Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Govt Audits And Oversight Committee 20240711

Hi, corwin so nice to hear your hi, corwin smaings . Aings oorsmirs missours nevada dance peerng. Welcome to the thursday november 5th meeting of the government audits and oversight. Supervisor gor gordthank you tos committees clerk, john carroll carol, and i would like to thank sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. In order to protect the Board Members and public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and Committee Room are closed. This precaution is taken to all state and federal orders and declarations and directives. Committee members will be participating in this meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present in our board chamber. Public comment will be available for each item on this agenda. Both San Francisco cable channel 26 and sfgov tv. Org have a number across the korean. Screen. 4156550001. After youve dialed that number and connected to the call, youll be prompted to enter a meeting i. D. The i. D. Is 1465657778. After youve entered the meeting i. D. , youll be prompted to press the pound symbol twice, and after so, wul be connected to the meeting. Youre line will be muted at that time and in listening mode only. When your item of interest comes up, dial star, followed by 3, to be added to the speaker line. A system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand at that point. Please wait until the system indicates youve been unmuted, and you can begin your comments. Best practices are to speak clearly and slowly, as im attempting to do, and to turn down your television or radio or streaming device. Everyone must account for potential time delays between live coverage and streaming. Alternatively, you may submit your Public Comment on any of the matters on todays agenda by emailing me, john carroll carol, and im the clerk of the government audits and oversight. My email address is jo john. Carroll sfgov. Org. I will include it in the legislative to which your item is responsive. And your written comments may be sent by the postal service. And the address is 1d goodlet place, room 244, San Francisco, california, 94102. And finally, mr. Chair, items acted upon day will appear on the agenda of november 17th, 2020, unless otherwise state. Chairman that is correct, mr. Clerk. Before we begin, i just wanted to note a few things on the order and form of this agenda. I intend to call item 12 out of order, after item three, and to call all of the m. O. U m. O. U. Related items in open session. Item 13 was noted for possible closed session discussion because it contains terms for the settlement of agreement. That settlement should be discussed enclosed session, if we have questions about it. But that is the only portion of this meeting that would be held enclosed session. There will be public discussion and comment for all of the m. O. U. S. With that, can you please call item number one. Clerk yes. Agenda one is an ordinance amending the code to require notification to prequalified contractors and written documentation of contractors selection from prequalified list, and written documentation for work assigned under as needed professional services contract. And to require the controller to audit such selection documentation. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment, call the Public Comment number 4156550001. Enter todays meeting i. D. 146657778. And press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting, and press the star key followed by the number 3. Please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. You may begin your comments. Mr. Chair. Chairman thank you, supervisor stefani for sponsoring and joining us for this item. The floor is yours. Thank you for scheduling this item again today. I know we heard it on october 1st, and i want to thank you, too, for adding your famous o names as cosponsors. And that was just a technical clich. I know you have a very long meeting today, so im going to very brief. This proposal will amendment the administrative code to close to loopholes that the former director of public works used to direct contracts to recipients, without documentation, evaluation, or oversight. This is drafted to respond to recommendation number four in the city auditors public work. It creates a new, strict set of rules governing the use of prequalified contracting tools, and as needed, professional services contract, which Gave Department heads broad discretion to direct certain types of contracts to specific individuals, which were, obviously as we have seen, ripe for abuse. The city will now be required to solicit these contracts publicly, through a competitive solicitation, evaluate bids using consistent criteria, justify their selection and maintain the documentation for an audit. Unless there are any questions, i would request that you move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. Chairman thank you so much, supervisor stefani. Before we go to Public Comment, colleagues, do you have any remarks or questions . Seeing none, why dont we go to Public Comment. Mr. Clerk, are there any callers on the line . Clerk thank you, mr. Chair. The operator is checking to see if we have any callers in the cue. Please let us know if there are any callers that are already. For those who are already connected to the meeting, please press star, followed by the 3, if you wish to speak for agenda item number one. You will hear a prompt that informs you that your line has been unmuted. For those who are watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or through sfgov tv. Org, if you wish to speak, call in now. By dialing 4156550001. I. D. 1465657778. Press the pound symbol twice. Then press star, followed by 3, to enter the cue to speak. Could you let us know if we have any callers for agenda item number one . Mr. Chair, there are no callers in the cue. Chairman thank you. Operations, and mr. Clerk. Public comment is now closed. Closed colleagues, i would like to move we send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. Clerk the motion offered by cha chair mar. [roll call] clerk mr. Chair, there are three yeas. Chairman mr. Clerk, can you please call item 2 . Clerk agenda 2 rejected ordinance 16220 temporarily protect workers from adverse action if they test positive for covid19, or have previously isolated or are isolated from symptoms, and protect applicants from is discrimination if they test positive for covid19, if theyre isolating or quarantined, due to covid19 symptoms or exposure. Members who wish to provide Public Comment should call the Public Comment number, 4156550001. Enter the meeting i. D. 1465657778. Press the pound symbol twice, and then press the star key, followed by the number 3. Please wait until the system indicates that youve been unmuted and you may begin your comments. And finally one more thing, mr. Chair, im in receipt of a memo requested that this matter be considered as a Committee Report during next weeks november 10th board of supervisors meeting. Chairman thank you. I would like to welcome paul moge to speak on this item on behalf of supervisor ronan. The floor is yours. Thank you, supervisors. Ill keep my remarks brief. This is simply an reactment ordinance, which will be safeguards against firing an employee. It extends protection to workers who are unable to work because they test positive for covid19 or must quarantine because of covid19 symptoms. Supervisor ronan introduced this, and it was a u. C. Health study that revealed that the fear of losing income or ployment because of a covid positive diagnosis and the need to quarantine was discouraging a large number of workers from wanting to go through the testing. This piece of ep legislation was enacted in early september. I indescernable or who requested time awe because they tested positive for covid. Any worker whos rights are violated under this emergency ordinance, can file a report, which has the authority to investigate violation, or order appropriate remedies like reinstating the worker or paying for lost wages, or charging an employer additional penalties for any violation that has occurred. With the assurance that a positive covid diagnosis a worker cannot be fired from their job, this will encourage workers to get tested, so they can contribute to our citys broader outgoing recovery effort. In addition to reenacting this emergency ordinance, were asking for a permanent resolution, even after the citys declared state of emergency is lifted, since this will likely continue well after the shelter in place orders are lifted. With that, im ready for any questions. Chairman thank you so much for all of your work on this, along with your boss. It is just an extremely important workers rights and emergency measure. Thank you so much. Colleagues, do you have any questions for remarks before we go to Public Comment . Mr. Clerk, are there any callers on the line . Clerk thank you, mr. Chair. Operations will check to see if we have any callers who are in the cue who wish to speak for this item, agenda item the number 2. Mr. Cue, let us know if we have any callers that are ready. Please press star, followed by the 3. For those already on hold in the cue, please continue to wait until youre prompted to begin. You will hear a prompt that informs you that your line has been unmuted. For those watching our meeting through sfgov tv. Org, if you wish to speak, please call in now, by dialing 415655, 0001. The i. D. 1465657778. Press the pound symbol twice followed by star 3. Have we received any callers . I have one caller in the cue. Hi, this is magic haltman, and thank you, paul, for bringing this forward from hillarys office. It is so important. And i just want to voice my highest support for protecting our people. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Mr. Cue, can you connect us to the neck caller next callf there is someone on the line. Mr. Chair, that completes the callers. Chairman hearing no further callers, Public Comment is closed. I would like to recommend move that we send this item to the full board with positive recommendation as a Committee Report to the november 10th meeting of the board of supervisors. Mr. Clerk, can you please call roll. [roll call] id like to be added as a cosponsor. Yea. Clerk noted. Mr. Chair, there are three yeas. Chairman thank you. Mr. Clerk, can you please call item number 3. Clerk yes. Agenda three is a hearing to receive and review external auditors comprehensive management report. Endings june 30th, 2019, and external aud tit plans is required under the charter. 4156550001. And enter the meeting i. D. , 146, 5657778. Press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting, and then press the star key, followed by the number 3. Mr. Chair . Chairman thank you. This annual hearing was part of the reason that the government audits and oversight was formed. Today well hear from the citys external auditors on their findings for fiscal year 2019and fiscal 2020. A number of city staff are here and available for questions, with representatives from the m. T. A. , p. U. C. , and from the controllers office. Is there anything you would like to say at the start of this hearing. Thank you, mr. Chair. I can brief the introduce the item and turn it over to the citys external auditors to present to you. A bit of background, every physical yeafiscal year in thisy has two book ends, with a financial plan, the budget, what we hope will occur for that fiscal year, and then it concludes with what actual occurred financially. We present those in Financial Statements, and then consolidate them into what we call the comprehensive annual financial report, cafr. Those are then audited by firms external to the city to ensure they accurately reflect the citys Financial Condition for that fiscal year. So you are here today to hear from the citys audit firms. Annie louie from m. G. O. , to talk through their observations and findings. And then they will present their audit plans for fiscal year 2020, because were closing the books. I believe the auditors are prepared to present. Chairman thank you so much, mr. Rosenfield. I would just like to welcome our external auditors, annie louie, who is a partner at m. G. O. , and lisa avis, the managing director of kpmg. You have the floor. Thank you very much. Good morning. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to be here. I want to share our presentation here, and so we have both kpmg and m. G. O. Presently today, but our joint presentation will cover the various aspects needed here. So if you could just please let me know if my screen chairwoman yes, we can see it. Okay, you can see the presentation there. Okay. Thank you. So this meeting here im sorry. Im having a little bit of technical difficulties this meeting is to cover the audit results for 2019, and the audit plan and strategy for 2020. So as you can see, there are 43 slides here. Were not going to go through all 43 slides. I just want to highlight a couple of the key slides with the rest of the information you have in your packet for review. Slide two here talks about the scope of the audit that we ask ternal auditors conducted this year. We have the Financial Statement audits, audited by m. G. O. , and those audited by kpmg on the right side. And they have consisted over the past several years. Slide three here is the results of m. G. O. s audits. It says m. G. O. , but for all of the Financial Statement audits across the board, we have the Financial Statements received, and opinions, or what we call unmodified opinions, meaning that the Financial Statement balance is where we present the results and operations of the respective entities that you saw on the previous slide. As part of our audit results, we also cover any corrective actions taken on any findings noted in the prior period. So annie, did you just want to touch on this slide here, slide four . Thank you, lisa. Good morning, everybody. This particular finding is from the 2017 18 audit, where we noted certain deficiencies over the financial reporting, and the main cost of this was the citys conversion from the Legacy Financial Management System to peoplesoft system. We note the areas of improvement, and im happy to report that based on the audit for 18 19, that the corrected actions have been implemented. Thank you, annie. Im going to jump to slide seven here. So as we review the Financial Statements, as management is preparing the Financial Statements, it is not uncommon for management to find adjustment to numbers presented, and they make a determination as to whether those identified are material or significant enough to adjust the