Good morning. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the thursday, june 18th meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. Thank you to this committees clerk, john carol and thank you to sfgovtv for staffing this remote meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements . In order to protect Board Members during the Health Emergency the board of supervisors legislative chamber and Committee Room are closed. This is taken pursuant to various local, state and federal orders and directives. Committee members attend through video and participate to the same extent as if physically present. While the comments will be available for each item. Cable 26 and sfgovtv are streaming the call in number across the screen. Comments and opportunities to speak are available at 415 6550001. Once connected and prompted to the access code which is 145 4314683. Then press pound and press pound a second time to be connected to the meeting. When connected you will hear the discussions. You will be muted and in a listening mode. When your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. Call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television, radio or streaming device. Everyone must account for time delays between the live meeting and the streaming coverage. You may submit Public Comment in the following ways. Email me, the clerk of the government audit and oversight committee. Joh nca rroll at sfgov. Org. You will be included in the legislative file as part of the matter. Your written comments may be sept bsent by u. S. Post office. Items acted upon today will apbe on the june 30, 2020 agenda unless otherwise stated. Please call items, one, two, three, four. 1 through 4 ordinance fixing compensation for persons employed by the city and county whose compensation is subject to charter a8. 409 in job codes not represented by an employee organization. The First Amendment memorandum of understanding between the city and county and teamsters 856 to provide appropriate differential over subordinate classifications and onetime payment to employees in classification 2496. Imaging supervisor. First p the First Amendment to the 20192022 memorandum of understanding to provide onetime payment to include a firearms instructor premium and ordinance for the memorandum of understanding between the city and county. Miscellaneous to update night shift differential and include onetime payment to employees in specified classifications. Members of the public wishing to comment on these items call the public number and enter the access code 145 4314683. Press pound twice to connect and press star followed by 3 to speak. Mr. Chair, i am in receipt of a memo requesting these four be considered as Committee Reports for consideration by the board of supervisors early on the jun. Mr. Chair. Than thank you, mr. Clerk. Welcome carol from the department of Human Resources to present these items. Thank you, mr. Chair, members of the committee. These four items in front of you, one of them is a byproduct of 2019 negotiations that was put into a separate process, that being the firearms premium agreed upon between the supervising probation officers of the city. This is a premium paid while performing the duties of firearms instructor which happens periodically in that group. There are two items. Teamsters item and the Service EmployeesInternational Union local 1001 item that are byproducts every classification of the radiology series. That provides services at zuckerberg General Hospital and elsewhere. The study was i was implemente. We have two clerical amendments to adjust the rate of the supervisor of the classifications to deal with an item left out which is the swing and night shift differentials for these classifications. The unrepresented ordinance. No new additional spending in the ordinance. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Than thank you for all your k on these m. O. U. S. Before we go to Public Comment, colleagues any questions or comments . Seeing none, why dont we go to Public Comment on these items. Operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Please let us know if they are ready press star and three to be added t to the queue. Wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. On cable 26 or sfgovtv call in by the instructions on the screen by dialing 415 6550001. Enter 145 4314683pound twice and star three to be added to the queue. Do we have any callers . We do not have any callers in the queue for these items. Thank you, operations. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Hearing no callers on Public Comment is now closed. I would like to move to recommend these items as Committee Report for the june 23rd meeting of the board of supervisors. Mr. Clerk please call the roll. The motion that these be forwarded as Committee Reports vice chair peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk please call items 5 and 6 together. Two resolution authorizing the mayor to cast assessment ballots in the affirmative to the proposed renewal and expansion of property and business improvements district to be named the Castro Community benefit district with respect to certain parcels of Real Property owned by the city subject to assessment in the district. Members of the public call 415 6550001. Enter access code 145 4314683. Press pound twice to connect to the meeting. Then the star key followed by 3 to enter the queue to speak. These are on the agenda as Committee Reports. Welcome chris from the office of economic and Work Force Development to present. Good morning. Thank you for hearing these items today. I am the Senior Program manager. Today i am here presenting two resolutions authorizing the mayor to cast a ballot for the City Property based district Castro Community benefit district and the same for the Fishermans Wharf cbd. On may 29th the department of elections mailed ballots to Property Owners in the cbds. Initially, on may 29 one ballot was sent for the Fishermans Wharf and six to the city of county for the castro cbd. Within the past 36 hours we received information that was confirmed two parcels in the castro have been purchased and are owned by the city and county of San Francisco. We recommend including these in the resolutions. First would be parcel 3501006, for 1,008. 