tv Government Access Programming SFGTV November 16, 2017 8:00am-9:01am PST
the construction of the hub, were all in one pot, in general city obligation, i think it's called. the executive sponsor was the head of the mayor's office on criminal justice. a party that had no particular agenda in the game other than to get the system up and running. unfortunately, under the newsome administration the office was dismantled. slowly cut and then disappeared. so justice was left without an executive sponsor to drive the system forward. we were fortunate that the controller at that time, ed harington, had a very strong interest in keeping things together and myself, the previous project manager, and a consultant who was working with us literally begged the city administrator's office to please
give justice a home in the city administrator's office. >> and if i may interrupt you, why did you not try to affiliate with department of technology? >> for two reasons. one reason was that when justis lived in the department of technology before the mayor's office became the executive sponsor, it never got priority. we went through a rotating cast of heads of department of technology who saw their priorities and interests elsewhere. and so justis was always the last thing that they addressed. and the second reason has to do with governance. the department of technology was to provide technical support. technical staff. technical expertise. and when we thought about it, we thought it would be much better for d.t. to be treated as a vendor with the executive
sponsor and justis as their client. so that we would have more ability to work order money, demand that the money be spent the way that the justis council had determined it should be spent and a vendor-client relationship rather than just being one more project in d.t.'s huge organization. so, that is why we set it up that way. eventually even that was not -- the vendor-client relationship was not going too well, and so the staff that was working on justis was moved into the city administrator's office. so that's how that came about. >> in other words, the 6 or 7 staff used to be d.t. staff and then they became justis staff. >> yes, that's right. so -- since that time we moved
forward. the sheriff's department came online and got connected to the hub, the district attorney came online, got connected to the hub, the public defender, their system up and they are connected to the hub? yes. >> also in one-way relationship, data only feeds out to the p.d. and not back from the p.d., same as the d.a. or at least that's what that chart showed. >> no, supervisor. the chart i had and i did not spend much time on it, shows a bi-directional connection from the public defenders office. very little data that comes out of the public defenders office but it is critical, public defender assigned to the case, added or deleted -- the public defender really no longer has a dependency on the cable mainframe because of the connection with justis and the
successful implementation of their system. >> and that's the direction the d.a.'s office needs to go. >> and the direction we anticipate -- we have started working with the d.a.'s vendor, their new case management system vendor. we have outlined how my team has the integration method with the sheriff's department, like i said, it's near realtime subsecond. bidirectionally, and that's how their new system will come up, it's exactly how the court system will need to be. we have started working with the court vendor as well, and i anticipate that will be the case with adult probation. >> ok. >> so, i want to speak a little bit about the governance council structure. the governance council is defined in the administrative code, i forget the citation but it's in there. and it is intended to be
comprised of the department heads of the criminal justice agencies plus the department on the status of women, and d.t., or their is your -- surrogates, somebody who can make policy decisions. and that governance is supported by the technical steering committee, rob's group, who provide the technical expertise, advice, etc., to the governance council. over the years those two functions have been mushed together so now the governance council is largely made up of technical people so we are not having those policy discussions. we also no longer have the consolidated budget. i am not -- i was gone from 2012 to 2016 so there was a period of time where in -- is completely
opaque to me. but at some point the consolidated budget during that time was abandoned in favor of giving each department their own i.t. budget back. on paper that sounds good because it sort of implies greater autonomy among the departments, but the fact is that now justis has much less visibility into what each department is doing. to my knowledge, justis never dictated what case management system a department should buy. they were there to help them implement it. and so what has happened now is that there are case management systems going out to bid with no project plan in place for how they are going to get connected to the hub once they are up.
