Transcripts For SFGTV 20130906

Lee. Commissioner mccray . Present. Commissioner walker . Here. Melgar is expected we have a quorum and the next item is item two, discussion and possible action regarding the civil grand jury report we would like to pay our condolences for commissioner clinch whose mother passed away and thank you for being here during this difficult time. You may continue. Thank you. Hello commissioners bill, strong with the legislative affairs,dy go through and thank all of you who came through and sent me comments and questions on the grand jury report, and said in that packet, right before the weekend, and in where we did make changes, and added a number of points that you raised at the last commissioner meeting. And so, im hoping that we have essentially a document that everybody is satisfied with. And if you have any further, refineries i am happy to make those, we have until the 16th of this month to submit to the presiding judge of the superior court. And thank you, just then, so, i would like to report, and thank you both for responding and making it kind of fast tracking it first. What we got with and i like to open it up to the commission is there any further comments that you like to add and because we have to go with voting this as approved and so we can send it on and we can forward it to the judge. And so, with that, commissioners . I just had maybe a quick question. And i think that it was by the last meeting that this should be a distinction in some of the answers and some of the remarks from the grand jury were specifically directed at inaudible and some of the others were adjusted to dbi which was the staff really. And so ultimately some instances it will be for example, our own functioning as the bic that we feel that we exercised enough, you know, authority on certain matters that be. And it was really appropriate for us to answer and it was less to do with staff functioning and i was wondering in the report if we could distinguish the two areas clearer. And i am sure that we could go through and make sure that it clear. Of course. Commissioner walker and thank you for going through this process with us and i agree with commissioner mar, that when the question was directed out, the commissioner it seems more appropriate for the commissioner to be more responsive. As opposed to the department, i also, getting back to the item number four, regarding Public Perception, i will not be supporting, disagreing with that because i have received the public input to remain anonymous and i think that we can always learn from that and i dont think that it does any harm to you know, agree and take action or establish what we have been doing, and we will continue to do to address the Public Perception. But, i think that it is hard for me to vote to support something to disagree with something that i know not to be factually true and so i think that i would like to maybe have a more neutral position, or just focus on the commitment to resolving or continuing to address those as we go forward. Yeah, really the bulk of the response does say that. And i understand that. And you know about the headlines. And if you agree and partially disagree. And i guess that it is a matter of how you choose to phrase it and obviously, in the commission inaudible will do. Commissioners . Is there more questions . I think for me the big word is that is coming out to address these concerns and i think that we need that and we need the proof, and you know, i respect the position of commissioner walkers that the people dont want to kind of highlight their participation, but they have concerns, but i think that it is important for us as a commission to take these reports seriously that we have factual information and circumstances that people are complaining about that we can back up and look at and you know, at this stage. And so, i mean, obviously, we have people who want to approach the department at any time, and layout their concerns and get the specific issues that they have, and i know that the director, has said that the acting director has said that he is more than fair to participate and help as of you, and is if there is something that as far as the public would you recommend and is there a particular process that you would like to see and than you do, rather than, you know, just send in, the emails with no names or whatever. Is there. Do you have any idea how you can gather that data so we can address these issues . I know that we are playing, and we have already budgeted for, as i believe that all of you know for another Public Perception study in the coming fiscal year. And we did the last one, in 2008. And that one actually reflected some comments of some people having concerns about favoritism and that upon some further questioning from the Third Party Vendor that was doing, this perception study and the take was that some people understand the process better than others. And those who do not understand the process, often will attribute it to these favoritism out there in what i would consider a kind of vague way. To my knowledge, there isnt any study or data that says specifically this particular apartment as that particular problem. And as far as i am concerned, everybody who wants to report that there is such a thing happening, we do have a process for going through and evaluating that and as i understand it, that is probably takes it very seriously and we do it when the need occurs. Commissioner walker . I would suggest that as much as folks do not take newspaper articles, as seriously as some scientific study, there have been people who have felt comfortable talking to the press and there have been press stories and so i dont want to, you know, act on a press report, but, i just think that when we talk about Public Perception, it is not a good thing to discount it and i think that there is a Public Perception, whether it is, you know, quantifiable or we can put a number on it, i just think that, rather than disagreing that we hear it. And that is. And i guess that most of what is in that section, says that. But as the case, the headline, tells the story a little bit more sisinctly. Right but not always as accurately. That is true. Or it contradicts the body of the story. And there is more newspaper adage as someone who has been in that position myself and you never let the facts get in the way of a good story. And that is particularly true for the headline writers. But, that is not the reporters who often try to do a good job of balancing both sides, that are being represented. Yeah. Okay. Is there any more questions on this issue . I just would look at page 7 of the report and in that second paragraph, up from the bottom, i see. It talks about the lack of knowledge, that contributes to this perception. Yes. And i would simply want to flag that and have us put some benchmarks around increasing knowledge of the process. How we are working to bring the individuals to the place where they