Posts Tagged ‘audit’

Oh No, SFPD Chief Greg Suhr Bans Flair! – SF Weekly Covers “Sticker Purge” – Here’s What Excessive Flair Looks Like

Wednesday, October 8th, 2014

Well, here you go:

Sticker Shock: A Corporal Punishment Joke Triggers a Police Decal Purge by Joe Eskenazi @EskSF

“A goodly number of sports team decals, Grateful Dead imagery, shamrocks, college mascots, skateboard brand insignias, and family crests have since been disposed of.”

All right, now let’s see the kind of thing that wouldn’t survive a flair audit.

First, check out the stealie logo stuck on the magazine floorplate of this SFPD officer’s SIG Sauer P220 automatic. Is he assigned to Terrapin StationVia Xian:

Click to expand.

The above bit of flair could help to conveniently ID different mags, I suppose.

Now, check this out. What do you see?

sdfssss

Can SFPD officers wear hoop earrings while OTJ?

The fashion police say NO:

“5JEWELRY AND ORNAMENTS (also see DGO 11.08, Grooming Standards). On-duty officers shall not wear jewelry or personal ornaments that are visible except:

a. A wristwatch.

b. A total of 2 rings that are consistent with officer safety. An engagement and wedding ring set will be considered as one ring.

c. A conservative tie bar or tie tack.

d. Female officers may, in addition, wear the following:

1. Hair clips or pins that match the color of the hair.

2. One ear post in each ear. The post must lie flush with the ear and be plain metal, gold or silver colored. The face of the post is not to have a diameter of more than three-eighths (3/8) inch. Nothing shall hang from the post.”

Moving on.

Hey look, the SFFD takes a different approach: Flair has been institutionalized.

This was on a ladder truck parked on Fulton in in front of the former “Gabin” prostitution house in the NoPA Western Addition:

Click to expand

It’s bad-ass, as you can see.

Steal Your Face” or “Stealie” skull: Perhaps the best-known Grateful Dead art icon is a red, white, and blue skull with a lightning bolt through it. The lightning bolt skull can be found on the cover of the album Steal Your Face, and the image is sometimes known by that name. It was designed by Owsley Stanley and artist Bob Thomas, and was originally used as a logo to mark the band’s equipment.

And oh, feel free to get a tattoo with this logo, if you feel you’ve earned the right. I mean, they can’t take that away from you, correct?

OK, thanks for strolling down memory lane…

Central Subway Boondoggle UPDATE: “Rescue MUNI” Sells Out But “Save MUNI” Remains on the Case

Monday, December 5th, 2011

Here’s the latest from Save MUNI:

“Central Subway Boondoggle  =  Waste and Inefficiency

A Vibrant Citywide Muni System  =  Revival and Value”

But those sellouts at Rescue MUNI (who with regularity have the gall to complain about Save MUNI), or most of them, anyway, think that the politically-motivated Central Subway is A-OK as it is.

But You Make The Call.

Here’s Rescue MUNI’s “CS Fact Sheet,” which basically tears apart a straw dog, and here’s Save MUNI:

“SaveMuni.com Comments:

CENTRAL SUBWAY AUDIT

On November 15, 2011,  the Transportation Authority held a hearing on the new MTA Audit and ignored the Audit’s 46-page “Appendix VI: Central Subway Project”.  Several press articles reported that the Audit examined 29 construction projects, excluding the Central Subway Project.  But in fact, the “Limited Scope Performance Audit” evaluated the Subway’s financial risks—although it did not study transit effectiveness because of the contract’s limited scope.

MTA & CENTRAL SUBWAY AUDIT:  Central Subway, Pages 171-217.

http://www.sfcta.org/images/stories/Executive/Meetings/board/2011/11nov15/CGR%20Audit%20Report%20(Scanned).PDF

Auditors may be constrained in their criticism—especially when the scope of work is narrow and their client is a likely future customer.  But reading between the lines, the Audit forewarns of potential future fiscal troubles. SOME HIGHLIGHTS:

