i leave that it was in 12. >> what was the delay in the request when it was allocated. i believe taking a look at the specifications of the ambulance and getting the work group together to look at the design of the ambulance and more efficient ambulances than we purchased in the past.

so that took some time as well. >> i don't consider i don't think that you are doing good work if this is not moving forward. especially when the funds are allocated to purchase these ambulances and we have not taken the steps to address it. i mean this is taking way too long. i do understand the process of the department has to go through in order to determine exactly what they are going to purchase, but i see a clear disconnect. and that is what i am trying to understand. i mean this is, i mean almost like an embarrassment as far as i am concerned. >> i would agree. >> when moneys are allocated and not spent for that purpose, even though, again, you have to take the time to determine, what are the best ambulances we as a department should purchase. so that we can carry us for the life of the ten years that we expect them to carry us for, so what i am trying to understand is, where the disconnect and where do we need to be looking at to actually make some serious changes so that this does not happen again >> right, well, i think that one of the things and i would agree with your frustrations.

one of the things that we did to make the ambulances because we literally run them to the ground and many of them are much older than ten years and some of them have over 200,000 miles on them and it is not a great efficient system because they are getting repaired often. and so, we took a look at a different type of ambulance, where we would be able to invest more in say the chassy where we can replace it with a new box if you will and make it last as long as it could, to get the best investment, that took some time, and frankly, we have been looking closely with the office of contract administration, our requests for the ten, at least, have been with oca and we have been working with them since november of last year. >> so when can we expect to see those ambulances delivered and on the street? >> i believe once they are ordered it is a 45 to 90 day, so probably by the end of this year. >> i would say by ten by the

end of this year. and another nine in the following year. so 19 new. and they won't be in addition to the fleet, we will actually take a lot of the units that are currently in service and put them into a release status. >> i still, i don't see the... so on, so for example, in 2012, you knew that the department had money for ambulances. then your department began the process of determining specifically what type of ambulance you would purchase, so that was between so that cook you about a year to about a year to complete. >> is my understanding.

>> and that took a year and it took to the folks last year and it has been sitting there or is it moving or are you aware of what is going on in the department and because if you have submitted the request and it takes 45 to 90 days to actually go through the process process to receive those ambulances, then i am trying to understand why they are not already here. >> right. >> okay. >> one moment. >> okay. >> so i would like to acknowledge mark the chief financial officer who is involved in the contracting process. >> good afternoon, supervisors, and to answer your question and the chief mentioned it a little bit n 2012, we ordered five ambulances and they were of a new design, where we had the box obviously that carries the patient and the cassy and in order to save the money in future purchases we redesigned so that we can replace the front chassy and order a new one and that will save us $80,000 per ambulance and so we

ordered five ambulances of this nature, with this new specification. and they were delivered in january of 2013. and we had an extended period of trial to test them out to make sure that we wanted to continue with this method and after trial and error they were in the field and we agreed that we did and we worked with the office of administration to do a multiyear contract and submitted in november, and due to work load issues over there, the rfp did not go out until earlier this year and currently we are in contract negotiations for a new contract, this will help to your concerns about going forward, we will go into a multiyear contract to eliminate bidding and when we do get the funding we are able to order directly without doing any type of bidding process. >> that is quite helpful and i was wondering why this was not provided in the response from the department this information.

just about the process over all. i know that it was not made in terms of a recommendation but it was highlight and it was an alarming highlight in the report and i was wondering why there was not a specific response from the department as it relates to its component, based on what you said today at the hearing that completely makes sense, but there was no information from the department around that particular issue, because there was no specific recommendation about it, that is quite alarming. >> we have had the ongoing meetings with the budget analyst and typically is how we respond is to the matrix and could swre alluded to it in our letter in we could have, but typically how we roll is that we respond to the items that they bullet out requiring a response. >> okay, thank you.

