going to ask the c.s.a. to do something different. this could be just a communication issue, so if you take the streets perspective, there's a number of e-mail -- there's a number of things that are happening across multiple agencies, and could we tell that story to our citizens in a way that makes sense? i mean, one of the things we've been struggling for months, is our website. how do we say something on our website that really makes sense and adds value to them, that touches their lives. we know there's a lot of things that are touching their lives, and we know that the city is rk woulding on some of our most important issues around homelessness or issues. some of these issues are supported by the bond program. we're building housing because we have a housing problem. so my recommendation would be to think about how do we tell a comprehensive story, even with the dashboard, you're still

requiring the user to make sense of that dashboard. so let's just make it as easy as we possibly can. now, i -- you know, this is an idea, and i would strongly recommend we try it out, see if we can tell a story on a specific issue, not ask them to do anything new or different, but let's look at something more comprehensively and see if we can tell a relevant story. if it's one of those situations related to a bond, then it could be within the -- we could fund it ourselves because we're -- because we are supposedly explaining what the purposes of the bonds are to the city. so i would like to not just explain the purpose of one bond, but how an issue is being dealt with across the city both from a bon perspective, from a services perspective, etc., etc. >> i like that, and i think

that putting a focus on a more robust website is unquestionably a helpful step in that. because if you go onto our website now, you go to the controller, and then, you have to say about us, and then, you go through a list of, i don't know, a half dozen different things that the controller's office does, and you find out that one of them is the goboc, and you click on that and you go to their agenda, but you don't really go to anything about w45d goboc and what is their mission. i think a more robust thing also would include, i hope, an opportunity for public to submit comments so that they can also have input at the beginning point of our process, would be the kind of communications that i would like to see take place. i just wanted to underscore that what i see as our

performance is not just what's happening necessarily with the city agency. for example, mr. carlson and i went and looked at some of the bond issues on housing, and we asked about what was the timetable, and were we meeting the timetable, and it was running, i don't know, six to eight months behind, and it was running behind not because of the city but because of pg&e, that pg&e was not moving on a timetable to get things connected up. so how do we let the public know that while you had an expectation that this was going to be completed at this time, it's not happening, and the reason it's not happening it because the city is not falling down on the job, it's because we have partners who are involved in all of this, and they don't always meet the same timetable that we had hoped for. i just use them as one example. it could have been d.p.w. and getting streets and sewers in an area, and i don't know what

they were. so when you talk about looking at this and what the city is doing, i would just add to go one step beyond the city agencies, but to all of those who are part of us meeting our job. >> let me comment, that's a good point, and specifically to your example about why it was late is really not the city, but you know, another party, pg&e. now for that example, when the housing bond, people make the presentation to discuss what's on time, what's not on time, there are materials that are being presented to this committee, it's posted to our website. so if the concerned citizen has the interest to go to our website to look at that particular housing bond or the type of housing in this matter, they'd be able to read for themselves the progress report as this committee here. so i think that what ms. chu

mentioned in our website, we just had an overhaul, i think it's better organized now, and perhaps what we could work with controller staff is to somewhere teacher some story, but someone's got to write some impactful story that talks not just about the numbers of the bond, but the benefit or lack there of that the voters have voted for. so this could be, like chu said, a matter of communication. so we could, on our website, have an area where we could direct the reader to some success stories or stories of a more human nature, if you will. >> i'm glad to hear that. i support that. one of the things that i keep

coming back to about goboc is that unlike other commissions that i've seen and i've been involved in, this commission represents people from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. you all have different kinds of skills, and you bring those perspectives to the job of looking at what goboc is doing, whether it's construction understanding or it's labor union issues. whatever it is, the goboc is setup by charter to have appointees that come from different perspectives, and i can't think of another commission that does that as completely as goboc does. so when you talk about the review and all this, i hope that that would also include an early opportunity for members of goboc to provide input from their perspective because it's valuable. [inaudible] >> -- to offer it to controller

