periodically ask departments to report to us on the implementation status. we report on the results of those follow-ups quarterly and we issue an annual report highlights recommendations that remain unimplemented for more than two years and yet at the same time while we do that report we continue to follow-up on those recommendations to ensure that they do get closed. during this process we will -- we may select a of recommendations that are from our high risk audits and we'll do field follow-ups where we go back into the departments and we attest to the corrective actions that were implemented. and for more details about our follow-up process you can refer to the first section of our quarterly reports. so as i stated earlier, a few months ago we presented our annual report on recommendations not implemented more than two years after issuance of this committee and at that time you

asked that we revisit two of the reports discussed in that recommendation and that was for payroll audits at the police department and the feptd. i will reissue those reports and then i will provide an overview of our quarterly work that we did for the last two quarters and i will highlight some of the work for the recent closed follow-ups. so as it relates to -- i'm going to do a little skipping in my presentation due to time of one. of our fire chiefs. so i'm going to talk about the fire department. and so that audit had 31 recommendations, that audit had 31 recommendations and it was

around payroll and it was controls around retirement processes directed toward the fire department, the controller's office payroll tuition and human resources. we have two recommendations that have not been fully implemented and the fire department reports are issues that require a meet and confer with the union to change. so the first recommendation was regarding discontinue the unofficial practice of adjusting accruals for employees and nonsuppression positions, retirement payout amounts should be calculated without special adjustments and then formal guidance should be developed regarding systems such as san francisco retirement system and the department of human resources and the respective unions. >> can i ask a question about the first recommendation? so how was an agreement able to be struck when the ability to actually do this was not

necessarily appropriate? >> i think what we had was a long standing practice potentially in the department. >> but not a legal practice. >> i'm not sure if we had a legal practice, but i have martin graham from the department of human resources who can speak more fully on the process itself. so then our second recommendation was to determine whether vacation accruals for suppression employees should be limited based on proportional days or proportional hours to nonsuppression employees. the department should formally document the limit to ensure consistent practices throughout the department and the department should work with the employees unions to create formal documentation that addresses the agreed-upon vacation accrual limits. so we had issues as it relates to non-suppression and suppression employees and how accruals were being accumulated for vacations. and we wanted them to look at that and our understanding was they still

needed to talk with their unions on that practice. >> so when's the timeline to resolve these issues and close these two cases? >> so i'll have martin come up and talk about it. >> good morning, board members, chair, i am march din graham, employee relations director and i am in the department of human resources. the issue of fire fighter vacation payouts has been a very vehicling issue. the issue stems between what is the issue for a day versus vacation personnel versus miscellaneous employees. for a century or more a day has been considered 12 hours for suppression employees and of course the miscellaneous employees have a day of 8 hours. so the charter provides that you get at max 20 days of

vacation per year based on the length of your service. and that in the fire department had always been 20 12-hour days for miscellaneous 8-hour days, 400 versus 600. that was probably never really captured or caught by central payroll because that was a department function for decades and tech dades and when we went through tiac or giac through the payroll system that's when the hours became visible and raised questions about whether those were the right numbers. the controller's audit suggested the fire department and police department meet with local 798 to determine whether suppression accrual for employees should be limited to non-suppression employees, close quote. in response we met dhr and employee relations met with local 798 and mea and

initiated the discussion about what should those numbers be. union 798 particular was adamant this had been a decades if not more than a century old practice and that taking away the 12 hour day benefit would be a very big deal for their members. those sessions, we had two sessions and they resulted -- did not result in an agreement and to say that they were not fruitful would be an understatement. in 2003, employee relations negotiated with 798 for a successor agreement or contract amendments in those negotiations we asked now for the second time to revisit the vacation hour question. the union again reiterated its position that this had been a long standing practice and one that they did not feel that they could either reach agreement on or expect ratification from their members. they did, however, agree to an economic package which included

lower start rates, as you might recall, it came before this committee several months ago and the package was worth to the city almost $13 million over 5 years. they took the very modest pay increases and gave us lower start rates for the academy recruits. this allowed the board and the mayor to jump start the academy program and you saw in your budget plans for at least one class per year for 4 years plus an extra class in the first year. so those people have been processed, the first class is through and are we are now in our second class so we are very proud that we were able to get that agreement to protect public safety and keep the fire fighter force up. we raised the issue informally with local 798 about 3 months ago, they reiterated their position that the issue was a

