San Francisco supervisors accept some tech reforms, decline others in response to civil grand jury

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on an announced hearing reviewed city department updates responding to recommendations 4 through 18 from the 2011–12 civil grand jury technology report "Deja Vu all over again." Chair Supervisor Malia Cohen opened the hearing and invited members of the grand jury and city staff to summarize progress and next steps.

Allegra Fortunati, a member of the 2011–12 civil grand jury and a writer of the "Deja Vu" report, told the board she appreciated recent changes but cautioned that "potential is only potential, not actuality," urging the supervisors to hold another hearing in about a year to judge whether promises by the city CIO and departments have been fulfilled.

Representatives from the mayor's office summarized the city's responses. Antonio Guerra said recommendation 4 (appointment of a public nonvoting COIT member), recommendation 6, recommendation 11, recommendation 12 and recommendation 18 have been implemented; recommendation 13 (asset management plan) and related work are planned for implementation; and that several recommendations — including 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17 — will not be implemented because city leaders judged them unwarranted or likely to create duplicative or unclear reporting structures.

Miguel Gamino of the Department of Technology said the department is updating the city's ICT plan and that "Recommendation 13 will be implemented," adding that an asset-management system plan and documentation are being developed and will be presented at the appropriate time.

Supervisor Campos pressed the administration on accountability tied to coordination across departments, saying that elevating the city CIO or adding clearer evaluation criteria could create "some accountability" so that departments coordinate technology investments citywide rather than operating in isolation. The mayor's office responded that the Committee on Information Technology (COIT) and improved collaboration under the new CIO should help the city make collective decisions, and offered to discuss other options offline.

The public comment period included residents who thanked the grand jury for oversight and urged stronger enforcement tools; one commenter suggested civil grand jury subpoena power for more robust investigations. Another member of the public raised concerns about COIT meeting frequency and the length of a vacancy for a public member.

After discussion, supervisors recorded their positions on each recommendation: Rec. 4 — implemented; Rec. 5 — will not be implemented; Rec. 6 — implemented; Rec. 7 — will not be implemented; Rec. 9 and 10 — will not be implemented; Rec. 11 — implemented and ongoing; Rec. 12 — implemented; Rec. 13 — to be implemented (city indicated work within six months); Recs. 14, 15 and 17 — will not be implemented; Rec. 18 — implemented. The board directed the clerk and budget analyst to prepare a motion updating the official responses to the presiding judge and recorded that motion as made, seconded and "unanimously passes."

The board's actions update the city's formal response to the civil grand jury and set a schedule for follow‑up; supervisors signaled continued oversight on technology governance, hiring processes and asset management.

The clerk will file the updated responses with the presiding judge per the normal reporting process.