  • ·    “The potential for variation in the final cost of the project is large” (Page 172):  The Audit expands on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) concerns about construction and financial risks.  In the context of the Audit’s study of 29 MTA construction projects and their delays/ cost escalations, past performance is an indicator of future risks.
  • ·    “The Central Subway Project is the highest risk project that the SFMTA has undertaken” (Page 184):  The Audit expands on the FTA’s concerns.
  • ·    “There is a 30% likelihood of the total project cost in year of expenditure dollars being equal to or less than $1,578 million” (Page 185).  The audit couches potential cost overruns in terms of financial probability theory.  Although construction contingency dollars and schedules have been increased, the history of large infrastructure projects, in the Bay Area and throughout the United States, shows astronomical cost overruns and unpredictability—within the same financial/ management models.  Moreover, in latest project budgets, contingency dollars appear to have decreased.
  • ·    “A study of the funds required for maintaining the state-of-good-repair expenditures revealed that SFMTA’s total assets on the FTA’s Condition Code were above the 2.5 out of 5 minimum required by the FTA” (Page 197).  With the current $1.9 billion in deferred maintenance and $1.6 billion in budget deficits over the next 20 years, MTA should have already devoted higher expenditures to maintain assets in a state of repair.  Instead, the Central Subway will only lead to more service cuts, life-safety threats and draconian revenue hikes—unless the project is halted.
  • ·    “However, full funding is not guaranteed and the availability of funds when needed may still be an issue” (Page 198).  Officials and the citizenry are increasingly scrutinizing the Central Subway’s data falsifications and misrepresentations—while the FTA reviews the final application and the State of California faces increasing budget deficits and bond indebtedness. 
  • ·    “The Audit Team is not aware of consequences for the [MTA] Board or the Board Members if performance is unsatisfactory, nor are there any criteria that define what constitutes unsatisfactory performance” (Page 210).  By the Central Subway’s estimated completion date in 2019, most elected officials will not be in office and many MTA staff will be retired.  History indicates that it’s too easy to spend other people’s money.  The political benefits and quid pro quo of large infrastructure projects outweigh actual transportation benefits.  Unless the MTA Board, staff, consultants, Supervisors and Mayor bear some personal liability, taxpayers will be singularly liable for future cost overruns and crippling deficits. 
  • ·    “Now, at the half-way point in the project, the cost estimates at completion are approximately double that at initiation” (Page 213).  Again, past performance is an indicator of future performance.
  • ·    “[SFMTA] will comply with Prop K policies to delay the expenditure of Prop K funds to the extent possible without putting the project at risk” (Page 271).  However, the Subway’s budgets show $72 million of Prop K funds will be expended in the next two years.  The recent MTA contract for tunnel boring machines usurped $57 million of Prop K sales tax funds—in lieu of restoring service cuts or improving citywide Muni.

Central Subway Boondoggle  =  Waste and Inefficiency

A Vibrant Citywide Muni System  =  Revival and Value

 Regards,

www.SaveMuni.com”  

Choose or lose!

Ooh, Harsh: City Attorney Dennis Herrera Throws Down – Goes After Ed Lee’s Failed Record on Infrastructure

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011

Turns out that our “world-class City” is ranked below Boston, New York, Oakland, San Jose, and Seattle, believe it or not. See below.

Now, just how purple do you want to see your fighting City Attorney.

Better A, as seen here?

Or B, after a little Replace Color and Shadows/Highlights?

You Make The Call.

Now, a little background and then the News of the Day. Let’s list the endnotes first for a change – they are that good:

[1] Government Barometer: August 2011, City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, October 18, 2011, http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2581
[2] City and County of San Francisco City Survey 2011, Final Report, prepared by the ETC Institute, October 6, 2011, http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2573
[3] Voter Information Pamphlet, Nov. 8, 2011, Proposition B: Road Repaving and Street Safety Bonds, page 46, http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/NOV2011_VIP_EN.pdf
[4] Management Audit of the Department of Public Works, by the San Francisco Budget Analyst, January 9, 2007, http://www.sfdpw.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/sfdpw/director/DPWAuditReport.pdf

The latest from the Dennis Herrera for Mayor campaign:

“New Controller’s report confirms streets survey, audit on Ed Lee’s failed record on infrastructure

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011

Appointed Mayor’s decade-long mismanagement as DPW chief, City Administrator now require quarter-billion dollar streets bond to ‘finally accomplish what Ed Lee didn’t’

SAN FRANCISCO (Oct. 18, 2011) — City streets and public works continue to deteriorate under interim Mayor Ed Lee, according to a new report published today by the Controller’s Office, extending Lee’s decade-long record of mismanagement and neglect as the appointed bureaucrat in charge of San Francisco’s infrastructure. Today’s bimonthly Government Barometer[1] mirrors a highly critical survey released just two weeks ago that found San Francisco’s satisfaction rate with the current quality of its infrastructure to be the lowest among five benchmark cities to which it was compared. Lee’s history of lax oversight of streets, sidewalks and public works projects was also the subject of a devastating independent management audit of the Department of Public Works that the Board of Supervisors first commissioned in May 2005, while Lee was DPW director. That audit was released in 2007.

Today’s new Government Barometer identified negative trends in the City’s maintenance of streets and public works in terms of the percentage of street cleaning requests responded to within 48 hours, which have worsened both since the previous reporting period and as compared to the same period last year. A negative trend was also observed from the previous reporting period for the percentage of graffiti requests on public property responded to within 48 hours.