so if you were to ask me, i think a return to the shared project plan and the consolidated budget would help a great deal. >> and that consolidated budget was an appropriation to the city administrator for justis? >> i believe so. it was a separate item within general city obligation that could only be spent on justis and the city administrator was the entity that administrated that budget. >> supervisor yee: i'll ask some of the departments later about this question about whether it makes sense to bring it back to consolidated budget. i mean, logically, it makes some sense to me, but i wonder what
the arguments are for -- >> sure, that makes sense. >> supervisor yee: anything else? >> if i may, supervisor yee, this is a little bit of, i think, a governance conumdrum. over time, and maybe arguably from the beginning, justis has kind of been orphan child and it needs a level of authority over these departments so that the technology works seamlessly and the d.a. is not off buying one system that after the fact, great technology experts have to, you know, do a work around, fit into the system. so seems to me that, and i understand why you didn't go to d.t. in the beginning because you were a stepchild there, and then you became an orphan child. but it seems like it needs to have some amount of centralized authority in order to be effective. in addition to resources,
whether it's consolidation under one department or one roof, but i mean, it's funny -- i was around when brown was mayor and i remember it being launched and it was funny, when i was reading the agenda i was like oh, yes, that rings a faint bell in my, you know, historical government memory. but i mean, were not for supervisor yee calling this hearing, i would not even know that i was one of the, shame to admit that, one of the appropriation to give money every year and it's not on anybody's screen. i think it's very good we are having the hearing but from the hearing, in addition to getting the information that we need from justis relative to what kind of budget priorities it may have going forward to do more and better work. struggling with the governance idea and actually reviewing justis with the original
mandate, the department heads and policy decision level individuals are there every month, that seems to have fallen by the wayside. so, i think we have to do collective thinking how to reempower. >> i would agree, supervisor. now is a good time. well, never not a good time to get this going. this is a mission critical system. it is staffed by seven people around the clock. it just is not viable that way. you can't do any planning, you can't -- you can't build anything new when you are just trying to keep the connection between c.m.s. and the hub from breaking. it's -- it really needs attention and i'm very grateful this committee is looking at this now. it's a great way to end my career. >> and congratulations on your re-retirement. >> thank you very much. i intend to do it right this
time. and stay retired. you know, this -- this project, of course, means a great deal to me, and i have worked with rob now, with dave, for 20 years on this project. it has done many good things. but it has never had the budget or the single focus stewardship that it needs to be successful. so -- i thank you for calling this hearing. >> supervisor yee: thank you for coming here, as i mentioned, this is your last week and i think your input in this is really valuable. i mean -- your honesty about this, and i can see, i can follow your logic in terms of this consolidated budget, and maybe that's how we get people back on the table in terms of governance, the decision makers if we take away funding from
their budget to make this happen. >> yeah. just because we did it that way before does not mean you have to do it that way again. that is what worked at the beginning, but you know, whatever is going to move this forward is what you need to do. >> supervisor yee: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee: ok. at this time i would like to open up this discussion to, for public comments. are there any public comments on this issue? >> my name is frank noto, with stop crime s.f. i want to thank supervisor yee and the committee for putting this on the agenda and looking at it. i think supervisor yee said you know, this, looking at it 20 years later it looks ridiculous, it certainly does look like a
case study in bureaucratic implementation. implementation is difficult, and i thank you for thinking about what resources and what changes can be made. stop crime s.f. wants the city to take action here. san francisco deserves a transparent system, not only for the different government agencies to work together and to provide decision making information to the chief of police, to the d.a., the other department heads, and to you, but also to the public. we need transparent system for the public so we can track accountability in the criminal justice system. and it needs to be an accessible system. i think the police department representative had a chart showing the various departments and input and feedback, nowhere was the public there, and it would be useful to have some thought given to what information is provided to the public. we do get information to the
public from the police department, a little bit from the d.a.'s office, but again, it's not coordinated. and it needs to be accessible so any resident or researcher or group can ask questions. as it is, even you can't answer questions such as how many reported property crimes result in arrests and then how many convictions are there, you know, what are the outcomes, what are the outcomes of probation. how many criminals convicted of property crimes in san francisco are repeat offenders, and crime prevention or investigation methods lead to more arrests. to the different probation -- >> supervisor yee: thank you very much.