staff. staff manages our website, you know, any specific ideas that you would like to see in that website. i'm sorry. >> no problem. no problem. i am wondering that this is on the agenda as the c.s.a. work plan and possible action by the committee, and if it requires a motion to approve the c.s.a. work plan as presented, i would make that motion assuming discussion has ended on matters outside of the agendaized item that we are currently on. >> yes, thank you for keeping us proper on the proceeding. >> no problem. >> i'll second the motion. >> i wanted to ask a question. >> all right. >> it's not related to expansion. i think this is for you, peg, tanya, but it's really for you,

forgive me. but on page seven, under city performance, there's the middle column, lien, could you remind me what that means -- pardon me. i know, i'm familiar -- familiar's too strong a word. i'm aware of lien construction management practices. >> it's not an acronym. it means lean and efficient. as we mentioned, our program is -- it's modelled on the original toyota production design theory, slimmed down a lot and made simpler and fit to the purposes of municipal government, but what we're doing is teaching and training people how to analyze business processes and improve them from their own perspective. >> that makes sense. okay.

and one other question. on performance auditing, you look at -- let's see...nonprofit organizations and how that performance. do you also look to see that there's overlap or coordination among the scopes of work for those nonprofit organizations 'cause i know the city spends lots of money particularly with nonprofits on homeless services, but i'm not confident that there isn't that overlap between them or that there is coordination among them. >> the joint monitoring program, part of its design is expressly for that reason. so any nonprofit that has a contract with more than one city department, so walden house, for example, contracts with d.p.h. and homelessness and support hiv housing and among others, they contract with that agency.

so agency staff that work on it, they visit sites together, they pull their document reviews together. this is primarily on financial and compliance issues. program attic monitoring can occur separately, but we're confident that all of the agencies that have a contract with the same c.b.o. are aware of each other's work at minimum. >> i think i heard you say that you're more looking just to see that the nonprofits are conforming to what their scope is, that whatever the grant -- restrictions on the grant are, whatever the provisions on the grant. >> financial and compliant issues across several issues, tax filings, board meetings, public information and transparency, complaint processes, a.d.a., filing budgets, things like that, so anything in the financial and compliance world, so that's one

bucket. programatically, caseload for foster care workers. that's not to say that it's not happening, it's not happening in our program, but the city agencies who monitor c.b.o.'s each have a program compliance effort separately. >> yeah, 'cause you know, i guess in the interest of full disclosure, i'm on the board of a nonprofit as a c.b.o. i'm part of the southeast asian community center, and they recently did have a city audit, but it was just on process. it's not to see that there's another city agency across the street that's doing the same thing. that's really what my concern is. >> well, i would add that the large agencies that do most of the contracts with c.b.o.'s, they have very robust needs assessment processes, so some of them are prescribed in the charter, children's services,

for example, where they have to go on a three year cycle to go out and do a lot of research, demographic analysis, service analysis, look at what's met and unmet in the community and try to fit the next r.f.p. that they issue for c.b.o.'s to respond to what they see in their research. it sort of touches on larry's issue, too. it's not necessarily being done in the controller's office, but any one of the city's major important human service areas, ageing and adult services is like, that services for children is like that, services for the disabled is like that. there are others that i know less about, but i would say that there's very robust research and needs assessment processes under lying those service program designs. >> i hope so, but i think the short answer to my question is that you're more looking at performance, and there's other

peopli people looking at what i was asking about. >> it is a lot of money. when i looked at it from city contractors, a total amount of money going from contractors to city budgets is press close to $1 billion. it's a lot of money. >> a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. >> i've heard that before. >> yeah. >> all right. is there any public comment on this topic? >> good morning. my name is jerry dradler. the c.s.a. operating budget has increased 100% to $19 million.

the f.t.e. count has grown from about 50 f.t.e.'s to 68 f.t.e.'s, a 35% increase. what additional services are the citizens of san francisco receiving from the increased level of funding, and are the services the ones outlined in append appendix f? reporting on the funding by department is no measure of out come of value. you have to look at the input, payroll hours, and look at the output audits. citizens of san francisco deserve this information. why is this psimportant? --

[inaudible] >> -- and capital planning support are not requirements of appendix f. enumerated requirements of appendix f are not being addressed. i'd like to present my requirement of appendix f requirements and whether the . c.s.a. is addressing these? i have been told the annual audit work plan is risk based. this risk analysis had never been presented to cgoboc, and there's no way of determining how the proposed audit plan addresses known risks. i recommend the c.s.a. prepare the recommended input-output analysis and present the analysis at the next cgoboc meeting. thank you.

