it. this program part of money that might be able to fit into those needs. so, i don't want to sort of assume that we know all the projects. i'm going into that to better understand, as i sort of mentioned, our need always out lasts the resources that we need to do, and prioritization of this asset, of this need is something that we will need the community to help us do. >> and i guess the ultimate goal with your new asset tracking program that you described, eventually wouldn't it be nice if there should be fewer and fewer community findings that take you by surprise.

you're on it because that's the beauty of this new system. i wish you the best of luck ruling that out. i hope that eventually the difference in what the community identifies and what you knew about should get smaller overnight. >> absolutely. >> that's the idea. >> yes. >> thank you. >> any other comments? thank you. any public comments? seeing none. no public comment, we will move on to item number 5. presentation from the city service auditor regarding the whistleblower program. these on report of the whistleblower and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation and report. >> good morning chair chu, members of the committee, acting director of audits, civil city's

auditor. i'm here with -- that oversees the whistleblower program. in 2019, we provided you with the status of our fy-18. we're here to give you the full fiscal year update on our whistleblower activities, efforts, and initiatives. we want to thank the liaison for our whistleblower program, chivan and peter, to give them an update on our program and give them an overview of the different processes we have. just very quickly, for those who are new to the committee, we just want to give you a highlight of the different authori authorities overseeing our whistleblower program. there are three primary sources of our authority. the first being the california government code,

section 53087.6, which provides for the auditor controller of the jurisdiction to investigate fraud waste abuse of any government employees. the second source of our authority is our local san francisco charter, appendix f, which designates our city controller, the city service auditor to administer our whistleblower program and investigate misuse, waste, inefficient and improper usage of our resources and activities. the third source of authority is our san francisco campaign and government code, article iv. that basically directs the controller to administer the whistleblower program for the citizens, an employees of the city to report any situations of

m misuse and improper use of our resources. steve will talk more about the recent changes to that san francisco campaign and government code, conduct code to see how we have revised some of our program elements. steve will go through our program activities. >> so apendix f include it is misuse of city funds, improper activities by city officers and employees, inefficiencies in government services, and wasteful government practices. there are also some specific matters that the whistleblower program does not investigate and when we get those, these types of complaints, we refer them. it including a complaint to adjudicate, complaints that may

be resolved through a grievance, bargaining contract, allegations which may involve violations of criminal law, investigations that are subject to already investigations being performed by the city attorney, district attorney, or ethics commission and those allegations of varieti varieti varieti varietial -- environmental ethics law. we have the reports received since july 1, 2012. the whistleblower program received 502 new reports, an increase from the previous fiscal year. they received more complaints each fiscal year since 2013. there are several factors that can influence the number of reports received. we can't attribute the program to any one factor. it includes how the whistleblower program is advertised or organizational

culture. the high volume could mean that it's working as planned or there's a greater awareness of the program, or that the department management is setting the proper term in reinforcing mechanisms, which include the whistleblower program. so here's when our report volume trended downward. we found that san francisco's program receives more complaints per capita then other jurisdictions. we also compared our volume against industry benchmarking reports. just another look at our complaint volume in fiscal year 2018-2019. we received 502 new reports throughout the course of the year, we closed 493. if just a look at how people

file reports. the majority of the reports we receive is through our online intake form. regardless of what reporting channel is used, each report is assigned a unique tracking number and is systemically reviewed so it can be resolved as efficiently and effectively as possible. the whistleblower program closed 406 of the 493% within 90 days of receipt, achieving the goal of closing 80% of all programs received within 90 days. they recognize that if reports are not resolved in a timely manner, they may report that

their reports are not taken seriously. the number of allegations made in each report and the availability of corroborating witnesses and evidence. of the 493 reports that we closed, nearly half reached closure after the an invest. it includes any research and investigation to determine if a full investigation is warranted or possible. some may be referred to a city department involved in the allegation for investigation and response. we coordinate with these other departments and that uses their department expertise and leverages all resources to make sure the allegations are resolved in a timely manner. management must respond to the whistleblower program on any action taken in response and these responses are reviewed by the whistleblower program before the case is considered closed.