existing balances theyve presented. For example, on slide seven here, this has the various column where the various entities are audited by kpmg, and there were similar adjustments for the audits by m. G. O. They would affect the pension and expenses as they were originally reported. Soso the pension liability was calculated in 2016, and oped was calculated in 2018. Each year there are new factors that come into play, and those estimates are more finetuned to adjust for the large liabilities for pensions and oped that are on the books. When calculating the updated amount for the 2018 audit, there were some factors that were not included in those calculations, and these are the net effects of those calculations here. Management determined that they were not material, and we concurred. The Department Still received an opinion, but we just wanted to show the impact of those amounts that were not recorded. As part of our audit, we are required to report any controlled deficiencies noted. So there was one adjustment, and that was material. And it was brought tw to our attention by the p. U. C. Management. Back in 2016, there was an agreement that was entered with another city agency as it relates to the central shop transactions that were taking place. And there was a lack of communication among various departments, but this resulted in 35 million of assets being doubled booked on the waste water enterprise Financial Statement. So management, again, identified it, brought it to our attention. They wanted to be transparent in their Financial Statements, so management corrected the prior periods balances. And as a result, the numbers that were stated as of 2018 and 2019 were corrected. However, because of the deficiency here, we issued a material correction over this. It was a oneoff transaction for the p. U. C. Entities, and they have transactions to address these similar oneoff transactions. The next finding was a single audit over the m. T. A. Program. When we test cash draws from the federal government, we found there were some controls that were lacking over the reviews taking place before those draws so there has been a lot of turnover at m. T. A. With the various retirements that have taken place. As a result of the deficiencies we found, there was approximately 1. 5 of costs that were draw1. 5 million of costs thatwee not allowable. M. T. A. Has corrected that to make their balance and account whole again. So i want to go ahead and jump forward to i hope i dont make you dizzy here, but on slide 22 here, and slide 23, these are the teams that we have coming into the 2020 audit, which is well under way. Again, we said these are results for 2019, and the audit plan for 2020, but we have the continuity of both teams. And jumping forward to slide 24 here, this is our audit timeline. And we actually have several reports that will be going out in the next couple of weeks. And, again, the team is working hard to try to make those deadlines. So i know you have a very full agenda, and im not going to go through all 43 slides, but i just wanted to highlight those key items. Annie, is there anything else you would like to touch on . No. Youve covered it very well. Thank you. Thank you, lisa. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman . Chairman supervisor peskin, go ahead. I would like to draw a little more into the rather troubling finding about the inappropriate spending of federal dollars and determine whether or not there are any other instances of that, and to what extent the audit looked at other federal drawdowns. Yes. So i can start with that question, and then i can turn it over to m. T. A. As part of the audit procedures, were required to select a sample of items. One thing we make sure is to make sure the requests are reviewed prior to being sent to the federal government. And those reviews would often catch things like this. We found an instance where a draw was not reviewed, and so we expanded our sample to see if there were anymore similar errors. In expanding our sample, we saw that approximately 750,000 of unallowable costs were drawn on. So since we had already expanded our sample, we asked management to go through and scrub the population of draws to see if they identified with the additional errors, as they identified another 750,000. And so we identified half, and management, through their exercise, identified additional amounts and brought those to our attention. And then i dont know if we have anyone from m. T. A. On . Mr. Levenson . Yes. Hello. Thank you. Im leo levenson, the c. F. O. For the San Francisco m. T. A. And Matthew Mcdonald is the controller for m. T. A. , and he can provide more. But we take this very seriously. We make sure we have additional procedures in internal controls to make sure this doesnt happen again. This is within the context of about 339 million with the federal costs. And i want to emphasize this was not an improper spending federal dollars. It was a claiming, where there were some errors in what was claimed in that particular quarter. And, again, it was offset against a later quarter, where the correction was made. And, matthew, are you here to provide any further details . Yeah, leo, i am here. Im Matthew Mcdonald, and im the controller for s. M. T. A. And there was an in the process for the echo draw, there was a number of there is a plethora of information, and what we found was that some of the information was inadequate inaccurate im sorry and had to do with the numbers that were pulled from the new system. Some staff was unfamiliar with itmen it. And so that went into the echo draw. So what happened was it wasnt an accurate review from the management at the time, and it en on in a draw against that. We did a subsequent analysis, as kpmg said, and that subsequent analysis was to look for additional items like that, and we did find additional items. We were then asked to do a corrective action plan. There were two things coming out of that plan one was to make whole on the amount that was drawn down, to, in essence, refund the 1. 5 million to the f. T. A. , but in subsequent drawdowns, the error was noted and it was netted, so there was no need to do a refund to m. T. A. The second part of the corrective action plan was for two particular things one is for there to be a more robust review of the drawdown. And that robust review now includes the manager in charge of that area, initially, and then going on to my review, with a number of items that are now part of a check list before the echo draw could be released. The second part of it was that in one instance, there was a drawdown that occurred by staff before the management had signed off on it. And, again, the procedure is no echo draw could be proceeded with until that review has happened, and management has authorized the drawdown. And, mr. Mcdonald, given the huge amount of federal sub versions that the s. F. M. T. A. , though external controls were historically not in place until this finding . No well, as kpmg mentioned, there was a number of staff and some of the staff had gone on to retirement, and we lost some staff with institutional knowledge, and think during this time it was just that these interim controls were not followed as diligently as they had been followed with staff that had more institutional experience. I think it was a matter of training and us redoubling our efforts to make sure that the review process in the internal controls were adequate. Well, i think it also if i may speaks to Succession Planning, or lack thereof. The fact there is memory that retires, there is not somebody who has been part of a robust Succession Plan is what could lead to that. Regardless, the internal control should be stronger than the institutional memory of any one individual. Hopefully you guys are going to draw down on that in the time ahead. I agree. And were doing that. And may i also add to that, if i can . I just want to clarify as well that there were controls there. However, it was a couple of instances where we did not see that approval and authorization prior to the draw. And so had there been no controls, the significant deficiency that we have noted here on page nine would have actually been a material weakness. Got it. And it was because it was only a small portion of that. And the terminology that we are required to use in this format in reporting is questionable costs, allowable costs, that terminology. But as mr. Levenson has said, the costs were allowable for the entity as a whole. It is just that they should not have been federally funded. They should have been funded with the operating activities of m. T. A. Versus federal grander. So it was a color of money issue . That is correct. Chairman thank you. Thank you for the question, supervisor peskin. I had a question for the auditors, just a broader question about the looking ahead for the planning for this audit of the 19 20 year. We had to make changes to the budgeting process and timeline. I was wondering if you can speak a little more about how that is impacting the important work on the auditing, the 19 20 fiscal year. Do you want to go ahead and talk from the citys indescernable . Do you have the budgets on that trose. . Let me start off. In terms of the audit timeline, uhe auditing budget does not have a significant impact. But indirectly it affects the availability of that because it is the same teamworking on the budget, as well as the financial close and audit processes. So far we have experienced a little bit of a day, not necessarily because of that becaus but because of the situation of having to work remotely. And working on the other relief funds that have been an issue because of lack of guidance, and in some cases unclear guidance on how such funds should be recognized in the Financial Statements, as well as the compliance portion of federal funds. So were working with management on that. We may have a delay in terms of a single audit, given the office of management and budget that issues the audit guidance on the federal awards every year has not provided the guidance. We are expecting the guidance to be issued some time this month, with the deadline on the single aud tits being nine months, which would be march of 2021. So the single audits may go into march of 2021, which is unusual for the city. In the past, the city has always had their report issued by the end of january. But other than that, i dont believe there would be any significant delays in other processes at this point. Okay. And particula from an indepet standpoint, we are still working and hopefully have the airport report going out in the next several days. We appreciate the cooperation from all of the departments to keep moving these forward during these unique times. Thank you so much for that. And thanks for all of your important work on the external audit of the citys cafr. Colleagues, do you have any questions or comments before we go to Public Comment . Great. Why dont we go to Public Comment on this item. Mr. Clerk, are there any callers on the line . Clerk operations is checking to see if we have any callers in the cue who wish to speak for this agenda item number three. Mr. Cue, please let us know if we have any callers who are ready. Those who are already connected, please press star, followed by 3, to be added to the cue. For those already on hold in the cue, please continue to wait until youre prompted to begin. For those who are watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or through sfgov. Org, please call in now, by following the instructions on your screen. When prompted, enter the meeting i. D. 1465667778. Press the pound symbol twice and press star, followed by 3, to enter the cue to speak. Mr. Cue, could you please connect us to our first caller. Mr. Chair, there are no callers in the cue. Chairman thank you, mr. Coo. Public comment is closed. Thanks again, for all of your work on the external audit. And i would like to move that we file this hearing. Do we need to take a vote on that . We should. On the motion offered by chair mar that this hearing be filed . [roll call] clerk mr. Chair, there are three yeas. Chairman thank you, mr. Clerk. Can you please call item number 12 out of order. Clerk just a moment. Item 12 is a hearing to receive recommendations on restructuring the office of the chief economist medical examiner and best practices of jurisdictions that employ a medical scanner, including court functions, hiring and firing, and general oversights. Nbmembers of the public should call 4156550001. Press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting, and press the star key, followed by the number 3, to enter the cue to speak. A system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. When you are unmuted, you may then begin your comments. Mr. Chair . Chairman supervisor peskin, the floor is yours. I have nothing to say. Oh, on this item, i would like this to be continued to the meeting of november 10th. I believe we have a meeting on november oh, no. Excuse me. Clerk november 10th is tuesday. And thats next week. Im sorry. Wait one second. Let me find the date that i would like to continue this to. Clerk the next regularly scheduled meeting is november 19th for this committee. I will get back to you. If we can come back and continue this later. Chairman supervisor peskin, can i request that we continue this item to the call of the chair. Our agendas are extremely full, coming up in the next few meetings i believe on december 10th sorry, im looking at my notes. I believe that on december 10th, supervisor haney has a matter pertaining to the medical examiners office, and i thought we could hear them at the same time. Clerk i will note for the information of the chair and mr. Vice chair, december 10th is not a regular meeting date for this committee. This Committee Meets on the first and third thursdays of each month. That means that december 3rd would be the only regularly scheduled meeting in december. Mr. Chairman, why dont we continue it to the call of the chair, and when you hear supervisor haneys item, we can hear this item at the same time. That sounds good. You have my commitment. So, mr. Clerk, can you please call roll on the motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. Clerk we should, before we dispense with the items, are there any members of the public who have called to give Public Comment on this item. Operations is checking now to see if there are any callers in the cue. Mr. Coo, let us know if there are any callers that are ready. Please press star followed by 3to be added to the cue if you wish to speak for this item, item 12. For those already on hold in the cue, please continue to wait until your