>> any additional public comment? >> good morning, committee members. i'm dr. derek kerr, a whistle blower. in response to public comments made before this very body several years ago, c.s.a.'s whistle blower program agreed to track and report the out comes of the whistle blower retaliation claims that were investigated by the ethics commission. so far, all of these reports show zero sustained retaliation claims. in fact, the ethics commission has never sustained a whistle blower retaliation claim since it began looking at them in june of 1995. zero in 23 years is far below

the international benchmark that is published by navex global, which i believe was about 10% a year or two ago. even osha's discredited whistle blower program sustains 3% of retaliation claims. but here in san francisco, we are to believe that whistle blower retaliation doesn't occur. the c.s.a. should consider an audit of the ethics commission and how it handles whistle blower retaliation claims and why it just can't sustain any, which is why whistle blowers have to sue the city and go to court and that's where they get

validation at taxpayer expense. thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, can we pass onto the next item on the agenda? >> clerk: item six, presentation from the city service auditor regarding whistle -- >> excuse me. procedurally, do we need to vote to accept the presentation? >> yes. >> no, there's a motion pending to adopt the work plan as presented, so you need to call the motion and vote it. >> that's right. that's correct. >> yes. >> on the motion to approve the c.s.a. -- >> so the motion on the floor it to approve the c.s.a. work plan as presented. all in favor -- >> does that -- are you interpreting that to include the comments that were made by the c.s.a. staff to uses part

of the presentation? >> -- us as part of the presentation. >> the motion is to accept the presentation as presented by c.s.a. >> so you're interpreting that to include their comments about how they will move forward on other aspects. >> yes. that would include their intentions of moving forward as -- as articulated by peg. >> thank you. >> all in favor? [voting] >> motions pass. next item, please. >> clerk: item six, presentation from the city services auditor regarding the whistle blower program and p l possible action to such presentation. >> good morning. chief audit executive for city services auditor. so today, our presentation is actually an update on the whistle blower activities and initiatives through fiscal year

2017-18. we last presented in front of this committee in november , on november 20, 2017, at which time, we reviewed fiscal year 2017-18 activities through quarter one. so in advance of today's presentation, the whistle blower program staff supported regular meetings with cgoboc liaisons. our most recent breeting was with chair brenda kwee mcnulty and larry bush on augularry ba.

thank you for your patience. technology is wonderful, so for the benefit of just doing a quit overview, our first slides will be pretty quick. we'll talk about the whistle blower's program authority, jurisdiction and ensuring a well run city government. so our authority is derived from california government code 53870.6, san francisco charter appendix f-1, 107, and san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code, and california government code 53870.6 empowers a city county auditor and controller to receive information regarding allegations of fraud, waste or abuse by local government employees. our campaign and governmental conduct code --

[inaudible] >> -- to administer a whistle blower program and appendix f requires the auditor to administer the whistle blower program, as well. it requires the program to resolve, investigate and resolve four broad categories of complaints. the misuse of see funds, misconduct by city officers and employees, deficiencies in city services, and wasteful and inefficient government practices. >> as tanya mentioned, there were four very broad categories that we're required to receive, track and when appropriate investigate, however there are some categories or complaints that the whistle blower program is required by law to refer. we'll go over those and try and give you some examples. first is complaints which another city department is

required by federal, state or local law to adjudicate. example of this may include perhaps a complaint about workers compensation that falls under the jurisdiction by law of the department of human resources as do complaints regarding discrimination or harassment based on a protected category. those would be complaints that we would refer because of requirements by local law. next are complaints which may be resolved by a bargaining union or contract. for example, sometimes if we get a complaint about an employee complaining about their schedule or the hours they were assigned, typically, that's something that can be resolved through their bargaining agreement, and we would instruct the employee they need to bring that up through the grievance program established by their union.