this chart summarizes the disposition of closed complaints, dating back to fiscal year 15-16. however, having the whistleblower program is a city's central point for report intakes ensures risk trends are identified so the city management can address it. of the 256 investigations we closed in fiscal year 18-19, 103 resulted in the department taking corrective or preventative action. they believe it's when reporters make high quality reports that are investigated. they work to educate employees and members of the public by publishing bulletins to make individuals aware of red flags

associated with fraud. in fiscal year 18-19, there was materials on supply chain fraud and overtime abuse. of the 91 reports that were open on june 30th, the majority were 90 days old or less at that time. the whistleblower program examines factors that delay work closure and work to address these issues. whistleblower programs are making sure that investigations are standardized and increase the skill sets of these employees to make sure they have an understanding of the responsibilities entrusted to them to carry out the whistleblower investigations. so one of our big initiatives in fiscal year 19-20 is addressing

the new requirements in the conduct code. in january 2019, changes to the conduct code went into effect. these changes place responsibilities on city supervisors to assist employees in filing retaliation claims. also whistleblower protections were expanded to city contractors and employees of city contractors. as part of our fiscal year 19-20 work, we're collaborating with the ethics commission, and our new hire training videos to reflect change mandates in preparation for a potential increase in whistleblower program reported volume, we're cross training other auditors in the shop on whistleblower processes to address any complaints that result from these new outreach materials. just some other initiatives we

have going on this fiscal year, our quarter 1, 2019 report is in progress. we're reviewing the template to make sure the language in there is consistent with the new requirements of the government conduct code and we're looking for ways to distinguish, to get a better sense of how much of the report volume is driven by the new outreach to city contractors. we host a fraud hotline and investigation webinar series. this is done for the past few years. it will continue with two webinars. the first will take place on november 6th. these webinars have been well attended and regarded by other jurisdictions throughout the united states and we're engaging in other initiatives to make sure we have a best in class program, prioritizing a website redesign. the controllers office plans to engage a web designer and

builder in the next few months and have a redesign at the end of this fiscal year, beginning the next fiscal year. it would to improve user experience and update a whistleblower language. we are incorporating practices into the program. so far, this fiscal year, wee have been invited to speak at two conferences regarding fraud hotlines and investigatiinvesti >> thank you. liaison report. >> yes, i've been working with peter mills jointly with the whistleblower program. since our last committee meeting, peter and i have had a few meetings with mark, steve, and dave. we met twice and we plan to meet on an ongoing regular basis.

we will be attending the november 6th webinar that steve just mentioned about credibility and objectivity. we reviewed quarterly program reports. we've been through the reporting process from the side of the reporters, which brought us to website functionality and design and usability. we reviewed some actual whistleblower reports redacted, which brought us to the post reporting survey where we reviewed all responses. the rate of survey responses is quite low, probably to be expected for that kind of thing. staff have identified a few themes and addressed those concerns by promoting awareness, communication, education and various other things to promote confidence in the program. peter and i have some things

that we'll be doing in the coming months like meeting with civil service, h.r. staff, possibly ethics commission, but our main focus going forward is to pick up where brenda left off. she had suggested engaging an external expert to review the process and staffing and go through the program. so we're working to identify an r.f.q. and budget for that going forward. >> do you feel after your investigation that, that is really necessary? do you agree with the review now that you started to become familiar with the whistleblower program and dug into a lot of the details. do you agree that's still required? >> yeah, i think it's important. brenda did too. she pushed for it for a long

time and peter and i feel it will be well served to do something like that and go through the processes and manuals. >> just to bring you up to date on that subject, so any comment that you all have now, having heard mark and steve's presentation and chivon's liaison report will help us when we determine what neck niche we will use for this review. two things have come up. there are is a tradition in professional practices you're aware in the audit profession of pier reviews where every three years, an audit organization has a review done to review their practices and quality of work and gets a finding from three peer reviewers, is that correct? they make site visits and look

at those things. we're exploring whether or not that may be an option for the whistleblower program. there are some guide lionelilind by from g.a.o. and we're looking at whether a peer review program is possible. if it's not and there is the options of using one of the providers in our pre-qualified pool that we hire to do other audit activities, and the scope of work could range from -- again, it should focus on your interest and any concerns you have. if there are comments now, i would benefit from that. we would try to take those comments and concerns and then put it out to our pool and try to have an attest station engagement from those providers that would fit your interest. any feedback you can give us would be helpful.

