Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 30, 2012 6:30pm-7:00pm PDT

6:30 pm
2012 at a minimum be put on budget committee reserve as we learn more information from the federal government as to the ongoing developments. >> i did watch the hearing last week. i am sorry i was not able to be here, i was at a fellowship program and harvard. this parkiprogram has not been suspended but slowed down by the federal government because of the initiative that was passed by congress in february, which is actually right after i came here and address this with you. the government is setting up a board called the first-net board, which will be established by august 17. that will determine the criteria for how under tea national systm
6:31 pm
will be put together. what they're telling us to slow down on is the purchase of the lte equipment is sold. there will be a national system that comes on line in the next couple of years. what congress is allowing us to continue to do is build out this site of where the antennas will go. that is the work that has to be done before the equipment is purchased. i am assuming after the first board is established in the middle of august that they will take that suspension away, and if we're not doing it now, that it will put us that many more months behind. supervisor chu: to that point, i appreciate that.
6:32 pm
it was indicated in a may 16 memo that the federal government had partially suspended them money. i would have made a motion that we reduce the spending by $226,000, but giving it is just so halting as you like to articulate, that is why i am suggesting we put it on budget reserve so you can come back to us after the august meeting to indicate what the federal government has finally decided. i think there has been a lot of uncertainty on at the nationwide publications network. of course, we're moving in the right direction, but i think you will have adequate time to come back after some decisions have been made so we have more information before we invest in a system that we do not know what is going to be. >> that is a policy decision of the board. supervisor chu: if we were going to put this money on reserve and intend to bring it back afterwards, how did that impact your schedule, and is there a
6:33 pm
schedule we should be concerned with? are you, at this moment, i process of securing those sites? is there something that would be problematic with us reserving it until a later time, like september, when we hear back more information? >> most of that money to pay for stepping in dt -- staffing in dt for the city and realistic. so real-estate would not be able to negotiate those leases until september, and department of technology staff when not be able to do what they need to do at the site. so, yes, it would put us basically three months behind schedule if we do not have the money beginning in july. it is very difficult to talk about, because it has been a very confusing project. ntia told us, and i think last time i came to you, our yeah, we
6:34 pm
have to spend the money by august. we have to have two-thirds of the project complete. we have been pushing, pushing, pushing, and then you get a different story from the federal government. it is very difficult to understand. i totally get that. i do believe that there are things that we could and should be doing right now to keep the project moving forward. but, again, that is a policy call of the board. supervisor chu: from what i am hearing, the federal government has not said that they do not want to invest in an interoperable. that is not the direction? >> quite the opposite. they have come out strongly and said they're going to build a national network. supervisor chu: ok, so that is still the same objective. the area where they have a halt is an actual type -- >> of purchasing the equipment because they want to make sure it is all interoperable across the country. san francisco is actually, at
6:35 pm
this point, one of the four series -- cities that the feds are looking at to be a pilot. there are a few others. i feel that if we have this funding allocated and we can begin the work, we will be one of the, i hope, one of those municipalities that will be leading the federal government as this develops and showing best practices. supervisor chu: irrespective of the technology being used, the department will still have to continue moving forward with building up the course site. >> absolutely. supervisor chu: and it is just a matter of the technology. >> that is correct. supervisor kim: i completely understand. but as a policymaker, i feel uncomfortable investing in a system that i have no understanding of what is going to look like. given, a kind of, the surprising need by the federal government over the last six
6:36 pm
months, i have little faith that they will not make other changes in august on a system that we are intending to build. i am very sympathetic to the position you are in. also wanting us to move forward and not having perhaps the three-month delay. but it does not seem like there is this level of urgency to build the system when the federal government has not made decisions around what type of system it is building. i guess i am worried that there will be other changes that will come out in august, so i think three months is not a huge price to pay to get a little more certainty. i am not asking to reduce the budget of the department of emergency management because i understand the importance of supporting a public safety communications network. for me, personally, i have some questions about where the federal government is heading and would like as many answers before we invest in that system. supervisor chu: to the department, with regards to the amount, you talked about how it
6:37 pm
really pays for staffing at dt and real estate. do you know what portion is needed to allow the department of real-estate to begin conversations and to be able to move forward in getting us ready in case a decision is made and we're able to move forward with it? i do think and interoperable system is necessary and good for the region. so from a high level concept, i agree with that. there are concerns that there are a lot of moving parts to the federal government, so what will really end up being with the federal government wants? are we building something or investing something that will not look like that? i think there are those legitimate questions. at the same time, it sounds like the sites are going to procure, and it will be the same no matter what. you are still going to need the real estate to have an interoperable system, no matter what it is. is there a value on this $226 ,000 that was still allow the
6:38 pm
real-estate department to continue negotiations and make sure we're not that much behind if we do get clarity from the federal government about the technology and other things? >> i appreciate the question. we think the process will take about six months. if you think $226,000, three months' worth is $113,000 -- i mean, if we had a portion we could begin spending july 1, you know, $100,000 to get realistic going immediately and put the rest on reserve, i would be very comfortable with that. supervisor avalos: i am confused. because i thought earlier this year in march we approved leases. so i am not sure what needs to happen between real estate in the sights -- >> we approved the sites, not the actual leases.