sticky one and we are scheduling meet and confer sessions when the ambulance response issues have brought us into dealing with what i think we all agree are pretty urgent issues and we are meeting and conferring with 798 on a number of issues around flexibility for staffing and the issues and so when we are done with the meet and confer issues we will turn our attention back to the vacation hour issue. it continues to be a thorny one, we are looking for win-win situations and it may be time we need to find a time when the contract is open and there are more issues at play but it's a serious issue and it's one we would like to see wrapped up as well, we just cannot move unilaterally on this issue. >> i think my concern is that it's been going on for a few years now. i think it's been at least two years since this

finding was discovered and it's still open and do you have any idea of the timeline of when you expect to resolve it? >> i would expect that we will be finished with the meet and confer that's on-going right now within the next 6, 8, 6 weeks, 8 wex, and then we will be able to schedule further sessions. it may not -- i can't guarantee you an outcome so i can say when the process will take place and we'll set dates for approximately 6 weeks or probably the first week in january, get through the holidays, but that will be the first issue on the agenda for next year. >> okay, for when again, i'm sorry. >> let's see, we're in november, holidays, i'm thinking last week december, first week january. >> of when you think you may come back to us with a resolution? >> no, i'm sorry. to be clear, when we will schedule

further negotiation sections with 798. >> then will we actually conduct these reviewing probably every quarter and so i think that there will probably be a meeting in january or february to get an update, so i'm really hoping that we've made some progress by then. >> okay, i would suggest the second quarter to give us a quarter to do the work, but i get your point. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? okay, continue with your report. >> so as it relates to the police department, the recommendation that's open is to enforce the policy requiring 90 day anticipatory overtime schedules for officers who exceed overtime limits and the department initially attempted to implement the recommendation by enforcing the policy that

they had currently in existence but reports that it found the policy impractical. the department reportedly is implementing a change to its policy to address the underlying issue in a better way. so today i have someone from the police department who will have further discussion on this issue. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> should we just go ahead? >> yes. >> so the police department has been working closely with the controller's office implementing emerge which has corrected a lot of the issues that we had before and we're in the midst of, there's actually a new department order that's drafted and it's going out for concurrence next week to make sure we follow-up on any officers that exceed the

overtime limits. >> so there's a possibility of resolving this before the end of the year? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, so i'd like to give you a quick overview of our follow-up activities over the last two quarters. we conducted 32 follow-ups, had 170 open or contested recommendations over the last two quarters. the following status is based on a department's responsiveness to our follow-up process. (inaudible) open means that there's at least one recommendation that needs to be addressed or it's contested. we have 13 of these follow-ups that remain open. if not all recommendations as i spoke earlier have not closed within the two year period, we give it a lapsed status, yet we still

track that recommendation so we have two that nr a lapsed status and we continue to work with the organization to find a resolution for those recommendations. and then we have closed the quarter these last two quarters 17. yesterday we received a response and the auditor views the response and based on the actions we determine whether those actions will resolve the problem underlying the recommendations. closed again means the department has fully implemented the recommendation or the department has implemented a sufficient alternative to that recommendation or the recommendation is no longer relevant. there are times where policies have changed and procedures have changed that resolve the issue that we have reported. so the departments have closed 110 of the 170

recommendations we followed on, which is 65 percent of the total. and then there are 60 recommendations that remain open so of those, nearly half were only six months old, 43 percent, and only 20 percent were more than two years old. there are summaries of all the close up follow-ups and the quarterly reports of our follow-up activity on the controller's web site and i want to highlight just two of the 17 closed follow-ups today. the audit at recreation and parks operations found those operations to be generally adequate but identified some areas where they needed improvement. the department reports improving its controls over payroll and correcting an error that results in overpayments to four employees. it recovered $3,000 for those employees. also in february of this year, weish shid an audit of the port's concession agreement with portico corporation and as a result of that audit, the