complaints that are subject to existing ongoing investigations by the district attorney, city attorney or ethics commission, sometimes complainants file their allegations in multiple issues. we want to ensure that there's no duplication of efforts, that the appropriate city departments are investigating, so when we get confirmation from those departments that they're investigating, we'd refer the matter to their department and close it on our end. and lastly, allegations which involve violations of governmental ethics laws would be referred to the ethics committee and city attorney for appropriate action. programs like the whistle blower program servicemany purposes. most importantly, providing individuals a confidential place where they can report their concerns. whistle blower programs are critical internal control when well implemented by municipalities, allow complaints to be submitted

anonymously, and for similar investigations, stop improve conduct and prevent further violations and reveal all relevant facts so that management can make fully informed decisions on how to best proceed. recapping some of the activities for fiscal year 17-18, we came into the fiscal year with 54 complaints open. we received 466 complaints this past school year, closed 438 of them and began the new fiscal year with 82 complaints open. in terms of our volume, the number of complaints received was a 12% increase in the 415 complaints that we received in fiscal year 16-17. with the complaints that we closed, the majority of them were closed within 90 days. the goal of the whistle blower program is to close 80% of our complaints within 90 days. complaint volume has increased year over year since fiscal

year 12-13. whistle blower complaint volume cannot be attributed to one single factor, one single factor that can kpluns number of complaints received is outreach campaigns. complainants also have the option of filing their complaints on-line, which is our most popular way of receiving complaints, but they can send in e-mails, 311, fax or letters, as well. multiple intake channels ensure that the program is readily accessible to complainants and in a manner in which they are comfortable. the majority of the complaints that we receive are anonymous at the whistle blower program takes anonymous complaints very seriously. manage the high number of sustained reports that we've so received, we have a multidisciplinary team to process the broad range of allegations that we receive.

so with the increased number of complaints not only this year but in the past couple years as well, we're starting to analyze the volume and the trends within the disposition of closed complaints. year over year from fiscal year 16 to 17, the actual number of complaints that were closed or investigated before they were closed decreased to 11%, and note objectly, the number of complaints to our jurisdiction increased 8%. i don't think when looking at perhaps why some of these are occurring, it has to do with the accessibility and the availability of the whistle blower program being put out to city employees and making them aware of the program and i think that can account for some of the increase in complaints that we refer to other departments. we receive these complaints and we're serving as a central point of intake and that's not a bad thing, i don't think as it allows us to identify

systemic issues and risk trends throughout the city. in our quarterly reports, we've begun publishing statistics on the number of complaints investigated and closed by departments with more than 200 employees. some factors i think that can influence the number of investigations of a department include the size and scope of their operation. in terms of ageing of closed complaints, whistle blower knows it's important that employees complaints are heard and resolved in a timely manner. we understand that if that does not happen, complainants may think that their complaints are not taken seriously. fiscal year 17-18, we closed 374 of our 438 complaints for

85% in 90 days or less. there are several factors that can influence the length of an investigation beyond 90 days, including the number of allegations in the complaint, the number the witnesses and subjects involved in the complaint, the need to coordinator efforts between multiple departments and the time it takes to gather evidence and documentation from multiple sources. going into the new fiscal year, as i mentioned, there were 82 complaints open june 30, 2018. the majority of these complaints, 71%, have been open for less than 90 days. >> i guess the wonderful opportunity to talk about steve a little bit in public. and in february 2018, steven and the program were recognized by the california society of municipal finance officers for the whistle blower's program's outreach and education effort

and awarded the whistle blower program with the 2018 innovation program award. and there was an article actually published that you can also look at at csfmo's website, so we're really proud of that accomplishment. as it relates to the various initiatives, we have four bulletins that we issued in 2017-18 and we really believe that to have a high substantiation rate to be achieved, we need to have well informed reporters so that they make high quality reports that can be effectively investigated. it's very difficult to investigate claims when the information is really sporadic, and sometimes, even when we reach back out to the complainant, we don't always get a response. and so when we have enough

