City and County of San Francisco Monday, October 29, 2012

shortly.

>> all right. We're on. Apologies for the difficulties and I want to welcome everyone

to the special meeting of the government audit and oversight committee today on monday

October 29 here in the city and

county of san francisco home of the world series

champions giants. I am

supervisor mark farrell. I am

the chair of the committee and

joined by supervisor chiu and

will be joined by supervisor

elsbernd. I want to thank the

staff for covering today's meeting. Madam Clerk do we have any announcements?

>> yes. Please make sure to

silent any electronic devices

and items acted upon today will

be on the agenda anyplace otherwise stated.

Q. Can you do item one and two together please?

>> item one is a hearing and resolution and "deja vu all over

again:   san francisco's technology needs a culture shock." >> thank you very much. President Chiu.

>> thank you Mr. Chair. I

wanted to make a couple of introductory comments and thank you for taking part in this hearing and in particular I want to thank the civil grand jury report for looking at this topic. I decided to bring with

me today these folders. These folders represent all of the documents I have been looking at

in the last couple of years on this specific topic and in particular let me just title a

couple of the reports I have on

this. From 2002 from the former

executive director from dits, which is the predecessor agency to the department of technology

and proposal for management and

resources. Then go a couple years later the civil grand jury

report looked at our technology

with hospital "pot holes or possibilities" and a year later

the city controller had a letter

and said they needed to improve service and performance

measures. After that our city

analyst did a management audit into their practices and two

years later a another analyst

looking into the city's

purchasing process and many

pages devoted to this and i

think the report deja vu all

over again is in fact and I would include "ground hog day or

year". All of the reports said

the same thing over and over again and those that have been

focused on the it issues in the city knows this and we have departments doing the same thing

when we ought to have one centralized department focused

on these efforts. I think as

folks know we have for years 70

system when is we ought to have

a one and dozens of data centers

when we ought to have one and

when we have a streamlined and smaller agreement scpis could go

on and on as you know. We identified these problems over

the decade and somewhat can't solve them as the civil grand jury report pointed out we have

a budget that is pushing $250 million I continue to be

told by city staff and vendors

that we could save tens of millions of dollars and be more

efficient if we manage our information technology. Now I

do hope that today's session is an opportunity to talk about good and creative ideas. One of

the phenomena I have seen is frankly a lot of finger pointing at different departments and who

is at fault, and I think it's important to think why we got to this place, but what is the road map that is going to change

thins? I know there are some

that hope if and when we hire a new cio will change things and I

want to note we had four individuals in those positions in the last ten years and not

much as changed. The structure

of how we govern ourselves from

a it standpoint has not changed significantly and I am eager to hear the presentation from the civil grand jury report and again I thank you for your due

diligence and hard work and i

look forward to the conversation. >> thank you supervisor chiu for

those remarks and welcome back

to version two or three of this

year. I also want to thank the

other departments overing

potential response focus we need them and others will speak as

well and I would like to invite you up to share your report. >> good afternoon supervisors.

On behalf of the civil grand

jury I am marty choy and I person on this report and I will

turn it over to the chair of the investigative committee. Thanks.

>> thank you.

>> welcome back.

>> we always seem to be getting

together to celebrate the day

after the giants have done something spectacular. It makes it difficult to prepare for these reports as a result of

that but I would like to make a

brief stop and -- didn't stop your remarks to supervisor chiu.

You made our report for us and I

thank you for many of the comments we will reiterate as part of the formal report, but

to thank I would like to thank Chairman Farrell and President

Chiu for giving us this opportunity to sort of fill in a

little bit of the things that we really think are important to state publicly about what we

have found and what we think is

wrong in technology. I would

like to thank also the members

of the civil grand jury who are

here. I feel at home and with a

meeting of with you all here

and need a roundtable and everybody else and always neat in private

and if you for that and I would

like to thank the participants

that met with us individually

and together to discuss their

proposals and the future. The title of "deja vu all over

again:   san francisco's technology needs a culture

shock." reflects a history that we uncovered within city government t appears from the

responses that we got from city administrators and some

department heads no matter who

says it or how many times it's

said major changes to how

technology is organized, managed

and evaluated remains mired in a self protecting culture demonstrated at the highest level of city administrators and

by some leaders of major

departments. This we find has

lead to continuous unnecessary costs, unnecessary duplication

of services and unnecessary inefficiencies. It doesn't have

to be that way. Our past city

cio has we have heard, the city

budget analyst and another budget report, pafl civil grand

jury and now this grand jury has

each reached similar changes to

how technology is organized and managed to remedy this situation

so far to no avail. It came as quite a shock last week to

receive the responses to our report from the office of the

mayor signed by him and his top managers. Their assertion that

the structure employed by the --

by the city for technology quote insures coordination and

efficiency while preserving department autonomy closed

quote. That flys in the face of

history and it flys in the face

of reality. This coordination

and efficiency the result of 15 year old justice project with

its way over blown budget and

continuously blown schedule and

still not fully implemented, the

coordination and efficiency

snail pace to mix these email systems within a single

government which shouldn't have

proliferated in the first place. email consolidation began years ago and today many departments have joined in the consolidation

but that is 4,000 of the 23,000

city users, 17%. Another 11

departments with 12363 users to

be somewhat precise or about 54%

are now equalled to join in this consolidation. However, 14

departments with more than 7,000

users with 30% are not even

scheduled to join the consolidation, and from our interviews some are considering

whether or not to participate at

all. This coordination and

efficiency found in the emerge project that began in

February 2009 with a phase one

completion target of February

February 2010. It was transferred from human resources to the controller's office

because it was stalled. Phase

one went live in August 2011. The controller's office and the

city ought to be complemented

for that. However phase one,

phase two and phase three were

originally scheduled to be

completed in me 2011. Now

scheduled to 2013. The coordination and efficiency found apparent department confusion for radio equipment

and systems as discussed at the

most meeting a few days ago. Mta is planning move forward

with its plans to replace its

analogue radios. That surpleasely brought up other

departments interest in replacing their radios including bay web, the public safety system. Where is the

coordination that mayor and

staff boasts about that would

have reprented this at the meeting? That begs the question

are we headed to seven independent systemsalla email and who can predict that? The

city is moving to replace the 25 year old famous system. If you

like what you saw with the programs just mentioned think

what you can look forward to.

How much wasted money, time, and

efficiencies have these and

other snail paced projects cost?

How much more will san francisco has to endure before serious

change is made? I ask you as members of the board of supervisors should the city consider improvements to the

structure and system that allows

this waste to continue over and over? Is it appropriate to

consider the five year ict plan,

which by the way was born

through the 2010 efforts of the board of supervisors, and do you

consider it a strategic plan as

the office of the mayor is, when it is primarily in the current

form s a project by project instrument and only where new

money is concerned. What city wide values are incorporated

that provide the backbone for a city strategy? Where is the strategy for the future or even

the present? There is little strategic that we found of the office of the mayor states there

is no scarcity of data even with

city technology. Is it

considered sufficient to do it

on a city wide basis and not on

a city view. There is no

analysis where cost savings would come department to department or the city as a

whole in the data presented.

When a project boasts of cost savings with data consolidation

there is no way of determining who or where the estimated

$3 million was saved or what became of it. Shame on you that

says that the current structure ensures coordination and efficiency. What it does ensure

is the status quo. It ensures the behavior of department technology. It ensures the lack of cooperation. What the office

of the mayor response does is

prove our recommendations are worthy of serious considerations by the board of supervisors. We

are here today to share our views with the board of supervisors, the only body within city government that we're aware of that has been willing to step up in recent

times as you did in 2010 by

mushing through changes in the

city's administrative code that attempt to introduce positive improvements to the way

technology is practiced around

here. Today we ask you as members of the board of supervisors if you're satisfied with the implementation of those

changes you made to the role of

city cio and the five year plan?

Are you satisfied that these changes are moving technology sufficiently forward within city government? If you are then

things will stay the same around

here. The office of the mayor accuses the civil grand jury of not knowing much about

technology in the city. Yes, we start friday scratch but we

spent a year learning directly

from the leaders within city government within technology

units throughout the city. We

had some help since two of our five member investigation team

are seasoned technology professionals. We interviewed

more than 40 employees and

elected officials, quite a few several times. We believed

there was a good deal of candor in those interviews. Not as

much in the responses we're

sorry to say. We did a great deal and discuss what we found with people in city government. We prepared findings and

conclusions in the form of recommendations. Every finding

in our report was verified with additional interviews with the people providing that

information. Our report is

factual, not fission. We believe. >>

>> that city

technology protects the status

quo and at thes expense of cost

savings and eliminating unnecessary duplication and at the expense of inefficiencies

and xengs of cooperation among

units that can lead to additional improvements. Today

there is no apparent leadership

within san francisco to make important city wide changes happen efficiently and effectively as the samples I

have given show. There is no ekz organization structure that

sorts out what changes to make

or manages how to make them.

Coit and the city cio do not

venture in that realm. If not

them, whom? The mayor claims he -- innovation mayor or

technology May or as his

response to our report claims

but that reflects his priority

and attracting tech companies to

san francisco or having his

staff work on apps that are helpful. He does little to improve the technology at home

within his city government. The

mayor has had hand on's

experience as the execute

administrative officer and the

head of ddw. Perhaps that

experience has been him in the

experience of this and I hope he considers technology an integral part of city operations that

needs to and can be improved.

That city technology is a significant priority for him and his staff. Perhaps you, the board of supervisors, can help

or it's deja vu all over again.

You've had our report. Rather than present each finding and recommendation, though each is important, and we stand by them, we believe it is best to highlight just those items we

find most significant in terms

of organizational structure, the needs for easily accessible

information and about hiring.

First let's deal with structure

the most important component to at the department level

as the jury stated clearly in

our report we recognize the importance of maintaining the ability to meet unique department needs with unique department solutions, and that should rest within those

departments. That already exists. No changes is offered.

What is missing is the means to

provide for the other needs

those related to city wide government programs. Here coordination and communication

are vital if costs and duplication are to be managed.

This is the area that needs fixing. The office of the mayor

seems to believe what we're asking are a formal tie between

the city cio and technology, leadership within departments

for common city wide activities

already exists as is stated in the response. Has he or his

staff really talked to the

department -- really talked with department technology leadership

or the city cio about this? We

did. Much more than one time and with much more than one

person. It does not exist. The mayor's office says it exists

not only in technology, but in

such city wide services as

finance, human resources and contracting. We would add capital planning and others.

these are services the mayor

states which are managed by the them and the central agency but that is not the case with

technology as the May or's

office believes. They choose the candidates they want to hire

but work under the policies of hr. They have people working on

personnel managers but not in the way leaders perform the role

independent of the city cio or

td. Departments spend money but make sure they don't ignore what the controller requires. There

are people that work on budgets and spending but again not with the same independence and control as department technology

leaders do and so on. Departments expect to be guided

by the controller with clear

direction and evaluated with consequences for non complying.

that's not what we found the expectations are for technology.

That is pretty much what we're

asking for technology on city wide related matters. It

doesn't exist now. The city cio doesn't have the authority of the controller rks the head of

hr and so on. If he does he

should be told because he doesn't act that way and

departments don't view him that

way. Certainly the cio should have that authority for

technology matters city wide to provide direction, coordination and communication. If the mayor

thinks that the city cio should have that authority and already

does he should check it out and make sure it's there and functioning. If he finds it's not there he should require it

be done. It would make a world

difference and that requires a strong capable cio as it does a

controller or head of hr or purchasing or capital planning.

beyond that the role of the city

cio and the role of dt need to be separated into two positions.

Dt reporting to the city cio.