prompted to begin. For those who are watching or meeting our capable channel, if you wish to speak on this item, please call in now by following the instructions which are on your screen. That would be by dialing enter todays meeting i. D. 1465657778. Press the pound symbol twice, followed by star 3. Mr. Coo, do we have any callers who wish to speak on item 12 . Mr. Chair, there are no callers in the cue. Chairman thank you, mr. Coo. Public comment is closed. Mr. Clerk, can you please call roll. Clerk on the motion offered by chair mar, that this item be continued to the call of the chair. [roll call] clerk mr. Chair, there are three yeas. Chairman thank you. Mr. Clerk, can you please call items four through 11 and item 13 together . Clerk yes. Agenda items number 4 through 11 are seven ordinances adopting and implementing amendments to the ongoing memoranda of understanding between the city and county and the firefighters association, local 791, units 1 and 2, to increase wage increases, to extend the term by two years, and to set wages for the additional term. As well as the Municipal Executives Association, to update the grievance procedures, the Municipal Executives Association for fire, to incur wages for fiscal year 2020, 2021. And the association for police, to defer wage increases currently set by fiscal year sorry, to defer wage increases currently set for fiscal year 2020 to 2021, extend the term by two years and set wages for the additional term. As well as the m. L. U. With the Service Employees international union, local 1021, to update the work study provisions. Also the m. L. U. For sciu, staff and per diem nurses, to make amendments to the overtime provision, and amending ordinance 10620, fixing compensation for persons employed by the city o, and establishing working schedules and other terms and conditions of employment and methods of payment affective july 1st, 2020. Also agenda item 13 is now called. Item 13 is an ordinance adopting and implementing the tentative agreement between the city and county of San Francisco, and the San Francisco pls Police Officers association, including one, adopting and implementing the First Amendment to the 2018 to 2021 memorandum of understanding between the city and the p. O. A. , for fiscal year 2020 to 2021, amend the provisions, amendment the 10b overtime provisions, and set wages for the additional term. And, two, approving settlement of two grievances filed by the p. O. A. Against the city, not to exceed 359,613. 87. The grievances were filed on march 25th, 2020, and june 29, 2020. And they have all compensation disputes under the memoranda of understanding. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment on these nine ordinances should call the Public Comment number now. 4156550001. I. D. 1465657778. Press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting, and then press the star key, followed by the mr. 3 t number 3 to speak. Please wait until the system indicates youve been unmuted, and at that time you may begin your comments. Mr. Chair these items are all called. Chairman thank you, mr. Clerk. Before we get into presentations and discussion on these items, i do want to clarify the closed session noted for item 13, the memorandum of understanding and settlement of grievances for the Police Officers association. It is my intention to have a robust and transparent dialogue, all side the eight other m. O. U. S and other items. Because it contains a settlement of grievances, we duly noticed this item for a possible closedsession discussion. It is a settlement of grievances only that would be discussed enclosed session. The presentation for this m. O. U. Will be held in open session, and the committee will be able to ask questions and discuss it openly. Public comment will be held following this discussion. All of that will be held in open session. If any member of this committee has questions or wishes to discuss the specific terms of the settlement of the grievances, which are partially included in the m. O. U. Itself, that discussion would happen separately after complic comment is takenafter publiccom. We look forward to this public discussion today. Well hear presentations from carol isen, director of Employee Relations for the department of Human Resources, on each memorandum of understanding. And colleagues, croar controller Ben Rosenfield is also here. If any of my colleagues would like to say anything before we begin, the floor is yours. Okay. Well, i would like to, again, welcome carol issen to present on these items. Ms. Issen . Chairman mar, members of the committee, thank you for calendaring these items to to be heard today. There are a number of matters pending before you. Several of them are essentially clericaltype updates to various m. O. U. S, and i can cover them individually at the committees request. Most are selfplan store. Selfexplanatory. I think the maf business is asking for you include the extensions of the police and fire memorandum agreements, and im going to provide some background about how we got ourselves to this place. And im happy to answer any questions and take any comments that the committees might have. In the middle of june, when the citys latest Financial Reports indicated a potential 1. 5 billion deficit for the coming twoyear budget, the mayor approached all of the citys bargaining partners and asked the unions to consider delaying wage increases for the duration of their m. O. U. S. So we had that discussion. Our socalled miscellaneous unions or nonsafety unions, declined to participate any further in those discussions, which, of course, their right, and we respect that completely. These are closed Labor Agreements. 311 iand there is no obligatin for any city union to engage in that conversation with us. In any event, Firefighters Local 798, San Francisco Police Officers association, and the Municipal Executives Association, that represents the managerial did agree to pursue discussions with us. They lasted about a month, month and a half, and they are almost exclusively economic documents that are in front of you. The savings associated with those documents are detailed in the controllers report. But essentially what they do is police and fire have agreed to delay the wage increase that was scheduled at this point to happen at the end of december of this year, december 2020. Those wages are delayed. Theyre pushed out over the course of two years, starting in july of 2021. We agreed to contract extensions for two years, with 3 wage increases per year in each of those two years. By way of comparison, i just want to remind the board that for the remainder of the Labor Agreements representing City Employees, that first year of the extended contracts for police and fire covers the last year. It is the same period of time as the last year in the miscellaneous agreements. In the miscellaneous contracts, we have 3. 5 wage increases for police, and fire we have 3 wage increases. One of the factors in the charter, one of the most important factors, is how we pay all City Employees, and any arbitrator issuing a ruling on wages would have to look at that factor. So we did consider that. We also looked at your fiveyear projections about what you anticipate you will be funding in terms of annual wage increases for all of labor. So we managed to delay the increases. We pushed them off a couple of years. We provided some breathing room for your twoyear budget. And the agreements and we provided for wage increases for two out years. So theyre relatively simple. I think theyre fair. Theyre reasonable. Were urging you to vote yes. We do understand, and obviouslyly havobviously have re correspondents, and have discussions with the San Francisco Bar Association about broad concerns that the city did not demand reform measures in exchange for wage increases. And im prepared to comment on that. We also have representatives from the San Francisco Police Department to comment on that, the director of Labor Relations for the San Francisco Police Department, and the chief of police, william scott, are here as well. Im just going to provide preliminary comment about that, and then im going to look forward to the conversation. We, in the city the matters that i think that generally fall under the category of reform, and the recommendations from the department of justice, and the various activities around reform that the Police Commission has been engaged in are really matters of policy and that policy activity in our charter is assigned to the Police Commission. And we have quite intentionally encouraged or allowed those policy, opolicyconsiderations to bleed into the Labor Agreements. Because once something ends up in a Labor Agreement, it becomes set terms that could last for a very long time and create an inflexibility that does not the city to respond to changing conditions. Nevertheless, the Police Officers association, along with every other City Employee union and virtually every other municipally employed Civil Servant throughout the state of california and their Labor Organizations do have the right to negotiate over matters that concern wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. It is embedded in state law. It has been there since the late 1960s. In the case of the adoption of police policy, many of those policies are iinherently reserved Management Rights for the city and its Police Commission to adopt. Nevertheless, those new policies can give rise to matters that impact, matters within the scope of representation. And we therefore then hav have. We then continue to have obligations to bargain in good faith. So we carry out those duties with the Police Commission. The Police Commission has been in a generational rewrite of all of its rules to conform to notions of modern policing and to respond to the d. O. J. Recommendations. Many of those changes that the Police Commission has either promulgated or is attempted to promulgate do have impacts, terms and conditions of employment, and we do have an obligation to meet and confer over those terms and conditions of employment. Weve been representing the Police Department, as is our obligation under charter to do so. In the same manner that we represent the board of supervisors, in negotiations over your policies, over Charter Amendments, and so forth. [please stand by] im happy to answer any questions. We do have other speakers with us, if youd like to hear from them first. Or if you want to just get started with questions of me. Chair mar thank you, ms. Isen, for that. Colleagues, i wanted to request that we kind of just ask questions right now of ms. Isen or any of the other departmental reps. And and then we go to Public Comment. And then after that we can have our discussion and move to action on these items. And also can possibly move to closed session, if theres an interest in discussing the specifics around the settlement agreement. So we can just maybe ask questions right now. Actually, ms. Isen, i did have a few questions. Thank you for the overview. You know, as you mentioned, you know, the Bar Association of San Francisco Justice Reform task force has proposed for immediate changes on d. R. H. Meeting confer practices, with respect to the p. O. A. And the goal of these proposed changes is to provide more transparency and to reduce the p. O. A. S history of abuse of labor negotiations, to delay implementation, by the 272 recommendations of reform from the department of justice. They claim most of these can be memorialized in the m. O. U. And actually during the last bargaining process, with the p. O. A. Back in 2018, d. H. R. Put forward proposals along these lines to set reasonable limits to the amount of time the p. O. A. Can use the meet and confer process to delay finalize and reforming processes. I wanted to ask in the negotiations over the new m. O. U. With the p. O. A. , since this summer if d. H. R. Could file any proposals for reform, like you did in 2018. And like those that have been proposed by the Bar Association of San Francisco and others. Supervisor, i can comment specifically on the question about setting reasonable limits on meet and confer and the contractual waiving of meet and confer rights. If you want to talk in more detail about reform efforts, i think we have to shift the discussion about the meet and confer activities that have taken place within the Police Commission and the Police Department in 2020, which we can also comment on as well. Let me just take up the first point, and i heard a lot about this, which is the issue of waiver of meet and confer righ r negotiations, as stated earlier, is enshrined in state law, of long standing. It is regulated by the California Public employment relations board. We have very specific prescribed obligations as an employer to engage in good faith in meet and confer. We cannot impose deadlines, whether in our view reasonable or not. On those meet and confer, we do have to bargain in good faith to conclusion. The dates and timeline that is required is minimums are prescribed in state law, that even if and so when we have issues that ared a adversarial and we have a bargaining obligation, you know, even if we were to do lockstep every day, as prescribed in state law, it would be almost impossible to get through a significant meet and confer in under six months and more typically a year. So i point to, for example, the body warn camera negotiations. Here im going to talk about round one, which i thin i thinkh more important than round two, which has generated so much concern. In round one, in 2016, we engaged in six months of very hard bargaining. It was led then by martin grand. At the end of those negotiatio negotiations, the cameras this was the adoption of a brandnew and very complex policy that dealt with many aspects of the wearing of the cameras, when theyre worn, how theyre worn, how theyre stored, how theyre donned, how the pay provisions work during the time when youre doing that and so forth. Those negotiations concluded in six months and those cameras went on all the officers and the footage has been rolling ever since. There were remaining questions that the Police Commission was not satisfied with the outcome, that had to do with when and officer gets to view footage in a useofforce situation or disciplinary situation. They were interrupted twice in those negotiations by major events, out of our control. One was the renegotiation of the p. O. A. S m. O. U. And the other was citywide negotiations of the other 32 Labor Agreements that theyre responsible for. But part of the reason why we did put fulltime resources into the Police Department is because of that experience. But ill just restate my