>> good afternoon, supervisors. george wooding, president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods speaking for myself. we want the city of san francisco to take action to improve the criminal justice system data and make reports available and accessible to the public. without the justis program, how could the city priority -- be prioritizing, streamlining data collection and sharing information with agencies? it is very bothersome to me that every member gets to pick their own software. worries that there is a real
commitment from city leaders to create a more robust and centralized repository of accessible information. over the last ten years, the justice department has lacked leadership and has to deal with tepid agency participation. make that up to date, 20 years. we applaud the selection of a permanent administrator and interagency meetings. what is the goal of the program, and how it will improve in community relations and public interfacing. many of the goals of the project, including information sharing, criminal justice, data mapping, improved reporting and analysis, and decommissioning of court management systems have not been met after to years.
at least $25 million has already been spent through different budgets, hidden or in open. urges the board of supervisors to -- [bell] >> supervisor yee: thank you, george. >> while the next speaker is coming up, i'm searching for the administrative code provision that you referenced and i can't find it. if you could maybe give me a citation at some point, it does not have to be right here or right now, but i would love to see whether or not the governance council is behaving the way it was intended to. sorry. >> supervisor yee: next speaker.
>> good morning, supervisors. my name is dick allen, i'm from district 7 golden gate heights. i have to tell you, i'm very pleased and actually relieved to see aaron peskin sitting here. we have worked together in the past and i would like the public knowledge and thank him for rescuing another, just about to be a big mud hole and we had a major, major financial issue and supervisor peskin stepped in and corrected it and we have one of the most successful pools in the city because of his effort, you should be aware of that. so, the quote of the day, and it's unfortunate that she's retiring, but i wrote it down because you nailed it. i love it. "single focus stewardship." my question to anybody in this room, who is in charge?
that's a question that we asked about, like mersed, should in the bring it up, but a victim of the two headed monster. two powerful departments could not get organized and coordinated. it's still ongoing. i've been working on that for 17 years. we still haven't met the obligations that have -- set down many years ago. so, when i saw the budgets and promises put up, the first thing that came to my mind, where are the timelines? when you say you are going to do something, you need to have a date. and if you move the date, it's known as a marking, a moving target, you are on time. so, we need the transparency, which supervisor yee has mentioned, we need the
transparency because if we don't have -- [bell] >> supervisor yee: thank you for your remarks. anybody else for public comments? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is robert gee, i'm here on behalf of the improvement club here in district 7. thank you supervisor yee for introducing and the committee members holding the hearing. i'm currently a board member and chair of the safety committee with the club, and one of our activities in the neighborhood is to follow up on crime. arrests. residents' concerns, how they can better protect. one of the results when they watch out, what are the results they want to know when someone is arrested and two years later they don't have a clue what's happening. they want to know if the system works, both from the police, from the sheriffs, from the d.a., as well as city attorneys and all parts of our law
enforcement organization. but the system as we have it today is not wielding, as we have heard today, and also walk away today with a great sense of appreciation for what has been done so far and still needs to be done. i have had 30 years of federal law enforcement in a very large federal tax agency and i thought the federal tax agency had issues. after hearing today, i absolutely can understand the challenges city government is now facing trying to integrate the different law enforcement systems and i urge you to address the concerns that have been raised here today. in my 30 years of work with the department of justice integrated with other federal agencies. data can be shared, data is accessible, but most importantly, at least in the federal level, the public can get information readily available via the web. and that's the concern i'm representing for our residents, they want to know in the easiest and most transparent way that they can find data from crimes,
especially when they become victims. so, again, i support this, thank you supervisor yee for your efforts on this, and for the committee. >> supervisor yee: thank you, mr. gee. anybody else? madam chair, close comments. >> supervisor kim: close public comment on item number 3. >> supervisor yee: mike young, are you here? mike. mike young from the superior court. i want to ask, since you folks are looking at software, what's your timeline in terms of, you know, your ability to adapt a new software system? >> supervisor, we have implemented a new software. selected a vendor almost five years ago now, and the court is a very large organization with several case types. first case type implemented was the traffic and infractions
division. that division has had a new case management system since november of 2015. with an updated refresh just implemented about three weeks ago. in the next year work has already started but within the next year we anticipate being completed with what this hearing is all about, which is the criminal division's usage of a new case management system. we hope for that to be in place around october or november of 2018. >> supervisor yee: ok. appreciate it. mr. nance, come on up. >> chief nance, juvenile probation department. >> curious, sitting there listening to this, how do you see your outfit department being integrated into the system? >> great, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the juvenile probation department's
role relative to justis. we have sort of been in the second, third phase of the project as a result of the nuances with juvenile records and the confidentiality, specifically around juvenile records. however, we recognize and we have shared with the governance council the need to have juvenile access to the records maintained by the police department, by the sheriff's department, with respect to those individuals who cross over between the two systems. i agree with eileen hurst's comments with respect to the governance of the system. i think 2005, during the time that i was at the mayor's office of criminal justice, the responsibility for managing justice rested in my office for the year that i was in that office. and it was clear to me at that time that conceptually the hub
and spoke concept made a lot of sense. however, the degree to which it could be effective rested with the capacity for each of those offices to have a robust and capable case management system in place. at that time most of the agencies did not. the records management system was not yet launched for the police department, the jail management system was not yet launched for the sheriff's department. the damian system that the d.a. uses was not in place at that time and so the first phase of the project was a significant phase. one that i think was underestimated in scope with respect to positioning all the criminal justice agencies to get to the point where the hub and spoke concept actually made sense and could be realized.