The role of the city cio is to

create a clear vision for technology city wide, develop

strategies with departments for new projects, and implementing

what has been approved. He should be concerned with

integrating and cord naided interdepartment activities. Dt

on the other hand focuses on daily operations that are shared

throughout the city. Combining

these two roles causes confusion, particularly over the role city cio and in combination

it's too much for one person to

do properly. Information --

pardon me for a moment. Our report points out specific

deficiency in how dat is

gathered, organized and

presented. One example is reflected in budget reports.

While budgets are made on a department by department basis there is not a complete

agreement on certain definitions. For example, where

does one budget for radio systems? Not in technology. As a result the controller

presented a city budget for

technology of just under $200 million. Through our interviews with technology leadership we were told that

amount is under estimated by ten

to 20% or more due to the

differences of what to include.

Actual expenditures presented

more difficult picture. Some

departments use non technology people to perform technology assignments and hiding the expenses outside of technology.

Actual cost of city wide

projects are blurred as the examples shows. No one knows for sure how much is being

spent, how much is being saved. Without comprehensive information there is no way to

evaluate the success of ict

city

wide consolidations. We found

no analysis where cost savings would come from from department

to department or any of the consolidations. Isn't there a

reason to evaluate them on an ongoing basis? For that focused

data is needed. It's not done

now. Either is a data base for

personnel city wide and match needs with talent and ability.

We don't do that because we

don't look at technology as

important city wide service. We

propose the introduction of city

wide annual report to the mayor and the board of supervisors.

At the last meeting the mayor's representative endorsed an idea like this. We applaud that. It

needs to happen. We proposed a

consolidated city wide budget

and staffing plans, and if my

slides work correctly, you can

read that what your

administrative code requires.

It's not necessarily what is presented. Without comprehensive information there

is no way to evaluate the

success of ict city wide consolidations. We found no

real analysis to point where cost savings come from department to department for the

city for any of the consolidations. Isn't there is

a need -- didn't I just do this?

We propose a consolidated city wide ict budget and staffing

plans. We propose a survey of ict performance from departments

that is updated periodically.

We propose console daitd ict management asset system for

these purposes. We propose a

data base for personnel. Maybe

we have enough data but we're

not collecting the right useful

data. Everyone agrees that

hiring for technology needs to

be improved. Technology is a highly dynamic and ever changing

field. No one can predict the

five years of technology or what

talent will be required. Of

your cell phone. The administrator requires a staffing plan. Doesn't exist.

there maybe hurdles to overcome but hiring as permanent exempt

is better than the traditional civil service for technology.

It reduces time to hire. It

raises proakt of attracting top talent. It means hiring mistakes can be corrected

easily. It's done elsewhere in

the city. Lawyers and our attorney departments do have at will status for the same reasons

as we find with technology.

Isn't it worth the effort to

match talent with what is

needed? Culture is a mighty

force. It provides comfort in

it's traditions. It's a safe

haven u because it's tried and accepted. It's reinforced

because it's troublesome to change but culture all blinds to the other ways of doing things

evening if the other ways hint

of doing better. It stifles and

shuts down I thinking. It doesn't anticipate the unintended consequences of changing times. This grand jury

is not the only voice that

called more direct relationship

between the city cio and budget

leaders or a budget plan or urged reform to technology

practices so they match the dynamic technology world, or any of the other recommendations in our report, but the way things

are done around here is so embedded in san francisco government culture that the

potential benefits to the san francisco community that have been raised, not just by us, are

more than ignored. They are

mocked by a city administration fearing change. We believe that only the mayor can make the

changes that we and others have

proposed. No one else has the direct authority over government operations than he has. He can

do it if he is willing to put the passionate leadership he puts in attracting tech business

to the city and improving the organization and technology within san francisco government.

Perhaps we have to wait for a different administration for

there to be a fair hearing on

ways to improve technology. Perhaps you, the board of

supervisors, can take up this

challenge. We hope you will.

There was a better ending to our

title report, deja vu all over again. That is "where there is

a will there is a way.". Thank you. >> thank you for the time and effort put into that report. Any questions right now President Chiu. All right.

With that I would like to ask

the mayor's office to come up.

Cindy is here representing the mayor's team with some responses

and perhaps follow up questions.

>> good afternoon supervisors.

I am cindy, deputy director of the marrow's budget office and

here to speak to the reports. I

am going to keep my response fairly brief and will answer any questions you have in the

hearing. As you know ie.D t and

innovation are among the mayor's

top priority and shares in the

task force and focusing on government efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness

through innovation and it.

Since he's been in office he's pointed the first chief innovation officer and along

with supervisor david chiu announced this position with

strengths and open data legislation. The mayor recognizes that through

technology we can better serve

our citizens. We appreciate the

civil grand jury's work on kreapting this report and

interest in technology. However

we disagree with several of the assertions of the civil grand

jury and believe their comments reflect incomplete understanding

of how the it services work. The report doesn't recognize

much of the recent progress

made. We acknowledge there have been many frustrations in the

past and in many cases those frustrations continue today.

Technology moves quickly. Government doesn't always move

as quickly. There are times and inherent tension between departments and central offices that arise when resources are

limited. There is always room

for improvement. However, we

are encouraged by the recent progress and collaboration and

are confident about the success

of ongoing and future efforts.

Some examples of recent successes are two years ago we

did produce the first ever five

year ict plan. This year we

will update that plan and

working with coit, the cio, and the controller's office on that report and open to feedback on

how we can make it more useful to the board, departments, and

to the public. The city email

conversion project. I know that the civil grand jury points that

as a failure or a ongoing frustration. I think we see

some of the recent success and

progress we're optimistic.

Right now 3600 users, 27 departments and some of the

largest departments are slated for conversion in the next

months and library is slated for conversion and additional 1300 accounts and others in January.

Our largest department with

another 7100 accounts. Data center consolidation and

virtualization has been so

successful that the scope has been expanded. Initially the

project was to convert or

relocate 900 servers and 750

have been virtualized and 400

identified as candidates and 300

additional for relocation and

total of 1400 servers, much larger than the originally scope

of the project. This is also a sign of collaboration among the

departments and one of the data

center is housed at the airport

and not in our department of

technology. Enterprise agreements have recently been

completed with bm ware and adobe

and projected to save the city

money over the next few years

and asset management and equipment maintenance should be completed within the next few

months. I would also like to address some specific concerns

that were raised in the civil

grand jury report. One is the issue of hr and recruitment. We

understand that there are many frustrations with the civil service process and we hear this all the time, particularly as it results to it positions.

However we are required by law

to abide by the civil service

process to ensure that hiring is non diskrom tory. We believe in some cases the stability offered

by a civil service job can be an attracting recruiting feature.

We agree that more flexibility

is needed and that's why we asked human resources to see how

we can make that possible. We don't believe a charter amendment is needed and we believe a solution can be found. We also do not believe

that the role of the cio and the director of department of

technology need to be separated. Many departments -- the

department head focuses on

external issues and deputy focuses on the day-to-day

operations. We do not want an admin code to tie our hands with this decision. We want the

flexibility to consider the

individuals in these roles and

their ability to determine the proper structure for the city and the department and these individuals. We also do not

believe there needs on to be a

formal reporting relationship. As with many central administrative functions like human resources or finance there is a central body with policy

making authority and oversight along with departmental staff. We believe that this model can

work, can and does work for technology. Departmental staff

have a responsibility to fulfill their department's mission while working within the policies and

guidelines set by the central

agency. Staff around the city

can and do communicate with each

other in format set scption like

at coit meetings and other meetings and at monthly lunches

and calling each other when they have questions. I think that's all of the sort of specific things I would like to address

right now but we are able to answer questions later. I am

here today with the cio, the

chair of coit, the controller office and representatives from many departments so in

conclusion of my statement I want to thank the civil grand

jury for their work and interest in this area. However of the examples I discussed there is

progress being made. We believe

as departments, coit and cio

learn from the experiences they of collaborating with each other future projects will benefit

from the lessons learned in these last big projects there is

a culture of change that needs to be happening and we are doing it

and we would rather work toward

this than criticize them of the weaknesses. >> President Chiu.

>>I have a couple of questions and I want to acknowledge the

progress that we have made in coit and throughout our situation in the city. We have made some progress when it comes

to email. 3600 emails that you

mentioned out of 26,000 of moved

over. I want to single out the airport and their work on the

data center. I am hoping that the first it project on time and

on budget, and I also know that

the project emerge made a lot of progress after the controller

took over and I think that is

worth celebrating as well as the two enterprise agreements you referred to. From my

perspective it's not about the

glass full or empty and it's 10%

full. If you look at that we

have 80% of the emails not moved

over. We have a justice project

15 years behind, and over ten million dollars over budget. The

fact that we have countless

enterprise agreements still not different I think it's important to celebrate the progress, but from my perspective there are so many things that we have not been able to get done, and I

wanted to ask you how is the

administration looking at

changing the overall culture?

Why should it take four years

from zero percent to 20% email

consolidation? Should it take

15 years to consolidate the

criminal justice data bases? Should we have three departments and spending millions of dollars

into and no one talks to each

other? When I attend coit meetings and one staffers with department heads and talking

with or at each other it's not clear to me there is leadership that is on the same page and moving us forward and that really is the basic question I'm

trying to get at.

>> okay supervisor. I think

that one of the things that we have seen in the most recent years with the downturn I think

departments and the city were sort of shocked of working together more than they had in

the past, so as we were talking about the culture that needs to

be changing I think in some ways

the recession forced the issue on departments and projects

stalled before the recession are

now moving forward and the email conversion and data consolidation. I think they're realizing through this collaboration they can gain access to projects and technologies they wouldn't be

able to have access to on their

own, or be able to operate on

their own, so I do believe that

recently with this progress

departments are learning, and are -- departments are learning and making progress and it takes time to build the relationships,

but now they're being built and

we're seeing success I believe it can only snow ball and accelerate from here so we are working hard with coit and the

cio to make sure that continues

to happen. The presence of kate

howard at the coit meeting

shouldn't be an indication that

the mayor doesn't make this a

priority. His scheduling conflicts and difficulties and you can understand yourself he can't be everywhere at once and the continued presence and stability offered by kate being

at those meetings who also negotiates department's budgets

and looks at other cross city

wide issue areas like capitol. She is able to provide the leadership that the mayor is looking for and I think you're looking for. >> and I certainly appreciate that. I think the challenge

that I see is that you have a department of technology that

should be coordinating more of

the centralized functions and yet there doesn't seem clear direction to the departments

that they need to cooperate and play ball, and I appreciate your point about how the recent budget challenges we had over

the last years forced things.

Two concerns I have, as the

budget picture improves, how do

we make sure the pressure there

is there to continue the

cooperation and two, twr the grand jury report it's not clear there are the formal levels of communication and authority to ensure that decisions are going

to be made and stuck to. I mean

for example at coit we had countless presentations on these

projects you talked about: email consolidation and data centers and et cetera, and we set deadlines and budgets and every couple of months the deadlines are blown of the budgets have been blown as well,

and it doesn't give me very much

confidence that as a city we have a governance structure that

actually works. It feels way too unwilding at this point and

I understand the challenges of the mayor's schedule and all of

our schedules and being present at these meetings but be sure

there is clear directive and direction and accountability and

every time we hear of a another

schedule or budget slip or not

met there isn't seem to be any

consequences and that's what I find most troubling. >> I don't think supervisor we want to be punitive with

departments in all cases. It wouldn't lead to future success

on projects, so there are ways

in which we can exert control

through the cio review process, through budgeting, through approval of positions, and we're working on that, and we certainly take that authority seriously but are not sure that being punitive is always the way to go. >> which I appreciate as well.