“For the last decade, Ed Lee did an abysmal job as the person in charge of San Francisco’s infrastructure,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “The Budget Analyst’s audit proved it in 2007; the streets survey proved it again two weeks ago, and the new Government Barometer proves it once again. Ed Lee’s record of failure is why most city streets are dirtier than ever, and in desperate need of major repairs. Now, San Franciscans need to pass a quarter-billion dollars for a streets bond, to finally accomplish what Ed Lee didn’t.”

Lee was DPW director from 2000 to 2005, and until January of this year served as City Administrator, a role whose major duties under the City Charter include coordinating capital improvement and construction projects, and appointing and removing DPW directors. As such, Lee is more responsible for the current state of San Francisco’s infrastructure than any other city official. Lee’s decade-long record contrasts starkly with his new campaign promise to be an “infrastructure mayor” who will fix San Francisco’s “roads, schools and parks.”

On October 6, 2011, the San Francisco Controller’s Office published its final report of the biennial City Survey for 2011[2], which found that:

* San Francisco had the lowest satisfaction rate with the quality of its infrastructure among five benchmark cities to which it was compared: Boston, New York, Oakland, San Jose, and Seattle.

* Overall satisfaction with San Francisco city streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure rated a woeful 31 percent, according to the survey — far below other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s rating for infrastructure was also lower than both statewide and national averages.

* San Franciscans were least satisfied with the condition of pavement citywide, with nearly 44 percent of residents grading city performance “poor/failing,” and another 38 percent describing it as merely “average.” Only 18 percent rated infrastructure “good” or better.

The new Government Barometer and streets survey from two weeks ago come as San Franciscans begin voting on a proposed $248 million bond for road repaving and street safety.[3] The nearly one-quarter-billion-dollars in new bonded indebtedness is required, according to proponents, because half of San Francisco’s 850 miles of streets — together with public structures that include bridges, tunnels, and stairways — need major repairs and upgrades.

Both the Government Barometer and streets survey also mirror a devastating independent audit of DPW that the Board of Supervisors commissioned in May 2005, while Lee was DPW chief. Even before Budget Analyst Harvey Rose’s final 269-page DPW Management Audit[4] was published in January 9, 2007, then-DPW Chief Fred Abadi responded that he “came to DPW after your audit had begun,” and that the report’s 120 recommendations “will prove useful to me as I continue to reengineer parts of the Department.” Abadi agreed and accepted all but three of the Budget Analyst’s 120 recommendations.

Among major findings of the performance audit’s of DPW under Ed Lee:

* DPW’s overall mismanagement, inefficiency and uncollected revenue combined to waste more than $5 million in taxpayer funds.

* DPW-led projects were routinely mismanaged, over-budget, and late — and city street repair projects were late by a shocking 172 days, on average.

* DPW failed to routinely track average project labor costs or productivity to ensure that Street Resurfacing and Pothole Repair Projects were completed efficiently

* DPW could not demonstrate that tax dollars being spent for street repair and maintenance (despite an amount that increased during Lee’s tenure) were spent appropriately.

* DPW allowed more than $1 million in litter fines to go uncollected.

* None of DPW’s eight bureaus fully measured performance to ensure that the bureau achieved the best possible outcomes.

* And DPW inspectors did not conduct routine inspections of streets to identify safety hazards.”

Dennis Herrera Throws Down – Office Depot Audit Reveals Millions in Overcharges

Monday, December 21st, 2009

San Francisco’s recent audit of office materials supplier Office Depot has prompted City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera to take action today. See the deets below and the .pdf after the jump.

And follow all the action on the Twitter.

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior certainly is unhappy with the Office Depot today.

Herrera Issues Demand Letter to Office Depot in Wake of S.F. Controller’s Audit

City Attorney prepared to ‘vigorously pursue’ $5.75 million in overcharges plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees

City Attorney Dennis Herrera has issued a demand letter to Office Depot expressing his intention to “vigorously pursue” at least $5.75 million in overcharges together with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs incurred by the City in conducting the audit. The demand letter follows the release of an exhaustive audit report by the Office of City Controller Ben Rosenfield. The Controller’s 96-page audit concluded that, among other overcharges, the Boca Raton, Fla.-based office products supplier failed to provide the City with contractually mandated discounts for items covered by the 5-year contract, which was valued at some $18 million.

Wrote Herrera: “Any resolution of this matter must include compensation to the City for the costs of the audit, and for attorney’s fees, as well as full reimbursement for price overcharges, with interest…If the City is unable to obtain a satisfactory informal resolution of this matter, I will not hesitate to pursue the matter in court. Further, if court action becomes necessary, rest assured that my office will vigorously pursue the City’s claims to the fullest, including seeking civil penalties and debarment, if appropriate.”

(more…)