port recovered almost $77,000 in unpaid rent for 2008 through 2012. so now i'd like to discuss a couple of audits with outstanding recommendations. the first is our audit of the recreation and parks tenant agreement with beach chalet. the audit identifid over $50,000 in late fees and interest due to the department and identified some weaknesses in the department's oversight over the lease. recreation and park has collected the money due and is now implementing the remaining recommendations to improve its controls. and then the last report i'd like to highlight is our 2013 audit of sfmta's training and staffing of transit operators. our audit found the department did not have a data driven staffing analysis that took into consideration historical absenteism, attrition and time away from work for training. so sfmta now monitors its

staffing level of transit operators by considering attrition, major trainings and new hiring graduating from training courses. additionally, the department has taken steps to reduce absenteism and long-term leave to make more of the transit operators available for work. the department has also increased its training capacity to fill all open transit operator positions. so the four open recommendations are to further improve training capacity and effectiveness, which they are continuously working on within their department. so that concludes my presentation and the work of our last two quarters from a high level view. >> so i think the only thing that i'm hoping to get is i know that you explained the timeline that usually they are allowed to be two year time period and you continue to work with the departments. it would be helpful for the current departments that have

outstanding recommendations that have not been implemented, it would be helpful to have a timeline of exactly when we can anticipate that these things will be resolved and closed besides the timeline that you already expressed but i know that they might be different for different reasons for specifically i know that there are still a few outstanding with the puc, with the arts commission. the art commission issue seems very minor and the fact that it's outstanding doesn't make a lot of sense to me and i would like to just really have a little bit more thorough understanding of a timeline of when they can be resolved and the majority of these recommendations before though come to us in january or february should not necessarily be on this list. so those are my comments. >> i can do that. >> thank you. >> i will also provide that

information that we have off-line as well so you have that information in advance. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang >> just to build on that, you know, i see the charts that show where the open audit recommendations were. a lot of them would say that completion is expected september or october or july, even, so just to build on what supervisor breed said, it would just be helpful to have that information probably before hand or even off-line just to show what some of these changes were if they were indeed implemented or not. >> i can certainly do that, and i will. >> thank you. >> okay, we're going to open this item up for public comment. are there any member s of the public who would like to speak on this matter? please move forward and you have two minutes. >> for past year when i travel from the station of el cerrito

to that plaza to the city of san francisco for 37 continuation of emission, people focus of san francisco central city hall of two headquarters. >> stir, you have to stick to the issue. >> the bus station after transit in (inaudible) station later train to continue trip to san francisco. i think this means the police have real nice friendship to assist a person like me for high level of

disabilities. also changes to further square area and further possibility of self-expression upon the practice holy teaching. >> thank you. kim castle. >> next item. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is osse monet, i live at 124 turk street and i'm just asking the committee to mraik sure that those timelines are actually being looked at and done on a timely manner. so thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to make comment?

seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, are there any recommendations? >> i'd like to make a motion to continue the hearing to the call of the chair. >> okay, without objection this item is continued to the call of the chair. prrp madam clerk. >> item 2 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to revise the local business enterprise. >> president chiu. >> this would update chapter b of the local business code, otherwise known as the local business code and contracting ordinance. i would like to thank mayor lee for his co-sponsorship i know he is very committed to the goals of our ordinance. i also want to take a moment and appreciate

the extensive involvement of city leaders from truout city government, starting first with our city administrator, naomi kelly, the dozens of departmental staff who have worked on this and of course the local small business community, particularly the coalition for economic equity and the lbe advisory committee. i also want to take a moment and thank idera taylor, our deputy city attorney who has been invaluable in this process of moving forward what has been a complicated piece of legislation. colleagues, today i'm going to make some brief comments and then ask that the legislation be continued to the call of the chair with the intention of hopefully scheduling one more committee meeting on this item while i am still on the board for possible vote november 25. we often say small businesses are the backbone of our economy. small businesses that