I understand how you don't necessarily want to punish departments that aren't doing

the right thing, but I don't see incentives also for anyone to be

shooting for higher goals, so

again I don't know what will

push the bureaucracy to change its culture in that five years

we're not here and someone else

is my seat and supervisor

farrell's seat we're not having this same exact conversation again. >> I hear your concerns. >> all right. Thank you President Chiu. Thank you cindy

for the presentation and for the

department of technology john.

John, how are you? We have john from the department of technology and wanted to speak as well and welcome.

>> thank you supervisors and thank you civil grand jury for your report and everyone

attending. I want to take a few

moments. I don't want to rehash the stuff said and commented on

and you probably want a rich dialogue in question and answer

period. I want to visit a few

of points and give context to

the conversation and like you I am fascinated by the title of the report and we should revisit a little bit and after being here for five years now where we

have been and where we are

coming to. In terms of deja vu

let's reflect back where we were

as individuals with technology or as an organization with the city. When I joined the city we

didn't have a plan or a governance structure or coit and

sun shet and talking about

creating this structure and we

were struggling how much money

were we spending on it in the city? When I came here there wasn't a report? And so it has

been a long and complex journey, and I think it will continue in these hearings and going forward

to be one of the challenges. I

think we use technology on a

daily basis and work and we are

engaged and are we getting our

money's worth and getting the

service we want? And I wanted to revisit and my staff will

tell you it's easy to hammer on

the things not going well and I

want to re-cap of the last five years and whether we're making progress in solving the problems

and some of the projects are project related, operationally

related and to your point

President Chiu and look back

over the last four cio's and embedded in the organization and

we need to talk about those in different conversations and I will be brief and I don't want

this to be a marketing campaign,

but we have made significant accomplishments. We developed koitd and open transparent

project in the city. We have 15

engaged department heads for that do make the time to come to the meetings and you President Chiu are often at those meetings

and we have a dialogue that didn't exist before. In addition we have subcommittees

that meet on a monthly basis and architect subcommittee, a performance subcommittee and resources and look at how things should be permanenting and planning and budgeting committee

and that is a forum for all those disinfranchised and all of those not part of this participate and members of the subcommittee and come "here are my concerns and policies we need

to have in place" and have that

forum to interact. We all interac informally certainly on

a daily basis but it creates

that forum "hey I work in the tech sector and why aren't you

doing this" and it creates that

forum for that dialogue. One of the challenges are and with coit

and I will take responsibility

and we all do is communication.

Too many times I talk to groups

or individuals and they're not aware of the meetings are and what the topics are and certainly we need to engage in a better communication plan how to

get the word how and talk about what we're doing and actively

engage in more rich communication. But despite all

of that we have accomplished

things in the last five years.

we have a robust project and

budgeting things going on and in

it we're not focused and we have

hundreds of projects in the city and again five years ago we had

no data base. We had no list of the projects so frankly we

didn't know if we were getting them on time or not and we didn't have a context and where

we were spending the money. We

have had the same chair for the

last five years on that subcommittee and created the effort and every year and this

is what we're doing in the upcoming year. This is the money that we need.

unfortunately as you know in

tight budget years we can't fund everything but we have the opportunity to say so-and-so is

doing a similar project and

maybe collaborate with them in a

joint project and we are having

that dialogue. Can it improve? Certainly and we look to improve

that every year and out of that

budget committee was the genis

of the plan and is it visionary?

Is it where we want to be in

five years? Even though I'm the cio I couldn't tell you where we

were going to be in five years

ago. If you said I was going to

do work on my ipad and no phone and it's hard in the

moving word of technology to

predict things so I think the it

plan was certainly a stake in

the ground and grew out of a

laundry list of the projects

that we knew were coming but we tried to put strategic context

to it and when we voted we knew

it would have to change. We knew we couldn't predict five

years out but wanted a stepping stone and that's what the plan did and create a starting point. You have to start somewhere so

it's a first draft. It was an attempt to articulate where we

were going and the appendix was

a lot of projects and and

context. How are we going to

get there financially? And I have done plans and sometimes they're dream documents on a

shelf and ten years later and

wonder why I thought we were

going there. I think for me as

an it professional these strategic plans are more meaningful and revisit them on a regular basis and is it still

valid? Is this where we want to go? And just like an investment

plan. You wouldn't leave them

there and five years later see

where it's at and I think that is important and the department

of technology I have to take my

cio hat off and I know there is conversation around this bigger governance structure in the city and what the department of technology is doing. As you

know the department has under gone like many in the city significant changes in the last five years. Like so many departments it's been tough through the budget reductions

and things like that to redefine ourselves and rediscover where

the best value is at the city. we had to give up traditional services and focus on core

services but I think it's

improving and I would certainly own and recognize that the department of technology has had some challenges over the years

and performing its duties from a performance measure stand point

but I challenge you to talk to

the cio's in the room as the

civil grand jury has and ask

them if they feel it's improving

or getting worse? We all have challenges balancing the strategic and project and operational duties and sometimes

we succeed and sometimes there are unfortunately failure, but i would suggest to you that if you

did ask the cio's and called

them up or informally in the hallway. Are they heading in the right direction? Is their

heart in the right place? Are they listening and doing what

they need to be for you? I think they would say yes and to that point you could look back at our

track record over the last two

years. We made the budget reductions without significant

impact to our customers. We put

the budget from 95 to $73 million done that without our people, our customers out in the departments not getting dial

tone on their phone and still

getting email and still having sfgtv broadcast 14 more commissions than in the past and we have grown our controller services and unfortunately we

had to pull back on others and

ones we couldn't afford to do anything or find contractors to

do those or departments

themselves. I know it's hard.

It's a self discovery I think

for an organization to look internally. I think one of the things we struggled with as a

city we're are asking ourselves

if we can do better and I agree. There are always opportunities

to do better and the conversations around performance and are we performing to our

ideals and standards? And you have to define what those goals and standards are. The department of technology, as President Chiu you pointed out,

we had an audit in the

controller's office and said we needed better performance

measures and we have been providing those for several years now and I suggest to you

because we are highly centralized organization for the

city that we do that for the

entire city and I think there is confusion about what we do and compare it across the city to

all of the it organizations across the city, every

organization that does it, then

we could start developing a common understanding, common

baseline of what the performance looks like, and when we are

satisfied living up to our own expectations and I am happy to

tell you and I know we're wondering if we are making progress, and I think externally

we are making progress. The

city has won seven awards for it excellence this year and we have

struggles but we are making progress around mobility and

open data and transparency is

which are significant and when you talk to other large cities

and I work with new york and

L.A. And boston and we talk about what we're working on and

san francisco is one of the

leaders they look up to and how to do it and we are doing things

on a national scale people are

taking notice of and doing that

and I heard a lot of talk, and I

come from the private sector so

when I first got here one of the

questions I got "how is

government different from the

private sector" from the it

standpoint. It's night and day.

You have hard time drawing parallels and from the private sector come to government thinking that a lot of our ideas and methods of success in the private sector are directly

applicable to how we do work in government, and it's a different

problem to solve frankly. It's

something I have to relearn frequently that the large

company I came from was a large

monolithic corporation and 1ceo

and pyramid up and trickled and everyone did what they did.

Government as you know we're are

a highly decentralized independently elected, independently operated with our boards and commissions. As much as I would like to say I had the

authority or will or desire to cast my will on the organization and have things happen it's not

as simple as that, so a lot of

my jobs and our jobs come down

to partnership and discussion and consensus building and

meetings and more meetings and unfortunately that takes more

time than a linear top down structure so when I talk at

conferences -- I was at dream

force not long ago and having lunch with people "I don't understand government and how

this works". I spent time educating people how government is today and how we're trying to change it and streamline it and maybe it more efficient but it's a challenge and it's a transition for a organization.

I think like a battle ship city

government is not easy to turn

quickly. It's going to take us

years of hard work and partnership and dedication to make that happen. I think we are forging those partnerships.

i think there will be debated

about centralize and

decentralization but in the interim period or department heads make a determination about

that I think it boils down to partnerships and I think

department of technology and cio

and coit we spend time creating

these partnerships and the

consolidation project is a great one. I also want to acknowledge the airport and the emergency management center and we have a great partnership with. We have

a great partnership with labor

and reclassify it positions and training program whereas in the past it was done on a department

by department basis so I think we're creating those partnerships for success, but I

think at the end of the day it's a transitional challenge for the organization to go from thinking

of itself as minicorporations as they view themselves at times in

independent departments to work

together as a cohesive unit. it just grew up. We started in the

main frame days and monolithic

and those terminals and pc

revolution game and it was different overnight and everyone

had a pc and the expert on how

to work things so we are looking

for a balance. We are bringing

your own device to work and still balance that and what does it make sense to have

centralized and do from a

security confidential standpoint and it's exciting time. I welcome the dialogue. I welcome the question. I certainly want to continue the dialogue. I think we are making progress. There are challenges and what we can

do and I will own what we can do to make things better but these

things to happen, the open conversations, the honest conversation bs what is working,

what is not working and will

help us in the future in the city. Thank you President Chiu. >> thank you. I want to thank you for your work you have done at department of technology and tough economic times and the

fact of the matter is your

department has been subjected to the lion's share of budget cuts

we were forced to do and not asking departments to make

similar cuts in their it situation and I think that is

part of the tension and why we

shouldn't know been able to make headway. You allude to the fact until you get direction from the top about need of centralization you had to form partnerships and

you as the head of department of technology can't tell other heads to cooperate and you have

to work out and partnership.

One of the things that I wished the grand jury spent more time on. This is the trend we're

seeing in agencies and governments around the country.

By in large most governments

have a growing decentralization and we know we're not doing that

for everything but there are

functions that need to be

decentralized and we know there are successes here in california

and the state is expected to save $3 billion. Denver went

through a great consolidation and saving millions of dollars.

What are those entities doing

that we're not? What cultural

changes or cultural values have they implemented from a leadership standpoint that we're lacking?

>> to be frank I think the organizational stomach really

for how much it up sets the

organization to go through the

changes? The company I worked

before did out sowzing of it and

we went into states and took

over the it operations and we

could save a government millions

of dollars by doing that, but for a government to centralize

or out source it it's

disruptive, up setting project

to have happen, and I think the

majority of us in the city feel

enough progress is being made to not take that drastic step and whereas you talk about denver or california and I was familiar

with michigan when they consolidated their data centers

there and I came to know the

head there, and there was a willingness and whether driven

by the budget or political desire to upset the entire

model. Kind of blow it up and put it back together again. If

you think it's that broken and it takes political will power to make that happen. We have partnerships and I think I have good partnerships with the cio's

and the department heads and

that drastic change which I he

alluded to is up setting and

unsettling and

usually two years and we struggled with large projects

and I would ask if this organization is mature enough to take on those initiative disblis think one thing I want to

observe and in my first coit meeting in 2009 the body decided

we were going to consolidate our email. That was four years ago,

and as you know, and as I think

many folks in this room knows

every few months we got an update why things weren't moving

and I wanted to quote a part of the civil grand jury report want

the jury has been told that some

members vote yes on the policy

and with their department drag

their heels in implementing that policy and one refused to go along with the full implementation of projects" and

I bring this up because I often find there seems to be on the

service support for what we are

trying to achieve versus centralization of these

functions but when it comes to actual implementation doesn't seem like there is much accountability and again I don't

put that on you. I think that is a broader conversation of the management of our agencies and I think that direction needs to

come from the top and when we

decide as policy makers this is what we're going to do to create accountability and that's the piece I think is really missing

in many of these project and getting them done. >> john, quick question for you,

and I appreciate all your comments and responses and the time we have worked together on certain projects. I think

backing up on the civil grand

jury report and President Chiu's

question you talk about organizational and operational questions and the dialogue and

whether it's a structural issue, the centralization? To me it's

real. I appreciate your budget

has been slashed 25% and brutal in any environment and

especially when other budgets hasn't been slashed as much, and understanding it might upset the apple cart so to speak, but I don't think we can be afraid of

that in g we have to innovate.

to some degree and maybe your

department faces a challenge and labeled innovation capital of the world, however you want to

label it and in the center of

technology globally and I think

we are expected to innovate. So what are some of the things that have to happen? What environments do you have to

see -- let's say it's a centralization issue. What are

issues that have to take place to have that dialogue happening?

to me as I read through the

report and I don't know about you President Chiu, there seems

to be an issue here. And

progress is being made and that is great but is it fast enough?