>> and supervisors i think, let's see unless you have specific questions you have the matrix as well, in terms of requirements. >> and i think that for the issues, i understand here under the 1.1 for the shifts through hiring, there is a partial agreement, i understand why there is a partial agreement. i want to go through specifically the recommendations to change the administrative code, and the one that you would agree with, are there any plans to submit a request to make that change in the works? >> and so you are referring to. >> and 1.3. >> and at this time, like i said, we have support the amendment to the admin code, but currently it would be in violation of the mou. >> and so if you were to, and

even though you are not compliant with the code if you were to actually, like if my office was introduced the legislation to change the admin code to adjust to exactly what is actually happening with the department, it would be in violation of the mou with the union. >> and the mou, currently provides, 10 to 12 hour shifts for level ones and twos and so we will have to meet and confer with the local 798 bargaining unit. >> and so i would like us to move on that sooner rather than later and my office is happy to introduce the legislation, but, i would like us to be in compliance with this issue so that it is off the table. >> no problem. >> reallocation number 1.4, of over time hours to ems to insure that all schedule ambulances can be sent out and serviced to respond to medical calls, can you explain that a bit in terms of the fact that

you completely disagree, with that recommendation? >> yes, and so, i am going to have mark come up and describe that, he can do it much more succintly than i could. >> thank you. >> to address the issue of over time in the ems division, our department uses absolutely is in support of using over time for the ems division, the issue we are currently having is due to the scheduling and the dynamic schedules that we have for the paramedics and the emts and it is not as easy to allocate the shifts and whereas the fire suppression, everybody has the exact same schedule and there are 300 or so people getting off every day and we can assign the over time easily and due to the dynamic schedule, it is not as easy to coordinate and allocate over time, and the issue that we currently have with regard to allocating over time is that we don't have the sufficient employees to actually make use of the over time and we do have

the over time policis in place to replace the shifts but the issue is finding available people due to the schedule and due to the number of people that are working to actually fill those over time shifts and one of the recommendations from the budget analyst is to reallocate over time from fire suppression, to ems, and the over time is not as simple as that because the over time is used to meet the over time staffing and if we allocate from the ems to the fire suppression, there are issues with meeting the minimum staffing and so it is not an issue of the fire department choosing not to fill the ems shifts with over time, it is just the availability of the personnel to do so. >> okay. thank you. >> and so, will this new allocation of additional personnel assist with that? or help with that? >> yes. >> it will definitely help. >> chief, i apologize, we are going to have a pause on the hearing, because we have to,

the sheriff is here for his item and he is going to make a presentation and we should come back to this and it will take five to ten minutes if that is okay and i know that you have to leave early as well. >> no problem. >> thank you. and we will call you back up as soon as we are done. >> thank you. >> and so we are going to colleagues, we are going to be calling item number 35 out of order we will pause the hearing and we will take the sheriff's department but we will not be able to take the public comment until we get to that item at a later time. so in order to accommodate his schedule, so, we are going to call item 35 please? >> item 35, is resolution authorizing the sheriff's department to enter into a second amendment to the existing contract with global tel*link for inmate telephone services to extend the contract term to may 31, 2015, to reduce the calling rates for inmate telephone calls per fcc regulation, to modify the commission paid to the

sheriff's department, and to modify the additional annual payment to the sheriff's department, which will result in an anticipated revenue to the inmate welfare fund of more than $3,000,000 over the five-year contract term. (sheriff) >> thank you, sheriff? welcome. >> thank you, madam chair, and distinguished supervisors good morning. and thank you for taking this item out of order. like the chief, i also have to be at a town hall at noon and so i will make my presentations compact as possible. public defender is also here to speak on this item as well, and quite a few other people, but i understand that all of the items you have before you it sounds like they might go through expoditiously go through, we are proposing a reform as it relates to the correction's industry, a decade old practice in united states for the prison system and county jail system has allowed a predatory price gouging where prison and jail systems have contracted with telephone companies that specialize in the kind of phone security

systems for corrections institutions. frankly, this has been an unregulated industry, in the united states. and among the states for many years. and just a little bit regulation was introduced by the federal communication commission earlier this year that only affected interstate calls and as i go through the presentation, there are so many other areas that i think require regulation and while we certainly hope and i personally endorse regulation, that has been contemplated in sacramento, we are the first sheriff's department in the state of california and as i am told one of the only ones in the nation that is siding with the idea that we need to reform and reign in this industry. for me, i believe, frankly if the goal to work and to work

the corrections and for our determination to enhance public safety, is to really work on reentering rehabilitation, than we should look at the obvious, and the obvious is that we want people to preserve ties with their family and loved one while they are incarcerated but it interfered with all of the good work and many of the people are here in the audience today who administer the work and the others who could not make it if in fact we enter with that process. and so if a, and for example, what has been and what we are proposing to change, a 15 minute phone call commonly in our county jail system, county to county, costs an inmate or the loved one $15, when it is a fraction of that, for anybody outside of the jail system, and surely that is just subveteringing our system goal of proper rehabilitation, so let's go to the first slide.

