tv BOS Budget Subcommittee 42016 SFGTV April 22, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT
government audit and oversight meeting of april 21, 2016. >>supervisor aaron peskin: and joined by supervisor london breed: and we'll be joined by >>supervisor norman yee:. i would like to thank sf govtv for streaming us live. >> madam clerk any announcements? >> yes, please silence and electronic devices. >>supervisor aaron peskin: please read items 1 and 2 together. >> >>clerk: items 150672 home detention electronic monitoring
program rules and regulations and program administrators evidence of financial responsibility. >>supervisor aaron peskin: captain paulsen. >> good morning. my name is captain paulsen. i have been asked to make a presentation today with regards to electronic monitoring. the reason for today's presentation is the california penal code requires that the board of supervisors review and approve the data regarding electronic monitoring. currently we have made no changes to the electronic monitoring rules since in the past 2 years. in addition, the contracting agency which provides electronic monitoring service for the department is responsible for approving
financial responsibility and that proof has been included in the package. a review of the electronic monitoring program by the san francisco sheriff's department is this was designed to be an alternative to incarceration for low risk offenders. the participating electronic monitoring are reviewed by the court and reviewed by the san francisco sheriff's department. a program reviews each person for electronic monitoring reviewing their criminal history, current charges and the police report. when we put a person on electronic monitoring we provide them a schedule of activities, which is referred to as home detention because they are required to be at their home. we
develop inclusion and exclusion zone agenda depending on the crime. for instance, if a person is accused of shoplifting at a location, that is an exclusion zone. they maybe required to be at their residence for some time. the electronic monitoring is a provided as a tool of safety. it also reduces the cost of incarceration by providing a meaningful alternative to securing incarceration and allows the individual who is accused of the crime or who is serving a sentence for the crime to maintain community ties to and many times keep a job, to go to programmatic activity and most important to be with their family during the time that they are serving
either serving pretrial or time assigned by a judge. >> we use two different types of electronic monitoring which is most widely used as anklet with gps device to let us know where that person is at all times. the gps tracking device transmits the signal actively which is picked up by us and it is light and does not interfere with any activity that the person is involved in. at times we add a beacon and that amplifies a signal if a
person is living for example, in a basement, and improves the signal. the second type of monitoring is monitoring of a person's alcohol level. we do that through 2 devices. the first is a portable breathalyzer, a small device with a camera on it and we require the person participating to breathe into the the device, it takes their picture as they breathe into the device and tells us that person's blood alcohol level. the other device we use is ankle monitoring that measures the blood alcohol level by perspiration level and tells us whether or not that person has consumed alcohol.
so, in conclusion, we are presenting this information to the board to state that we require your approval and authorization for the program. we have fundamentally not changed the rules and regulations of the program and the monitoring agency, the contract service provider has provided proof of financial responsibility. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you, captain. just out of curiosity, how many individual on this program. >> on average 53 people per month on the case load. we signed up 187 people in 2015. >> and in terms of what is in the report referred to absent without leave, awol. the leaders have to report to you with how many
awols? >> we have been very successful. last year we had 34 people who in one way or another did not comply on a major basis. the advantage is we get reported to us in realtime. the more significant fact is that 93% of the people who complete the program, by our calculation and the numbers we report to the mayor, 93% do not recidivate within 12 months of completion of the program. >> batteries, what about dead batteries? >> we get alerts when a person's battery is dying. so when it goes below a certain percentage, we actually have the ability to buzz the person, which is send a person an alert to say it's time to
recharge your battery. >> thank you, supervisor breed, any questions for captain paulsen? >>supervisor london breed: is there more funding needed to put in to more women's programs. based on the program it seems that you have done a good job in putting as many individuals as many as possible. it looks like there might be room to do more. i would like to have a clear understanding about some of the inmates that you have housed if there is a possibility to add more to this program? >> for every single person considered for electronic monitoring we do a risk assessment for them. the court is our partner in the risk assessment. when a court says, this person should be on electronic monitoring, we do
our best to defer to the court order about it. currently, with regards to the people who are currently incarcerated, we can do more and we can and have gotten asmany people out as have been presented to us. we are currently reviewing the case loads of people in the jail to see whether or not we can get even more people out. >> thank you. >>supervisor aaron peskin: are there any members who would like to testify to items 1 or 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. could we excuse supervisor yee from these votes. >>supervisor london breed: so moved. >> that motion passes. can we send to the full board with positive recommendations? >> so moved.
>> we have general manager here who has to go to his recreation and parks committee at 10:00. we wanted him here for a closed session litigation item. i don't want to give the financial report a short trip. what i was going to propose if it's acceptable to supervisor breed is that we take item 4 out of order which will require us to empty this room because that is a closed session litigation item. if that is okay. we will take item four4 out of order. thank you for your cooperation. we'll come get you as soon as we dispose with this item. you can call them all, but we'll go back into closed session to address them.