When I tell people I am on lotus

notes for email it's a round

laughter all along and what needs to take place. >> let me say two things about the conversation and let me put

it out there how I perceive the

comments and the reports and supervisor your comments.

Number one is we did studies if we're spending enough on it in the city. If you look at the

budget city wide and north of $7 billion a year we spend on city services which is frankly a huge amount of money, so when

you look at the percentage

whether it's $150 million or $250 million depending which

report you read from it --

>> by the way if I can make one note and we can't figure out that number is astonishing to me

and I ask every year in the

budget process and this report points to $250 million I think

is more accurate and ongoing

question to the mayor's office

and the controller's office and

how we get a handle of that. My apologies for interrupting. >> what do we want to do? Do we

want to save money? Is that our goal in san francisco? I

suggest to you and I am not

embarrassed by the fact we're

are the innovation city and it's

a lot of money and I think we should be innovative with that

money and don't you feel bad because you're government and

always a lagger? I don't feel I am. I come from the private

sector and I can be as

innovative as others and granted

I don't have certain challenges

and I don't have shareholders breathing down my neck but I have other challenges and

remember that most organizations

that centralize to do it to save

money. Most are about the performance they're achieving

and they out source to inch

krimentally save more money and

a cost savings discussion and if we use technology as a driver

and this is from the department's perspective I think

we're kind of squeezing blood

out of a turnip at that point. I think the

question is are we getting our money's worth? Do we clear clee understand for the money that we

spend on it in the city are we

achieving what we want to achieve? For that money should

you be on the old email system

or a new one? I think one the challenges is how much are we

spending all the time are we making wise investments and getting our money out of spend

something and when we compare to

other cities and we are spending

about -- a little less than

other bigger cities and do than

per capita, per person, per

population, per employee our numbers are slightly lower on

the scale, but are we getting the money's worth? I think that

is the frustration and it's a

lot of money and some departments are on old systems

and others are on new and the equity.

>> I agree with the comments. My question is not how much we

spend. I think it spending is worth the investment, but is it

are we getting our money's

worth? And to your example

though how much different email

systems are we're running here?

Is centralized the better way?

That is revamping but that

question needs to be asked and

what I am wondering what are the

bigger obstacles in your mind

and? And there are different

groups responsible and maybe the mayor's office needs to take a look or push with this and if we

have so many systems it doesn't

mens sense -- >> >> make sense.

>> I think it goes to why we're

updating the plan and how we're

updating. The original plan --

one of the weakness was there wasn't connection between the department and it is bigger

goals to achieve as a city, so

there wasn't the direct

connection between departmental

initiatives and spending and koid and with enterprise systems and collaboration and the things

that we spend auto meetings I of

in in the last 60 days and the revised plan which will come

next year is making that connection. Certainly you could

do it through organizational

structure and easier to tell

people to go interest one group

and fall into line and even

though I like that simple

approach and I have seen others

suggest it and it not go

anywhere. One thing for koid -- there is one belief we focus and manage they're on time and on budget and I think that is important, but perhaps the

bigger challenge for coit and

the subcommittee is clearly

articulating the goals. One

email system as the vision and

how does it align to that vision? I see now a laundry

list of what departments do and not what coit does and I

understand that we don't want to punitive for not participating

and all of the projects are

important, but in the

nextittereration can make that connection and these five

projects are the highest priority and continue to the

goal but the structure is less

important than the focus and the positive reinforcement giving to departments and this is better

than this and we need to help

people see what they do.

>> thank you. I appreciate your responses. President Chiu any other questions right now?

Okay. We have to go to item two but first I will open it up to public comment on the hearing,

so if there are any members of

the public that wish to speak on

item one, the item we have been going through, please line up if

there is anyone at all. crickets. Okay. Before I close

it are there any other department representatives that

-- I know we only called a few

folks that want to speak that haven't been offered an

opportunity. I know people are

here and in a responsive

community and if anyone wants to speak. Anybody? With they will

say public comment is closed. President Chiu can we -- what do

you want to do with item number one?

>> why don't we -- I guess why don't we table this item. >> okay. We can do that without

objection. And to item number

two. For members of the public

that don't witness these normally with the civil grand jury report they ask the board

of supervisors to respond to findings and recommendations of their reports. This one regarding the technology system

is quite extensive. I want to

thank the civil grand jury for putting our paces with this one and we will have some dialogue and we might have questions along the way and with that

President Chiu do you want to

take charge here?

>> sure. First of all I wanted to note it's interesting no one wanted to speak in public

comment on this item. I know

there have been folks focused on

these questions for a long time

and probably city staffers watching this hearing not sharing their shoats and I am looking and the policy makers

are looking to have an open dialogue with these moatings and

what I find in coit meetings everyone agrees and projects

take 15 years and millions of dollars over budget to get done

and I am getting frankly frustrated and tired about that, so I encourage city staffers and

others who have an opinion on

this and feel free to raise them

in coit meetings or contact my office and I am willing to have more private conversations and I think having an open dialogue

how we strengthen our

operations. How we can work better with the department of technology and all of these are important. Just as the Chairman

Described for this item we were asked by the civil grand jury to give our perspective on a variety of items and you asked

us to comment on dozens and dozens of items, and I would suggest for the future if possible, and as someone who

sits on the committee and goes through the findings and possible to streamline some of these and hit on some of the

important ones. I think it

dilute what is we're trying to achieve and just one point.

Also as I read through the comments and report the civil

grand jury made a number of findings and recommendations that they want us to agree with

and I think it's fair to say

that the mayor's office

disagreed with the vast majority of recommendations and they asked departments to provide their perspective, and I think

it's fair to say that the recommendations and findings we received from departments were

really all over the map and I of

thinking about this and in my mind making my thoughts whether

I agree with the civil grand jury or diagree with the mayor

is there an answer in between?

By in large if the answers are

partially agree, agree,

partially disagree, or disagree

and many of my answers were

partially agree. I think where

the grand jury wanted to go make sense but I wanted to move it

along and I am going to read through the recommendation and I

will try to do this quickly.

I'm not reading the specific

recommendations and I am read a

number. Number one, partially

agree. While this has been

helpful departments have not --

fiez ebl a stronger sense of priority and direction is needed

for move forward with the direction. Finding number two.

Partially agree. While the department of technology has been viewed as competent and professional for some functions and some departments other departments have stated that the

department of technology has not provided satisfactory service as often as desired. >> President Chiu -- as we go through the items and clarify

them if we have discussion so we

can record the information --

what the recommendation will be. >> sure. Okay.

>> Mr. Chair, members of the committee and higher budget -- [Inaudible] Analyst office. If

it's possible through the chair if it's possible President Chiu

to get a copy of the written testimony.

>> I think I have one more copy.

>> that is terrific. Thank

you.

>> I think since we have two members

here we will agree and I think the mayor going to every one and

is not feasible but to make it a

bigger priority is real and

actionable here and I agree.

>> for finding number two and

give everyone context I will probably summarize the finding

we're asking to refer to. The

finding was the department of

technology continues to

perceived by customers providing unsatisfactory service and my

response is it's comp tentd for some functions and some

department there are other

departments that they don't give satisfactory services as often

as desired. Finding number

three -- for

this I state that I disagreed

with this. The recent cuts department of technology budget have not been because of a lack

of performance but the result of budget deficits across the board

and I think they have born the massive bruntd of this within the technology world.

>> I agree. >> finding number four -- the

finding we were asking to react

to. Another consequence of dt for departments and participate

in city wide initiatives and give up operational independence

and for this I state that I

agree. Because other

departments haven't had full

faith in dt and not willing to give up operational independence. >> I would agree with that and I

think that talks about the structural things we were talking about and structural issues and I look forward to the dialogue going forward and I think there are changes to be made here. >> number five and coit policies

and changes and not communicated effectively to the mayor and

coit and for this I would --

actually I think I partially

agree. I would say partially

disagree and I state while coit

policies and city wide initiatives are communicated

clearly there is no follow up or

deadlines to carry out policies and initiatives. Number six.

This was set by an administrative code change I

lghtded in 2010 and it has now been two years.

>> can I just ask the mayor's office? Do we have progress

report how those seats are being filled?

>> there is progress on that.

I

think city

administrator's office is here and recruiting for the positions

in November and taking

applications and coit can make t

a selection in the early of the new year. >> okay.

>> and I wish to let folks know if members would like to participate in coit we would very much appreciate hearing

from you. So item number seven,

the current city wide organizational structure hinders

the cio from using the

established authority and responsibility from implementing policies and procedures and what I have said for this I partially

agree. While the city cio has some powers decentralized

organized structure makes it

difficult to enforce standards across departments.

>> okay. >> finding number eight. And

this is going to go on for a

while and I apologize to the public. Number eight and the operational role of the

department of technology are two furchdamentally different and equally full time jobs and i

said have said I partially

agree. While there are needs

for these two positions the

department of technology deputy could assist in these operations and this will relate to

recommendations made later on.

Finding number nine, department

cio's have no formal way to

communicate with each other or technology issues and my reaction is partially agree.

While there is no formal forum there are informal ones and meet

in meetings and if there were

more formal meetings and for these accountability measures to be instituteed.

>> I have a quick question. Is

the airport cio here? Just for a second. I notice your

response here that you actually

agreed with the finding. Just

your thoughts on what could be done. >> as President Chiu suggested i

agree with the finding. We should have more formalized meetings so that was my basis for that.

>> okay. Any specific forum from that suggestion that he might have? I think reading through the responses you were the one response and maybe

actually spoke out and said "i

agree" and wanted to solicit your feedback. >> I didn't give it more thought

to the feedback but I think we need a regularly scheduled meeting with agenda and objectives for that dialogue and planning to occur. >> okay thank you. >> and supervisor farrell hearing that and by the way I

want to thank the airport. I think your department has been a

great example of how technology has been well managed and this

is why I think we entrusted your

department with the data center project. I could agree or partially agree with the statement depending where you

want to go with that Mr. Chairman. >> partially agree is fine.

>> okay. Finding number ten. The lack of a functional reporting relationship between

the city cio and the departmental cio's functional

weakness for city wide problems

and partially agree the city's inability to manage these

projects in a centralized function could benefit from

reporting relationship between

the city, cio and department c

cio's. Number 11. Allowing common ict xurchgzs addressed

and performed by department by

department basis has lead to duplication and unnecessary

spending. For this I agree. Addressing by individual

departments is the reason for

duplicative efforts and spending. Finding 12. The plan

does not include ongoing operational activities and prior funding. For this I agree. The

five year plan is a strategic

plan and focus on operational

activities would be helpful.