information, we're able to really work the complaint, and so that's really important in our program. we want to ensure that we give every complaint the attention deserved, and we want to work those complainants. so this initiative as it relates to putting out these bulletins has helped our complaintants to give full disclosure of what they believe has occurred. also, the whistle blower program uses a code source investigation model to resolve reports, and whistle blower program staff believed certain investigations whereas others may be referred to a city department involved in the allegation or with jurisdictional oversight for investigation and response. so coordinating with other departments, using their expertise, leverage -- and leveraging resources at other departments also ensures that

allegations are resolved in a timely manner. and so management must report to the whistle blower program on any action taken in response to the report. so just like in our audit process, we have a follow up process and a response process with the whistle blower program. they have 60 days to respond to us once they have received a complaint. we follow up. i will assure you that even after receiving that information, we just go over the investigation with a fine toothed comb. we ensure that the facts are appropriate, the evidence is appropriate, and if we have any questions, we do follow up. and there have been times that we have launched an additional investigation on the work already performed. so we really are careful about the work performed not only within our own group but as well as with the investigators

at the department. so the whistle blower program has also focused on investigation excellence by collaborating with and disseminating hotline and investigation best practices to jurisdictions throughout north america. so we have hosted our fraud webinars, and we had four this past year, and we will have additional webinars in this current fiscal year. if you're interested, let us know, and we'll add you onto our list. we do record those webinars, so if you can't sit in while it's live, you have an opportunity to review after the webinar has actually occurred. and that will be it today. thank you. >> just one quick question. are any of the c.s.a. staff certified fraud examiners

currently? >> yes, they all are. >> okay. great. >> going back, tanya, to slide eight, disposition of closed complaints, the number in the second and third rows refer to department with charter jurisdiction and merged with another complaint for fiscal year 16-17, that totalled 25%, and then, it's up for fiscal 17 dr 18 17-18 it's up to 31%. in those cases, you have found something that there should be further investigation. is that not right? >> no. >> oh, so generally, with the first category you referred to a department with charter jurisdiction, the complaint has

come into us, upon review of the allegations and information provided, we realize that the complaint needs to be investigated by another city department they have jurisdiction over the matter. so we'd inform the complainant of that being the case, and we'd work with the complainant to have the issue addressed by the other department or refer the complaint to the other department for investigation. >> for example, it might need to go to the district attorney. it might need to go to the department of human resources. >> okay. all right. so it would be someone other than, what is it, the fox guarding the hen house kind of thing, where the d.a.'s office is independent, so if there were a complaint about community, and you decided that it should go to the d.a., the d.a. would have jurisdiction. not that you've given up or made any finding one way or another, just that this is their purview, and merge with

another complaint is similar. >> so with those complaints, it's not uncommon or not unheard of, whistle blower program to receive multiple complaints about the same incident. perhaps multiple people witnessed it, multiple people then decided to file a complaint. the allegations are the same, the subject of the complaint is the same. we wouldn't investigate the complaint separately, we would merge them into one complaint and investigate it at the same time. >> so -- but the rest of these things, like outside of jurisdiction -- though investigated and closed, does that -- does that give me any indication of whether there was wrongdoing or is it just meaning we looked at it and this is our conclusion, yea or nay. >> in and of itself, investigated and closed would be represent whether the allegations were substantiated or they result in a violation of city rules.