since at that time -- however, we still have a ways to go in getting to the point where the mainframe can be retired effectively, and the benefits that many of the public speakers spoke about today can actually be achieved with respect to transparency in the criminal justice records and information that we all have available to us. and i think all of our systems, including the juvenile justice system, have information that can be shared with the public if framed in the proper context. and so i agree the centralized governance is beneficial. i can tell you from my own personal experience with justis that part of the reason why it rested in the mayor's office was in many ways with supervisor
peskin's, with folks to come to the table, be a part of the project and make sure folks were marching forward in a productive and comprehensive fashion. and having it in the mayor's office was a way to do that, because it could bring all the agencies to the table. and i think that was very beneficial at that phase of the project. given where we are today, i think that the city administrator's office is a very capable place for this to rest. i think that the partnership with the department of technology and the city administrator's office is an effective management strategy to keep all of the agencies at the table. i think at this point folks are bought in and invested in this
hub and spoke concept, and quite honestly, i think there is a high degree of interest and desire to maximize the capacity of what justis has to offer. so our office continues to be at the table. we continue to be invested participating in justis and making sure at the appropriate point and phase in the project that the juvenile justice capacity to interface with justis is in place and developed. and i believe that with the support of the board of supervisors and the mayor's office, that if properly funded with a clear set of goals and objectives for getting us to the finish line, that this project can be an effective resource and tool for the city and county. >> your last statement hits to me, hit right on the nose, i would like to bring this, you know, in terms of having a plan. i mentioned earlier what would
it take, how long would it take to come up with a plan in terms of timelines, clear goals and so forth, and how this would impact once budget -- i'm ready as a budget committee member to say well, maybe we have to look at how we fund this, whether we should keep the existing budget format of giving each department a little piece of it or do we bring it all back. i need to have then the city administrator with the mayor's blessing to bring folks back to the table, to come up with this plan, if nothing else. in terms of what -- where they really want to take this and expedite some of the things we have been trying to do for many years and also to bring in a new element, how do we get information to the public, you
know, as transparent as possible. it's something that i have not heard too much discussion about. so, that's what i would like to take, take this from this hearing, any other comments? >> i have just a few questions i know we have one more item and -- but mr. nance, are you the representative from juvenile probation on the governance council or do you have a designee? >> technology division. >> and how often, maybe you don't know, maybe miss hurst or rob can tell us, but how often does the governance council actually meet? >> monthly, supervisor. >> could you pull up the mic? >> monthly, supervisor. >> and the meeting is chaired by? >> co-chaired by the executive sponsor, which is city
administrator's office, and then the other co-chair rotates throughout the criminal justice agencies and this fiscal year it is the courts. >> this fiscal year is what? >> the courts. >> the courts. and that individual from the city administrator's office is mr. bukowski who attends those meetings? >> correct. >> and you don't have a strategic plan, is that a fair statement? >> i don't think i would word it that way. our strategic plan right now is really the justice vision and charter document. it is an aged document. and that's why those -- ongoing discussions about revisiting it, obviously there is a tremendous amount of lessons learned since that document was first created. it was created prior to any case management systems being implemented. we are on the other side of several now, and we have a lot
more knowledge around the dos and don'ts and efficient ways of data sharing and then since then again, not so much covered in the justice and vision and charter. we have stood up the online applications for all of the criminal justice agencies, there were some supporting slides that were meant to demonstrate some of the applications and notifications that are available to all the criminal justice agencies outside of the cable mainframe. >> so, i would just -- again, want to thank supervisor yee for bringing this. i would suggest the next step is to have a legislator meet with the governance council, maybe you, supervisor yee, to take a look at, and i want to thank your staff, jen low, for sending it during the meeting. 2a.85, provision passed in
december of 2000 and amended slightly in 2004, and maybe needs to be amended again in 2018. >> supervisor yee: i would be very happy to represent our board in this matter to move this forward. i think, you know, what it was after maybe with the key word, strategic plan, which is not the original outline of goals. i mean, this is where you actually have some specific goals, you know, whether short-term and midterm and so forth, and that's where, you know, this is what we need to see, and it's also it's things that we need to see so that during the budget process this would be some rational why we would support additional funding or not, or take away funding if there is no plan.