>> i have a couple of questions. i didn't catch -- you said primarily this is on your slide. page 11. percentage of investigative reports. you listed primarily four areas where -- that were topics of the subject of the report. >> yes, so -- >> what were they? i didn't catch them all. >> sure, we had a bulletin series the past couple of years, and the bulletins were on construction materials fraud, supply chain fraud, overtime abuse. >> thank you, and my other question was on slide 5, the number of reports received since july 1st, 2012, with the ascending line. i guess you mentioned report, well, it may be due to this or that, and that.

but let's figure out what they're due to, and not may. is the program more publicized now than it was four years ago? are managers doing a better job pushing information out to their employees? are there more city employees, so there will be more whistleblower complaints. i mean that's what struck me in 18-19. we seen that line going up. we may have more people working for the city. i think that would be helpful to what may be the cause, and let's figure out what is the cause. then maybe we can get the line to go down. >> and i think that was my comment also, that for this external body of work, i think that if we can figure out what a methodology is for determining or evaluating whether there's more chaos in our environment, because i think you did give a couple examples of it's better

communicated and things like that. that's one theory, right? let's figure out, where do we figure out whether our government is made to say more corrupt or have more problems than in the past and when is it that we're doing a better job in the whistleblower program. particularly, for this fiscal year, a number of initiatives is about getting the word out even more. again, i want to make sure we don't just complacently say people know about it more so we got more. i think the goal of this program is to take a pulse of our government, so let's use it that way. >> if i may, we talked about this during our liaison meeting and i think we identified some reasons why beyond communication and good faith and the program, there's been more reports. i think you guys have a good grip on there may be some

instances and one thing happening, and self -- several reports coming from one situation or people feeling more comfortable to make a report if something has changed in a department. there are some logic to why reporting has gone up. i think that confidence in the program has gone up. we talked about that and communication and continually outreaching to the h.r. heads has probably been a big reason of that. >> and that's a good point. if one incident may generate 10 complaints, where usually it's 1 complaint, that would skew the numbers too. it may be interesting. >> right. >> i have a couple questions. as a fraud examiner, i'm excited to see a lot of the stuff. i just -- i know that numbers aren't an absolute measure and i didn't necessarily see in fiscal

year, we detected or prevented x dollars of occupational fraud. we estimate. do you keep track of that? >> we try to quantify our results whenever possible, just given the nature of some of the instances. it's not always possible. some of them involve workplace disputes or things that can't be quantified. when there's an opportunity, we usually publish that in our quarterly reports. >> one other one. as a part of your effort in outreach and education, do you contain -- obviously it has to be sanitized, but do they have examples specific to what the whistleblower program is actually seeing in the city and county of san francisco so people understand something that's more salient to them. >> the fraud bulletins are timely with some of the concerns brought to our attention and we

try to capture the things that we're seeing or that people are trying to report through those bulletins. so that's the reports they make to us as effective for our purposes as possible. >> thank you. >> so i want to remind our members that we are the only governance body for the whistleblower program. we take this one really seriously for the parks in particular. they have a commission also. so this is a unique responsibility of ours. one of the things that you said is that you were looking at redacted reports. i feel that we have the authority to look at the actual reports, the whistleblower complaints themselves. do you feel the need to do that? i don't want to add more risk into the process either, but i wanted to make sure you felt like you were getting as much information as you need. >> i think if we requested it, we would get it.