broadly said, allegations were present today us, we did look into -- presented to us, we did look into them and investigated to take appropriate action. >> so i wouldn't infer results from this, just that you looked at it, and you're done. >> right. so if you go to our quarterly report, you'll have -- they're more broken-down as it relates to we will report on some of the allegations that were sustained. >> okay. that's all. >> i have a question. >> please. >> if i might. a member of the public earlier in this morning's meeting suggested that authority of jurisdiction for claims or assertions of retaliation land under the ethics commission, and since they have had authority of jurisdictions on those assertions, that they

have had findings of zero -- zero findings of retaliatory actions based on a whistle blower complaint. and a member of the public suggested that well, maybe that should be audited. so my question is, in my mind, if they have no findings, they have no findings. i mean, zero is zero. that -- the question is, then, well, was it appropriate or not, and their findings are their findings, whether like any -- any overview board, what their findings are are their findings. if you want to challenge that person, then challenge them in court. i don't know what more an audit

would produce other than a finding of zero or five or whatever it happens to be, and i'm wondering if you see any benefit beyond that as far as that would warrant an audit. the audit -- the ethics commission's findings, the merit of their findings, i don't know how you do that. >> well from our perspective, if i just apply the audit standards as it relates to independent, from an independent perspective as an auditor who has a relationship with this agency in terms of whistle blower program and they're the fire wall -- we have the fire wall, they handle retaliation, in order to maintain that fire wall, that independence, it would not be advisable that i, the city service auditor, would audit the ethics investigation program because i already have

a fire wall where they're responsible to look into the retaliation claims, and i'm the receiver of complaints from a whistle blower. so in order to maintain that independence, if someone should determine that an audit needs to take place, it needs to take place outside of the controller's wall. >> i understand. >> to maintain the independence of the whistle blower program. >> i understand. thank you. >> i am the rep on this committee assigned to this program, so i'd just like to say a few words. while i meet regularly with the program manager, and we met recently, at these meetings, with you go -- we go through the statistics that this committee sees. questions are asked, and i have been overseeing this program

for the last couple of years. first of all, i continue, based on these discussions and the data and reports that i have read, i continue to be -- have great confidence that the actual process of the investigation is very sound. and you have heard, in addition to that, the follow up and the type of regularity that the whistle blower staff conducts just to make sure that if we do refer complaints to other departments, there is regular follow up to that department to make sure that the investigative process is continued. the other area of follow up is also their recommendations to, in a certain case, where they recommend some action be taken. they also take some time to follow up to that department to make sure that those

recommendations are indeed carried out. so i continue to have high confidence that this -- the process of investigating these claims are carried out efficiently and in a very timely manner. you can see the statistics for yourself. the other thing i do commend the innovation and professionalism of the whole staff, in particular, the manager, steve. he has initiated both the internal training program which is necessary because as tanya says, the more informed city employees are, the better equality of the actual complaints. and the second initiative that steve has started is this -- is the webinar program. i have attended most of these programs, and they are very --

they're very instructive. and what he has done is to really source different types of professionalism in the city so that his staff and other people could be shared. so i think that the combination of an internal and internal areas of increased training has -- has really raised the level of professionalism and competence his group has achieved, so i commend both of them. and steve, the other thing i would like you to share with -- with the committee is -- and it's a question we've asked you before, is a lot of times, the ageing -- in that chart where you have the ageing there, there are a couple of, one or two cases, that have extended beyond i guess a year or close to a year, can you just explain

to the rest of this committee why there are some cases that take so long to investigate and close. >> yeah. speak in general to some of factors. sometimes it has to do with the availability of the city employee. sometimes the employee is out on leave for a long period of time. that can be one factor. the other factor might have to do with the number of complaints. sometimes the allegations run from everything to poor customer service to financial mismanagement or poor operations. going through that and making sure that each of the allegations is addressed can sometimes take a deal of time. sometimes the complexity of the allegations mentioned, it -- sometimes, it's a complaint that we cannot refer over to a

department. it just would not be appropriate organizationally for them to look back and report to us, so in that case, we have to build up our expertise of the department, maybe look at the contract and the contract provisions mentioned in the agreement or grant agreement, that can add to an investigation as well. sometimes, i think as tony mentioned, we reach out to a complainant, they indicate they have evidence, and we make efforts and arrangements to try and obtain that evidence, but it's just -- stuff comes up, it's not always brought forth as fast as we'd like, but we keep pursuing that and those avenues. >> and also, sometimes, the complaint, we've done the work, and it's ready to go, and then, there's a whole nother process on the department's side eventually at the city attorney's side, just policies and procedures that must be