>> i want to thank my colleagues on the j.a.o. for allowing me to have this hearing and i would ask the -- go ahead and continue this with the call of the chair. >> so moved. >> so, we have a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. supervisor yee, i want to thank you for bringing this very important discussion to the government audit and oversight committee and thank you for taking the lead on behalf of this board in being the legislator liaison. i think data sharing between departments has always been an ongoing conversation, not just with this particular database, but i remember from my time serving on the school board discussions about sharing data even between juvenile justice, h.s.a., and others, and the immense myriad of challenges that we went through around
sharing private information and addressing privacy issues. and we still have not addressed that issue, you know, over a decade later. really, i mean, we have to figure out a way to break through some of the bureaucracy and legitimate issues around data sharing to just be able to achieve really important goals so thank you again, supervisor yee. this item will be continued to the call of the chair. mr. clerk, can we please call the next item. >> clerk: next on agenda, item number 4, file 170 -- excuse me, hearing on the budget and legislative analyst's 2017 performance audit of the department of technology and received presentations of the timeline and work plan for implementing recommendations. >> thank you, mr. clerk. this item was called, sponsored
by supervisor peskin who will make some opening remarks. i will have some questions and statements as well. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. last item was a good segue into this item, a little bit of context relative to the history of d.t., a reference to rotating department heads, i'm delighted we actually now have a new director of our department of technology, linda who is here today, and i know that she's going to stay for much longer than the 1.7 or 1.9 year tenure of recent department heads in that agency that have kind of come, keep coming and going like the wind. so with that, the board of supervisors requested an audit from our budget and legislative analyst with regard to the department and i want to thank our budget and legislative analyst office for preparing
that. i believe it was finished last summer, several months ago, and i actually wanted to delay the hearing on the audit until linda had a chance to get up and running and in place and i've had the chance to meet with her. i think the audit was actually very constructive and it was a good way to point the department in the right direction. i think they agreed in whole or in part with all of the recommendations and have gonna long way to implementing those recommendations and address the findings and with that, i thought we would start with a presentation and overview from the budget and legislative analyst as to the audit. ms. campbell. >> good morning, supervisor peskin, president breed. >> if i may interrupt you, i got
a text message from the staff that s.f.govtv is down, so i don't know if anybody is seeing this or not. >> we'll repeat what you said, the reason that the audit was begun was the high turnover of the department heads for the department of technology. we conducted the audit and completed it in june during a period when there was no permanent department head. but i do want to say also that even as we started the audit, there have been some long perceived problems in the problem of technology. already beginning to be discussed and corrected. and i think in terms of issues of staffing, in terms of customer service, and even in terms of contracting, at least, there have been people brought in to really look at those problems and so i think that part of what we are looking at is a department that was beginning to go through some changes. i also would like to say that we
did meet with linda after she started in her new position and we look forward to continuing to work with her. nick menard is the project manager and he will be giving the presentation for this audit. >> thank you, police campbell. mr. menard. welcome. >> good morning, supervisor peskin and president breed. >> while you are setting up, i want to say i really like the department of technology new vision statement, the i.t. partner of choice, not the i.t. department of mandate. i think that is actually really good, and i think we heard in the last item that at least 20 years ago, people didn't want to be under d.t. because they felt it was the department of mandate. but if we can get them to be the department of choice, that would be a good thing. go ahead mr. menard. >> and i think the recommendations in the audit will help achieve that goal. i was the project manager for the audit and briefly summarize