6:39 pm
this is the negotiation now with the department of real estate over the sites and the leases. we have worked very hard to bring down the cost of those. we have been substituting as we have gone along because we want to keep the cost as low as possible. but that is real estate's job to negotiate with those non-city sides with the leases will be. we brought you a list of what the sites were in march. supervisor chu: thank you. i think that supervisor kim and supervisor avalos have a good point in wanting more clarity in the project, but i would not want to hamper the ability for the real-estate department to be about to finalize those leases and do negotiations. perhaps if i can ask the makers of the motion that there would be willing to intimate -- entertain perhaps half of it being on reserve, so $113,000 on reserve?
6:40 pm
to the makers of the motion, would that be something you would entertain? ok. so if you can, perhaps what we would like to do -- a seconder. so i will make a motion to reserve $113,000 of that funding on budget committee reserve. >> thank you so much. i appreciate it. supervisor chu: we will take that without objection. thank you. our next department is the police department's budget. from my understanding, the bulk of the recommendations are the police department's budget. however, there is one of recommendation, i believe, that is related to the occ, and that is on page 39.
6:41 pm
correct? >> correct. >> supervisor chu: i would like director hicks. to speak to that item. >> good morning. the police department is in agreement with the budget and their recommendations for a nearly $1.9 million cut in one- time and ongoing reductions. this year, just under $1.61 million of on going and one-time costs. next year, again, with the exception of the matter that director hicks will speak to. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. let's go to director hicks. >> good morning, members of the committee. i would first like to think you're analysts office for working with me on other proposed reductions in which we
6:42 pm
resolved, but there remains one and that is an admission all the investigator for the occ. i spoke with you last week about the reasons why the offices needed two and additional investigator positions, and that is to reduce the investigator's caseload to 16 cases per investigator as recommended as best practices by the controller in the audit in 2007. without a reduced caseload, the investigators would continue to be hampered, particularly in their complex investigations of officer-involved shootings, as well as alleged violations of fourth amendment rights. recently, the federal agency subpoenaed occ records as they related to allegations -- investigations of violations of
6:43 pm
fourth amendment rights. these cases require as additional time and attention. one additional issue with regard to investigators caseloads is that, because the police department achieves a savings in overtime by only allowing officers to be interviewed by the occ during the officers shift, occ investigators must conduct nighttime interview. in the first six months of this year, investigators conducted an average of one at nighttime interview a week. that means an interview after 8:00 p.m.. occ investigators are not paid overtime. instead, they receive, time -- comp time. i conclude by saying these two additional positions were added in the mayor's proposed budget
6:44 pm
when the mayor looked at reducing a temporary allocation that was made to the public defender's office to investigate police misconduct allegations. the public defender temporarily had a budget that allowed for an attorney, an investigator, and a paralegal. that is no longer being funded, and those moneys were proposed for the occ. that concludes my remarks. supervisor chu: thank you very much. budget analyst, is there anything you would add? >> the budget included two new investigator positions for the office of city complains. we are recommending one. not recommending the second position. we continue to not recommend the second position. this office has added two
6:45 pm
positions since the audit to their overall budget. but, more importantly, as we look at caseload, we have seen a decline in caseload over the last three years. from 16% from 2009 to two dozen 10. an additional 8% from 2010 to 2011. overall, the caseload is declining. we believe that one additional position is sufficient to meet their current requirements. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thank you to ms. hicks. i would like to respond in terms of declining caseload. i preface this with my own perspective, having spent years and years as a trial lawyer in the city attorney's office representing police officers in many cases. my experience, and straddling
6:46 pm
the time span from years before you arrived and then after your arrival, and my experience for a number of years with the occ was that a lot of the -- a number of investigations that i saw, because there would be a lawsuit and then a companion occ complained that usually the investigation occurred before the lawsuit was filed, frequently. so we would see parts of the occ file to the investigation, and there were a number of instances when the investigation was wholly inadequate. there is one case that i will not name where there was a lawsuit against several police officers who i was representing and we went through, and there was an occ complaint that had been sustained were the occ had not spoken to any of the witnesses outside of the complainant and the police