followed before it can be completely closed out. so there are a gamut of thing that hold up a complaint, but be assured we pay close attention and we're moving as fast as possible, but we also work within a structure that afford certain rights to all employees, as well. >> thank you. any comments from -- >> i'd like to say something. i accepted brenda's invitation to sit in on the last briefing on the whistle blower program, and i have a couple of observations from all of that. first of all, i think there's no question that the outreach that you've done has resulted in an increased number of complaints coming in. i think that that's exactly what needed to happen. what we've seen happen with some other agencies, and it's a good thing because of two things. people need to know if there's something going on that's wrong, and secondly, we need the public to believe that

filing a complaint matters and gets some sort of a result. so it improves public confidence. when talking in the briefing that they provided, we discussed that there are other complaints that don't come to the whistle blower. as you said, there are things that get referred on. so in some cases if it's a workplace issue, it goes to d.h.r. in some cases, if it's a sex harassment case, it can go to the department of the status of woman. it can go to the department of human rights. i always sound like i was there in the garden of eden with adam and eve, but i was there when they created the whistle blower program, and it started off as part of the mayor's office. when the ethics commission was created, it was moved to ethics. and ed harrington asked that it be transferred over to the

controller's office at the time they did prop f, so that became a split thing, where they would say well, we'll keep retaliation with ethics and keep the investigations with the controller because the controller does do investigations. meanwhile, if it was a workplace issue, it was going to go to d.h.r., and if it was a criminal issue, it could go to the district attorney. mr. hughes asked about the investigations at ethics on retaliation, none of them had been found. it did not necessarily mean that nothing happened, it was most often that ethics determined that it had no jurisdiction. so for example, complaints were coming in about wrongdoing in city bond measures where there was a contractor, and the contractor would file a complaint, but they were being told something, and ethics would say we have no jurisdiction, and so it would be dismissed. and so what -- if you were doing an audit, you would not

necessarily look at did they fail to find something, but rather, the question is, did they have the jurisdiction and what needs to be done to make sure that the jurisdiction exists? i asked d.h.r., which is supposed to provide regular reports on the complaints that they get on workplace problems, and i got back somewhere between 50 and 100 findings, most of which involved settlements for city workers. it was very impressive that all of these complaints are going on, and we don't even know about them. i mean, not at goboc, but just in general, i've never even seen a number article about it. all of this led me to think it would be a good idea at this point to ask for an outside audit of how our whole system works of ensuring that people are protected, if they file a complaint if something's wrong, and the complaints are followed through in the right places.

because you have these different pieces that were not created intentionally to be different, but because somebody fell down over here, and somebody fell down over there, and so it all got split off for one reason or another. and i say that now because a few years ago, the civil grand jury, i am the appointee here from the civil grand jury found that the ethics -- the whistle blower program needed to be revamped, and they sent that to the ethics commission, and the chair of the ethics commission asked me to work would them on drafting a response, which -- work with them on drafting a response. in two years, there has never been a single hearing mostly because different city agencies whether it's d.h.r. or controller or ethics or somebody else have been having discussions behind close doors, what the issues are that are being flushed out.

so my believe is that it's time for us to use our funding to have an outside audit of the whole universe of how all of this is working, and is it accomplishing its purpose? so i'm putting that out on the table. i had a message, i wrote about that to go to each of us. by the way, i did send stuff to everybody on the goboc. it's my understanding i can do that as long as i'm willing for that to become a public document. it doesn't become a question of a public meeting unless people are actually asked to come to a meeting. but just providing this only means that it falls under the public records act rather than the open meetings act, and i think that those issues got conflated. but here's an example of something that took place at hunters point a number of years

ago, 18 years ago, in fact, about retaliation against a contractor over reporting toxic and cleanup problems at hunters point. the contractor had their contract pulled, and after that time, nothing was done. we are living with the consequences of these things, and it's going to be millions of dollars and possibly some health risks to people. so these issues linger from one year to the next if they don't get addressed. it is a significant and serious concern, so i'm just putting that out not as a motion at this point, but to say that i would like a proposal to be made from c.s.a. at the next meeting about how you would design an omnibus high level

audit to be done by an outside group that as you said, you want a fire wall between your work and the work with some of the others to see where things stand and where they need to go. >> any other comment on that? for the benefit of the committee, i think mr. bush, over the weekend, circulated an e-mail relating to a topic, and i had requested that the members not respond to mr. bush's e-mail because we had been told by the city attorney's office that an e-mail being circulated to all members may be deemed to be a public meeting of sorts.