the findings and observations. at the request of the board we looked at the six areas, we did so by interviewing d.t. staff, conducting surveys of d.t. customers and staff, reviewing documents and data from d.t., and benchmarking certain practices against ten other i.t. departments and other industry standards. and so information and security and strategic planning have both been historically underdeveloped at d.t. we actually had no audit findings in other areas, and that's because there were significant efforts underway to address those issues during the audit. i do want to make a couple observations that i think merit noting here. so on information security, the way it works now is that there's a chief information security officer for the city responsible for i.t. security throughout the city. and he has a dual reporting relationship, reports to the
head of d.t. and has a dotted line reporting to the controller. and the purpose of that dual reporting is the department is not self-regulating on security matters. so while we saw this was actually consistent with the practice of other i.t. departments we looked at, we note that it still to be problematic, and here is why. if the chief information security officer reporting to the c.i.o., and the city administrator, and to the mayor, it may not be sufficient in terms of security concerns in a timely manner. >> when the mayor had to go to the d.t. employee to get the code? >> there was that time, someone was in jail, yeah. so -- that was obviously too late. and so -- >> not under linda's watch, i want to say. >> before my time, too. >> i was here. >> but -- yeah, so the way the
reporting structure is now is that he's effectively embedded in d.t. rather than separate from it. also does not quote, which has to approve cyber security policies for the city and does not regularly report to the board. so all of these are potential issues. having said all that, just prior to the start of the audit, did approve a cyber security policy to develop security plans and at the same time, the controller was working on an audit work plan to work on those plans and hire audit security to do so, and cyber security realm. strategic planning, the department had not had a strategic plan for years, why we included it in the audit. actually, just before we began, the department implemented a strategic plan in the summer of 2016, and according to the department they have updated it for the current fiscal year. so the trend is positive.
staffing is another area we looked at. also did not have audit findings but still want to note several issues. first has to do with the department vacancy, historically had a high vacancy rate and is high relative to other i.t. departments. >> but it is coming down. >> it is coming down, the trend is positive, and attribute that to d.t. hiring a recruiter dedicated to hiring the vacant position. and high turnover relative to other s.f. department heads and other i.t. departments we looked at. we also did a survey of staff, solicit input about the strengths and weaknesses of the department. and generally staff reported very high scores on job satisfaction and personal motivation, so really, people really like working at d.t. but a few low scores did stick out. one is less than a quarter of respondents said internal promotions were fair, less than
half had confidence in executive leadership and only about a third reported they were getting regularly reviewed. i'll just note that despite the perception of unfairness and promotions, d.t. has made progress there, too, they tripled the amount of internal promotions in 2016-2017, relative to the prior year, so the trend on staffing is positive. >> and mr. menard, the number of individuals in the department that participated was about half? >> about half, that's right. >> which i thought was a good response rate. >> evenly distributed among the divisions. so turning now to the findings, several related to financial management. so, one is how -- relates to how the department recovers costs for services. d.t. charges other city departments who are the customers to recuperate costs for service, and one of those charges is the baseline charge, recuperating charges for ongoing services.
but the problem we found during the audit is that baseline service was not ever defined and so no one knew what was actually included in the baseline service charges. in addition to that, the baseline charges were assessed against f.t.e. so the result was the largest departments were paying the largest of the baseline service charges, regardless of their actual service use for the baseline services. and separately, the baseline charges are assessed on a budgetary basis, so when actual spending is below budget which it has been for the past several years, d.t. will go through a process where they credit customers with a portion of the charges, the process is not defined anywhere and not transparent. and so the net effect of all this -- >> big departments are subsidizing the little departments. >> that's right. >> because the big departments, they tend to just use less also. so, sort of like the cause and effect relationship with the cost sharing is kind of broken.