>> yes don't we call items 4, 5, 6 together. >> >>clerk: item no. 4, a settle of lawsuit with lisa owen for $2250,000. and item 5, settlement of lawsuit for ying zhang for $175,000 item 6, kai yuan for 175. >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you, we will convene in closed session. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on items 4,
supervisors and the city and county's independent auditor. we immediate with the independent auditor and the auditor's financial statement as well as management and compliance. recommend appropriate action be taken by the board for recommendations contained in the audit report and follow the necessary report is implemented. welcome, good morning. mr. rosen field. >> good morning. that was a perfect introduction. i will turn it to our auditors. as you are aware our office each year discloses a financial report and working with the department and you as the board of supervisors retain the audits and retain our work and come back to you regarding
our findings and the city's compliance to federal rules. that's what we are here for today. i will turn it to the external auditors from >>supervisor aaron peskin: i understand we will not discuss this current fiscal year? >> correct. we are covering last year. we'll be back for the board of supervisors regarding those. with your permission. we will bring the audit plans back to this committee in a month or so when they are prepared. >> great. we look forward to that. on behalf of macias, gini
and o'connel. ms. louie? good morning. presenter: good morning, supervisors. my name is annie louie from gini and o'connel. i bring you the audit results for fiscal year 14-15. first i would like to go over the scope of the audit that is performed by our firm. we cover the city's general financial statements known as the cafr. we report on the single audits and the retirement system and successor agency and the
redevelopment agency and the general hospital and required communication. and current year assessment. we did issue an unmodified opinion which is a higher level of assurance you can receive through the audit and the financial reporting as well as over compliance. the second report which is the report to the government audit and oversight commute is to authorize the communication to the board regarding communication on the audit. with that, there are two types of required communications that we report to the board at the beginning of the audit. so we presented in the fiscal year 14-15 audit service plan on our responsibility under u.s. generally accepted editing standards and planned scope and timing of the
audit. there were no changes on the planned scope or the timing of the audit. in the report there are a series of items that under government audit and oversight we have to report to you. these are typical items. without going into too much detail. the one i would like to highlight of qualitative aspects. we pointed to the audit themselves and the estimates used and how they were derived. the audit you receive in the financial statement is the implementation of gatsby 68 which is the new standard on pension benefits are being reported in the financial statement. that is one of the biggest changes
with that i'm going into the audit and recommendations. the first one relates to information technology governance. this is from information we have from the previous audit and policies and procedures related to government it for the city as a whole. the reason why this is still in continuing comment because we believe the condition has not been fully corrected mainly due to the turnover at the department of technology. the second comment that we have relates to the year-end closing process. during the year-end closing process each department has to make estimates ora cruel of their liabilities. we found that certain departments did not have their own fiscal
staff. they rely on the agency to record those transactions and the communication can be improved to account for the transaction in that period. >>supervisor aaron peskin: ms. louis, give me an example of those? >> i cannot remember off the top of my head. let me go back into detail. >> good morning, deputy county administrator. these are facilities in treasure island. there are three other departments that rely on the department. >> there is ti and other
facilities use gsa? >> right. conventional facilities is their management agreement so they have their own internal financial staff and review the material and statements. treasure island, completely relies on gsa for all of their accounting back in process and po's. >> treasure island was a subdivision of the state of california until recently, right? it was not a city agency per say, it was kind of a second redevelopment agency until -- >> it did have a separate status, yes, now it falls under the umbrella of the city administrators office under the gsa. with that we fall under the gsa and accountable for all the finances. >> thank you. >> if you would like the
details of the transactions that we have found and corrected is on page 10 of the report. >> so moving on, there are two informational type comments. these are not deficiencies in the financial reporting process but we believe have significant changes or impact on the financial statement or for the city as a whole. the first item related to the uniform guidance for federal awards. what happened in the office of management and budget issued new requirements for all federal awards and it became effective december 26, 2016. , -- 2014. that will impact how the city manages oversee any funding
received including cost procurement monitoring. this will be the significant change in the effecting of awards. >> the second comment relates to the new accounting standards issued for other employment benefits o opeb for short. one of the most significant change is the presentation of an opeb liability on the financial statements. so you will have basically it will hit your bottom line. currently the information is measure differently and also only disclosed in the note for the financial statement. the implementation year is 15-17-18 for the city. going forward the findings
for the year for compliance awards. the first one related to the procurement for the port security grant program. that program was administered by the port of san francisco. during our test of procurement procedures we found that proper documentation was not maintained for one of the contracts. we found the department to be in compliance based on other types of testing, but we believe that document retention is important. in terms of management response, you will see the response in the report but it was addressed august 2015 to address the issue. >>supervisor aaron peskin: what's the difference between a significant deficiency and material deficiency? >> okay. there are basically three types of deficiencies you can have in internal control and the most familiar is the material witness which will
be a likely chance to lead to the material of the financial statement or material non-compliance in terms of federal awards. that will be a material weakness in control. that doesn't mean you have to have a material misstatement or non-compliance, but one would be such a finding. the next level is is the deficiency in the process that we warrant to management as well as the board. the lowest level would be a control of deficiency that may not raise to the level of significant deficiency. >> thank you. >> the second and last finding of this audit is the program. as part of the claiming process reimbursement for the program will be to do time studies for the workers time. we found that during the time
study process sick leave and vacations were not classified properly and we have the information for the department to visit that process and corrected. in terms of a management response, the full response is in the report itself, but they are communicating. we are emphasizing the proper time of the hours and looking into enhancing the process. >> the last section of this presentation i would like to go over the prior year of the recommendations we have for the single audit. we have three findings in the slide and they were corrected by year 14-15. with that, i will take any questions you may have. >>supervisor aaron peskin: colleagues, any questions from ms. louie? >> no. can we hear from kpmg?
