(DISCUSSION/ACTION)
a. Review of all vendor contracts and CBO contracts, with total amounts, and service provided
to Log Cabin Ranch, and/or the Department.
The Chief asked what the objective of this review was; to modify the baseline, contingency plans to get additional funding for LCRS?
Comm. Ricci said that this was an opportunity to closely review the Dept’s budget to see if all possibilities for potential savings were covered, as well as to get a firm and clear picture as to the contracts and the process by which they came to be, to be assured that all processes were abided by. She emphasized that this level of inspection has never been done before, which is why she wants to be fully informed about these matters, so that she has a confidence in the finances of the Dept.
The Chief said he thought the decision reached in the Ad Hoc Committee was going to be the final decision (the proposed plan for $1.4 mil).
Comm. Bonilla said that he had early on stated that if there were other funds the Finance Committee might be able to identify in the budget, that he would be looking at that, and this meeting will be the first round of review for that purpose.
There was a discussion regarding what this Committee can and cannot do. Eg. looking at individual contracts and making recommendations opposed to Dept choices.
Comm. Ricci stated that the Finance Comm. has been looking at the Dept’s finances and this is the vehicle to do it. Not the Ad Hoc Committee on LCRS.
Comm. Hale stated his concern for micro managing.
Comm Bonilla said that his one objective for this review is to see if he can find additional funds for LCRS, a commitment he made to the youth there and in the City.
Comm. Ricci said that additionally she felt the need to look closer at the finances, since the recent reports provided the Committee lacked a great deal of detail that was contained in prior year’s reports (she showed past budget docs that were given the Committee while E. Lopatin was here).
Comm. Hale continued to express his concern over the Committee taking issue with any decisions made by the Dept on how to spend the funds. He commended the administration for their work.
Comm. Ricci said that regardless of how well the Dept may be doing, it is still the charge of the Finance Committee to review things. She referred to a document dated 2/21/03 which she said could be further clarified for a full understanding, as an example. She commented that in previous years she was kept abreast of the process, being told of meetings between the Controllers/Mayor’s office and the Dept. Such information has not been forthcoming this year.
Comm. Ricci asked about the Bayview Hunters Point Foundation contracts for $65K and $140K. Liz Jackson-Simpson said that the first one is funded from the Children’s Baseline budget, while the latter is TANF funds.
The process of future funding from TANF and other sources, has not yet been finalized so these contracts will not necessarily be the same come Oct.
Comm. Ricci asked if contracts were obligated to be fully paid, if services were not being received. Ans: if services not being received, no. If they were, yes.
The Chief mentioned the 33% reduction in administration staff. Ques: what percent of that is support staff, as opposed to management positions. The Chief did not have an answer.
He said that if the Committee had specific positions or contracts in mind that it wanted to recommend cuts to, then it was their prerogative.
Comm. Ricci asked about the (0922) position of Manager II, being in two division’s budgets. The Chief said that the position is funded from two different pots. The admin portion is from general funds, the probation services portion is from TANF. It is one position supported by two funding sources. M. Lui corrected that, saying an additional $20K is used from the Children’s System of Care (Dept of Children’s Mental Health Services) to support that position. So, it is approx. $104K for that position. Comm. Bonilla asked again for a break out of management staff vs support staff lost by admin. The Chief said that they could provide that for him in a chart. Comm. Hale said that cuts straight from top to bottom could not be made. This is all part of public administrative theory. He said he had no problem with the Committee asking the question, but he did if the Committee wanted to substitute its thinking over the Dept’s. Even he, being one of the more experienced Commissioners, isn’t qualified to make the management decisions regarding one position over another.
Comm. Bonilla disagreed. The Chief stated again that he would provide that list of positions that Comm. Bonilla asked for. He further said that one member of the Executive Team did offer to be laid off, and was part of the items that they had asked to have discussed as part of the Dept’s agenda items that they wanted included at this meeting, and wasn’t included on the agenda.
b. Review all “non mandated” expenses. Possible recommendations to full Commission for certain cuts.
M. Lui referred to the doc. (2/21/03), beginning with Children’s Baseline programs. None of these are mandated. Prop D, but not individual depts define the City’s commitment to children’s services. short of how their spending impacts the overall City’s level of funding.
Comm. Ricci asked about Title IVe. The additional half million dollars recognized by the Mayor’s office comes from reimbursement of services from POs. How that plan was presented is very technical, but it will be used to meet the current budget’s deficit, and aid in the target reductions in the upcoming year. Total consideration was not given.
Comm. Ricci asked if this is part of Prop 86 monies. She asked for explanation for this. The Chief asked what this proposition was. She said it was reimbursable from a State fund that was for repairing and improving Juvenile Halls. The Chief said he didn’t know anything about this. Comm. Ricci asked him to get the details about this. She will give him what information she has about this for them to investigate.
Comm. Hale also asked where this money came from and where it went.