6:47 pm
officers. even the ones listed in the police report. we went through an entire case of the trial, and the complainant's lawyer realize that his client completely made up the whole story. it was clear from our discovery. yeah, the occ complaint continued. and when you came in, i noticed that there was a real change in terms of really trying to beef up the occ to be more meticulous, and i compliment you on that. because it is not in the interest of police officers to have an adequate investigations by the occ. it is in their interest to have solid investigations so if the police officer did something wrong, they can be quickly and efficiently considered for discipline, and if they did not do anything wrong, they can be quickly and efficiently cleared. i am curious just to know if there has been in decline, have
6:48 pm
you have seen that correlating for the current staffing and the requested staffing. >> thank you very much, supervisor wiener. i would agree with the analyst that the first year of the decline was 14%. but then it dropped down last year to 8%. the projections based on the cases we received today is it the decline continues, it would only be 3%. so it has leveled off. it mirrors the national trend. and the way we determine the caseload is by looking at the pending cases and dividing those pending cases by the number of investigators that we have. and, currently, doing that with 16 investigators, the caseload is still 21 cases per investigator. again, with each case over the 16 cases per investigator, it
6:49 pm
degrades the quality of investigations that an occ investigator can do. as supervisor wiener pointed out, a case that was investigated before i arrived at the office of citizen complaints when investigator's caseloads were 31 cases per investigator, some 40 cases per investigators, investigators were doing a lot of investigation from their desks. with 1000 cases coming in a year, they cannot escape the office to get out and pound the pavement and look for witnesses. so what i would say in response to the decline of complaints is that the decline is declining, and we still have the pending cases that we have. based on my projections, it would be right around the same number. >> i do want to reemphasize the
6:50 pm
recommendation. we are recommending one additional position even in the case of declining caseload. this would give about 46 new cases per year per investigator. that is less than one per week. we did not get any evidence that a second investigator was going to be necessary given their current caseload. supervisor chu: thank you very much. thank you, supervisor wiener. colleagues, from my understanding, the department is in agreement with most items. the occ is not in agreement with the investigator cut on page 39. to the comptroller's office, last week we asked you to look at the civilianization work and to true up some of the information on the reports. that was previously done by your office. i am wondering if you had any information to share? >> you have a copy of the revised memo which we drop off this morning. we worked with the police
6:51 pm
department during the last week to ensure that we're netting out of it, for example, civilians that are at the occ. it does show, as you can see on table b of the memo, it shows a growth in budgeted civilians since opposition c was passed in 2004. 222 to 326 currently. and the proposed budget as the additional positions for the current year. we worked with the police department to clarify which -- in which cases civilian positions that are proposed in the budget or that we reviewed in the past are currently being staffed by light duty officers, and almost uniformly throughout the proposed budget in cases where the police department and the mayor's office have not proposed to civilianize a position that has been part of a previous review, that position is being staffed to the light
6:52 pm
duty officer, which makes some sense. so civilianizing the majority of positions that we recommended the past that have not been proposed will not allow the department to redeploy folded the officers because functions are currently being staffed with light duty officers. i would be happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. these are the positions you looked at in the last iteration of your analysis that showed roughly 65 positions that were civilian positions. the mayor's budget does propose a number of those to be civilianized, as you have in the budget proposal. so in the areas where there was not a proposed civilian position to be funded, you did do an analysis with the department and it shows generally that in those positions that were not proposed to be funded by the mayor's budget office in terms of a civilianized position, there are currently assigned with a light duty is on a police officer.