>> good morning, supervisors, my name is lisa avis with kpmg. i will here to discuss the three departments we audit. the san francisco international airport which is included the single audit. we audit mta, and we audit hsf and puc for water, wastewater, hetch hetchy water. the financial statements resulted in an unmodified opinion. that's the clean bill of health. basically the financial statements did properly state their financial health at the end of the year. single audit we had no findings. all received unmodified
opinions. when we were here last year and frd audit results we did report a material witness for the san francisco international airport in the process of capitalizing their fixed assets. there was an approximate $45 million audit adjustment to be booked and there was a material issue. happy to report it was reminded in that t -- reimmediated that finding and took the appropriate steps to remediate that finding. they have a clean bill of health. no reports this year. management did well in that result and no management issues to report in that timeline. any questions? >>supervisor aaron peskin: colleagues? thank you, ms.
avis. and now we may hear from the a fore mentioned significant deficiencies. maybe we start with someone from the department of technology. i don't see mr. -- here. >> i'm the new securities information officer. boya. we concur with the findings. this is something that's been known for a while and we are working on solutions for that. there is an established architectural policy review board in place which is currently working on five separate policies. the one addressing this main issue around privilege access to management policy. i cochair with my colleague out at the airport, tom borden. we are working on that standard now to be able to
codify a centralized password identity management program for the city and county. >> hopefully you will stay here for a while so they don't find this as a turnover. >> i hope so. >> controller? >> briefly, i wanted to add that joe's presence in itself and description of his job is one that is repeated. joe is filling the job that is the scope for security citywide. as we had a chief security officer responsible for this, joe's scope is larger. so we are looking for and pushing through this finding. >> great, we would love to see it go away in its currently
fiscal year. >> if you want to reiterate what gsa is with communicating with treasure island and convention facilities and anybody else about this significant issue is stressing. >> thank you. deputy city administrator. we've already started implementation and recommendation in terms of increasing the level of communications with both of those two organizations convention facilities as well as treasure island development authority. we have instituted monthly meetings with our budget and finance staff with the staff members for the organizations. we've also increased regular meetings with the controllers office and we are working with the controllers office to establish the year-end close timeline working with the departments to identify any of those similar kind of issues early in the process. >> thank you.
any questions? >> who do we have here on behalf of the port of san francisco. good morning, mr. wu. >> good morning, john wu, office of port of san francisco. as to port security grant program, i guess the good news is there are no cost and our contractor was in fact not suspended or debarked. as to the procedural matter, this came up as part of a monitoring report as to compliance and we turned around immediately in august 2015, documented new procedures to make sure that we followed the steps of documenting a review for
obtaining certification for regulation that we document and report that procedure. that is now clear in our internal procedures and we'll be in compliance from this point on. >> excellent. thank you, mr. wu. any questions for mr. wu? seeing none. who do we have here from juvenile probation? >> good morning, very new to the scene. just a month and 2 weeks. >> tell us your name. >> my name is eric gribde. >> i understand there are changes to rectify our recording mechanism. so i think it's three fold at this point. so there is retraining of
probation supervisors. also the second piece is changing the procedures. i think our procedures are to be enhanced further and i think for me the key to all this is open up the channel of communication between all stakeholders. so i think with all three being implemented, i won't be repeating this and i won't be in front of the members. >> it's all good and this is the lowest level of deficiencies. we wish you all the best in remediating that problem and the coming fiscal year. mr. rosenfeld, is there anything you would like to snad >> we appreciate the work and appreciate the process between the audit committee and we are pleased they are relieved the
material deficiency and we will work with the departments today to be sure that is not repeated next year. >> not bad for a project of these millions of dollars. thank you, ms. avis, supervisor. >>supervisor norman yee: i was going to say for the things of our budget. that is a positive mark for the city. >> are there any members of the public who would like to testify on the consolidated annual financial report. public speaker: hello. it's great to see you back here at city hall. it is a time to have new balance. what i'm here for seems that this was the oversight committee. here i'm here celebrating years of working as an advocate in the western edition.
as i'm here before queen bee. none of this is reflected on her because we were both little kids. i was much older than her. i'm requesting as the fillmore corridor ambassador. it was granted back when ambassador was here. the planning commission, the departments that are related to the western edition. currently i know you are about the addition efforts, the western edition to fillmore and redevelopment had nothing to do with it. no departments. here all of a sudden there is bankruptcies
>> i'm thinking of sending them around again when they usually we have issues -- for the full board. thinking about sending them again to the full board. a month, 3 months later. >> >>supervisor aaron peskin: we will reconvene in open session. deputy city attorney gibner. city attorney: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 to the board for full