Comm Hale raised the question from Ntanya Lee, and asked if the Dept was ready to respond to it. M. Lui said it was the reduction of the Huckleberry Youth program grant. (the difference between $1.6 and $1.2 million)
There is still a $420K “hole” in the contingency reduction plan, as the revenues the Dept hoped would be credited to next year was not, it was credited to this year. Therefore, additional reductions will have to be made, to complete the contingency plan.
Comm Hale said that as far as LCR is concerned, he only wanted to hear what the Ad Hoc Committee had come up with as a plan. As for finding additional dollars through this process, he was more interested in what the Dept had to say. He acknowledged the public’s right to input and give its concerns, that is all it is, a right to give input. As a Commissioner, Hale takes that into account but much more importantly the Chief and Executive Team believes in their professional experience they have a plan, then he is satisfied.
The Chief asked if there were specific directions on finding additional cuts to add dollars to the LCR plan.
Comm. Ricci said that she needs much more information before such directions can be made.
There was a discussion regarding who would be entrusted with the decisions for this Dept’s budget. There was a difference of opinion regarding who was in charge (the Mayor or his representatives, the Commission) with that responsibility. Comm. Ricci especially recalled that the Mayor said he put his trust in the Commission to exercise their best judgment on his behalf.
Comm. Ricci said that she now wanted to look at unnecessary positions and expenses for possibility of cutting.
The Chief gave a recapitulation of what he understood to be the requests of the Finance Committee. Those were: clarification of Prop 86 funds, reconcile the figures mentioned by Ntanya Lee, specific recommendations for cuts equaling $420K to complete the contingency plan, and finding another $300K for LCR.
If the Committee has specific directions to the Dept for potential cuts, then they should make them. Comm. Ricci stated that she wanted to see a list of all un-mandated positions in administration that are not mandated. The Chief said that other than the Chief’s position, no other position is mandated. The question was whether the request was intended as a list of executive staff. Comm. Hale said that looking at executive level for cuts is not advisable.
A short review of the positions in the admin led to a discussion about mandated and non-mandated positions. Comm. Hale said that the Chief’s job is mandated by law, but that others in the Executive Team were not. He said that the W&I allowed counties to establish a Chief Probation Officer, and Deputy and Assistant Probation Officer. They all are technically mandated. Eg. the Asst. Chief Probation Officer is authorized in the legislation. It is a position that is identified, the Probation, Deputy and Assistant Probation Officer are the only positions in the statute that are authorized.
Comm. Bonilla asked about the Director of Finance position, which M. Lui is acting in, leaving his own position (class) vacant. If he ultimately takes the Director’s job, and his old position is vacant, what can be done with that money? Likewise with the Asst. Chief’s position, if the incumbent assumes the Chief’s position. What can be done with the money for that position? M. Lui said that would be taken into account through salary savings. Vacancies (15% of total staff) are expected and will be kept so, leaving a savings in salary.
If an internal transfer occurs, then there’s still a salary savings. The approval to fill the Director’s position (Lui acting in) was given on the condition of leaving his old position vacant.
Comm. Bonilla suggested the Commissioners give back their modest stipends.
Comm. Hale repeated his challenge to the union executives to give up a percentage of their salaries (he would match the same percentage).
There was further identification of positions in the admin budget. Jose Perla (acting Dir of IT) ran down the different positions within IT and said that the division was already short-handed.
(positions: 1003, operator Sr, does court petitions, dispositions that goes into the JJIS and crime location database. Main help desk operator. 1022, main user support dealing with computer equipment problems. 1043, network engineer. A 1024,J. Perla, supervises all operations of the IT division. Nothing to do with research, or reports. Project Director is responsible for those reporting chores.
Comm Bonilla thanked J. Perla for taking him on a tour of the IT division.
M Lui talked about the 8336 position, Dir of Finance/Admin.
In Personnel there is 1246, Principal Personnel Analyst. Responsible for conducting our own exams, ongoing investigations --a very high volume activity--, dealing with the workers comp issues. A 1244, who is retired, assisted the 1246. The 1246 has a clerical staff, which only does clerical support.
Juliet Gil is assigned to assist them from time to time, but she is not qualified to deal with personnel issues, her skills are in accounting and finance. There is a request to refill the 1244.
1222 are the Sr. Payroll and Personnel Clerks. There are also 2 clerical personnel techs and clerks in personnel.
1824 Principal Admin. Analyst manages the finance and accounting unit. Monitors expenditures, makes sure contracts are processed appropriately. Balancing the budget throughout the year.
Two 1844 Sr. Management Asst. report to that person. One of the 1844 manages the accounting unit and the two payroll clerks, cashier, and the cash payable functions. The other is responsible for contract processing and purchasing function for the dept. One third of the CBO contracts are assigned to this person to process.
Comm Hale expressed concern over the timeline for submitting any adjustments to the budget to the Mayor’s office. He opposed any additional request for more money to be added to the LCR proposal.
It was suggested to schedule another Finance Committee meeting for April 15 at 5:30pm. President Dupre will be contacted regarding setting of a special commission meeting to follow up on Finance.
(public comments)
|