peter and i are both new to the committee so we spend a lot of time reviewing the quarterly reports and processes first. we reviewed, i'm not sure how many redacted reports we reviewed, but to get a sense of education as a whole before we dove deep into those details. we will be diving deeper in the future. >> great. thank you. >> thank you for your work. >> any other comments? >> thanks. good seeing you guys. is there any public comment on this matter? >> good morning committee members, i'm dr. derek kerr, a whistleblower. an audit of the program is a good idea but it should not be a peer review audit. that would just buy into the biases and weaknesses that all whistleblower programs have. it would be important to get to an whistleblower advocacy organization, such as the

government accountability project in washington d.c. one of the consultants could advise to the standards that a whistleblower program should have to meet the needs of the whistleblowers in the public. it needs to be an independent audit and not by the same folks. we heard a lot about the rising quantity of complaints, but i want to talk about the quality or value of those complaints. since the inception, the whistleblower program has been plagued by minor complaints. the 2010-2011 civil grand jury found that 36% were true whistleblower complaints alleging fraud, waste, and abuse. then the whistleblower program developed a risk assessment

policy that was designed to triage the complaints and sort them out into low, medium, or high risk complaints. for example, the medium risk cases involved potential losses of 10,000 to $50,000 or they implicate a mid level manager. the medium and high risk cases are not represented in the whistleblower reports. instead, we get a preponder remembers of cases of low level employees who use work computers for personal business, who leave work early, or show up late, who gamble or sleep on the job, or who smoke in city cars and park them inappropriately. preventing these abuses is worthwhile, but where's the beef? we don't hear about the big money violations or mid to high

level official misconduct. why not? if the whistleblower program does not receive such complaints, they should know why. if the whistleblower program refers such complaints elsewhere, they should know how many involve violations of criminal or ethics law. since the whistleblower program already categorizes complaints according to their low, medium, or high risk, they should ask why they are not reported as such. thank you. >> thank you dr. kerr. any other public comment? good. can you call the next item. >> item number 6, opportunity for committee members to comment or take action on any matters within the committee's

jurisdiction. 2019-2020cgoboc work initiates. >> good morning, just to remind everybody the format of this agenda item is to have a list of administrative and committee functions that you are working on during the year and we can report progress on any of them as need be. i will just run down the list and stop me at any point with your questions or comments.

standardized template. this was a desire of the committee during last fiscal year to look at the variations that you get from different programs and try to move towards a format you find most useful in terms of having them be common, use the same terminology, standard views for schedules and expense reporting, and so we didn't do work on that last year just given your capacity and ours. we are prepared to do work on it during the current fiscal year. i think that chair chu has designated herself, volunteered to be the liaison on this subject, and i think probably what will happen between now and your january meeting is i'll have some of my staff refresh and build on a matrix that we worked on before that shows the bond programs, the type of schedule they're providing, what

their reporting period is, so we can see the variability that exists and we can explore how useful the committee has found the reports and where we may look for improvements. so you have a period now, november and december where you don't have an in-person meeting, so i think we should be able to find time to have a liaison meeting on that subject if that sounds appropriate. >> one other thing. can you ask them to go back and look at our previous meetings to you know, understand how we use it. brian was referring back to some specific information in some of the reports, so i think we can use that as facts on how we're using them, how that information is actively being used in a meeting. i know brenda also had interacted with the reports in

an in-depth way. >> okay. >> the expenditure audit, this is where we have reviews of expenditures and bond programs. you will see issuances. mark, will you update us on your schedule, any changes that may have happened? >> sure. just a quick update. so we completed expenditure audits of eight various projects. we have one ongoing, the 2016 public health and safety program. we will be issuing that in either december or early january, right in time for your next cgobos meeting in january. then we have plans to touch the

programs we haven't touched before, including the affordable housing program and the sea wall safety. those will be deferred to next fiscal year. we want to make sure there's enough expenditures to audit and that will be the case for the 2018 sea wall safety, so we'll put that on our work plan for next fiscal year, and definitely the 2016 affordable housing, we should have enough transactions to audit by the beginning of next fiscal year or end of this fiscal year. we're also planning on touchi touching -- or doing reaudits of the bonds we audited before. looking at those projects within those bond programs that we did not audit in the past, just to make sure we have a full extent in coverage of the various projects within each bond program and we can attest to the fact that we audited all of the various projects within all of the bond programs. >> do you have any concerns