Find be number 13. There are no consolidated budget and staffing plans. Partially agree. While

there are some efforts there is

no accountability and it's not

clear who is responsible if spending decisions are not met. Now let's get to the first category of recommendations. Moving to -- there were a number of recommendations that came out

of the civil grand jury. We were specifically asked to

respond to a number of them. Recommendation number two is the

budget analyst for the controller perform management audit evaluating department of

technology's function and dt

adequately communicates with

other departments and alleviate their barriers to performance and I gather from other agencies

this will be implemented and

while the audit will be helpful

it is my understanding this is under way. Recommendation number four --

>> excuse me. Through the chair, President Chiu, I think in terms what is required for

responses to the recommendations there are four categories of

responses. Either has been implemented, has not been

implemented but will be implemented. For that we need a

time frame for the implementation of the

recommendation requires further

analysis, that requires

description of the scope and

time frame not exceeding six

months and lastly -- [Inaudible] >> my understanding is this will be implemented but the six month time frame is appropriate if that is something we're required to do.

>> okay. So for will be implemented -- yes. As long as there is a time frame.

>> okay. I will use that as a default, for time period for coit and department of

technology to work with this on

the budget analyst or controller. For finding four and appoint two members without

delay. From my understanding

will be implemented and while

the city has not moved on it for

six months I expect this to be. >> >> six years I expect the city

to work on this and get it done

in the next six months or six

weeks. Next is have a plan and

budget and reviewed by coit and to the mayor's office and the board of supervisors. Again what is fascinating about the answers and all of the agencies

are across the map. Some say

yes. Some say no. Some say

it's implemented. Some say it's

not. It will be implemented and always a cit budget but not

decisions related to that budget. Recommendation number six. Subject to coit approval

of the I kr.D t budget and

staffing plans coit and the cio must monitor adherence to these

plans and I think what I will say for this should be implemented within the next six

months. One of the challenges we face challenges here at the

board and coit and time lines and budgets keep slipping and it's important to have monitoring that continues.

recommendation number seven.

The cio position be elevated to this and there is significant split of opinion on

what we should do. It's my

perspective and having cio's

report to department heads and

sit around coit once a month and

talk about it issues is not

enough to get the job done. On the other hand I am concerned

and not sure what it would look

like for them to report up to a

department head and the cio and

I stated this requires further analysis and within departments with no function relationships

with the city cio, continued to

excel bait the lack of. >> >> exacerbate the lack of coordination and ask them to further consider what is the

best way for the departmental

cio to interact with the city cio? For recommendation number

eight the recommendation is that

staff support be provided to the

city cio and coit. My

understanding is this is already

being done so that is the answer for recommendation number nine. Amend the administrative code to

separate the position of the city cio from the department

much technology. We are in the process of occupying up. >>

>> Mr. Walton has been acting as

the cio for one year now? Two

years now which has been a problem and I would have find if

we made the acting cio, the cio

and that's the mayor's opinion and I think the answer to this is requires further anal scpises require

whether the two positions are

needed after the new cio is

hired and similarly for recommendation number ten which

is to amend the administrative code to create separate position

of the director of dt pointed to

-- appointed by and to the

city's cio and same analysis

after the new cio is hired.

That is in the first phase and

now let's go to the second and

my apologies for speaking

quickly. Although address although these bodies address

technology on a city wide basis

technology is not treated as a distinct organizational entity

and I agree. I think it should

be treated as a city wide and departmental function and hr

function, or the controller's function. Some functions need

to be centralized and others

will always within within their departments. And by the way I

just want to deas for members of the public and city staff it's

not my perspective that we

should centralize all things.

Clearly the department of public

health needs those records and the airport needs those those things and we all have emails

and there is a blend in the different activities and they should be handled a bit differently is something that we

need to do. Finding number 15. There is no comprehensive annual report on the state of technology within city government presented to the mayor and the board of supervisors. Agree. There is no annual reporting. We supposed to have biannual reporting and just as we have

annual revisions to the ten year

capital plan I think ict plan would benefit from annual review. 16. There is a

scarcity in the data separate

from departmental budgets.

Agree. It's difficult to get data from individual departments

and what should be consolidated. finding number 17 -- and I have

to point out to the civil grand

jury aren't you glad you had all

these find?Tion number 17, coit

focuses on the implementation of

city wide projects and not the

cost and savings from the

project. I agree. While these have been attempted for city

wide it's minimal and proper

departments are not inventized to calculate the savings and

costs of this and potential

lose

resources. Finding number 18.

There's a need for city wide ict asset management system. 18. I agree. Departments should provide this data to the department of technology. The fact it's not done is reflective of the fact that departments are not willing to share or centralize these assets.

Finding 19. There is a need for

data base of city wide personnel. Agree. This could

assist coit in the city cio to understand duplicative

functions

and prchl personnel to assist

different functions. Let's go

to recommendations. Recommendation number 11 which

is a recommendation to the city

cio work with the controller for

a survey not limited to performance data, et cetera and

for this I would state requires

further analysis. The city cio

should work to provide survey performance, decision making and

annual baselines to measure performance. Recommendation

number 12. The city cio should

report annually on the state of

technology to the mayor and the supervisors. My understanding

this will be implemented with the new cio and there is little by the board of supervisors except for the supervisors that

have chosen to learn more.

Recommendation number 13. The

city cio or the controller

create asset management system

for cio equipment. I will state this will be implemented from my understanding in the next six

months and this is only prudent. Recommendation number 14 is that

the city cio and the department of human resources create a

data

base for personnel to cal log

services and operating system. Recommendation 14. What I had

stated here requires further analysis but I would say I think we agree that would help departments and identifying

resources. I would like to work closely with labor and department heads to understand

the best way to move this

forward. So one more page is findings and recommendations.

let's go to finding number 20. Find be number 20. There is no

effort to gather and utilize comprehensive and quantitative data to track how ict functions

and what I stated for this I personally disagree. While

there are efforts to see how

they function departments don't

have incentive to assist in such efforts. Finding number 21.

The five year ict plan is not a

strategic plan. It doesn't

calculate how the changes in the

system would impact the cost and

I agree with that and ought to

be that plan at this time but

only current plan of projects.

Number 22. They are

experiencing difficulty in hiring these group of people

with skills and I agree and

hiring managers with cutting

edge experience has been

extremely challenging. Finding number 23. Relying on permanent

civil service as standard way of hiring technology is too slow

and cumbersome for the business

needs of ict units, and what i

would say to this is partially

agree. City government needs to

contemplate and less cumbersome

mechanisms and in consult ainz

with labor. Number 24. And -- I would state -- I would amend

some language I have in here partially agree. City government needs to contemplate the mechanisms beyond the

current system to hire the best

ict staff again in consultation

with labor partners. Now going to the recommendation in this

section about how we improve

some of our labor and work

functions. Recommendation

number 15. The recommendation

is we revise the city charter and all positions are classified

as exempt two positions and I stated requires further

analysis. The city should look

at alternatives and implentded

without changes to the city

charter. From my perspective we

can make changes but if we can

did do that without would be

ideal. Next according to the mayor's response this has been

implemented and the cio should

be involved with hiring of this personnel and number 17 and

included with department heads

in performance review process of current ict personnel. What I stated for this requires further analysis. If there are functional relationships between

the city cio and departmental

cio's they should assist them in the reviews. And recommendation

18 pending charter revision mayor develop methods for

speeding up the hiring process

for ict personnel. And the

mayor should speed up the method

for hiring ict personnel.

Finding number 25. City technology culture is based on the belief that departments work on individual missions in

expense of city wide needs. Partially disagree. While few

departments say their needs

should trump city wide concerns

bureaucratic turf has created

this culture and not promote

cooperation. Finding number 26. The cooperative attitude among

departments and dt previously founded by earlier civil grand jury has faded and what I have

said to that I would actually disagree with that. I think in

the last few years there has been improvement and cooperation between departments but still a

good chance to achieve. I will

say partially disagree. Finding number 27, a department first

perspective, not the city wide perspective, intended in the administrative code has resulted in lack of coordination and communication between the

departments and for this I would

state agreed. The fact that

these projects have taken so

long to take forward is the

attitude that perminates city agencies. Next I also agree and it's difficult to move departments in the same direction. 29, department heads and cio's don't grant the authority for them in the administrative code as governing their own plans and actions.

For this I agree. Finding 30. Neither

coit or the cio believe in their ability to enforce these policies and initiatives and I patiently agree with that

statement. While coit likes to

behave they have the authority

to enforce policies and

initiatives because it's a

diffused body there is no one to hold them accountable. The last

finding there is no secure or immediate consequences for departments failing to implement in city wide initiatives and

meet time lines for compleetion.

I agree. There are no

consequences for them to meet

time lines for completion and the last is

recommendation 19 which is the

recommendation is that the mayor provide consistent passionate and aggressive leadership in the field of city wide technology

fostering progress and garnderring agreement moon

departments and cooperative and cohesive culture. The mayor has stated that has been implemented. I would like to

say I hope that is implemented

on in the next six months and demand accountability for budgets and deadlines and more cohesive culture and the sharing of work, so with that Mr. Chair

you're going to do the findings and recommendations for the next one, but the only thing I would

just like to say in conclusion

is I know that this is a topic

that touches a lot of nerves.

there are a lot of folks working hard within individual departments, within department

of technology and within the

mayor's office to move us in a good direction and one thing I

would like to state the recommendations I am

recommending is no way pointing specific fingers anywhere, but i

think that we have to have honest and real dialogue about what we need to do to move things forward and I have to

tell you I hope this is the last time the civil grand jury has to

come to the board to give a report like this and I

appreciate the work you have done. We might not have full agreement in the solutions but I

think we need to spend more

time, both at coit and whoever the new cio is to figure out the

next steps. It's my perspective

and while we're capital of innovation it's really the

private sector and I can't say a

city government that puts lotus

notes on my email system is capital of innovation in the public sector. I think many of the technologies are stuck in

1999 and unless we do this we will -- there will be future

supervisors who will have larger

binder of folders of additional

reports and all the monies

wasted and the efficiencies wasted and not taking the

opportunity to move into a real 21st century government and I

take we take this to heart and

really work on, so in a few

years we will truly win the

seven awards that the department of technology received but we

are a model for how we manage

the technology for years to come

and with that Chairman. >> thank you President Chiu. I want to thank all the departments that came to respond as well. I couldn't agree with more of the point of this report. Obviously we have a lot

of work to do. I am one of the members of the board of supervisors frustrated where we

are with the technology here in san francisco and city government and I will say these challenges are not easy to solve but we're not doing our

job on the board if we're not

willing innovate and drive that

home in house so I look forward to this continuing dialogue so

we made a number of findings and recommendations. What I am

going to do before making a

motion I am open it up for public comment. If anyone would like to speak for public comment

and we will have two minutes per person.

>> great. David pillpow and I was watching this somewhere else

and I know you were concerned there was no public comment on

item one and I ran over. I have

been a participant in coit and I have several points. I spoke

back in February at coit and

express the strong opinion it

was time for Mr. Walton to be replaced as city cio and

director of dt. That was a very strong recommendation. That was not something that I took

lightly and apparently something

that shocked a

number of people and the

responses speak on to that. I

believe that position, head of

dt, collaborative and build trust

and if that happens those things will work better and the things

run by the department will also work better and there will be that understanding developed but I don't think that's there now

and I think that's the root of a

lot of what you just talked about. I think coit itself meds to be more functional and really

set policy and review policy for the city in terms of it, not

just get reports after the fact

of things that happened, deadlines that slipd, budgets

that slipped and as a final

example dt put out rfp for

telecomaudit for the city's voice line. I don't believe coit knows about that. I don't

know where that was in the budget. I believe there is city

staff that could perform that

function and ask them why don't

they know where the phone lines

are and I hope this gets better and I am happy to engage.

>> thank you. Anybody else want

to speak on public comment on item two? Seeing none public

comment is closed. President Chiu.

>> I ask that we move forward the recommendations that I made.

>> okay. We can do that without objection.

>> again. Thank you to everyone .