so can i please request the city attorney's office to comment on that and to train us as to what we should or should not be doing if one member is circulating an entire e-mail soliciting discussion on a topic to all members. >> this is mark blake, deputy city attorney. i think that the issue really is just kind of more of a process of it. it's okay for members to circulate commentary as long as it goes through your work or your secretary, and that that document be made available at your next meeting and it's a source of discussion at the meeting, but there should not be back and forth between the committee members about that item prior to the meeting. i think a direct communication in some ways promotes kind of a back and forth versus a i'm circulating this document,

giving it to the city attorney to be distributed to you or at the next meeting. i think the question is if there is a circulation, and i'd like support on this item, somebody contacts you and then they contact another person in support, that can be deemed a serial meeting. i think it's a question of just process, and a direct communication lends itself to a potential violation of the background ac background -- brown act. i think that's the admonition of the city attorney. >> it was my understanding that this had something to do with a liaison problem, to. the magic number's four. three people can talk to each other, and we do, but the minute you add a fourth person to that e-mail chain, you've got an issue. >> but i think developing a consensus outside of the public meeting, and that's the concern. >> yes. >> so discussions amongst members about agenda items

prior to the meeting, i think, are problematic. >> yeah. no, i know, but at some point, we just need to get -- we have to be able to have some type of conversation, so i've always been using the rule of thumb of four. >> no, it's not a -- i don't think it's a quorum issue as much as a communication that members can't circulate documents amongst themselves and communicate behind the scenes on those documents and be safe if only that communication is limited to less than a quorum. >> i think that what's happening is to some extent there's a conflags between the public records rule and an open meeting rule. a public records is something as you're saying, something that went to everybody and appropriately through the clerk of the group is a public record that can be available to anybody. it doesn't then trigger into a

meeting unless, as you also indicated, there is a request for feedback and comment and the decision based or at least commentary on what was in the -- in the e-mail. and in the case of what i just sent, i did not ask for any feedback until the meeting took place. i said i would -- you know, i look forward to your comments at the meeting. so i was doing what i thought was due diligence to ensure that all i was doing was putting something out that could be a public record but would not cross into a public meeting. >> thank you for clarifying your intention. i think for the benefit of all members in fact future, if you do wish to do what mr. bush did, i think it would be best to send that piece of document or your ideas to the secretary

of this group, so that she can make sure that that piece of information is made available to other members. >> can i add, you know, city attorney's office will follow up with this committee on permissible communications. it's an area of concern, ambiguity, so let's see if we can't get you some training back on that specific point, so at your next meeting, if you'll allow, we'll follow up on that. >> okay. any public comment to the presentation? >> i have handout, please.

good morning. my name is jerry dradler and i've been working to reduce the reduction of unpermitted housing demolition in san francisco. i've filed two whistle blower complaints on the failure of the department of building inspection to enforce demolition without permit. in both instances, the department of building inspection issued demolition permit after the property owner removed the building, so it's clear the building removal met

the building code criteria for a demolition without a permit. d.b.i. failed to enforce the penalty enumerated in the section 1038.3. if the penalty on the n.o.v. was consistent with the building code requirement, a very basic compliance audit. one of my complaints was referred to the city attorney, and the second complaint, 655 alvarado was closed. when i sent an e-mail inquiring on the status of 655 alvarado, the response i received, and this is a quote, appropriate action was taken and the whistle blower program now considers your complaint closed. the answer is incompetent consistent with the mission of the city services auditor, which is to promote transparency and accountability in city government. notat