about the timing of the projects for the 2016 affordable housing? it sounds like -- i mean they don't start until next summer, a year from now or so. >> i have some, but i mean there weren't a lot of expenditures in that one the last time i looked. i understand that there's not much to look at. i believe it only gotten started on 3 of the 30 items that are in there when i was looking at it in our report. so obviously, i love to see them as soon as possibility, but we can't audit what hasn't been spent. i understand that we have to keep an eye on that. >> okay. so the port -- for me, it's very much about black box over there, and we probably would have learned more if they come today with some information. so, it feels to me that, that's one that may creep up on us, maybe not the whole thing. it's not the whole parks bond.

>> right. >> those have not been issued. >> i'm talking about the 2012 parks bond. it's that. >> right. a more detailed report would be key. >> got it. >> and with the content they get from here, i'll reach out and meet up and see if we can get to the bottom of it and get a report. >> and we'll talk about it in our next meeting. that will end up having some concerns, particularly as we go into the sea wall where we will have a lot more money. >> we certainly can do as part of our work planning for next fiscal year is to revisit the bonds we have audited and figure out which portions or projects are attributed to the port and we can use that as our way to narrow down the scope of our o

g.o. bond projects. >> okay. >> great, thank you. >> okay, next item 1c is the schedule of upcoming bond issuances. you have a memo in your packet and our director of public fitness -- finance is here to answer any questions or comment. >> the sea wall, will that go to the board in april? >> it went to the board last april. it has been healthed held up a little bit, but we should have an update at the next meeting or the meeting after. >> great. and i'm sorry if i asked this last time, but the transportation and road improvement, 258, that seems like a large number for issuance. i looked at the encumbered and

unencumbered. we have 50 million that's unencumbered. >> prior to determining the final bond amount, we will make sure there are projects they have planned for expenditure within the next 3 years per i.r.s. guidelines. one note that was mentioned earlier, we are pleased to report that we did sell the last series bond for affordable housing last week, about 93 million and then we also sold the final series for the parks bond, which will be a port project, so that's in the amount of 3.1 million for that final port project. right now, we're just starting to do our work on vetting projects for both the public health and transportation bond to determine what size we will be bringing forward for issuance in the spring and we're evaluating some refinancing

opportunities, given the low interest rate environments for our g.o. bonds. >> is the market looking favorably op our bonds? >> most definitely. we still have 2 of our 3 credit ratings are aaa and the next is aa-plus. that's a good thing. >> congratulations. >> thank you. >> can i ask something. >> sure, please. >> on the 22b road improvement bond, do we have a scope for that yet, a description? >> i know rochelle is here in the audience. >> he's shaking his head. >> it's something that we're just now selling the bonds last week for the affordable housing and parks. this is our next area of focus and we'll be determining that soon. >> yeah. we're just getting started. we haven't put a financing team

together yet. i've been in contact with project managers for both of those bond programs and they're confident that there is a need for another to be issued. they're still in the process of scoping out and putting together an expenditure schedule. once they're ready, hopefully in the next few weeks, the plan is to meet with them and get their plans and the projects, and matrix -- make sure their expectations are reasonable before we move forward with any bond sales. the last conversation i had, they were hoping to have an issuance for the full balance of the program bond. i put that in there as a heads-up to you that it could potentially be as large as that but we'll validate what they're asking for when we go over the

projects. >> our next meeting is january. >> yeah, by then we should have that. >> all right, moving on to 1d. we're going to spend a couple minut minutes on this. again as a reminder, last year on your behalf, we had a public perception survey that was conducted by one of the providers in our pre-qualified pool, where we have a pool of providers that do public opinion testing, focus groups, and work of that type. we use them for a lot of different purposes in the city. they did intercept surveys and tested two sites in the bond program that you oversee. we were testing public knowledge about the site before and after visitor use, their perception of the use of bond funds, some of the demographics of the people using those sites and we got some interesting findings and feedback on how people perceive

the bonds and the kind of improvements that rise up highest in public favor. i think you were strongly interested in that type of content, wanted to do another bond. we're interested in focusing on affordable housing. so, i did a little bit of work reaching out to the affordable housing program managers and staff in the mayor's office of housing and community development in the mayor's office to discuss it and had talked about bringing back to you a let's of potential sites that we could make the subject of a public perception survey. so, i have those sites, but let me add a couple of qualifiers before we look at the list. you know, as you observed in the discussion with member natoli and the expenditure's audit, there isn't a lot of money out the door yet in the affordable housing bond.