recommendation to this board that i do not think its in anybodys longterm interest, either the advocates, the Police Commission, the board or even the union to have matters of policy that do have impacts on wages, hours, terms of conditions to employment that are not already in the m. O. U. To end up in that m. O. U. Because we will live with things for a very long time. And that may no longer serve our purpose in just a matter of ye years. Chair mar well, thank you. And i do want to add one more point about this. And i apologize for the length of my comments. We cannot again referring back to the state laws, the brown act, we cannot compel the p. O. A. Or any union to waive in any part the meet and confer rights under law. If the union wishes to agree to do that, they can agree to do that. We cannot condition negotiations on their agreement to do so. Its an unfair labor practice. We attempted it under duress honestly in the last round of bargaining, because we know this to be true. We did our best to defend it. It was defended publicly. Anybody anybody who from the public who attended those sessions saw it themselves. The arbitrator told us in no Uncertain Terms that it would be impermissible for that arbitrator or anybody to force the union to waive its rights under law. So thats where the issue ended up. It does not make sense to me that we raise it again. I think our best interests lie in understanding what it is were trying to achieve and moving that agenda forcefully, which is the activity that the Police Department has been engaged in vigorously. And i would like to have an opportunity, after questions to have ms. Preston provide you with an update on that. Chair mar yeah. Well, thanks for that response, ms. Isen. You know, i guess you know, i hear your opinion that it would be inappropriate to include provisions in the m. O. U. , that are related to policy and are more of the purview of the Police Commission. I guess the concern the way the current m. O. U. Is drafted, which would continue through 2023, if accepted, it requires d. H. R. To give notice and negotiate over any proposed change in sfpd general orders. And this language, you know, is of significant concern as its interpreted to allow d. H. R. To take a broad definition of the item that must go to meet and confer, including management decisions, policy decisions, as you refer to them and allow the p. O. A. To abuse the process and really again slow down or obstruct the reforms so needed right now in policing. Yeah. I just wanted to ask for your interpretation of the language specifically and your response to this criticism. We met with the Bar Association yesterday. I personally the first time ive had a conversation with them. And i appreciated it very much. I think they are raising some interesting and innovative concepts related to the broad work of transparency. And i think theyre discussions that i would like to be part of and to continue. Having said that, and i said this to the Bar Association yesterday, i respectfully disagree with their interpretation of that clause. That is a very old clause in the m. O. U. It is treated and is understood by the parties that its essentially a notice provision. The Police Commission notices a wide swath of governments, including the p. O. A. , and all of its general order updates. And thats how that notice provision is treated. It in no way obligates or has caused or in any way affects the citys evaluation of its obligation to meet and confer. We meet and confer on items were required to meet and confer over. I can go into the nuances of what decision bargaining versus effects bargaining means and how that works. But it in no way requires us to bargain over matters that are permissive and we dont do it. Chair mar supervisor haney, do you have some questions . Supervisor haney i want to stay on the issue of meet and confer to clarify a few things. I share chair mars concerns about the meet and confer process to stall reform. Theres or stop reform. I think its clear that we need transformational changes to policing in our city. And various ways that the meet and confer process can slow that for long periods of times, i think is connected to why some of the changes that the Justice Department has called on us to make, have either been slow to happen or are yet to happen. And i know that the chief is here as well. I wonder if you all can speak to that . You know, we are concerned that if we keep the meet and confer provisions within the m. O. U. The same, that it will make it much more difficult to move at the pace that we need to move, to make the reforms that i hope everyone is committed to. You know, i understand that your view, it sounds like, director isen, is the meet and confer provisions are governed under state law. And that the meet and confer provisions that are in this m. O. U. Are no different than what it required by the state. So i guess id like to get a specific answer on that, which is whether the meet and confer provisions that are around notice, in the m. O. U. , are the same thats required under state law or do they go beyond the citys legal obligation . No, we would be required under law tomorrow provide to provide notice. If we were not required under law to provide notice, we would, as a matter of transparency with everybody involved in general orders or any type of Employment Policy that touches employment, we always notice all of our unions. We also notice all of our stakeholders in the Police Department. We notice all kinds of people, as does the board of supervisors. Its just generally good public policy. But the meet and confer itself, whether or not year going to meemeet and were going to mt and confer, based on an analysis whether or not the matters that are covered by whatever the policy is are matters within scope that are required under state law. Theres nothing the employer can do, other than to work on your Labor Relationship with your bargaining partners, to move things along quickly and expeditiously. Theres nothing we can impose on any union to change their rights under law, to meet and confer in good faith and the more complex issues they are, the longer it takes. We, as i stated earlier, we are regulated by the California Public employment relations board. That board is very active board. It enforces vigorously the it enforces vigorously the employer this employer and every other employer in the state of employer and local government. It enforces our obligation to meet and confer fully and in good faith with any organization, whether theyre police or sciu or anyone else. And there is nothing in the m. O. U. S that can condition that or that do condition that. I think your the best approach is the one thats being employed right now in the Police Department, which is to work every single day on those relationships to be moving the agenda of that commission and of the community. And to try to create those alignments to be rebuilding good relationships between our City Employees of all places, within employment, and our communities that were serving. Supervisor peskin supervisor haney, if i can just interrupt for one second. Maybe this is not a big deal. If we could say bargaining unit instead of union, because in some cases we have unions. In some cases these are not organizations that are afitted with the American Federation of labor and the congress of industrial organizations. So one thing is really a union, the other is a bargaining unit. The p. O. A. Is a bargaining unit. The m. A. A. And the m. E. A. Are bargaining units. So i just want to use those words carefully. Sorry. Fair enough, supervisor. Supervisor haney thank you, supervisor. I will just say that the supervisor is correct. We have a number of employee Labor Organizations representing City Employees that are not affiliated with the aflcio, either nationally, the state or locally. Nevertheless, we have the exact same obligation under law to meet and confer with those organizations. Supervisor haney chief, i wonder if you can answer this question as well. Obviously the Police Commission sets policy for the Police Department. You know, we are all concerned and the board of supervisors is concerned about the pace of changes that need to be made, particularly under the recommendations from the d. O. J. And whats your view of the way in which the contract obligati obligations, either prevents that or slows that . And whether theres more that we can do to have a contract that allows to us make the changes that need to be made. Thank you, supervisor haney, for that question. We worked out a significant amount of hurdles that we identified previously that were causing the slow pace that we were on in the first year, year and a half, two years of this engagement. Miss preston is on the line, our Labor Relations director. But to your question about the contract, really its not a contractual issue. A lot of our policies, a lot of our protocols are processes that we saw that needed to be in some cases totally revamped, contributed to some of these delays. And whether in terms of policy, we look at our general orders that tie directly to reforms. And i can name several that tie directly to. Most recently we just the Commission Just approved the Community Policing general order. That particular that general order tied into about 20 different recommendations. That general order took about a year and a half to get through. And this had nothing to do with meet and confer. This is also about community processes and all of the things that the people of San Francisco have demanded, which are good things, but theyre time consuming. Well, we had to refine that as well. And shorten the processes that are good processes and the bottom line is since miss preston has come onboard, our meet and confer process has been expedited because a couple of things that ms. Isen raised, just the scheduling was a problem. You know, we had a i dont know how many months, six, seven months gap where we couldnt meet because the d. H. R. Folks were engaged in other collective bargaining negotiations. So we just couldnt meet. So now that miss pressson is fulltime, responsibility with the Police Department, those types of issues are gone. And were able to actually move the pace, even with meet and confer, much quicker than we were in the past. So to your question, i dont see the actual m. O. U. As an impediment to reform. I think some of our internal processes had to be improved and reviewed. I think we made the right moves. And its a continuing process. You know, if we get to it the department presented to the board a couple weeks ago, on the reform status. But there have been many, many things put in place. Were seeing the results. You know, between now and the first of next year, we have 108 recommendations that will be ready for review we believe by the contractor and the california d. O. J. Thats significant improvement over years past. So i think all of these things have come together in a way that has put us in a really good position. I think this works and getting back to your question, i dont believe that the you know, the collective Bargaining Agreement really has impact or will impact us moving forward. Chief, this is director of labor for the Police Department. I might add theres nothing in the m. O. U. That stalls or prevents the city from implementing reforms. I want to say that again. Because i have heard that comment repeatedly. Theres absolutely nothing in the p. O. A. M. O. U. That prevents the city from implementing police reform. Supervisor haney i have another question for director isen. We you know, because of the need to see greater reforms and because of the particularly in recent years the ways in which the there has been widespread concern about the pace of reform, many have called for and i would agree with them, a greater, more proactive role for the board of supervisors, for the Police Commission, including as it relates to the contract process and negotiations. I wonder if you would speak to that. Weve had folks and, i know, i call for understandably public hearings on the negotiation process with the p. O. A. You know, a more collaborative approach that includes the Police Commission as it relates to the contract. And because of that theyre saying we shouldnt delay that from happening, you know, two years from now. It should happen sooner, neck year. Can you respond to that and, you know, whether i understand that youre saying we shouldnt do policysetting within the contract. But that by having a more collaborative, handson, even public role for the board and for the public and for the Police Commission, that there might be some ways to use that process to expedite reform. Well, i guess i would a few things. Lets see. Okay. Well, first of all, we have a system our local rules the brown act requires every Public Agency to adopt local rules to implement the states statute. Our local rules are actually enshrined in our charter for police and fire, thats section aa590. It specifies what matters are covered in the collective bargaining and those are the matters that end up in the m. O. U. We go to the negotiations. If we dont have agreement, as you all know, the matters of disagreement are submitted to arbitration panel, who then issues binding rulings. So we have, you know, and i will continue to state this, i would not want to mix the very important reform policy matters that the Police Commission deals with every day to, in some way, walk ourselves with best intentions into a very deep unintended consequences situation, where were building more and more issues into that m. O. U. And it starts to resemble some of our other robust m. O. U. S of hundreds of pages of rights going back 30, 35 years that we live with to this day and tie the hands of our City Department to take the kinds of steps they need to make to modernize these workplaces. That would not be a good outcome of this. Nevertheless, on the issue of more involvement with the board, absolutely. We came to you in 2018, prior to the start of negotiations. We gave you a closed session presentation about our intentions in terms of negotiations. We followed the requests and direction given to by the board of supervisors and the mayor working with the mayor and with you. We went into bargaining, we came out with the agreement that we came out with. I think maybe what is being suggested here is somehow that we can leverage money in exchange for the p. O. A. Behaving differently or doing something differently. You know, its just what we pay our officers is a labormarket question. And its driven by the labor market. And we can make all kinds of demands associated with that money. We do that in bargaining