Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues DPW contract oversight matter after public allegations of misconduct
Summary
After three public callers alleged mismanagement and possible corruption tied to a Department of Public Works contract and then-Director Mohammed Nuru, the committee continued the resolution urging cancellation to the call of the chair for further review.
San Francisco — Public commenters on July 2 urged the Government Audit and Oversight Committee to invalidate a Department of Public Works contract amid allegations involving then-Director Mohammed Nuru; after public comment the committee voted to continue the matter to the call of the chair.
Vice Chair Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who introduced the resolution urging cancellation of the contract, initially asked that the item be continued to the committee’s next regular meeting on July 30. After members of the public called in with allegations and new material from prior hearings, Peskin agreed to amend his request and moved to continue the matter to the call of the chair. The motion carried on a 2-0 roll call, with Supervisor Gordon Marr joining Peskin in an aye vote. Supervisor Matt Haney was excused.
Three callers spoke during public comment. One caller said an FBI and District Attorney review created a conflict and urged the city to cancel the contract: “I ask the community to please invalidate this contract,” the caller said. Another caller who said they live near one of the city’s public toilet kiosks described repeated problems with cleanliness and outages and questioned the value of a private advertising company providing the service. A third caller connected the contract to then-DPW Director Mohammed Nuru and said, “this contract is clearly part of 1 of his corrupt practices.”
Peskin told the committee the cancellation resolution he introduced at a prior meeting focuses on urging termination of the contract, and that questions about the scoring and cancellation of an earlier RFP will take time to examine. He said the issue is complicated and that further review is warranted before the committee takes a final position.
The committee did not vote on cancellation or take departmental testimony at the July 2 meeting; instead it continued the item for further committee consideration at the chair’s discretion.
Next steps: the matter will be scheduled at the chair’s call for further review and possible action; no departmental response or vote on cancellation was recorded on July 2.