>> thank you and before I call items three and four we will

take a few minutes and stretch our legs. We have been here

for

two hours. Thanks.

Recess:  .

>> welcome back everyone. Welcome to the government audit

and oversight committee. At

this point Madam Clerk can you call item three and four. >> item three is a hearing and

four is a resolution and to the investigation into the san francisco municipal transportation agency.

>> thank you very much and back to the civil grand jury. Thanks

again. If you want to come up and we will hear item three.

>> thank you very much

supervisors. This time

supervisor feral only about eight findings and recommendations. >> I made a good trade.

>> yeah. And thanks for hearing about the san francisco municipal transportation agency

and switchbacks and behalf of

the grand jury and the chair of

make the report and assisted in the report.

>> thank you very much.

>> thank you supervisors. I am

sharon gadbury a member of the

2011-2012 grand jury and chair

of the better muni service needed without sich backs

report. I would like to thank

Chairman Farrell and supervisor chiu and agencies for

taking time to read and respond to our findings and recommendations. I want to

thank you also the presiding

judge of the superior court and

martin choy the acting foreperson and the grand juries that have worked so hard over

the one year term. Members were

selected to be motivated competent and diverse but we all

had one thing in common. We love san francisco and we want

it to be the best city it can be. When the jury discussed and

voted on this muni investigation we deliberately chose to focus

on the practice of switchbacks

rather than try to investigate the whole transportation system

which I think will make you

happy today. We in factually suspected and later convinced

that the way muni was using and

justifying switchbacks as a tool

to regulate service -- that's in

quotes, was a blatant breach of the public's trust. The schedules are a promise made by

muni to the riders and

switchbacks break that promise. We disagree emphatically with

the words of muni executive director and passengers have no

right to expect that muni's

vehicle will complete the route

they're riding on announcing muni has no obligation

whatsoever to follow the routes

it has advertised to riders is brazen statement disavowing the

moral and legal obligations of the transportation system. We believe that the muni schedules are a legal and moral contract between the system and its riders and breaching the

contract violates the trust of the riders and their ability to

rely on the system to carry out

their daily lives in the city.

And using switchbacks as a tool

muni is deliberately violating rider trust deciding one group

of passengers who are riding a

bus or train must disrupt their trip and disembark and wait for the next one so the vehicles

don't clunk or another line can carry more passengers. In order

to smooth traffic the bus or

train leaves the route. It's two fold. It eliminates the late

bus or train that is actually

causing the clumping and so slow it's in way of the others on the

line and it improves the on time record because the slow bus or

train is no longer operating. It's great for muni. Not so

great for the left behind passengers. We're not sure when muni decided to deploy operational switch backs in its

system but in early 2011 muni

passengers began to complain about switchbacks that left them

strandd and waiting on strange platforms in the city.

According to their own

statistics about 41,000 riders a

month were left on the street because of switchbacks. We were told switchbacks were implemented in the absence of clumping whenever a bus or train was needod another run. This

means that the abandoned riders walk to their destination or waited often in the cold and dark and possibly rain until

another bus or metro car

arrived. We were shocked and

amazing to learn as far as muni officials were concerned this provided after overall benefit to passengers because the vehicles were being deployed

where they were needed most.

Plans for the future of muni included more switchbacks, not

fewer as muni now claims. What

makes this report more germane

is the fact that is muni's 100 anniversary to commemorate the

mile stein they adopted the logo

"the people's system". It seems if you're going to be the

people's system you need to live

up to this on lofty label. My fellow jurors that worked on the

report will focus on the

findings. The first findings

find that the switchbacks violate the san francisco

charter and guarantees safe and

reliable transit service to riders. I won't ask to you raise your hands but just thinking how many of you have

taken muni in the last week, or ride muni regularly. If you

have and if you do you're

probably still subject to switchbacks and understand how

deeply the experience can under

mine your trust in the system. our fellow juror who was

planning present today had to leave due to another appointment, and so I'm going to read her report because I think

it's important if you're not a

muni rider to understand the

whole switch back and what the

experience is, so she has had since April -- since actually

muni has said they have

discontinued or cut back on switchbacks she has been subject to three of them even though

she's not a regular muni rider.

These are descriptions of her

experiences. In early April I

boarded -- by the way her name

is gene and I will be reading

hers. At some point the driver

announced something on the pa

system. The sound had static

and he had an accent and I couldn't understand what he said

and the other riders didn't show

great concern. When he began

announcing again I asked a later

near me and she wasn't sure but

maybe getting off on 36th

avenue. I road to 26th avenue

where my car was and stopped at

36th avenue and had all the

passengers, 25 -- not an age but number, get off and stand in the

rain to wait for another car

whichn 't in sight. Another

time I recall being involved in

a switch back I boarded a train

at at&t park when the giants

were home and playing. Hey

giants. I got off at the

embarcadero station to wait for

out bound in bound train. When I looked at the schedule board

it said the next one would be 45 minutes. There were several

people waiting and we continued

to wait as 2m and 2k

cars and j and t cars went by.

I realized those with me were also waiting for n car. I

called three one one which is a wonderful efficient customer

service related system. I was

given someone I was told taking

calls related to muni. He said

he knew nothing about a delay in

n cars had he had not been informed or received calls about

any delay. As he was checking

in and an inbound n car went

past me towards the ballpark and the cal train. I told that to the three one one operator and

by the time it came back to the

embarcadero station after being

by the ballpark and the people waiting patiently except for me at the embarcadero station would

do well to get on the train much

less get a seat. He was a pol

gettic and he assured me he

noted my call. Within five minutes an out bound train came

in to the embarcadero station

empty. The schedule indicated

it would be more than 30 minutes

to the next out bound train and

by the time this train got to

powell street station it was

full and more people each stop after. Since the three one one

operator knew nothing about a

problem and meant all those people didn't call because they

didn't expect to get any better service. Number three, another

more recent time I boarded in

train at third avenue and the signage said it was only going

to church street. I got on and the driver said in a clear voice

on a clear pa system that the

train would go only to church

street. At every stop he informed the new passengers that

boarded. I thought this is great. Everything's working as

it should. If they do a switch

back. When we got to church

street the train was full with many people standing and we were

told to get off and go oat another means of transport. I was one of the last to get off

and some people started getting on. I told them this train is

not going to the embarcadero.

They replied "it is". They changed it. At this point more

than half of the passengers were gone

and the train left embarcadero

with half of the passengers and

most had gone on to seek other

means to the embarcadero or the

ballpark. When I ask people about switchbacks they all know

and say it's a common

occurrence. When muni says they

rarely use switch back it's

incredulous. They feel it's a common experience in their muni experience as it is mine. Now

we will switch back to me. What

I want to say one of the main

findings in the report is the

fact that out of all the transit systems we interviewed only one

used switchbacks as muni does to -- >> can I interrupt you and ask you about that? >> yes. >> perhaps I missed it, but can

you talk a little bit about the other jurisdictions that you spoke with?

>> you know what we're going to have in jack's report -- he's

going to talk about how we chose the other jurisdictions. >> great. >> and jack and I interviewed

them together and some of the

other jurors joined in on the interviews but our selection was

based on the controller's

report that compared systems and we selected the list from the

controller and contacted those systems. We were also told that

all of the systems in europe use

switchbacks as a tool, so we

took advantage of a vacation to

contact three systems in paris,

and speak to representative who knew about those three systems. We then confirmd that interview

in a phone call with some emails. >> great.

>> so let's have jack come up because he can talk to you about

the story of our interviews, why we conducted them and some of

the information we got from those interviews.

>> thank you. And as sharon

mentioned when we do our interviews we have two people present and make records of

them, so in doing so to continue

we spent ten months of our

subsequent investigations

investigating the muni. During

this time muni management

continued to insist that using

switchbacks as a traffic

smoothing tool was good for the

majority passengers, yet digging deeper the civil grand jury discovered in fact that the muni had no evidence one way or

another about the use or abuse of switchbacks. This was

because as many managers

repeatedly told us switch backs are commonly and frequently used in other transportation systems

around the world. According to

one manager" they're part of

transportation 101 and a

basic tool for traffic". Did

they spend up buss and trains?

did they make service more

reliable? As it was clear muni was not interested in our

investigation we asked muni officials for names of the other

systems that use switchbacks for other emergency situations.

They respond they couldn't name

such systems and they didn't

need to because they knew for a

fact "all other systems use

switch backs in this way". After hearing the same answer for the ten months of our

investigation we were taken aback in August, 2012, just a

few months ago, to read in the newspaper that muni reported that they interviewed five other

systems and found that they all used switchbacks to smooth traffic. In September of 2011

we decided if muni would not

provide us with other transit agencies to speak to we would

have to find them ourselves. Fortunately the san francisco

controller did a study and comparing muni to five other

systems these cities included boston, seattle, new york,

oakland and san jose or

santa clara mta. They all had higher scores than muni. Muni

was on the bottom. We included

bart. Since they said other systems did it we decided to

look at the systems in paris

france. It took months to identify the right officials and in this case either the head of

operations or the systems schedulinger all but one which

was new york agreed to an extensive interview by two of us

and per the rules we were not identified. Nevertheless of the

interviews as described in the

report were significant. All

transit systems it became clear

had multiple systems that were similar and had challenges and

all needed to deal with complex

traffic, scheduling, and terrain problems uniquely their own, and

yet as we had known the san francisco controller's survey

had shown all had higher reliability and rider seaferz than muni and we determined that all systems use switchbacks they

only did so in cases of

equipment break down or emergencies except for one. one

system which happened to be the

santa clara mta does use switch backs and interestingly enough

their head is the former employee of muni, michael burns, who was a former employee and

went to work for them. As you supervisors May remember he was

the one that took bonuses for

all sorts of things he really wasn't able to do for muni and

increasing time and got these

bonuses. What also struck us was the amazement of the

operation officers if they employed switchbacks? What we heard over and over again are

the comments that swism backs

were an insult to riders. They

also pointed out that switchbacks couldn't speed up

traffic because of the time boarding and deboarding. What

struck home was the attitude of

the managers in their own

system. In virtually all cases they took responsibility for ensuring the responsibility of

the system and work improve

their services and rider surveys and constantly adjusting their

schedules. I under line that. Constantly adjusting their schedules. Virtually everyone

told us schedules was the most effective tool and many felt the

additional time to load and

unload vehicles slowed service.

The managers that we interviewed also volunteered that the daily

actions and programs taken

guaranteed that service was

reliable and all were under

surkaled budgets and these

solutions need to be cost effective. We were impressed

with the cado attitude of management and staff and make

sure that needs were met and

some ininstituted apps and

allows passages to see where

vehicles were at all times and other coordinated lights to

speed up service. We came away convinced if muni instituted a portion of those suggestions there could be increase in the

speed of the system and rider

satisfaction as well as lower cost. Coming away from the

interviews we were eegtory show

our findings with muni to see

how many suggestions would be

tried. Unfortunately when

jurors attempted to engage with

muni as per our charter

responsibility we were met with

stale rhetoric and managers had

speeches and suggested the problems were impossible to fix

and not in the term of our time.

Next we were allowed to

negotiate with officials and ask

a meeting with the scheduling

muni manager. We were told that

position was currently empty.

Adding insult to injury it

wasn't midpoint in the

investigation that we came

across a statement from them and tep and transit effective

project and shared with us and

compleated in 2008 and list of solutions similar to those proposed by transportation consultants with whom we spoke.

The muni managers we finally did

speak with shared the fact that the 2008tep plan has been halted

to budgetary concerns and was

now only being partially

implemented. In our report we

acknowledge the resurrection of

2008tep as a step forward from

muni and encouraged the

expansion of it to speed up muni

and ways to avoid switchbacks.