i think the primary negative effect of all this, d.t. customers don't understand what they are paying for and according to our survey, they want to understand what they are paying for and want to choose what services they are getting from d.t. so another way that d.t. recovers costs is through what i'll call project-based work orders. so, this is funding that is to cover service requests that can't be accomplished within the baseline recoveries. however, as i just said, no definition for what's in baseline services so it's really up to the d.t. division managers when they get a service request to determine whether or not it can be accomplished in their baseline budget. and so we reviewed these project work orders, and we found that less than half had any documentation that would describe the work effort or the schedule or the basis for costs, and even when that documentation
was available, it was often missing such key information, and this is just inconsistent with the work order guidelines and makes it difficult for the department to plan and prioritize work. finally on financial management, we had findings related to contracting. so, as you know, d.t. manages several citywide contracts for i.t. services, but until the end of 2016, they did not track the contracts, despite 2012 audit recommending to do so. during the audit, we looked at the d.t. contract management data, manually compiled into a spreadsheet and found it problematic on several fronts. number one, we could not determine the remaining spending authority on the active contracts just by looking at their contract data. and in addition to that, even though it was compiled in a spreadsheet, it was not in a fully functional contract
management database that would do things like notify you if a contract was about to expire. so, we noted, for example, there was 35 contracts that had expired but under which services were still being performed at the time of the audit. and we also noted a case where a vendor had to notify d.t. of the pending expiration and the renewal cost was not in d.t. budget, so a scramble for resources to make sure the contract was renewed on time, and that there were appropriate funds for the services that other departments were relying on. the other thing i'll say about contracts, too, they often lacked cost controls, work, deliverables not to exceed amounts and performance measures. customer service, found inconsistency, providing clear explanations to the customers with the services they are
getting and the level of support they could expect and as miss campbell mentioned, d.t. was in the midst of just rolling out a new service management system and was working through the implementation of that new system. and then finally, looked at the project management office, or p.m.o. that was created about three years ago to manage high priority i.t. projects. and what we found was that number one, it did not have a clearly defined role what it should do to marshall resources, and in addition to that, p.m.o. did not have access to project budget and expenditure information and did not in some cases accurately or consistently report on the status of projects. and so we thought all that really impaired the core mission, which is to manage i.t. projects and we have specific recommendations about how to improve the p.m.o. and i think it's just really
important to mention that, because as you all know, i.t. projects are expensive and very high risk for the city. it's important to get that right. so i think the overall conclusion of the audit and of the recommendations which you can find in the report are that d.t. should improve its financial controls for contracting and charges, and needs to regularly obtain input from customers, clear explanation of services, and better define the role of the p.m.o. and i think these recommendations which the department mostly agrees with will improve the value of d.t. services and make it more effective service provider for other city departments. with that, i thank the department. they worked really well with us throughout the audit and it was an excellent working relationship. happy to take questions now or -- >> thank you, nick. i think that is all set forth in the audit report and appreciate your work, i think it was helpful and constructive, which is what audits should do.
they are not got-cha things. miss drurel. welcome. good afternoon. it is now afternoon and maybe you can just start with for everybody's edification, just the breadth of everything that d.t. does. i don't think everybody realizes how widespread the scope of what you all do is and i think that might be a helpful jumping off point. >> ok. well, thank you, supervisors for this opportunity. as your new, servings as your new city c.i.o., it is a pleasure to be here. d.t. does a wide range of activities and services for the departments, everything from s.f.govtv, i'm sorry, the connection here in the chamber is down, but it is being
broadcast out to the public, so that's not interrupted, but it's like having a power point, you know, you come up to do a power point and it wants to misbehave on the one time you need it. so, this is appropriate that it misbehave right now. so, d.t. provides the s.f.govtv services, networking services, data centers service, a wide range of enterprise application services, project management we discussed and also public safety, all the radios for the 800 megahertz system used by law enforcement and fire, as well as all the external cabling that is done to provide dark fiber to the city buildings. so, it's not a large team but it's a mighty team, a very
dedicated technology professionals that are committed to providing excellent service to the city departments. we do support 55 departments so at times we have to juggle priorities. it's always a challenge to prioritize our work and i think that's something that i hope we can make more transparent, which is what is involved in this audit. so just moving forward, i want to say thank you again for being here. i have served as a c.i.o. for eight years for pierce county, washington. i have 30 years managing technology and technologists. i have completed my first 100 days of service and i hope that i will be able to provide the stable and long-term leadership that the city is looking for. i want to make sure our infrastructure and services are up to date.