there aren't any completed projects yet that were completed with these bond. that's something to keemenp in mind. you can do a perception survey focused on this bond. you can wait 18 to 24 months and choose another bond program to work on and by which time there would be more expenditures and hopefully completed projects in the affordable housing bond. those are two options. at the same time, part of my discussion with bond program managers here is the public isn't all that cognisant of the difference in funding sources. so what you're interested in is getting more public understanding of the feeling around affordable housing, how the city funds those things, how the building processes goes, and the number of subjects we talked about that you can test here, you can go ahead and test some of those public opinion things, whether or not the funding source was g.o. bonds. that's an option.

just to again remind everybody, we talked about there are a lot of things you may want to test in affordable housing. it's not the same as streetscapes where you're testing users and whether there are g.o. bonds or not and if they remember voting for it. these things are different. do you want to test the perception of understanding of stakeholders communities, the residents of the projects, the neighbors, the businesses in the neighborhood, the housing providers, the housing managers, builders, or are you trying to actually test citizen voter understanding of how the city funds affordable housing and how it manages its work in that area. any one of those things is project interesting in legitimate possibilities. i'm putting those out there.

lastly, the projects themselves, there are five projects they gave me, which is a mix of funding by the city zone housing trust fund, federal home funds, development impact fees, there's a good range of geographic spread, and different target populations, which were funded with these projects. i can detail any of them if you're interested in taking that approach. that's where i gotten to so far. i'd appreciate your thoughts and feedback on how you would like to proceed. >> yeah. i still think there is a lot to be learned, even if we're not talking about completed projects. i think it's still interesting, especially because as we look at another affordable housing bond going on the ballot, a lot of things i hear from people when they ask me is, i don't see anything happening with this.

i don't know about it. especially given the kind of oversight we're doing, i care a lot about providers, i care about construction, all these things matter. i think from our viewpoint, what we're really interested in is we require two-thirds of the voters to approve this, so i think their perception is an important component in this. their understanding of who is being served and what exactly we are accomplishing with that money because a lot of people say nothing. they don't feel like anything is happening. so, i guess to that one part of timing, i think there is still some valuable things to be gained from this. as to some of the other points, happy to follow up more. i definitely have some thoughts, but i want to think on it a little bit more about some of

the other aspects you brought up, for sure. >> i have a different point of view. i think we should stay within our jurisdiction, which is to ensure bond funded projects are carried out to the expectations as much as possible by the voters who approve them. it is not our job to start digging into what people think of affordable housing in the city. i would rather postpone peg's suggestion when there are projects to pull on and look at something else the next couple of years. really, i'm interested in everything that you listed of course, and that peg listed, but that's not our job. our job is to evaluate bond funded projects and while it is important of course to make sure they're bond funded projects that the city needs, it's again, we are reactive.

that is this committee's role, to look at projects after the bonds have been approved by voters, not to start getting into issues of parks or affordable housing or transit. it's not our jobs. i would actually prefer to wait on a perception study for affordable housing and perhaps look at one of our jurisdictional areas. >> i think lauren makes a valid point. there is a lot of affordable housing going on and i don't know where the funding is. it's so complex and meshed in a lot of different things. for example, one of the ones off the top of my head was ping young, one of the things funned by a bond.