our rates far exceed in terms of the reduction, the fcc rates, that were proposed earlier this year. since only their reform on a national level touches on interstate phone calls, interstate is only 2 percent as you see here of our call volume and so barely scratches the surface that is, i think, critical to our county jail population. the remainder of the calls, is where we want to zero in on with the regulatory reform by zeroing in on the last year of the contract, with the vendor of global tel links, because it is that last year where our cfo, myself, and others had gathered together to put pressure on the reconfiguration of this contract and i think that it sets us up in a stronger position in the city that when the rfp comes up next

year, we actually change the complete base line of what rates should be, which is frankly, unor not uncommon, uncommon in counter intuitive in the sheriff's industry, and correction's industry, when the competition is about how much commission one could get, we are actually trying to lower that ceiling by lowering the floor. if you could go to the next slide, this is what the terms mean in a map that goes with it. a local call made within a local calling area is defined by the local exchange carrier, and interlata which is also intra laa is two points in the same lata, local toll or regional long distance, and inter lata which is two percent of the call volume, calls between two points in different lata long distance and

interstate, which i referred to the area that the fcc is just now weighing in arresting local. next, please? >> a little hard to see, but to give you an idea of what our proposed reductions are, if you notice on the interlata, for example, a 15-minute call would be 13.35 in san francisco from the county jail system we are proposing a 70 percent reduction and then the other call tiers intra, 505 to 405 sxai modest reduction, and a local call, $4.45, and we are able to bring it down to $2.75 of 38 percent reduction interstate, which is leg able

because such little call volume occurs, and then we break it down if it is done by the collect prepared or debit and it is not just the inmates, it is their loved ones and the families who are absolutely the ones who shoulder the bill that gets stuck in trying to burden that cost. and so for us, this is what makes it counter intuitive. >> and is there a reason why the inmates have to call for local calls at all? >> based on the telephone system and the rates of the telephone system, that is just part of the negotiation in the contract. as set up by the utilities and the absence of utility regulation, that is how it is, we could possible negotiate in the next tier of the contract, no fee for a local call and, that is what we should pursue.

>> and frankly i think that we will be the first city in the country to do that and it would really send quite a loud message around the state and the nation that we would reform in that direction, i for one support that. >> thank you. >> next slide please? >> and so, this is just the beginning, could we go back, and just here we go, this is just the beginning because, again, we are inserting ourselves and this is what is unconventional in the last year of a contract already. so, to open up the contract, with support by you supervisor breed and kim and others when we talked about this last year, is to come in the last year with a decrease in the cost now, but we realize that, while the commissions and the profit essentially to the phone company and to the jail in the

city comes down, we also believe that it is going to increase the call volume and so with the reduction in the commission and the profit and also, i think that less makes the calling less prohibitive and we are able to offset that and that is a prevailing theory that we have and play itself out in time to see what is true, as long as we are able to increase that contact with the loved one family and friends this goes hand in hand with the many other initiatives that we take in, and inside and outside of the jail system. about family reunification and bonding, especially for children. this is where the country has taken the wrong turnover many years. 52 percent of our jail population of our prison and jail population in the united states are parents. there are over 2.7 million children in this country that has a parent that is

incarcerated, and in san francisco, we are below that average, but still, high enough to warrant the kind of initiative and response that lasers in on the question of building better bonds between family and incarcerated parents, especially children, and if we really want to make an intergenerational statement and make it subnative, in our action, it is looking at how we can prepare somebody for release, with better reunification before release with their children, which is why we increased the visitation hours and which is why we have instituted the kind of parenting classes that have never happened before and which is why incarcerated mothers that are expecting and pregnant that we now institute a dula and breast pump milk stations inside so the baby gets the benefit from the mother's breast milk this is not

happening anywhere, but we believe that it can and will. and so one small future of those barriers but an parent one is the cost of staying in contact and that really gets us, i think, you know, to the point of reforming how we do business with private telephone companies, and then that is why we are before you here today. and i know that a lot of the good people that are here in the audience who work in the trenches, day-to-day, with the people who are incarcerated and formally incarcerated can give you, you know, the real life stories as to what is going on and we are not just going to stop here by the way, and not just at these costs, we will completely reorient, how we pursue the contracts in the future and the same with the come sarry, it is not just on the telephone, it is so many carry too, which has been unregulated industry, thank you