with many of our unions. Sometimes we get very minor concessions. It usually works the other way when we cant afford to pay, we give up rights that we never get back. But were happy to, you know go ahead. I just want to add what we cannot do in collective bargaining is to require them to agree to impermissible subjects of bargaining, as a condition of bargaining. I think miss isen mentioned that earlier. Supervisor haney so its your view that by keeping the contract more limited in scope, so whats included in that, that actually gives the Police Commission, the chief, the board of supervisors the opportunity to actually make more direct policy changes and not have to contend with what may or may not be in the contract as much. But rather simply go to the meet and confer process, rather than a much more detailed set of policies that are included in a contract. Exactly. And you see this playing itself out routinely in the Police Commission, as its doing this generational rewrite of its general orders. It has been adopting new general orders and then a year later realizing something was missing or some aspect of it isnt quite working the way they would like it to work. And then they introduce yet another change to a recently adopted general order, which can give rise to second round of meet and confer. But, nevertheless, the flexibility is there to make those changes. Those are all enshrined in m. O. U. S, you would be stuck on your bargaining cycle and then youd also have an issue embedded in dozens of issues, which may or may not survive the process. Usually does not. I can tell you that from long experience, well walk into negotiations with any of our city unions with hundreds of proposals on both sides, that we end up with maybe 20, 25 issues that end up being what the essence of the agreement is. So its not its not of anybodys interests to embed many more things in the m. O. U. Go ahead, ms. Preston. Sorry. The other problem with embedding policies, that may contain issues of Management Rights, as well as issues of representation rights, you could puttierself in a situation where you could be forced to go to binding arbitration on the m. O. U. Language, that we may not be required to do outside of the collective bargaining language. So you put yourself in a much bigger box of processes, additionally, by including certain policies into the collective Bargaining Agreement. The city is much better legally footed and has much more opportunity to amend the policies outside of a contract that could last three or four years. Supervisor haney so im clear on that. If we put the policies, even ones that we really want to pursue and are really important into the contract, that could create more challenges for us, because if theres disagreement on the interpretation or implementation of those policies, then it could go to binding arbitration . For the duration of the agreement. So if you have a fouryear agreement and you set the policy in there, that means the policy is for four years. And so if you have a d. P. O. Now, like, you know, bodyworn cameras or useofforce, its not in the m. O. U. And the commission is free to make amendments as it sees fit. Just so everybody understands our testimony. Because i want to make sure this point is crystal clear. We at the city would not agree to have nonmandatory subject end up in a collective Bargaining Agreement. However, matters that are mandatory subjects, that tie into existing policy, could easily end up in an m. O. U. And then it ties the hands of the policymaker to make any changes around those matters that are constrained by the m. O. U. Supervisor haney i have a number of questions about the financial impacts of this. I will pause, chair mar. I dont know if supervisor preston has questions along this line as well. I have some questions on the finances. Chair mar thank you, supervisor haney. Supervisor peskin, do you have questions . Supervisor peskin i will defer to supervisor haney. Supervisor haney okay if i continue, chair mar . Chair mar please. Supervisor haney okay. I want to ask about some of the impacts of this, from a financial perspective. The wage increase deferrals seem clear that they pushed december 2020, 2 wage increase to june 2022, deferring a june 2020 wage increase to june 2023. But there seems to be some differences on the interpretation of the actual savings or even costs associated with that . What are the savings for those two deferrals . I see that d. H. R. Says in the cover letter that theres a certain set savings for each of the years and actually different numbers that the controller put forward. Can we get what the cost or savings are here . Controller rosenfield and i discussed that earlier this morning. Im going to defer to ben to answer that question. Good morning. Ben rosenfield, controller. Our costing analysis is attached to a letter thats in the file here today. And it details not just the total side bargaining unit, here before you, but also the steps involved in that calculation. Taken together we find that the m. O. U. S, that are in front of you, would save approximately 12 million for the first year of the contract, versus the current contract. And in the second year, would save approximately 6 million. Versus the ongoing costs created by the open by the modified contract. And then in year three, when the temporary wage deferrals expire and given the other terms of the contracts, thats where you see the increase of approximately 30 million in fiscal year 2223. Thats taking the elements both up and down the contracts and, supervisor haney, those are detailed in appendix 2 of our letter. I think the difference in the numbers that youre looking at, so our numbers here are complete presentation of all ups and downs in the contracts. I think the letter that d. H. R. Sent, first of all, was summing those totals across fiscal years to arrive at a cumulative number. And the number that they presented there is focusing simply on the wage deferral piece, which is a savings. That doesnt highlight some of the other Cost Increases in the contracts. I hope that helps with your questions. Supervisor haney yes. So if you take the Cost Increases actually in the outyears, this has a significant cost to the city. Can you speak, controller rosenfield, about considering i know you have some additional physical projections fiscal projections that are upcoming. Would you speak to why it is in the best interest of the city, from a fiscal perspective to save 12 million now, to spend over 30 million, you know, in two years. What is the fiscal reason for us to have such a need for this 12 million savings, so much so that we will spend more in out years. Thats fundamentally a choice. To clarify the contract amendment in front of you will generate savings, both the current fiscal year and next fiscal year. The increased costs accrues in fiscal year 2223. Two and a half years out now. I think the fundamental tradeoff, thats apparent in this bargaining cycle and in former bargaining cycles as well, is the desire to generate savings, given dramatic fiscal pressures. Those often do come at a tradeoff in the longer term. And this is consistent with bargaining that occurred in the Great Recession in the dot com bust as well. Its kind of is when is the dollar more valuable to you. I should also say that theres an elementary that it is unlikely that the city would be successful in collective bargaining, achieve nothing Cost Increases, should this amendment not be in place. So and so while were comparing in our letters these costs versus the current contract, unless the city were to achieve a wage freeze for fiscal year 22, fiscal year 23, there will be Cost Increases that will occur. Supervisor haney all right. So in the out years, you know, in 2223, we are seeing Cost Increases, but what youre saying is because the contract would be the m. O. U. Would be renegotiated next year, there would some element, maybe even more costs associated with that renegotiation . I think thats likely, supervisors. Ultimately that depends on how the city would fair in collective bargaining. And what an arbitrator will ultimately decide. But i cant recall a time that i worked for the city where the city ended up bargaining process, even during hard times, with two years without a wage increase. Supervisor haney can you, controller, speak to what the impact would be on this coming fiscal year, if there were to be voted down, just on the fiscal aspect of it. What happens . Sure. So if the if the amendment is rejected, it will result in cost rising by approximately 12 million for the fiscal year were not in. Its not accounted for in the budget. Above that 12 million, approximately 90 is paid for from the general fund. It would leave a set of choices about how the city might fond to that, should that occur. The city could appropriate additional funds to the police and Fire Departments to pay for that higherunit cost of their labor. And their workforce. Or the police and Fire Departments could reduce Service Levels and staffing to absorb that cost increase within currently approved [indiscernible] those are ultimately choices if we end up on that part of the decision tree, that would the mayor and the board could fundamental those fundamentally those are the dynamics. Supervisor haney i know we ask for somebody from the mayo mayors Budget Office to be here, and i dont think they were able to be here. What immediately happens is the Police Department or the Police Officers get the raise, if we vote this down, they get that raise. And then there would have to be a process to determine how that would be paid for essentially. Because its not accounted for in the budget. So voting this down means Police Officers get the raise immediately, as i understand it. And then would have to figure out how to pay for that. I know that ive heard that the mayor has indicated in some settings this would lead to layoffs, obviously not among police, but other workers that would be as you said, a choice. Director isen, can you speak to what a down vote on this would mean from a Labor Relations perspective . If the board were to reject this m. O. U. , would you go back and renegotiate it . What exactly would you do then . I would we would have to deal with it, just accept the outcome. The m. O. U. Is going to expire on its own terms in that case at the end of next june and well be back in bargaining. Just, you know, on the broader question of what it will do to Labor Relations, it will have a very neglect impact. It will be quite counterproductive in terms of working towards the reforms that everyone is seeking and believed to be the Common Objective here. We went to the unions and asked them to consider this. Our unions took that request in good faith. They worked with us. We came up with some numbers that are quite reasonable, that generate savings for the immediate timeframe, that have a wage increase in the year one of 3 , which is lower than what the miscellaneous employees are already slated to get. And so i think it would be considered to be very negative in terms of Labor Relations and it would i see ms. Preston here. I think it would cause a lot of scrambling on her part to figure out how to repair. I dont think it will happen any time soon. It would definitely damage our ability to have any trust amongst the parties, as it relates to reaching an agreement. Once you bargain an agreement, you can qthe union take it to the full membership and the entire membership votes on it. It would definitely, as ms. Isen said, we would have to go to full bargaining, of the entire contract. I think it would probably be one of the most contentious bargaining sessions the city would have, if we did not implement this. Id like to add one other thing that recently when since ive been employed in the Police Department, as these discussions have come up regarding police reform, ive had several along with the chief and the command staff, conversations with the p. O. A. The p. O. A. Has verbally and even has exchanged proposals in writing regarding a number of calls that they would agree that they should not go on as it relates to quality of life issues and homelessness issues. I just want to publicly say the p. O. A. Is not standing in the way of any of those proposals. As a matter of fact, they have written me three letters to say they would like to continue those discussions and speed them up as soon as possible. Since ive been there, we have reached agreement on all of the outstanding d. G. O. S, except four. I dont know if youve had an opportunity to look at the chart that i provided the committee yet. And those four items are going to closed session with the Police Commission on november the 18th. And one of the things one of the reasons i think ive been able to reach so many agreements with the p. O. A. Is because i believe that there is a level of trust there. I say what i mean and i mean what i say. And i expect them them to do the same thing. I just wanted to add that. Supervisor haney thank you, ms. Preston. Thank you for your work and everything that youve done to move forward some of those changes and working with bargaining units to get that done. So thank you for that. And i appreciate that update. My question was more around the next steps with the negotiations, which it sounds like what you would do is just accept next year. Next year you would go into the regular m. O. U. Negotiation process at the regular time, not doing i will just add one more point about this, supervisor. Because its come up. The police and fire unions, and in in our charter, and this goes back long before me, when they came off the same Civil Service list, theyre closely related in terms of labor and employment and pay. In fact, there is a parity arrangement contained in the firefighters m. O. U. That provides them parity pay with the Police Department. It would be my view and my request and intention, if you are going to reject the Police Officers t. A. , that we speak directly with the fire union offline, because they may not want to be in a position to be the only laboro thats not getting a raise in the end of december. Because this whats happening here was i would say from a Labor Relations perspective, is somewhat unexpected. Supervisor haney got it. Okay. A couple other more specific things. There is a what you referred to, director isen, as the me too clause. Otherred referred to as a parity clause. But you said that thats not the right way to describe it. It says general base wage increases, 15 plus one of them, covered by the Public Employee committee and the labor counsel and the city shall provide the general base wage, in the same amount. It does seem