understand what the treatment ought to be. And then, as another bench mark in that last paragraph, 85 percent satisfaction. And that is a number that is quantifiable. And we ought to use that as a base as we go forward in terms of our response and in terms of spirit within our department. Thank you. 85 percent is a pretty good number. Isnt it . Yes, sir. Pretty good number. I mean if you are in the private sector you would be doing cart wheels over that number. Very happy, yeah. Okay. And any more questions . Commissioners . Commissioners . I have one. And the last paragraph. One more time, sorry. Final thoughts. Im always looking for the final thoughts. Well for the conclusion. And in the conclusion, that twoyear Strategic Plan is referenced, that is. And that jumps out at me. And all, all. I looked for that the presence of that work, throughout our response. To the grand jury, here is our plan and our vision and our mission and this is what we are doing to achieve it. And here is how we are testing and evaluating that. And so as i looked through it, my comments is there a way to let the Strategic Plans speak to some of these like this issue of number on page 4 and our Strategic Plan indicates that this is the response that we are making to this. And that is my comment. Yeah. And yes, i can fine tune that language, certainly. Okay. Thank you. All right. And at this stage, madam secretary, do we have take action, do we take Public Comment . Public comment. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Item two . President mccarthy and members of the commission my name is joe butler and i am an architect in San Francisco and have been a customer of the Building Department for 26plus years. And i would agree with 85 percent number. I dont have any data to substantiate or not. For the most part the Building Department does a great job. There are however, problems in the Building Department and it is the 15 percent that you should focus on rather than put a laural on the head, dbi total torrey and dysfunctional and that should sting, we find that the evidence that the escalations at dbi are common, and i am not sure what they mean, but that means that they are occurring and in addition they state a review of complaints to a city agency revealed the periodic allegations of misconduct continue. I am responsible for one of those allegations. Or, several as the case may be. Recommendations for 4. 1 an Ethical Climate survey, could provide management when it it is needed says the grand jury, but my experience as an architect representing clients as clearly shown that it is in fact the leadership, ie the management of the department that is dispensing acts of favoritism and these include Senior Management approving permit applications for final inspections on projects that have never begun. And Senior Management ignoring plans submitted for permits that falsely describe existing conditions in spite of their own field visits that proved a lie. And Senior Management for going on behalf of their own department, the correct permit application fees, based on the true scope of work. Senior management ignoring bogus signatures, forged signatures of licensed professionals on submitted plans, each document as you probably know, comprises separate felony counts. And Senior Management round filing complaints for work done without permits and tipping contractors to clear off the job when inspect ors finally make the visit. And if this commission is truly managing the department, and the department you might, in the field inspect ors from outside of the area prohibit, the Senior Management from approving the application as if they were staff and have the contract staff verify the signature and permit applications with that professionals application for license renewal with the state. Have applicants submit a page of photographs signed by a licensed professional that show the existing condition. Finally based on my experience, you must hire a new director from outside of your own department. By selecting no senior managers at the root of the 15 percent problem. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please . Page 2, there is a comment responding to the 2007 business process reengineering study that was done as you know, six years, there were over 180 specific recommendations. Saying that 25 of them were fully implemented six years later, is indicative of the problem. And i would like to make another comment. And this is the one that is particularly upsetting to me. On page 9. The department partially disagrees. It would be helpful if the specific area of disagreement was enumber rated with the grand jury finding 6 as it does not believe that the existing code policy and practices have resulted in the backlog of unresolved violations. In fact, historical data, indicates that the department has successfully abaited 95. 5 percent of complaints and notices of violation against 2000. That is 13 years ago. And we have a current problem. And specifically, in our report, and i worked on this, we reviewed all notices of violation, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, we did not do a sample. We reviewed all 8,875 notices of violation. 766 of those in those two years went to a directors hearing, and only 62 percent were abaited. That means that the process is 38 percent ineffective. And the report that we mentioned that 11 percent of the nlvs this is all of them, we reviewed were never closed out. And the rate for the building electrical and plumbing Code Division is 18 percent. 18 percent issued by the division in 2008, 9, and 209 10 remain open this indicates that there is a problem. These three divisions refer five percent of the open nlvs to a directors hearing, and this is half of the weight of the Housing Inspection Division. And the housing inspection issues twice as many novs as the three other division and collects 8 times, the penalty assessments. Finish your comments. In the fire meeting which i was unable to attend, the community out reach people, commented on how well the Housing Inspection Division inspectors worked with them and the housing seems to be doing much better than the dbi as a whole. And there appears to be serious process or procedure problems in the area of Building Code enforcement, and a root causes analysis needs to be conducted to determine where problems exist, and solutions need to be proposed by dbi to address the problems. Thank you. Thank you for your service on the grand jury. Any more Public Comment . Seeing none, we need to vote on this item. Yes. Call the question. This discussion of possible action to approve the response of the civil grand jury report . Would you like to add and include the comments that were made today . Or made, or maybe we can continue it until next meeting one more time . No. I mean we are meeting on the tenth . Would another draft be ready by then . Commissioner walker . I am not as support it the way that it is and i would like to, if we all to be