08. 116 of the budget at 1939 market. 3501007. 1,039. 55. That is. 127 of the cbd budget. The new total for the city owned parcels in the cbd 74,211. 99 or 9. 051 of the total cbd budget. This proposed amendment would have on page 2 line 11 for item 5 the number 6 become 8. The table page 3 line one add two row one for each parcel. With the corresponding information and the total online 16 for item 5 should be updated to 74,211. 99. Percentage should be updated to 9. 051 . For the Fisherman Wharf cbd the one parcel is 5,868. 67,. 848 of the total assessment budget. If the board passes these the city can vote in both elections. We both elections. We will answer questions from the committee. Thank you very much. Colleagues questions or comments . A clarifying clerical question. I may have missed it you are can requesting to five and six to add parcels. No, just agenda item 5. I wanted to at that i did receive a request from supervisor mandelman whose district includes cass pro benefit district Castro District that we move the amendment that was verbally presented today. Mr. Clerk maybe we could go to Public Comment. Any callers on the line . Mr. Chair, operations will check for callers in the queue. For those connected to the meeting please press star and three to be added to the queue to speak. If you are on hold continue to wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. If you are watching on 26 or through sfgovtv, if you wish to speak please call in by following the instructions on your screen. 415 6550001 and enter 145 4314683. Press pound twice and star followed by three to enter the queue to speak. Any callers on this item . Yes, i have one caller in the queue. Thank you. You have two minutes. Caller the item on the reemployment ordinance. Right now we are on agenda items 5 and sixty the government oversight and audit to authorize the mayor to cast ballots in the affirmative for proposed cbd formations in districts in the castro and fishermens wharf. Are these items you are calling on . Caller i will pass for now in the queue. You are referring to item 8 that is coming up. Any other callers . Thank you very much. Thank you, operations. Hearing no further callers, Public Comment is now closed. I would like to move that we accept the amendment to item 5 that was verbally presented. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. On the motion to amend offered by supervisor mar to add additional parcels to agenda item 5, peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you, mr. Clerk. I would like to move to recommend item 5 as amended and item 6 as Committee Reports for the june 23rd meeting of the board of supervisors. On this motion mr. Clerk please call the roll. On the motion offered by chair mar. Vice chair peskin. Aye. Haney. Aye. Chair mar. Aye. There are three ayes. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call item 7. Resolution urging the department of Public Health to work with the office of the chief medical examiner to conduct epidemiological post motemcovid19 testing and Contract Tracing of deceased San Francisco residents and urging the office to conduct surveillance swabbing of all decedentses to properly identify and certify deaths from the covid19 virus and monitor community spread. If you wish to call on this, please call the Public Comment number and enter 145 1314683. Press pound twice on to connect and star and three to speak. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Supervisor peskin, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair marand supervisor haney and thank you to doctor Susan Phillip and michelle rip be from the office of the chief medical examiner who are joining us in this virtual meeting. I want be to thank them for working with my office. I do have amendments to suggest. This was brought to me through my former colleague david chu who indicated this type of surveillance swabbing of deceased individuals under the corner of al lameadda county has been going on for some time early in the covid19 pandemic and i contacted the Coroners Office pathologist in that county and came up with this piece of legislation that is before us. I have some suggested changes but i would like to start by introducing duketor sues wa r comments. Thank you, supervisor peskin and mr. Chair and to the committee for the invitation. Yes, the purpose of this resolution is something that we feel is very important at the department of Public Health. The intent is to ensure we understand all of the epidemiology of people deceased in San Francisco related to covid19. This is important for a couple of reasons. First and foremost we want to make sure we can ensure Occupational Health and safety for people working to revive or care for an individual at the time of their death. We want to do Contact Tracing with household members, and we want