cost effective, and secure. and we will also be ensuring that we provide excellent customer service to the city departments and the public i want to thank severin, and the team. the list of horribles would probably make any c.i.o. run, but the d.t. team has leaned into the audit, incorporated recommendations and solutions for the audit findings in the d.t. strategic plan, which you have a one-page handout, kind of looks like this, that describes the initiatives and actually some of the projects that d.t. is working on in fiscal year 17-18. we have acted on all of the recommendations from the audit, and we have provided the
supervisors with a matrix that talks to and speaks to the response, our comment and an update, which shows the majority of the recommendations with actions completed for their improvement. so all of these process improvements that have been suggested and recommended. again, we are taking every action we can to make these improvements. i would like to stress that improvement is all a continuous process and we will continue to work on these over time. i want to highlight some of our accomplishments in our recommendations back to the audit committee of what we have been able to address. in the areas of customer service, we have prepared service level agreements and we have prepared a rate book that describes how rates are calculated that has been shared with the departments.
we have ensured that our service level agreements are implemented in our service tracking system, which is service now. we retired an older ticketing system, so the new system should be much more capable of providing that transparency. our staff time has -- our staff time management has shifted from an obsolete on track internal system to the citywide people-soft system. a way to have transparency by using a common and standard system in the city. and we are refining our analysis of expenditures and recoveries in order to provide the mayor with timely information for our budget process. and i will say to the audit committee, i think one of the things that's important to understand when we start talking about charge-backs and the whole concept of charge-back models is that there are instances where a charge-back model built on f.t.e. base in a department is
appropriate when it is something such as network utilization, and things that are standard across the infrastructure and then there are those times when the work orders are appropriate, when they are doing particular work for a department, and we are trying to make a bright line between those two. on the contracting side, d.t. is exploring the use of contract and supply management features in the new people-soft financial system. this will give us the ability to manage the contracts. in response to the request for new procurement policies, we have updated or creating purchasing travel reimbursement guidelines. updating training materials on the checklists how to do d.t. procurements, and most interestingly, i have participated in these, initiated procurement training with o.c.a. and the city attorney with d.t.
managers and that's helpful to understand procurements and to work to make process improvements in that area. in the area of work orders, we are implementing our new interdepartmental service agreements and templates that prompts for line item budget, delivery timeline, scope of work and the basis for cost, that those will be documented for the work orders. we have procedures and policies drafted that are compatible with the controllers new people-soft system so we need to leverage that technology and the capability of that system to improve our business process and we will do that, and are doing that. in the areas of project manager that was discussed, we are evaluating our resource and staffing priorities and we must support our core functions and projects. we have implemented formal protocols on planning project management and scope definition,
which is very important to making sure that you deliver a particular widget on time and don't end up with a never-ending project. we have trained staff on invoice review procedures to ensure that business owners and their delegates review prior to payment and color coded status and demand management reports shared with the departments. on the staffing side, we have high scores, 70% agree on personal motivation and involvement in engagement with management in the department, we have continued to make improvements. we have had 100% staff participation in a self-and supervisor assessment program, this is something i initiated, this is not something that was done before i came on board.
we are increasing performance evaluation reporting to the entire department, one of my objectives, well on the way doing that. increasing transparency in c.i.o. decisions so staffing changes and changes to process that i'm implementing are communicated to every level in the organization. we have renewed our online training program, and we are encouraging staff to request skills improvement training. so, in conclusion, i want to thank david german, leah levinson, the technology staff that is with me here today, on preparing for this audit review and hearing. the whole d.t. team has really embraced the audit, and is actively working on improving their processes. right now there is a meeting going on where