>> 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. not satisfied with the answer, i exchanged four sunshine request e-mails with the city services audit i don't remember, i have my last -- auditor. you have my last two e-mails and the response, when you read the e-mails, you will find several administrative weaknesses in the administration of the whistle blower. i recommend cgoboc retain an outside firm to conduct a complete review of the san francisco whistle blower program.

i will review a few of the weeknesses. the whistle blower program outsources some of the complaint investigations to the department where the violation occurred. the whistle blower program policy and procedure manual does not identify the circumstances where it is appropriate and inappropriate to outsource the whistle blower complaint. also, the manual does not address the over sight required by the c.s.a. for outsourced complaints. two, when i tried to inquire about the status of 655 alvarado, i was told i was not entitled to receive an answer on the investigation findings. the excuse was that san francisco code and the state code which deal with protecting the investigation materials and identity of the person who filed the complaint. the state code, however, allows for releasing findings that service the interest of the public. the public deserves to know why d.b.i. is not enforcing a

section of the code they are sworn to enforce. you have the rest of my comments. thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> yes, dr. derek kerr again, a whistle blower. the whistle blower program labors under a moral hazard. it's part of the city family and therefore not independent. great care is taken not to ruffle departmental feathers. complaints are shared with the city attorney, who defends accused city officials against whistle blower claims that land in court, an obvious conflict of interest. too often, goboc liaisons to the program are cheerleaders who do not represent the public and conduct little critical

review. they absorb passive information without looking behind it. they have not looked into the rate of complainant interviews by program investigators or why that rate of interview is not disclosed. none have examined whether referring complaints back to the kpuzed departments enables cover ups oregon jeopardizes whistle blowers. they haven't investigated why some complaints take over six months to investigate. we don't know why political interference, stone walling or r is why it happens. all we're told is complexity is why long delays occur. my december 2016 complaint

about the human services agency took 18 months to investigate. all i was told was that the case is closed, appropriate action taken. what does that mean? in sum, i agree with mr. dradler that this program is too secretive and it's too city hall centric to adequately serve the public interest and whistle blowers. as for the citizens audit review board, why not recommend an audit of the ethics commission, and why it has never sustained a claim. and we can't just accept the findings. we could say many city agencies and even the u.s. navy made

findings that hunters point was perfektly safe, but when you listen to whistle blowers, look under the surface, you find that's not true. that's why we need to probe and look under the surface. thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, let's go to the next item. >> item seven, presentation from public korworks regardinge 2008 and 2016 work bond and possible commediscussion by th committee on such presentation. >> good morning, madam chair, members of the cgoboc committee, joe chen, public works program manager. i'm here this morning to provide an update on the public health and safety bond program

2016. i'm also joined by other members of the public works project management team and finance team members as well as client representative to support -- in support of the program as well as to help answer any questions that i cannot answer myself or other specific projects. so quickly, want to give just a quick recap of the overall bond program. it's a 350 million bond program, approved by voters in june 2016 that provides funding for three client departments. it includes 272 million for d.p.h., department of public health, 58 million for the fire department as well as 250 million for the department of homelessness and supportive housing. moving onto the executive summary, one of the -- i want to spend a few minutes to just talk a high level about some of our accomplishments and

upcoming milestones. on the zuckerberg building five component, we've completed one -- one of our core projects. is the urgent care relocation project. as well we've launched three additional projects in construction. we've also evolved the 19 core projects, we've also -- are in various phases of the project life cycle, whether it's in design, construction, or in planning, so we've also initiated seven new projects that are in initial phases of design or in programming, and once we complete that, we can move into design quickly. on the community health center, we have maxine hall that we've also finished design and also moving into construction, wholly targeting the early part -- first quarter of 2019. and on the ambulance components

facility, we've also completed the design and permitting, and pernow moving into -- and we are now moving into fitting with construction starting in october 2019. and with the homelessness service site component, we've also made headway on 440 turk street, we awarded a design build contract with fisher development which will allow us to fast track the design construction with construction starting toward the end of the year and finishing up next summer of 2019. and then, just quickly, on bond sale and appropriation, we have completed two bond sales to date for this bond program. the first bond sale was completed in march of 2017 for 174.1 million, which provides funding for all six components. in june of 2018, we completed

our second bond sale, which fully funds now the a.d.f. as well as the homeless service side components. and now moving onto the next slide, i wanted to spend a few minutes to just focus on each component. this is a slide, page number four, to look at the -- so first up would be the zuckerberg general hospital building five component. in terms of the overall expenditures and encumbrances, there is an uptick since our last presentation. it's primarily driven by the award of two construction contracts total 16.1 million. -- totaling 16.1 million. and then, another accomplishment we've also

received plan approval for the seismic upgrade project. this is one of our flagship or key projects on the 19 core projects. this is upgrading, doing a seismic retrofit of building five, which in my opinion could be one of the most challenging of the 19 core projects. it involves going into 206 rooms within the building and surgically doing seismic retrofits while the building is occupied. so that's going to be a tough challenge moving forward. one reason that we've taking the -- a two phase approach on this project, we are launching our phase one, which is focused on the south side of the building and some of the interior columns so that we can then vet out some of the

restrictive infection control requirements as well as some of the noise impacts or potential noise impacts and then coming up with the most -- coming up with mitigation measures so we can address that before we do the full project. so the start date of our phase one is targeted for -- in the next -- within the next two months, before the fourth quarter of 2018. okay. moving onto the southeast health center component, this is a -- one of the heaviest used health center facility within the d.p.h. network. it's located at 3rd street, off of 3rd street and keefe. we've completed our civic design review phase one back in

january . we are targeting our phase two review later part of this month. and then, in terms of design, we've also completed our -- our schematic design earlier in the year, and moving toward a design development, and then looking at construction to start probably the third quarter of 2019. then, on the other community health centers, we're focused on maxine hall health center as well as the castro mission. maxine hall is located in the western addition district and then we also have castro mission which is also in the castro district. maxine hall is -- has already completed design. we're in the d.b.i. plan review, and we also anticipate starting construction first quarter 2019. there is one potential risk

impact. we're working closely with d.p.h. and staff to identify some possible location to see relocate the clinical and administrative staff been -- within the building. there's been a lot of concern about staff from noise, impact, so that's one thing we're working closely with staff and their public relations person to really flush that out at this point. castro mission is not too far behind. we are anticipating finishing design by the end of the year and probably starting construction in the second quarter of 2019. on the ambulance deployment facility, this is one of the fire department projects, we have completed our design permitting, as i mentioned earlier. bidding started in june. we actually received bids last week. we did get two bidst