to understand the epidemiology of covid19 in San Francisco n as well as we can for public response. We believe testing in this fashion is very useful. To that end, we in San Francisco have been doing that in collaboration between the department of Public Health and the office of chief medical examiner since early march. When we were having difficulty in securing our supplies we prioritized testing persons that were being evaluated at the office of the chief medical examiner for these very reasons. We have done that informally sincerly march and formalized that process by providing the testing kits since then. There are a broader range of entities that may come into contact with these descents. We are working on a health order to be sure we have a broad net to allow th the testing and understand the implications of the testing. I appreciate the thought behind the resolution and very much agree with the importance of it. Doctor, phillips, i know my former colleague katie tang on loan from the airport to the department of Public Health or the Emergency Operations center did suggest some changes last evening which i am happy to go through with you because of the compressed time. I have not had a time to get back to katie tang or to you about that. I am happy to go through the three suggested changes and get your thoughts. I think she suggested that on page 2 lines 9 through 17 be stricken. I might have some arguments as to why i would push back on that. I would love to hear your thoughts on that. The portion of lines 9 through 13 really says that we at dph do not will not about testing tools not approved by the food and drug administration. We strongly suggested that that laboratories including ours use testing for covid19 that has been authorized under an emergency use authorization by either the cdc or fda. In the early days there were a lot of players in the market for testing. We needed reliable information. There were important Public Health actions following out of testing. There are reputestable laboratories that have the ability under regulations to do their own validation of testing. Some of our academic partners have done that to good effect. It is not a hard and fast rule, but our general guideline is to mostly want to promote the tests that have been review by fda for the reasons stated. That would be for my suggestion for lines 9 to 13. For lines 14 to 17, should i read those or comment on them . As you like. I am sure before all three members of the committee as the medical offices have begun surveillance swabbing of the deceased individuals which is easy to administer. I lost it. It is a process to contribute to the states efforts. Suggest not to strike but acknowledge. We have done this in San Francisco working closely between the office of chief medical examiner and dph. San francisco could be added to the list as well. I now understand what katie was asking. The only question is that my understanding is the swabbing of deceased individuals that commenced in early march by San Francisco was not for all des see debts but ones with respiratory issues that could potentially be covid19 positive . That was according to the cdc guidance for testing which is not yet expanded to all deceased but it says if the office has reasonable to believe there was a respiratory condition prior to death or concern it might be. There is quite a bit of leeway there. It is based on the medical and expert judgment of the persons in the office of the chief medical examiner, correct. The only reason i am bringing that up is because and i am not a doctor as you well know. My understanding is that surveillance swabbing by definition would be everybody. For a random sample but not surveillance if you are only testing deceased who showed covid19 symptoms . Is that fair . That is correct. We started with a more focused effort to test deceased. Then with this health order in development and that we are working with stakeholders on we would move more toward the true surveillance effort of all people who die in San Francisco. I mean i think this is a minor issue. Given that and given my understanding about the ore abor offices where we are doing true surveillance swabbing as described to me, i would be inclined for accuracy to keep San Francisco off that list. I acknowledge and appreciate the fact we have been doing targeted deceased testing since early march. Yes, what i would say what we are proposed with this health order under development we go beyond what is done in many of the entities. I would need to look at each of them. It would go beyond the cases handled by the office of the chef medical examiner. We try to be more broad. That is getting at your intent to have a true surveillance citywide of all deceased. Page 3 lines 9 through 11. Page 3 lines 9 through 11, this was the ask to go back and do retrospective analysis and comparison of cases that may have occurred or really looking back to do in depth evaluation of people who may have died to see if there could have been covid19 in San Francisco prior to the first cases detected here on march 5th or announced on march 5th. What we suggested is that there is such a continued need for improvement in the way we do our ongoing Immediate Health response based on what we know, including increased testing we are planning moving forward of descents and following up. This is important to know from an overall understanding, but it will have limited impact on our policy or immediate action. What we are suggesting is could there be a clause that says as resources allow we will do the evaluat