that this clause could open the door for additional wage increases, without needing additional negotiation or approvals. Is this something that is typical in a contract . And can you speak to the inclusion of it in this . That is colloquially referred to as the me, too,. Clause. I know going back at least to 2012, when the city was attempting to negotiate changes in employee contributions to health care premiums. Its deployed as a common technique. If one Labor Organization makes a decision for whatever its own reasons are, that it is willing to accept certain concessions or certain agreements, and no other or not all other Labor Agreement Labor Organizations are agreeing to those same concessions, its a way that the employer works to inoculate that union, who is taking that risk and taking the votes of their membership and not having unintended circumstances happen after their vote that causes to undermine their the risk that they took to be the first ones out of the box. So those are common clauses. That language is lifted directly from how it was used in 2012 around changing the health care premiums. You can find it in every single Labor Agreement in the city. Supervisor haney its a common thing thats in all of the Labor Agreements . Yeah. All it says is lets say, for example, miscellaneous unions decide tomorrow theyll come and engage in negotiations over the december wage increase. This is a pure hypothetical. And we agree. Okay, were going to were not going to pay in december. Were going to delay it until march. That me too would then require us to go back to police and fire and say, okay, this is what we negotiated with everybody else. Would you prefer that deal . It protects them from being the first ones out of the gate. And its very common technique thats used. And in the city going back a number of years. Supervisor haney what are the implications of the change to the retention pay policy with the m. O. U. . Its the retention policy changes are tied in with the changes to the the access to attendee overtime. The changes in the retention pay essentially eliminate what we thought was an incentive around sick leave, limiting sick leave use. And between the Police Department and d. H. R. And working with the union, weve determined that a better way to control sick leave use is through requiring good attendance to have access to the attendee overtime. The retention pay language had an unintended consequence of penalizing injured officers, who were on disability pay. So both sides have an incentive in resolving the outstanding issues that are contained in the growance. But th grievance. The matter was shifted over to the attendee overtime, which has been a long goal of the city and of the department to change that language. Supervisor haney got it. Okay. You know, one of the questions thats come up has been about the raises that are built in in the out years. Can you speak to the annual base wage increases in labor contracts with the city. And are there charter provisions that govern those increases . Or why are the increases what ner in the out years, in this m. O. U. . Theyre 3 a year. I believe that theyre relatively consistent with your fiveyear financial plan. In the first year, as i stated earlier, it is determinant with the last year of the miscellaneous contracts, which scheduled a 3. 5 wage increase, so its set below that. We negotiate wages in the city. But the local rules that govern how we negotiate those wages are contained within charter provisions. In the case of police and fire, the charter section is a8950. Very similar to the miscellaneous provisions. It has if we cannot agree ultimately on the matters under negotiation, its submitted to a tri parteid panel and the panel makes a ruling on the wages. So we all know thats the end game. We pay close attention to the factors enumerated in the charter about what determines an appropriate wage rate. Those factors are very broadly speaking are how much do we, what are the general raise raist we give all other City Employees, what is the labor market paying out in the world. Who do you look at, oakland, san jose, surrounding cities and counties. And whats the citys ability to fund those wage increases. And what is the market bearing, what is the city paying the other employees versus the citys ability to fund those increases. And thats how it works. We all know that. We all spend a great deal of time conducting those surveys, for all city employment and looking closely at the citys ability to pay. We can structure those items in details, both sides do this in preparation for bargaining. Well present it in negotiations. Well present it in the mediation process. And then if were forced into arbitration, because we really cant agree, we present the data to the arbitrator who makes a decision. We know that and we consider that when we look at how we do this. You know, its 3 is probably, as i say, consistent with projected costofliving and the first number is we we set it lower than the miscellaneous number. Both parties agreed. Supervisor haney so in what is included in the m. O. U. , the police are getting less in the out years, in this renegotiated the news hour tham. O. U. Than the other city workers are . If the first year. In the second year, we dont know yet, because the miscellaneous m. O. U. S will be expiring and well be renegotiating them. So that 3 , you know, becomes a factor in miscellaneous negotiations as well. Supervisor haney oh, youre saying so for the miscellaneous when we say miscellaneous, we mean like the other large groups of city workers . We mean everybody else except police and fire. Miscellaneous probably is a slight misnomer, it also includes the sheriffs department. Supervisor haney miscellaneous makes it sounds like a small group of folks, who dont fit in others . No. Supervisor haney the workforce is getting 3. 5 next year. Correct. Supervisor haney the police will get 3 . And if we were if it was a negotiation to give them less than that, it could go to arbitration, in which an through that process, thats how it would be decided . And, i know, depending on whats happening in other Police Agencies, that could have an impact. Now we know City Employees are getting a 3. 5 wage increase. That will be a factor. So we actually when i say we believe we delivered to you a very good deal, we did deliver you a good deal. On its terms. A lot of dissatisfaction ta its not tied to other financial issues. Which is what weve been talking about. Supervisor haney can you and then ill this is the last question ill ask for now. And then i do want to hear from Public Comment, which could spur other questions. But the overtime policy, can you speak to what this change is. And are there specific estimates of cost estimates of savings associated with it . So the so the change to the attendee overtime is we were noticing and the Police Department has long had challenges with time management in relation to outside overtime opportunities. Because those overtime opportunities, working the giants game to, you know, security work, whatever, for private employers, paid the overtime rate is, you know, can be an important component of an officers compensation. We had noticed patterns of sick leave usage that happened around the overtime. So we really, for a long time, have wanted to create a disincentive around that sick leave usage, by requiring a certain number of hours worked in order to be eligible for overtime. The overtime right now happens to be quite low. But as the economy picks back up, it will pick up. And now we have new rules in place. So only officers with excellent attendance on a quarterly lookback are going to have access to that overtime. Its going to remove for the chief, you know, a major problem with, you know, Workforce Management and attendance. You know, we tried to build that into retention pay, which is a very common feature of compensation across all Police Agencies in the bay area. We pay it to be competitive. And we attempt toed to use that attempted to use that in sick leave controls. It worked to some extent, except it also had a very negative, unintended consequence of really hurting injured officers. And so, you know, it just made more sense for everybody involved to attach it to the attendee, rather than to the retention. Supervisor haney thank you. Chair mar, im done with questions now. Chair mar okay. Thanks, supervisor haney, for all of those very good questions. Colleagues, before we go to Public Comment, and i know i understand theres quite a few folks that are waiting on the line to speak, i did have some questions for deputy City Attorney ann pearson. Just to get clarity on the boards role in the m. O. U. Labor agreements. And the meet and confer process. So deputy City Attorney pearson, are you still here . Yes, im here. Chair mar great. Thank you. Can you could you clarify the boards authority over m. O. U. Labor agreements, that are before us. Of course. The board is to accept or to reject the m. O. U. Thats brought to you. So theres no authority to change any of the terms, just to accept or reject. Chair mar great. Could you also classified the citys obligation to meet and confer under the meyers brown act. I think director isen has done a great job generally describing it. But under state law, under the mmba, whenever the city adopts a law, Charter Amendment rule, that would have an impact on issues that are within the scope of bargaining, the city is required to give notice to a bargaining unit. If that bargaining unit accepts asking for the city to bargain, then they need to bargain and they need to do that to impasse. And as director isen mentioned, the rules governing our impasse procedures are in our charter. Chair mar thank you. Then who makes the determination of whether a regulation or ordinance has significant and adverse effects on working conditions, that would confer a meet and confer . Also under our charter, the department of Human Resources has the authority and the power to administer this entire process, the meet and confer process. So its within the jurisdiction and discretion of d. H. R. To decide which policies and laws would trigger the meet and confer process. Finally, what authority does the board have over the meet and confer process . Well, in light of the fact that meet and confer is regulated by state law and in light of the fact that the charter assigns the responsibility to the department of Human Resources and its director, the board really doesnt have significant authority with respect to that process. The authority of the board really is to accept or to reject the m. O. U. S that are brought to it, at the culmination of that process. Chair mar thank you. Okay. Thank you, deputy City Attorney pearson. Why dont we go to Public Comment. Mr. Clerk, are there callers on the line . Clerk thank you, mr. Chair. Just a moment. Operations is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue who wish to speak for the items that are called right now. That means all of the m. O. U. Items are called right now, including the m. O. U. For the Police Officers association, with its included and related settlement. Mr. Coup, please let us know if we have callers ready. For those connected to the meeting via phone, please press star followed by 3. If you wish to speak for this item. For those already on hold in the queue, please continue to wait until youre prompted to begin. Youll hear a prompt that informs you that your line has been unmuted. For those who are watching our meeting on cable channel 26 or streaming link or through sfgovtv. Org, if you wish to speak on these items, these nine ordinances, please call in now by following the instructions that are on your screen. That would be by dialing 415 6550001. Then by entering the meeting i. D. For todays meeting, which is 146 565 7778. Youll be prompted to press the pound symbol. You should press the pound symbol twice to enter the meeting and star followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak. Mr. Coup, could you please connect us to our first caller. Caller hello . Clerk yes, please. Caller i live and work in district 6. Im calling for demand the g. O. A. Committee reject the contract renegotiation. And does not pass it out of committee. The thing is whether or not this contract limits reform. We have the option right now to ask the policy concessions. Its happening in other cities, cities which are not such progressive as San Francisco alleges to be. Sure, you may have heard by now that chicago is in the middle of negotiating its Police Fraternity contract and theyre asking for 40 disciplinary concessions. Why is San Francisco asking for no policy concessions, even after months of protests and police brutality. And Police Violence. I really realize that the d. H. R. May say that its a good financial decision for the city. But thats not why were calling in today. Were not calling in because of the poor financial decisions. Its not a financial issue to us, when people are getting killed in the street. Its a moral issue. You know, even after decades of socalled reform, 76 of uses of force in court last year against people of color. Sfpd officers others useofforce categories reduce less than 3 from 2016, from 1142 to 1110. Police fraternitieses are dangerous and, you know, Police Unions led to 60, 70 additional civilians killed each year. Clerk thank you for your commenting. Mr. Coup, could you connect us to the next caller, please. Caller hello, can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can hear you. Caller im a member of the collective, which is an activist group. Im calling on behalf of others here to reject the contract. There has been many people hitting the streets, impact families demanding that the police are defunded, disarmed and disband. We have to create change. We have to prevent the people who are dying in communities, that are the most vulnerable, are getting impacted to the degree to families [indiscernible] going to the governors house to demand justice for their brothers. People are dying in the city, that also has to be addressed, too. I just want to reaffirm what weve been saying in please reject the contract please be progressive. Please do not in the midst of the elections, allow people to be killed. Because thats what youre doing by allowing the contract to keep going. Thank you. Clerk thank you very much for your comments. Mr. Coup, could we have the next caller, please. Caller hi. Im will callaway. I live and work in district 8. Im calling for demand that he reject the Police Officer associations contract renegotiation. And does not pass it out of committee. Listeningto the meeting, as its kind of covering the