clementine towers, there is a lot of confusion there. i think that's a valid point. it's after the fact for us. if we were to poll or to get a perspective, you know, accommodation of the residents in the project, the surrounding area, and yeah, the shops and owners in the area, does it bring business? does it bring economics and keep it here? the

and gave me some edits and the clean copy with all those edits that was included in your packet today. if you have further comments or edits or suggestions, we can make them now and then you can approve it on that basis. the only thing i left blank on purpose was the date on the front, which we usually put the publication date when we push things out on the controller's office website. just to remind you, an attachment to this report is my office's g.o. bond report. so you don't need to worry that your report needs to include detailed content on scope, schedule, and budget because all of that is here in that format. so just to remind you, that is how it will look. it will get posted. >> great. i think we're going to have to vote on this one. does anyone have any addition changes you like to see in the

document? >> i had a question. there were edits that you made to my report and i read this. i don't see that there were any changes. >> it was just small things like tense or punctuation. >> oh, i probably needed that. [laughter] >> nothing material. we tried to preserve the original voice of each speaker. >> great to know. >> is there a proposal to vote on this? >> move. >> second. >> i guess i move to approve this. >> just for the record, there is no member of the public present. >> great. >> great, thank you for your work on this. we will get it posted on the website and congratulations. >> thank you. >> item 2b, your work plan.

the only change that i am noting is that you ask the port park program manager to be present at your january meeting. the slides they provided in the current packet didn't have details that you want to see, so you would like a bond program style report from them. am i understanding that correctly? >> i believe so. part is -- bart will meet with them so he can give direct feedback on what we're looking for. >> a bond style report would be great. they weren't here. were they here the last time? i don't remember if they were. >> i don't remember myself. we will reach out to them and add them to your agenda for january. >> thank you. >> that's the only change to the work plan i'm aware of. >> great. >> yeah, the only flag i would say is that there seems to be

quite a bit in january. that's life. >> what do we have in january? >> i'm also interested in hearing from the port since i don't think i seen them since i've been on this committee. technically they're done with most of their stuff, so it should be a short report. >> that is our hope. >> so january 27th meeting would have bond program report, affordable housing bond report, liaison report for the public health and safety, and the liaison report for my program, and we hope to finish our fiscal year 18-19 summary report and present on that, and then the autd dit report for the public

report for the expenditure that mark mentioned and you will be adding the port. >> do with want to do a paper report and not have them? >> no, i like charles to attend. i like the staff to attend. they only come once a year. i think it's important that they come. >> okay. >> okay, we'll try to manage the schedule and we'll tell everybody to be tight and we'll look at the timing. >> that will be great. thanks. >> any other business? >> yeah, i had a couple of items. when i made the liaison report in our last meeting, i brought up seven questions that i asked of m.t.a. staff and i got an e-mail answer to all of them, both peg and mary were copied on

that e-mail. if you're interested in seeing it, i'm sure mary can forward it to you. i think what i like to do is when we next hear from them, or when we have our next liaison meeting is to sit down and discuss them with the staff in more detail. they answered the questions that would be a follow up question. it bares further discussion. on the 2008sfgh rebuild bond, i think my last report on that since we closed out any event, there was an outstanding claim passed through from one of the subcontractors from webcore to the city. the last i reported is that they looked like they were going to settle.

i checked with the city attorney's office and they said in fact they had. there is a subsequent lawsuit by the city against the designer, claiming there is an omission. there is an omission insurance coverage, so there is a source of money to get that paid. in other words, they are not going to bankrupt an architect. the architect had to get this insurance in order to get the contract from the city. the city always pays for it through the price they pay the designer. that isn't scheduled for trial until next year and even at that, it's an early date, no doubt the architect and its attorneys, which consist of the bond company will ask for a postponement. i'm going to predict right now it's going to settle short of going to court. but we don't know that yet. further, i don't know what

effect that has on the bond, and how they reconcile the bond because it's money that was spent to settle the claim with the general contractor came from the bond as they recover any of that money from the insurance company for the designer, i don't know what happens. does that come back? does that reconcile in completing the bond process reconciliation? i don't know. now you know all that i know. >> thank you for following up on those things. anything else? i think we're adjourned. thank you.

>> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the october 21, 2019 meeting of the rules committee. i am supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. seated to my left is rules committee member gordon mar and vice chair walton will be joining us shortly. our clerk is victor young and i would like to thank jason and matthew from sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices and speaker cards and documents b