employ less than 50 workers comprise 95 percent of all san francisco's businesses. our local small businesses contribute billions of dollars to our economy every year. but we have not often been focused on how our city's contracting dollars which also constitute billions of dollars every year can be used to support our local and small businesses. three decades ago this board of supervisors recognized that local governments passive and sometimes active practice of discrimination no longer had a place in our city and that millions of dollars that our city spends for goods and services could be a powerful tool to invest in helping disadvantaged minority and women owned businesses enter the economic mainstream. that first law represented our city's now long-standing commitment to economic development in this area. chapter 14b has fostered an

active network of small and very small businesses in our city. chapter 14b now helps all small businesses offset their often higher costs of operating and paying taxes in our city. the current law can help level the playing field as small businesses compete against larger businesses that are not often located outside san francisco. when this law works, our city's public contracting practice that favors local business enterprises can help tax dollars at home where they will do the most good for our city. this legislation will help to reform and make the law better. let me just highlight some of the provisions in the legislation. part of what we're trying to do is establish a new overall city participation goal of 40 percent for all contracts. our reform legislation also increases discounts and lbe certification size thresholds for microand small hbe's, it requires the city to make good faith efforts to obtain at

least 3 accounts from microor small lbe's for contracts under a certain size. it establishes a mentor program between successful contractors and lbe's, implements a contractor advance payment practice to fund loans to subcontractors to address what we have often heard from some of our smaller subcontractors, it cleans up modernizes 14b and formalizes the transfer of chapter 14b implementation from the human rights commission to the city administrator. it would keep the limit up which the city would guarantee as part of its surety bond program as $750,000, it keeps the mayor as the official who resolves matters when the awarding authority and the director are unable to agree whether to divide a contract into smaller contracts to maximize the opportunity for lbe's to participate. it

changes 14b.5 on puc regional projects that are 70 miles or more outside san francisco or force the costs to be shared and it corrects a number of drafting issues that we have in the version that we had originally introduced. so, with that, what i'd like to do is ask bill barnes representing our city administrator to make a brief set of introductory comments and then we can move on to public comments. >> good morning, bill barnes on behalf of city administrator kelly. first our thanks to president chiu and his staff working on what's been an extraordinarily complicated piece of legislation. prop 9 does not allow us to use race and gender even though discrimination continues and we're working hard to figure out how to help every local business to participate. we

hope we can get this done before president chiu leaves the board and we are available if any members of the public are interested in discussing issues off-line and look forward in seeing you again in maybe a week. >> sorry, i just wanted to thank bill, naomi kelly and all the staff who have worked hard with us and all the community in moving this forward. >> this item is now open for public comment. you will have two minutes. please come forward. >> good morning, (inaudible) discrimination only exists legally woman team, man team. the sacred creation between woman team/man team. they have differences. also the

(inaudible) nonconformity american government law principal with exception objection so we have to make use of all the team to support the high level of special holy principle of all people and better deal with problems. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors, orren selfstrupl the coalition is an umbrella coalition of numerous trade associations, we were instrumental in passing the first city ordinance back in 1984 and have worked continuously since that time to

strengthen and defend the ordinance. we want to first thank supervisor chiu for his leadership on this issue as well as the hard work that has gone into this ordinance from the city administrator's office and the mayor's office. there is a lot in this legislation that we are very excited about that will really modernize the ordinance and bring it into the 21st century. some of the key items that supervisor chiu mentioned are critical to the small business community, setting the 40 percent overall goal for contracting, something that we have asked for and is in this legislation. mandatory contracting minimums, something that says for any city contract there should be a minimum amount of local business participation, something else that we have been strongly advocating for that is in this legislation that we're very excited about. we do agree that there are some additional work that needs to be done hopefully over the next week. this is a very complex ordinance and even small wording changes can have

a tremendous impact on implementation. so we look forward to working over the next week to hopefully bring it back to the committee for an ordinance that can be passed that we can all be proud of and further small business goals. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is miguel garza with yerba engineering. i spent a lot of time on legislation and wanted to share quickly, thank you again for all the great work in writing the legislation and for the support the mayor on down to all the supervisors and their support. obviously this program is one of the best in the country. having worked in multiple states throughout the united states, there are very few programs that enable small business to participate to the extent that san francisco has allowed their small businesses to thrive in san francisco. there are two or three