topic, this is a labor issue that the committee is worried about approaching the fraternal the Police Fraternity as an adversary in terms of negotiations. And the response i feel to that is that the police broadly that the fraternity organization specifically adversaries to the people of San Francisco with their repeated dissension of the topic and racist and homophobic elements of the sfpd, as the sfpd continues to engage in a systematic targeting of black and brown citizens within our city. The contract the contract is a reputation of the hope that we the city can grow and change and hope for a better and fair life for all of our citizens. And allowing it to pass through so easily and without future negotiations, as public, is simply an act of cowardness. Thank you. Clerk thank you very much for your comments and for participating in the conversation. Could we get the next caller, please. Caller hi. My name is lucas bergstrom. I live in district 8. And i want to agree with the last caller that i dont think the kind of discussion that were hearing reflects the kind of fundamental change in relationship that San Francisco citizens need and want from the Police Department. I believe we should reject the agreement, because it doesnt do anything to defund the department. It doesnt do anything to kind of just reflect the desire to move money and move money somewhere else, move influence towards like away from the department that has acted in ways that have been harmful, especially to black and brown residents of San Francisco. And, yeah, i just i would urge the people to not be stuck on what the relationship with the p. O. A. Has historically been, but where we need to be in our relationship with them. Thank you. Clerk thank you very much for your comments, mr. Bergstrom. Could we get the next caller, please. Clerk do we have a caller on the line . Your time is beginning. Caller okay. Yeah. Hello, jeremy miller. I would turn your attention to a resolution from october the 21st, where u. A. W. 2865 pointed out that it is at position of this organization, Police Unions, to vote the interest of labor broadly and black workers in particular. Historically and temporarily Police Unions serve the interests of Police Forces as an arm of the state. Theyre quote unionallation allows them to mass inquir to s the working class. Take steps to serve the interests of its plaque workers and community members. So theres a nationwide push right now to disacknowledge the legitimate collective bargaining status of quote unquote Police Unions. In addition, under government code 3508, part of the meyersmiliasbrown act, this body, the board of supervisors is authorized to deny them collective bargaining rights on the basis that they have met met and confer rights that another not entitled to on issues that are not hours, working conditions, wages, programs, et cetera. And this has been a standard since 1978. The courts have acknowledged that use of force, which this particular organization the p. O. A. Constantly demands meet and confer over, therefore, obstructing reforms. Since 1978, the case was Peace Officers Association versus the city of san jose, clearly define that useofforce not a meet and confer category. So this is an organization that is crooked, that has been terrorizing the San Francisco Labor Commission for years. Has been extorting the city and county for more money for years. It is not a legitimate collective bargaining agent. And we need to stand up to this clerk thank you very much, mr. Miller, for participating in the discussion. If we could be connected to the next caller, please. Caller hi, can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can hear you. Please begin. Caller hello. Okay. Thank you. Hi, my name is yaky. I was born and raised in San Francisco. And i currently live in district 1. I am a member of the ccfs collective and calling for demand that this contract be rejected by the g. A. O. Committee, because the city has shown the people of the city have shown this year that we are not going to stand down to police brutality. And we have demanded an end to Police Violence in San Francisco and across the country. But these demands are getting ignored. Instead, theyve confronted to murder. [indiscernible] murdered on the streets and a man in crisis and murdered by sfpd last month. And so, you know, any time of reform has absolutely not been implemented. And we need reforms. Because of contract offers no policy concessions to prevent the killing of other people. Other cities are changing the contracts in order to meet these concessions. Im demanding that this contract be rejected that and a hearing, multiple hearings are held to uphold the d. H. R. Accountable for the deep lack of transparency during this contract negotiation. And also to demand that we gather new you gather information and input from the communities of San Francisco of what we want and what we need for future negotiations. This is a historic moment. And i dont know why were not including these policy concessions. Why is San Francisco not showing that theyre hearing our communities and, you know, addressing the racist brutality thats been ongoing for generations. I demanding that you reject the contract and hear the people of San Francisco. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you very much for your comments. Could we be connected to the next caller, please. Caller hi. Good afternoon. My name is erin mcgovern. I lib in district 9 and calling for demand the g. A. O. Committee reject the Police Officer associations contract renegotiation and does not pass it out of committee. Why is San Francisco asking for no policy concessions, even after months of protests against Police Violence and yet another Police Killing of a man in crisis less than a month ago. California d. O. J. And the sfpd implicit bias trainer described the level of antiblack bias in sfpd as extreme. Last year black people made up only 5 of the city population, but accounted for almost 40 of all police searches and 50 of the jail population. In the Fourth Quarter of last year 2019, latinx made up 15 , but accounted for 24 of useofforce victims. And 21 of the jail population. Even after decades of socalled reforms, 76 of uses of force in q4 last year were against people of color. Sfpd officers still pointed their guns at people 2. 4 times a day and other useofforce categories decreased less than 3 from 2016 from 1142 to 1110. Stand up to our citys racist Police Fraternity, reject the p. O. A. Contract, and make all future negotiations public. Thank you. Clerk thank you very much for your comments. Could we get the next caller, please. Caller hello, my name i reside in district 7 in San Francisco. Im a ccs student. Im asking to reject the racists p. O. A. New contract and note that theyre racist, because of the way that he reacted to the reforms, not always a percentage. But the way that their attitude has been towards it. [indiscernible] and the reactions that we see at protests. And id like to tell you also, im 20 years old. The actions that have received great numbers of people have been organized by people younger than me. And were looking for an overhaul of the entire way that this is done. So basing what your decisions are off of whats normally accepted and, oh, 12 million now, we know that the deficit in the city is thats nothing. Its not going to stand forever. Were prepared to keep on trying until we see the changes that we need or until we know that people, who live after us, will eventually see the changes that we need. So please represent what the current landscape of your this city is asking for. Thats it. Reject the p. O. A. Contract. Clerk thank you very much for your comments. Could we get the next caller connected to the call please. Caller hi. So, first off, i wanted to say that you should fill the 12 million hole in the budget with a budget supplement. The d. H. R. Made an argument that its old and doesnt meet the meet and confer. Thats true. We should not have meet and confer, over deaf [indiscernible]. The reality this is used in a lawsuit or lawsuit threats by the sfpoa. You need to limit meet and confer, to have an adversarial relationship with p. O. A. It appears that shes values her relationship within the sfpoa relationship. She has one job to have an adversarial relationship with the sfpoa. No provision in the california state law under animato wage conditions along side policing membership. Completely different position in 2018. One she added d. O. J. Form that was dissent also reject this contract. Let it go to june 2021. Because it proves we have to be at. Theyll never have the political will to not meet and confer over a variety of issues. So reject the contract. I know you know better. Here is an explanation. If youre not sure, consult a real lawyer, no not the City Attorney. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject the contract and pass a budget supplement for sfpd. And also dont determine reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject it. Reject it. Easy. Reject the contract. Im just going to say reject the contract until the time goes off. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Reject the contract. Clerk thank you for your comments. We we get the next caller, please. This is john crew. That was a remarkable presentation from d. H. R. You could then say that there is nothing in the m. O. U. That is slowing reform. Well, i disagree. Many Community Advocates disagree. We would like to disagree. They never asked us. They seem to believe that they can pursue a Police Union Contract without any connection. In fact, the problem is theres nothing in the m. O. U. That speeds reform. Now ms. Isen claimed correctly that the bargaining unit cannot be compelled to wage you cannot impose a waiver of state labor rights. Thats not what the demand is. Thats not what this position was in 2018. It was to bargain it in exchange for 3 pay raises. There, in fact, things in contract now that are waivers of state labor rights. That is the exact same provision that commissione isen said in wf the city. Now shes claiming that she took that position quote unquote under duress. What does under duress mean . A public hearing with the board of supervisors, members of the Committee Said we need to make sure reform is in our contract proposal to the bargaining unit. Their job is not to manage a relationship. Theyre worried about the trust between themselves and the p. O. A. They have no concern whatsoever about the trust between the public and the police. And, indeed, the argument is you heard ms. Isen claim we never bargain on permissive subjects of bargaining. The chief of police told you the opposite just a couple of weeks ago. In your long hear, the chief of police admitted that some things had been sent to meet and confer that shouldnt have. You need to reject this. Open up the process so its fully informed and reflect public demand. Their position is were doing the best we can. Nobody accepts this. Clerk thank you very much for participating in the discussion, mr. Crew. Could we get the next caller, please. Caller hello. Clerk yes, youre connected to government audits. Please begin. Caller my name is caitlin wolf. I live in district 9. Im a former oregoner and current member of the u. A. W. Local 4123. I demand that the Committee Rejects the Police Contract renegotiation. When i was raped in 2017, the sfpd special victims units officers were verbally abusive to me and pressured me to take action i was uncomfortable with. At the hospital, i told them i wasnt sure if i wanted to press charges and the officer screamed at me and accused me. Throughout the process, officers disregarded my Mental Health and i sobbed through multiple interactions, involving identifying my rapist. The case was randomly assigned to a person i didnt meet in person. He had spoken to my rapist and he barely remembered me. I consider my experience with the sfpd far more traumatic than the rape itself. I looked at the salary of the main officer who led the case, and they made 221,399. They need accountability and transparency, not a raise. The police union corrupt the values of solidarity into a dangerous cult as racism, rape apologetics and downright incompetence. Again please reject the contract for the good of San Francisco. End of comment. Clerk thank you very much for your comments. Could we get the next caller, please. Caller i just want to say thank you for the next call for being so vulnerable and once again showing the board how violent sfpd is, not only in in everything that they do. My name is edith and i live in district 11. Im calling for demand that the g. A. O. Committee reject the contract renegotiation and does not pass it out of committee, like so many callers before me. I listened to the argument that reforms shouldnt be part of the m. O. U. Theyre opportunities for reform are critical. The p. O. A. Has routinely pushed for oversights. Highly funded prop h, 2018, that tried to get the public to overturn pay reforms or when they threatened a lawsuit this kneel on the nexts of san franciscans, weeks after the move killed george floyd. The other callers mentioned other Police Violence issues. Our lives are on the line. If sfpd can shoot from the chest four times, even if we dont have a gun, we should have a say in the m. O. U. Negotiations and any opportunity dealing with taxpayer money. I come from labor family. But raises for sfpd, cops who routinely used to break up labor actions, putting people in the hospital, its an insult. Raises for cops some of the highest paid city workers means less money for those who provide real Public Safety such as teachers and social workers. Please, supervisors, reject this p. O. A. Contract. Have the political will to stand up for this and make all future negotiations public. Dont let them abuse meet and confer. Its ridiculous. Thank you. I yield my time. Clerk thank you very much, edith. Could we get the next caller, please. Caller hello. Im a reporter with alaw 91. 