In summary the 2011-2012 grand

jury conducted a survey of other

systems and four of which had

higher rider satisfaction ratings than muni. We found

that the use of switchbacks was

not a commonly used practice of

all systems and rejected by the

managers who felt they're an

sult to passengers and rather

the other systems use variety

and easy and low cost practices to ensure rider satisfaction.

Many are similar to those identified in muni's 2008

effectiveness transit project. Unfortunately although it has

been resurrected it hasn't been

updated and recommendations are only being implemented selectively. Thank you. >> thank you. Just a quick

question and thank you for giving the report and no wonder

I recognize you in the hall there. How many jurisdictions did you talk to?

>> well, we emailed and talked

to people in paris because they

did comment on our initial go around that everybody in the

world uses switch backs and we can emphatically and

categorically tell you it's not a smoothing tool for their

systems in france. We talked to

the people in seattle and boston and the san jose and santa clara

area. Am I leaving any out? >> [Inaudible]

>> and we also talked to bart. >> [Inaudible] >> boston, seattle, yes. New

york didn't speak to us. San jose, santa clara, yes. >> [Inaudible]

>> oakland is the ac. Yes. The

transit system, the alameda

county system and they said

emphatically we believe it's an

insult to use the switchbacks other than for emergencies and break downs.

>> got it. In each of the

jurisdictions none of them use switchbacks for traffic smoothing. >> correct. Except the one in san jose santa clara who got one

of our ex-operation managers, a mr. Burns.

>> got it. All right. Thank

you very much.

>> thanks jack. We have another

jack, jack toumy and another grand jury member and

summarizing the findings. He will go over our recommendations

and again with the responses of

the sfmta and the mayor. Since the mayor's responses were

identical to muni they will be

discussed simultaneously. Jack.

>> hello there. F1, switchbacks

violate the spirit of the city charter. The muni said that

customers are concerned with on

time performance and liability.

Switchbacks contract to these goals. We. >>

>> answer that this response

does not really address the findings. The finding was about

the spirit of the city charter. Page three of the report lists

the six goals for muni in

proposition e from 1999. Muni makes unsubstageiated statement that switchbacks increase the

reliability of the system. Unfortunately they have presented no evidence whatsoever

this is true or riders are not

negatively impacted from switchbacks. F2, little interest in finding alternatives

to switchbacks. Muni says our

infrastructure limits us in available techniques. This is followed by a list of techniques

and move scheduled trains up and "all alternatives have impacts

on first passengers". The

response the able techniques we listed in our report have been

used by other systems. They do

not have a negative impact on service reliability because they

rely on proactive best practices

and good plans in order to speed service. Dead heading and

moving up the schedule are

techniques similar to

switchbacks in that they're

symptomatic and arbitrary and disrupting to passengers and without increasing the speed and

the reliability of the system.

F3, no evidence that switchbacks

will alleviate delay and

service. Muni relies there is

overall ample evidence to this service. Our response "if you

be so kind please show us -- the mayor and the board of

supervisors, whatever evidence

you have". F4, muni officials

show calious disregard to the

welfare of riders. Muni

responds "we don't order switch

back unless one is meritd and reduce the impact on customers"

and there is response to f1

about on time performance and

reliability, and then they site

there were only 82 switch backs

that occurred in July of 2012

and this is down from the 200 to

400 which they say are quoted in

the grand jury report. They

state that switch backs are heavily concentrated in off beat

times and towards the end of a route. 95% occur when another

train is less than five minutes

behind. The jury answers. The jury obtained the numbers about

switch backs from muni

officials. We didn't make them up. We were not given information about the concentration of switchbacks and

there are no third party

observations to confirm muni's

belief that riders are not negatively impacted. We believe that rider surveys are needed in order to verify whether the

switch backs and other

disruptive practices impact passengers. F5 and f6 are both

about the comparison to other

cities, and muni said "all

operators cited in the report

operate exclusively on private right-of-ways. Muni does not. Muni lists five systems that use switch backs in regular transportation" and they said

that bart and boston mta use

switch backs in the same way and

f.D six improvements and alleviate switchbacks with

this. the jury responds, "the jury asked muni officials several

times to provide a list with

transit operators to verify the

assertion that it's the industry

standard. Muni kept repeating a generalization and gave up with

a list of the controller and of

the five other transit operators. The jury assumes

that the controller did not cherry pick these five cities

and or transit operations. The

jury added bart and the paris

systems since muni alleged the practice was common in europe.

of all the city systems the jury

interviewed only santa clara

valley transit association supported muni. At the end of the term muni received the

report two days before it went public. In those two days apparently muni came up with a

list of five like minded transit

systems. The jury asks how many other systems did you contact

during those two days? Did you

do some cherry picking? We were

also like to know how these

unreported systems f any, responded to the question? As

far as bart and boston mbta are

reviewed they stand by their results. Muni officials talk

out of both of their mouth. On

one side they talk about

switchbacks as a common transit

system and a procedure that

could rise to the procedure of

best practice. The other side talks about their effort to

reduce the switch backs and

alleviate their effect on the

public. Why this second side? Because in reality they're close

to a worse practice. Muni --

okay. F7. Muni fails to fully implement technological improvements. Muni says -- they

give us a list -- muni gave us a list of improvements that are

under way. They say these will

reduce the need for

switchbacks.

The jury answers, "the jury appreciates the efforts being

made. We are glad some of these are partially accomplished and

others coming in the future. Many systems we interviewed had

these technologys in place. We

would like muni to have a sense of urgency about the improvements and concerned about

the term "under way" and

completion dates that are years

away". On f8 which concerns a

new control center lacking

adequate operating personnel and

f9 muni has failed to conduct and publish rider survey and muni agreed with both of these

findings. As far as the recommendations, the first

recommendation is to eliminate

switchbacks except when

unavoidable. Muni disagrees with the recommendation reasserting that switch backs

are valid and necessary given

the operating environment. They

have worked on reducing the

switchbacks and keeping the

public informed and would

further denigate service and

safety. The jury answers, "that's what we're getting at that muni think it is switch

backs are a normal way of business". Other transportation

systems were aghast, appalled

that a transit system could

inconvenience their customers so cavalierly and we want them to

have the feeling that we are

doing a good job" when they

deem them unavoidable.

Recommendation two, contact and

learn from paris not resorting to switchbacks regularly. Muni

agrees there is room for improvement and they will reach

out to their peers to study their standard operating procedures but note the claim that others are using procedures

similar to muni. The jury answers "the jury approves part

of the response about contacting peers. We hope that you contact

those systems that were on our list. These systems are seen by

the controller as being similar

to muni, and have higher reliability and passenger

ratings than muni. If muni is

going to strife for improvement and

go for systems that do not

justify a failed mentality.

Audit muni funds. The audit has

control of the funds and working on tep. As the preferred avenue

for service. The jury

appreciates muni's response.

Next is train staff for controlled center. Muni says

staffing is under way for fiscal year 2013 to be completed by the

end of the fiscal year and new communications expected in 2015.

The jury expects muni's response

and the final recommendation is monthly surveys. Muni disagrees with

the monthly part. They say that are conducting quarterly surveys

and will conduct annual survey

and perform on board passenger survey in early 2013. The

results will be on the muni

website. The jury agrees that quarterly surveys would be sufficient and applauds the

commitment of muni. We urge

miewn tow include questions

about switch backs and other

service disruptions to address

whether muni is in chapt charter

requirements with a reliable and transportation system. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you. That's the end our report we urge you to accept our findings and recommendations. Thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your

time and effort on this. I

appreciate it. I would ask mta

if there a member -- I see janet here and come forward to talk to the report and if you want to

get as specific as you want

that's fine as well.

>> thank you Mr. Chairman, President Chiu. I will actually

-- did prepare a point by point

summary of our response to the recommendations and findings. I

am happy to walk you through

that, or to make some summary

comments or to simply make myself available to questions. Whatever the pleasure of the committee is.

>> let me just ask you. There seems to be a disagreement about the use of switch backs and

maybe you can talk from your point of view why you use them and let's start with that.

>> okay. I think in terms of knowing -- we don't get up in

the morning and say we have a

goal to switchbacks. They're service management technique or

tactic to make adjustment to recover from a significant delay

and for us, and this is when we

talked about the grand jury

report when we first were

briefed on it our concern was

this was a lost opportunity, a lost opportunity to talk about muni service. In other words, what are the things that cause delays? What are the things we

need to be doing to improve on

time performance from crew reliability? What are the

specific actions? What are the specific things? That's what we

wanted to have. The higher the on time performance the less

runs that are missed, the less vehicles break down, there is a

less of a need for switchbacks.

Switchbacks are a symptom to us

or a tactic, not part of the problem, so when do we use them?

we use them when you have a

significant break down, delay in

service, a delay that might be 15, 20 minutes depending on the

line in the headway. Most of the switch back review is

focused on the rail lines and on

the rail line what is we have

done with the help and oversight of the board of supervisors we had three or four different hearings on that we have talked

about why we need to do them

which is -- with our system --

we don't have express tracks.

We don't have the ability to plug extra trains into the

system, so that if you had for

example out bound train that

broke down you have to take care

of the out bound people but you

need to take care of the in

bound people so that requires in

our system provides taking that

out bound train into in bound

train if you're the people and

that's when we talk about switchbacks benefiting service and that's what we mean and what

we try to do with switchbacks

and a number of steps taken to

improve it. First of all the first source of complaints is poor communication that riders get on the train and don't know

where it's going. We have done

a number of things over the last

12 months. Number one, we

improved the signage and it

matches. We continued to work

with our operators to try to improve their communication in making announcement and help and support them from the control

center. Number two we have, and

we monitor closely and we provide supervisor chu a monthly

letter on the number of switchbacks, the time of day, and where they occur and how far

a train is behind that switch back, and well over 90% of the

case there is is a train within five minutes. That's our policy. That's our practice.

That's what we're doing n terms

of the locations we try to make switchbacks at the end of the

line. We recognize and have

been candid and up front that switchbacks have an impact. No

one wants to do switchbacks but

what for us what we have to

weigh is the impact of this

opposed to turning a train and helping a greater mass of people

going in the other direction. that's the kind of adjustments we're making and whenever possible we make this and the

evidence shows that we make the switch bax overwhelming after

rush hour and for example in the month of September, and this is

in the letter that we have

provided to supervisor chu we

had 180 switch backs and less

than.5% of the service and not

everyday you're switching 200,

300 trains. In September 20, 30% happened on September 19 and

20 and those were days we had significant disruption in the subway because of infrastructure

problems so most of the switchbacks result from

significant delays because of vehicles, sometimes multiple

vehicles breaking down or

infrastructure and train control

or signal issue, those kinds of

things or a giants' celebration

and have a number of switchbacks for service. >> let me ask you a question.

Is it fair to ask that the

theory for you behind

switchbacks and improve for the

greater number and implement it

and we have heard stories of

people pushed off trains early

and how generally how you guys approach it? >> yes, I think that's fair.

>> so what do you say to the people that are sent off the train early?

>> I think a number of things.

first you try to communicate effectively and quickly with them. If the train turn at

sunset and not all the way out to ocean beach and let them know

as early as possible this train is going to sunset only. Then

you have -- and you keep

repeating that. You let people

getting on do that and communicate continually and make sure like we have been doing

have a following train less than

five minutes behind it and if

you're asked to get off and we recognize it's an inconvenience

and there is a second train

behind it so we're not stranding people.

>> okay. A few of the other

things. You talk about statistical evidence and alleviating delays and

scheduling. Do you have any statistical evidence? That's

one of the findings. I know

that you disagreed with it. Is

there emppir cal evidence intrp?