for your amention. >> thank you, i appreciate your work on this issue. >> yeah, because it is robbery, and whatever we can do to make changes to dealing with phone calls, come sarry and the outrageous cost associated with the folks who are just there trying to get by and do their time and their families are the ones who are dealing with the burden of helping to pay for this often on very limited incomes themselves and so it is just really a frustrating thing and i am glad that we are moving in this direction. i would like to see the local calls to be free and i am hoping that we can get there. thank you for your work on this issue. >> and we certainly are and we welcome the chronicle editorial today that i think that the word though that they used is stop the gouging and that is correct. they reference what i don't think is quite a national trend among law enforcement but a national trend among advocacy organizations which i am hoping that we will be able to le our voice to from a sheriff perspective. >> thank you.

>> absolutely. >> public defender jeff adachi. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. >> good morning. >> i am here today to support the sheriff and his effort to reduce the cost of these collect calls. we provide the representation to 23,000 people a year and 83 percent of the people that are charged are below the federal poverty level in san francisco and the reality is, as the sheriff said, it is if the families that are getting gouged because the inmates for the most part have no money and no resources when they are in custody. and so it is the families who are getting these bills. and it is heart breaking to see. and i have seen this over the years, as the cost of these

calls have suddenly increased. what happens is that the first weeks and months that an individual is in custody, there is a lot of phone contact, and the phone bills rise, and rise and rise and rise, and sometimes they are in the thousands of dollars. and i have seen, you know, families or since that we bankrupted by these bills. when you are in custody, the only way to keep in contact with your family other than a visit behind glass a few hours a week, is by phone, you don't have e-mail or computer or a cell phone, so if you want to maintain contact with your family, that is the only way that you can do it. so it is basically you don't have a choice, you know, it is

a monopoly system it is not like you can go to another carrier and say that you are charging me too much. and so the reality is that these charges for the most part are uncontionable and result in pulling families apart, 40 percent of the inmates that we represent have children. and as the sheriff mentioned, 3 million kids every night in this country go to bed with one of their parents in jail or in prison. and san francisco we would really be leading way by reducing the cost of these calls, i was in sacramento at the state capitol on monday and i met with bill clerk who is a member from liver more and he has a bill, ab1876, which just passed both the assembly and the senate which would completely ban any commission for any phone call made to a state facility or a juvenile facility in the state and he

expressed that he was hopeful that san francisco as well as other counties would follow suit with respect to local facilities and so that bill goes even father by completely banning any commission for that purpose. i also wanted to thank the san francisco chronicle, they came out with an editorial today, and this two sentences from there, and they say, that they need rehabilitation and not exploitation, and that is the convincing logic behind the san francisco plan, and to lower the phone charges for inmates who want to keep in touch with family and prepare for a more productive life and we want the people to succeed and get out of the circumstances and be able to turn a new leaf and a big part of that is allowing them to maintain contact with their families, and so that they have the support so when they do get out, they will not return to jail or custody. thank you very much. >> thank you i appreciate it.

>> so, we are going to need to return to our hearing, but if you are here to make public comment on this item, and support this item, we are not going to take public comment at this time but you are welcome to stand or raise your hand to be acknowledged that the number of folks who are here for this particular issue. it is going to be a while but you are welcome to stay around and i am a big fan of this proposal, and i look forward to making even more changes on this particular issue. and thank you all so much for taking the time to come here today and thank you sheriff, and thank you, public defender, and thank you, and we are going to return to item 32 at this time. >> supervisor breed you were

walking through the matrix. >> yes. and we went over the issue around over time, and the need for additional staff to address that and we are going to go to the evaluation of the impact of cross training all new uniform employees, in order to increase the department's flexibility in responding to ems and suppression calls. >> right. and so item 2.3. >> yes. >> okay, yes, the reasons for the disagreement on that was, there is quite an expense for doing that between the tune of 30 to 40,000 dollars per employee to have fully cross trained workforce. and so that would be one of our main objections or concerns. but do you think that ultimately there could be a cost savings long term with the department in general? >> i think, that to the requirement to have all of the new hires being trained as a paramedic is something that is not necessary in terms