7 f. M. I have two questions for the committee, if they have time to answer it. Id really appreciate it. First off, im interested in knowing what the next step is, when there will be a decision or a vote on the matters being discussed today in regards to the Police Contract. And whether or not there will be reform and the m. O. U. And secondly, for someone who is not so steeped in labor negotiations, and, you know, working the contracts, could you briefly define m. O. U. , what meet and confer means. And then also clerk im going to pause your time for just a moment. Im going to pause your time for just a moment. To let you know the Public Comment period is one direction only. This is your opportunity to provide comments to the committee about your opinions on the items. If you have any clerical questions about the way that these items move around, you can email me. Or you can call me after the meeting is over. You will find my Contact Information on the front page of the agenda. And you still have time. Im going to begin it again if you have comments for the committee. Caller no further comments for the committee. Question. I just have questions. I guess i will talk to the person organizing the meeting. Thanks for your time. Clerk thank you very much for your comments. Mr. Coup, could you connect us to the next caller, please. Caller hi. My name is joe patel. I live in the district 9. And im a member of the i. W. W. Union. Im calling to demand that the g. A. O. Committee rejects the Police Officers Association Contract, renegotiation and doesnt pass it out of committee. I have lived in San Francisco all my life. And ive, you know, since i was a kid, even didnt really understand these things. Ive been seeing reports of Police Shooting unarmed people and have been hearing reports from friends of mine of being harassed and called racial slurs by the San Francisco Police Department. I think that its you know, its just crazy to not try to negotiate the contract, if you want progress, then instead of just folding over and doing exactly what the police union asks, you might as well actually take this as an opportunity to make changes that citizens of San Francisco clearly want to see. Other cities are doing this. I think we can, too. And why not why not at least try to make a change that is so clearly, so overwhelmingly popular in the city of San Francisco. Thats my whole comment. Thank you. Clerk thank you very much for sharing your comments. Mr. Coup, could you connect us to the next caller, please. Caller hi. My name is sam thorpe. Im a rent of district 4. Im calling for demand the g. A. O. Committee reject the Police Officers Association Contract renegotiation, like so many of the other callers. And demand that it does not pass out of the committee. Despite widespread demands this summer for a transformation to our Public Safety approach, the p. O. A. Contract perpetuates the racist status quo and gives sfpd two additional years of raises. And it also has a parity clause, giving the p. O. A. Any additional benefits earned by the city workers that create Public Safety, like the nurses, teachers and other essential workers. You know, we just want to make sure that the p. O. A. Is held accountable, just like other cities like chicago are doing in their negotiations, with their Police Fraternity. Theyre asking for 40 disciplinary reforms and all had negotiations in public. We are demanding the same transparency and the same accountability in the contract. Passing this p. O. A. Contract is racism. Im deming like all of the other callers to stand up to the Police Fraternity, to reject this contract and make all future negotiations public. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Mr. Coup, could you connect us to the next caller, please. Caller hi. My name is alex. I live in district 6. Like everyone else, im calling to demand that the Committee Reject the p. O. A. Contract, that upholds the racist status quo. Reformist reforms are not going to cut it. And the movement to reimagine Public Safety is never going to quit while we all, especially black and brown folks, suffer. If you are on this committee and are listening and you call yourself a progressive or even just a representative of the people, listen to the people. Were in the streets in the summer and there were yeah. The energy was there. And its not going to quit. Other cities are doing this. We can do this, too. End our citys police racist fraternity. Reject the p. O. A. Contract. Make all future negotiations public. Im done. Clerk thank you very much for your comments. Mr. Coup, could you connect us to the next caller, please. Caller hello. My name is jennifer pollock. I live in district 5. Before i start my comments, i was wondering how many people are in the line . Can you answer that question for me . Clerk i dont have the answer to that question. Please continue. Okay. So i live in district 55. Im a San Francisco resident. Im calling, like everyone else, to demand the g. A. O. Committee reject the p. O. A. Contract renegotiation and does not pass it out of committee. In it seems unreasonable to think that we should be using the same history that weve had the Police Fraternity, in a time when nothing is the same. The racist p. O. A. Contract allows police to continue to lack transparency and accountability. They attempted legal action to reject policies like prohibiting officers from shooting at moving cars, which is how they murdered jessica williams. Its preposterous no policy opposings. We need concessions. There have been months of protests. You know what the people want. Theyre in the streets. Were telling what you we want. And just a month ago, another Police Officer killed a man in crisis, murdered a man in crisis. We know that the bias and the San Francisco Police Department is described as extreme, in terms of antiblack racism. And we know that there needs to be policy concessions. We should be using this opportunity to get those policy concessions and show the north of the country what a progressive city can be doing in terms of making the police work for the people. And i just want to call out the call hor spoke about their own personal experience. I know so many people in San Francisco who have had similarly violent experiences with the police. Theyre here to serve us. Were giving them this kind of money. We need to make sure that theyre held accountable. Again i ask that the g. A. O. Reject the p. O. A. Contract. Clerk thank you very much for your comments, jennifer. I did receive updates we have 50 callers listening to the call right now. Could we be connected to the neck caller who is in line. Caller hi, my name is nick spencer. I live and work in district 5. Im calling for ask they reject the contract and do not pass it out of committee. First, i want to address some of the d. H. R. Said that we dont want to reject this contract. We can still address Police Violence systematically without doing so. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Top ask no concessions athe racial reckoning in the country, state and city this summer is absolutely tonedeaf. This time of inaction in the face of the public is systemic impasse. When the people speak and our elected officials do not respond, they lose confidence and they stop voting and we stop seeing our Public Institutions reflect the will of the people. This is way bigger than just this contract. People have spoken. You need to act. Another thing i want to address that the d. H. R. Presentation, if you reject the contract, its going to lead to contentious bargaining. This should be contentious bargain. We stood up, we walked through the streets. It is contentious. With a little bit of nitpicky, but someone said earlier, from the d. H. R. Presentation, 3 rejected cost of living increase is expected, to include the longterm raises in the contract. You know, in the chronicle that s. F. Deploys as much as 31 , the steepest decline in the united states. 3 projected impact in costofliving in San Francisco, you need to update your numbers. All right, you know, im not going to list off the statistics. But it was said earlier, ill say it again, im not here to call them racist or a single Police Officer is racist, but the outcomes are racist. Youve seen the numbers and we need to address this is tied to the movement weve seen in the streets. Finally, i want to bring it home that this committee is where democracy is in action. We elect you to represent us. [bell dings] clerk such for your comments, mr. Spencer. Could we have the next caller, please. Caller can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Please begin. Caller my name is anne. I live in district 8. And im calling, like many other callers, to demand that the g. A. O. Committee reject the Police Officers Association Contract. The renegotiation and does not pass it out of committee. As weve seen, thousands of people have hit the streets in San Francisco demanding an end to Police Violence. Nothing has changed. As many callers have brought up, hunted down a man in crisis and killed him in the streets. And despite a widespread demands for transformation, and a new approach to Public Safety, this perpetuates the racist status quo. Two additional years of raises and offers no policy concessions to prevent officers from killing another person. Also adds a parity clause, which gives the p. O. A. Any additional benefits earned by the city workers, that create Public Safety, like nurses, teachers and other essential workers. Weve seen changes across the country with police fraternities being held accountable, like in chicago. And we are asking for something similar. We want to see actual accountability in the police fraternities in San Francisco. The p. O. A. Has a long history defending officers who have engaged in racist and homophobic scandals, committed extreme acts of violence in our committee, including the kills of dozens of black and brown san franciscans. This past june, they threatened a lawsuit to continue to kneel on the necks of people in our city. Just weeks after george floyd was killed. Please, please do not pass this contract. Please listen to the people on the line today, the people who live in this city, who just want our Police System to be head accountable. Clerk such for your comments. Could we be connected to the next caller, please. This m. O. U. Is fraud. I want to address a couple of things that i heard during the hearing. The first is the suggestion that something in the charter, d. H. R. Under the mmda prohibit the changes the Bar Association is asking for. Thats completely inaccurate. Look at a8590, the section that was referenced. It doesnt touch or require anything about how meetings are cuttinged. It can be the subject of legislation, if the d. H. R. Wont fix it themselves. Youre getting bad advice from the City Attorneys office as well as d. H. R. Think of prop e, the Police Staffing measure. The same thing happened. D. H. R. And the City Attorney gave the supervisors bad advice, claimed the issue had to be met and confirsteverred over. That was wrong. The voters passed it overwhelmingly by 70 and where is the p. O. A. Lawsuit . There isnt one. The second thing to address is supervisor haneys discussion about whether concessions with the p. O. A. Needed to be embedded or memorialize in the m. O. U. Thats a hold red herron argument. Obviously opposings can be concessions can be in police policies. They need to be linked to reforms and negotiation. Finally, i want to talk about the management issue. Chairman mar is correct. The document does obligate the city to negotiate over Management Issues. Any proposed change in general orders or other matters, within the scope of representation, have to be noticed. Its not just a notice provision. The next sentence says, the association shall be provided with the opportunity to meet and confer with regard to any such change, should it desire to do so. The claim that the parties understand that this only covers working conditions is false. Weve been in this hearing working on d. O. J. Reforms since the beginning. Weve seen d. H. R. Negotiate Management Issues time and time again. It happen with bodyworn cameras. [bell dings] clerk thank you very much for your comments. Could we get the next caller, please. Caller hello. My name is galen. I was born in San Francisco. I live in district 10. I work in district 7, where im a member of csuu chapter 305 of the San Francisco say the university. Im calling today to demand the g. A. O. Committee reject the Police Officers contract renegotiation and do not pass it out of committee. You know this renegotiation is exactly what they want. Not only do they get two years in raise, and lack of transparency and accountability that they demanded to 2023. It sets them up to negotiate the next contract in an election year, giving them a lot more leverage. The m. O. U. Should be explicitly limited to say, one, we dont have to meet and confer on this. Two, a list of issues we do not have to meet and confer on. You, the board of supervisors, and the Police Commission can make policy changes. Three, here are the reforms this is contingent on. Why is San Francisco opting for no policy concessions, why no concessions after another Police Killing of a man in crisis. Just less than a month ago. As a union member, i do not see police fraternitieses of legitimate unions. They have unfettered power in our city. Police contracts should not be tied to Union Contracts for teachers, City Employees and firefighters. Firefighters arent taking a raise. And the fact that the Police Raises are tied to teachers and City Employees, who make half the salary is obscene. Save money in 2023, try abolishing the sfpd. Please stand up to our citys racist Police Fraternity and reject this contract. Make all future negotiations public. No more closeddoor secret meetings with the mayor. You know, yall can do better. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Mr. Coup, could you connect us to the next caller, please. Caller hi. Good afternoon, members. This is rebecca young. Im a member of the Bar Association, criminal Justice Reform task force. Im a member of the San Francisco public defenders committee. I live in district 9. The people of San Francisco deserve a better agreement. D. H. R. s claim that this m. O. U. Is a good deal for the city is patently ridiculous. We are requesting a twoweek postponement of an up and down vote on the p. O. A. M. O. U. , so that the board of supervisors at sufficient time for informed discussion amongst Board Members. The quandary that the board of supervisors finds itself in is the direct result of collective bargaining with a Public Employee unit. Theyre asking for transparency to p. O. A. Collective bargaining. And contrary to d. H. R. s characterization, theyre not asking for language to be added to the m. O. U. , that would further tie the citys hands. We are asking for one phrase to be amended and thats that any change to the d. G. O. Goes to meet and confer. We would instead like that to read, any changes, not covered by management matters can go to meet and confer. Despite d. H. R. s representations here, the p. O. A. M. O. U. Has historically been used to disempower the Police Commission and the command staff, when they intend to effect reforms. The policy matters [indiscernible] must be