on the same page i think that we need to listen to the input and have more discussions about this. I think that the goal of this is to try and help us with our twoyear plan. And i think that this business for engineering blueprint that we came up so long ago is good, and appropriate. And if we implement it, i think that it will do a lot to address some of the remaining issues that we have all been listening to for the last year. I mean we have had folks coming from the public talking about the lack of Code Enforcement and we have seen the numbers, and it does not really jive with what is in here. And as far as Code Enforcement and the number of cases that we resolve. And you can always take a slice out of any kind of history and get the numbers that you want, but i think that over all, we are all trying to achieve the same goal, and i think that as a commission, trying to emphasize our priorities and implementing the business reengineering plan, and resolving some of these lingering issues, and so, i dont think that we need to take a defensive stand on this and i think that we can itterate this in a way to acknowledge to move forward and the necessary steps left and i dont know, i think that we are getting there, but i think that there are some issues remaining that have been addressed. And certainly i have. So i would suggest that we continue this, and hopefully take the unput and we have and sort of hone it a little more. I would just support that. Yeah. Basically i think that everything has been said that has to be said from where i am sitting obviously commissioners feel differently. And we seem to be going around and focusing on the same issues that have been in the novs and so on and i believe that the report has addressed those and i dont think that we will have full con census, walker you will never be happy with the report and you are clear about that and i respect that position, but as a format and as it is written i dont think that we could have proven it better. If you want to continue it, we have to be mindful of the fact that we have to decide on this before the 16th. Do you want to continue to the next hearing . I dont see where we are going to change way much more. Or add more that has not already been addressed in the report. It is not 100 percent for everybody, obviously, but as it is written, right now and as it is in front of us right now, i believe that it holds up for me and i would be my position today would be to vote for this and approve this so that they can follow this to the next level where we are trying to get the time frames are running short here and so i dont see any time delay here is going to change any out come of that. And hi, could i ask something of the City Attorney just to walk us through what happens after this process because i think that i understand it but, i would love a refresher, so if we have a majority vote today, what is the next step . John, from the City Attorneys office, what is before you today is a response to the grand jury. If the commission by majority votes to submit that report, it would stand as the dbic statement or formal response with any amendments that might be suggested. If you do not pass it today, the item could be continued. And president mccarthy has pointed out that we have, there is a deadline that we are operating under, that we might would meet. In order to submit the response, it the dibc cannot reach an agreement by a quorum and then there will be no formal statement from them and i assume as a document would submit a letter just on someones behalf without including the part of that. Isnt there a process that happens at the board of supervisors . That involves to be able to follow up on the recommendations of the civil grand jury that were not addressed in the reports if it is not continual and regardless of whether or not, we all agree on this . I have actually not formally, reviewed what the following steps would be after submission, of the response, i could get back to you on that at another hearing and we could march through whatever the subsequent steps might be. Okay, thank you. When we do submit the response to the judge, it will note how we all voted on the response, would that be clear . You could include what the vote is, that could be included certainly. And so, what i would like to call is i would like to call the vote on it today and pass this on up. And so we can go to the next level. And that could get a second on that. Second. On that motion . I second it. Yeah. There is a motion and a second. To approve the response. And a roll call vote . Excuse me, would that include the comments that were made by the commissioners today . Or the letter as it has been submitted and is before you . My position is as the letter has been submitted and it is before us. Unless, the other commissioners want to weigh in on that. I would like to add that the results of the vote and the comments before it as well. One more time . I would like to add that the results of the vote and the comments of todays meeting be forwarded as well. I have no objection to that. I am sorry, are you amending the motion then . Yes. Okay. And he had no objection. I have no objection. The results of the vote, so, by commissioner, and as a result of the votes and the comments of todays meeting, be forwarded to the judge as well. Okay. And before our vote, i want to look at page 9. And ask through the chair to commissioner walker, that does this red section, at the bottom of page 9 point towards where you believe the department should move . Absolutely and it is inconsistent with the headline of not agreeing and so that is my point is if the text of all of this we agree with, the recommendations. And then we proceed to defend ourselves and i donthink that we need to dot. Okay. That is my point about the whole thing and it is not like you know, nana na we do bad, it is that we have ways to go to achieve our own goals. And i think that the civil grand jury took our plans from 6 years ago, and said, you are now living up to it and we are trying to defend the fact that we are not living up to it. And this is not a punishment kind of thing and i think that we agree with what the grand jury has said and so my problem is the inconsistentcies within the report and i know that everybody has been tried to be included in it. But we say that we disagree and then we go along to say how we are going to do what they say, which is agreeing that what they are saying is factual or that we agree with it. So, i think that if i read this report, it basically supports what the grand jury has said and then, at several points along the way it throws in these we disagree with it but then we are going to, but yeah, it is in our plan, and in our mission, but so, i cant, i agree and to answer your question, yes, i do agree with that. Based on commissioner mars amended, does the staff have time to do some of this editorial work . To bring about that kind of consistency that we have lifted up