Supervisors press SFPD, controller and OEWD over SF SAFE contracts, unpaid workers and controls; hearing continued and subpoenas planned

The Government Audit & Oversight Committee held a lengthy hearing Oct. 11 examining the city controller's assessment of invoices under grant agreements between the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and SF SAFE and pressing the department, the controller's office and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) on follow-up, unpaid workers and the sufficiency of internal controls.

President Aaron Peskin opened the item by framing a pattern of public-corruption scandals and urging the committee to understand whether city departments have corrected internal-control weaknesses. He cited the controller's January 2024 assessment and the District Attorney's subsequent criminal filing against the former SF SAFE executive director, including the DA's allegation that initially reported unaccounted-for sums were larger than first estimated.

Mark Dela Rosa of the controller's City Services Auditor (CSA) division described the report's limited scope (the audit focused on July 2022'March 2024) and said the audit recommended that SFPD perform a backward-looking review of invoices beyond the sample. Dela Rosa said the controller had not yet received SFPD's formal follow-up; typically the CSA asks departments for a six-month status update, and that follow-up had been requested in September with a two-week response window.

SFPD officials described steps taken and remaining gaps. Diana Rocha, director of policy and public affairs for SFPD, said the department requested a full audit from the controller but received a limited assessment due to controller staffing and capacity constraints. Catherine Maguire (executive director, Strategic Management Bureau) and chief financial officer Kimmy Woo reviewed a timeline of actions: SFPD began remediation planning after the report, initiated nonprofit monitoring visits and said it had filled several vacancies in fiscal and monitoring teams. SFPD representatives said invoices had been routed through a Community Engagement Division (programmatic review) and the fiscal unit (fiscal review), but that SF SAFE often categorized expenses broadly and sometimes failed to provide supporting details.

Committee members pressed SFPD on why multiple earlier red flags from SF SAFE'including warnings from three different accounting firms and missing federal nonprofit tax filings'were not acted on sooner. Peskin said the controller's limited sample initially showed roughly $80,000 of problems but subsequent investigation and DA filings identified a minimum of $700,000 in theft; he asked why the department had not reconstructed the prior five years of activity as the audit recommended.

Officials from OEWD (Executive Director Dennis Phillips and contract staff) explained that OEWD had conducted standard monitoring for its SF SAFE contract and had withheld an $83,000 invoice after learning of fiscal mismanagement. OEWD said it has identified roughly $78,000 of eligible payments owed to SF SAFE employees and that some unpaid subconsultant claims have proceeded to legal action.

Committee members requested records and additional materials: the original grant agreement and each of the six amendments to SF SAFE's contract, scoring sheets from the RFP process, monitoring and performance-audit records, and documentation showing how multiple funders' dollars were tracked against events and expenses. Peskin announced plans to issue subpoenas for the former SF SAFE board president and treasurer, and he asked the committee to continue the hearing so subpoenas could be prepared.

After public comment, the committee voted to continue the hearing to Nov. 7; Deputy City Attorney Brad Russell confirmed the city attorney's office will prepare subpoenas for that date. The committee adjourned after the motion passed.