6:53 pm
so we would not be able to hire a civilian, the mighty, and put that light duty officer back on the beat because there light duty. >> that is correct almost uniformly. i think there're five positions not being staffed by light duty officers. the vast majority are. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. any questions from the committee? ok. colleagues, we do have recommendations before us. i'd think in terms of the civilianization question, i do have some outstanding questions about options outside of these positions, whether there are any positions that are currently being done by uniformed officers where it might make sense for civilians to fit in those. i am wondering if the chief had talked about that? do not have a proposal in this moment, the future there may be positions that are currently uniformed officers fulfilling those duties, but it may make sense operationally to have civilians do that work. >> thank you, supervisor. yes, i have a list here.
6:54 pm
we had 18 officers currently right now that are part of the first-year civilianization plan, and then we're looking at other positions like the compstat officers who came into play after the fact that would probably be better as a police service aid or crime analysts, and i would be happy to have a conversation with you in the future. supervisor chu: so there are other positions potentially other that we can discuss. >> yes, like facilities, coordinators, vehicle officers, compstat officers. supervisor chu: ok. thank you. we look forward to having those conversations. colleagues, any thoughts on the area of this agreement at the moment? thoughts, directions? no thoughts, no directions, ok.
6:55 pm
what i will suggest, perhaps, colleagues, in terms of all of the different items that are here, i would suggest that we take the recommendations with the occ position -- and no thoughts? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: given that there is one increase position in occ -- i really value the work at the occ, but given that we're seeing declining caseloads, i would approve that one position and will take the budget analyst recommendation on at the other. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. there is one thought with regard to allowing the department or the occ to add one investigator. i think what we can do, given that the budget analyst has spoken very briefly about the drop in caseloads and the fact that we are increasing it by
6:56 pm
one, perhaps we can revisit this issue this year. so we will have one position you'll be able to hire up, and we will revisit the issue in a year. director hicks? >> thank you very much. i would very much appreciate if we could revisit that in one year, and in response -- although it may not change where you're going today, in response to the comment by the analyst, the occ has, in fact, had many conversations and has presented evidence that what our pending cases are, with the caseload is today, and how the addition of
6:57 pm
both investigator positions would reduce the caseload to 18 or 19, as opposed to 20. so i will stop at this point and in the next budget year, i would hope that we could revisit or not fund for this year and perhaps put in funding for the following year. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you, director, for your presentation and information. we have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendation. can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. thank you to the police department. let's go to the district attorney's office. >> good morning, members of the committee, chaired chu.
6:58 pm
i am the cfo of the district attorney's office. we are in full agreement with the budget analyst recommendation for $162,17000- $170,000 for this fiscal year. we're not in agreement with policy recommendations as it would have a detrimental impact on our ability to serve victims in the community. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. mr. rose, is there anything you would add to the presentation? >> madam chair, members, with respect to the policy, it is the same issue as you previously heard. these are grant-funded positions which now become general fund positions. as a matter of course, we always advise the board of supervisors about that. should the board want to continue as general fund, that
6:59 pm
is the policy decision of the board. supervisor chu: thank you very much. given that the district attorney's office is in agreement with the recommendation on page 46, do we have a motion to accept the recommendations? we will do that without objection. with regards to the policy options, any thoughts about that? my preference perhaps is to continue this item or not take action on this item today as we see the rest of our deliberations. ok, why don't we pass through that? thank you very much. our next department is the adult probation department. >> said morning, supervisors. thank you. first, i would like to think harvey rose's office. the chief adult