>> if we go through September

and the switchbacks you have to

go through because every one is

different, and the relative

benefit of the switch back in terms of schedule time -- if you took each of the incidents and

walk through them and okay we

switch a j line train at 30th

and church and had accident at balboa and people ran regular

service downtown and each of the incidents we could point to the scheduled benefit was, and you

have to look at these things

again. These are a recovery technique, so they're not something that we go in and plan everyday and we're going to have

15 -- our target is 15

switchbacks. Our target is ten.

>> that seems like anecdotal

evidence. Did you provide the

grand jury with empirical

evidence? Those are the findings here. I am asking about that. >> like I said we don't agree with that particular finding but

if you go down, and we provided

substantial amount of information, notebooks, discs,

but we are happy to go through

each of the incidents and took a

particular month, and again took September and 182 switchbacks.

Here's the benefit to doing them. Here's what happened, and

also the other point is this is what would happen if we didn't do them. There is the suggestion if we didn't do switchbacks it would result in

better service, and I would

argue it would be abcasion of

our responsibility because we in

effect would be faced with a

delay, and we would be in effect doing nothing, allowing a train

to go and again not to use the n

line, but if you had out bound

delay and allow trains to go out

and three or four trains at the

beach and someone at sun set

looking to go in bound and "where is my service".

>> but in the long time they have looked at this have you shared the evidence with them?

There is a disconnect and

they're saying they haven't received anything and you say it exists.

>>I am happy to provide a

written record of it and go through the fashion we just

described and the benefits of the switch backs.

>> I don't know if I'm going to

ask them that but my question is why isn't this done already?

This is the ultimate review of the report. >> I honestly don't know the answer to that.

>> all right. Last question

around other transit systems and seems another disconnect and other transit systems that use

it and they have talked to them

and all except san jose, santa

clara don't use them so are there other transit systems that you're specifically aware that do and question seems like they never got that information and

wanted to ask you about that?

>> yes. I can speak to from first hand experience on a

couple of those I was the

general manager in boston at

there and I am aware of the

operating practices there, and

it's beston and pick the government center and the green

line -- several lines go into

the green line and trains frequently switched there. That

is just one example. We also

reached out after we saw the initial report that said that

others did not do switchbacks.

We reached out to other transit systems that we listed in our

response that owls do

switchbacks so again the same caveat. All of the other

transit systems will tell you

would they prefer not to do switchbacks? Yes they would.

in some cases, in the case of bart they have tracks and they

can do other things but they also do switch backs and schedule them everyday as well,

so in our view and base some of

our personal experiences and discussions with others, other systems do use switch backs. >> okay. Maybe I will ask the grand jury this as well, but

from your point of view were these not jurisdictions communicating to them during the

course of their investigation?

>> I did not see that until the finding so we were briefed on the findings and they were very open about the findings and they

provided -- they were kind enough -- and we appreciate.

They gave a walk through of the findings and wrote them up and

the walk through that they gave

us gave us the opportunity -- they were very professional. It gave us the opportunity to

complent and what we said at the

time we disagreed I think the

first seven of the findings and including that one, and they

wrote it up, so in terms of the communications I think both parties were clear -- they were

clear on what their findings were. They communicated orally and wrote it up later. We in turn had the opportunity to

respond and we wrote what we told them.

>> okay. All right. Thank you. President Chiu any questions? Thank you very much. I

appreciate it.

>> [Inaudible]

>> my apologies. I am john hailey and the director of transit operations.

>> thank you. John. I can -- can I have a member of the grand jury back up. There is back and forth here and now a comment from the mta they're willing to provide the evidence. i am wondering if you ask for the evidence and not provided in the course of the investigation. >> the evidence he is talking about is not the evidence we

asked for. I believe he is now saying that he would be happy to

give us some kind of list and description of all 180 switchbacks in every month and

then we could read about each switch back and determine for ourselves whether that was a

good thing for the system or not, and our opinion that is not

a statistical study. That's not a comparison in anyway. That's

just a description of all the switchbacks with a subjective opinion as to whether it was a

good thing or a bad thing, and

he May have offered us to do

that, but we decided that would

have been perhaps a thousand switchbacks we would have to

read about and make up our minds

whether they were a good or bad idea. In other words, this is not a professional -- they haven't made a professional

study of whether these switch

backs were advantageiacy to the system in any way, whether they

sped up or slowed down the

system, or disadvantaged to the passengers. They haven't done

any study on the impact to the passengers?. >> okay. Thank you and in terms of the different jurisdictions

and how they use switchbacks or they don't -- >> here's what we found.

Mr. Hailey says he was in boston until 1995. That was one of the first systems we interviewed.

We asked them about switchbacks

used as a tool to regulate the

system. We're not talking about

responding to emergencies. All the systems have a whole switch back policy that they use. Most

of them call it a turn around. I'm not sure why we're kiewlg it a switch back in san francisco,

but they have policies for turn

arounds. They only use them in

an emergency. Not to smooth traffic. Not when buss and

trains are clumping and the

person in boston was the one

that said his passengers "would never stand for it". I don't know if san francisco passengers are more complacent than boston passengers but he said that and they would never do it.

>> okay. Did you guys talk to

all the other people and their response? There was a list in the jurisdictions and portland and philly --

>> those we didn't talk about --

talk to. We asked repeatedly when talking to muni officials which other systems they would

recommend for us to talk to,

which other systems used it? We

ask if were books or manuals or anything they could give us that

showed that switchbacks were a best practice tool which they had said. They said they were

going to increase using switchbacks because they were such a good tool. We asked them

if there was please a manual or

something that we could read that described how switchbacks

were used as a tool and they said "no". We asked if there is

another system we could talk to and they said "no". >> all right. Thank you. >> thank you.

>> President Chiu. With that I

appreciate everyone's comments

and responses. Before we close item one in the hearing and get

to the responses I want to open it up to public comment. Any

members of the public that wish

to comment on item three? You

may line up on the wall. Mr. Pillpal.

>> and I just realized I wore my boston shirt. Prior to serving

in boston john was the deputy

general manager at bart and has worked in other cities as well

so his transit management experience is considerable, and

I just wanted to note that. I

will just add a couple of

things. I think john hailey

covered many of the points. The one management is overall topic

how to keep service on time. Switchbacks are a technique in

line management. I think the

real key issue at mta is actual transit operator staffing and

when they have fewer than they need there are problems with

filling runs and having to make

other adjustments so I think keeping operator availability at

a high level, highering and

training on a regular schedule

is critical to running muni effectively. Just as antidote

last night after the game I was

downtown. There was a lot of

joy and celebration, but there

was also a lot of muni delay that was unanticipated, unanticipatable. I understand

that trains were stranded on the

embarcadero. That power had to

be shut down for safety reasons. There were a lot of services

that had to get rerouted. That

happens. In a city like this and moves like muni does and the traffic and the incidents that

happen line management is a

critical thing and switch backs

are a regularly used tool.

Operations, planning,

supervision, all have a role to

play. As a final example going through both of the districts and one california where there is a delay downtown or somewhere

in route if all of the vehicles

are allowed to proceed out to

geary and 33rd at outer terminal

there would be more delay and

impact in bound for the

passengers waiting at california, at fillmore, at other locations and why the

system is designed with

locations to switch back at fillmore, at presidio, at sixth

avenue and that happens when necessary, no more than system, so I'm sorry in this case i

think the grand jury didn't get get it.

>> thank you very much. Any other members of the public wish

to comment? Seeing none public

comment is closed. >> [Inaudible] >> I'm sorry. >> exactly what we was referring

to we brought that up with the other systems about -- well,

there are fewer passengeros the

out bound than the in bound and every single one of them said

they solved that ahead of time by scheduling so they make short runs in the center area where

the city has lots of travelers

and then they make other longer

runs and they make fewer longer

runs and short runs and announce it ahead of time and the promise to the passengers is met. Thank you. >> thank you very much. Any other members of the public wish

to speak on this item? Seeing

none public comment is closed.

Supervisor chiu can we table

item three? All right. Next is item four and asked to respond to the findings and

recommendations from the grand jury report. I want to them them for

their time and effort into this, for the mta and their responses.

I think from my perspective and

the use of switchbacks -- I get it's a management tool. We have to be nimble here in san francisco and I have heard from

resident s and the incredible frustration when they don't understand this is happening and

the delays and so forth so I

think there are competing interests here. I don't think

-- I don't agree with the extremeos either side of the debate so to speak, but with that why don't we go through all

the items. So for the finding number one and violate the spirit of the san francisco

charter. I will say partially

agree here. I think it can put both ways. I think reliable you

want the majority of people to have reliable muni service here

but as well when they're kicked

off early or don't see the bus

come their way and I hear that and happens in my district and

i'm going to say partially

agree. Number two and muni management express little

interest in the alternative of

switchbacks. I will disagree with that. It's not something

they want to do but within the

tool and arsenal so I would not

say that they express little interest. I think they understand there is push back

when these happen. There is no

statistical or other evidence that switchbacks aleveiat delate

or scheduling? I would agree

there. It seems more than any grand jury report we seen lately

there is quite a bit of disconnect and I don't ever

whether it's cooperation or

another issue and I think

that is unfortunate and you need to comply with the civil grand

jury and I am going to agree

with finding three. Finding

four, muni officials show calious disregard with the

riders and I am going to

disagree with that. I think that is inflammatory and I appreciate where you're going

but I don't agree with that

language. Number six, other systems and passengers and

switch backs and other than reasons of emergencies and

accidents and whether we agree partial leo disagree partially. I. >>

>> say agree partially and there are time when is they don't use them and they listed

jurisdictions that according to them use switchbacks so I

imagine the answer is in the

middle and I suggest we

partially agree. Number seven

and the improvements in the system and I will partially agree. I know they work hard at this. They want to do it --

like many of the other city departments is fiscally

constrained in their budget and

it's something we couldn't see on a day-to-day basis here in

city hall and I witnessed here while on the board with budgets getting cut so I suggest that we

agree partially there. Finding number eight muni's advance

control center lack operating personnel and can't communicate

with muni drivers. Simply

agree. Nine and muni has failed to publish rider surveys as recommended in the quality

review and also agree with finding number ten. As far as

the recommendations go.

Recommendation number one and eliminates switchbacks for

equipment break down or

accidents or unavoidable accidents. We have no

jurisdiction over the

mta, the board of supervisors recommendation two and learn

from systems that don't resort as switchbacks for the solution. My understanding is that will be implemented in the future and

the controller's office is

engaged in a multi-year effort to improve services and like was

mentioned and the tep and the reconstitution of that. Number

three and determine the funds

if additional funds are available

and they do that and in selection of contracts and

number five and surveys fiscal

year 2008 and 2010 quality review recommendations. As with recommendation one this is not

within our jurisdiction to improve or implent or the board of supervisors. As far as our

response goes we will say will not be implemented. This is

under the jurisdiction of the

mta and not us as the board even

though we would like a say in the matter. President Chiu

those are my find disbltion that

is fine. While this isn't an

issue that affected by district three constituents as much I

have heard the concerns and I want to thank the civil grand

jury for looking into these

practices and I agree with

supervisor farrell and ask that the mta eliminate these

practices look to other

jurisdictions for best practices

and minimize the practice and explicit guidelines when

switchbacks might be justified but the incredible frustration

of passenger who is are put into

difficult situations when they experience switchbacks certainly

I echo the sentiments to look at

this practice and make sure it doesn't happen.

>> thanks President Chiu and before we approve the resolution

I would like to open it up for public comment. Any members of

the public like to comment? Seeing none it is close. President Chiu.

>> I make a motion to recommend the recommended actions.

>> okay. And we can do that without objection. Madam Clerk are there any further items? >> no there are not.