Civil grand jury faults San Francisco IT governance, urges consolidated ICT budget and stronger CIO authority

The civil grand jury told the Board of Supervisors on Oct. 29 that San Francisco’s information‑technology operations remain fragmented and inefficient, urging the city to consolidate budgets and strengthen the City CIO’s authority to stop ‘‘repeated and costly’’ duplications.

Morton Rafael, chair of the civil grand jury’s investigative committee, told the Government Audit and Oversight Committee that interviews and prior audits show a persistent ‘‘culture that protects organizational status quo and department independence’’ and said the lack of formal ties between departmental technology leaders and the City CIO has produced ‘‘continuous unnecessary costs, unnecessary duplication of services, and unnecessary inefficiencies.’’

Why it matters: The grand jury said the city cannot reliably track what it spends on IT, how much has been saved by consolidation projects, or where savings would appear department‑by‑department — findings that bear directly on whether city technology investments are delivering promised public value.

The jury cited large, lingering projects and uneven consolidation efforts as evidence. It noted the controller’s aggregated technology budget figure (just under $200 million) and the jury’s working estimate closer to $250 million; it also flagged slow email consolidation (roughly 3,600 of about 23,000 users — about 17% — converted so far, according to testimony) and long delays on other major projects. The report recommended a consolidated citywide ICT budget and staffing plan, an annual comprehensive ICT report to the mayor and Board, a citywide asset management system, and a skills database for ICT personnel.

City officials pushed back on some characterizations. Cindy Serwin, deputy director of the Mayor’s Budget Office, said IT and innovation are mayoral priorities and listed recent items she described as progress: the original five‑year ICT plan, ongoing email conversion work, data center virtualization and consolidation, and newly negotiated enterprise agreements projected to save about $4 million over three years. ‘‘We appreciate the civil grand jury’s work,’’ Serwin said, adding the administration disagrees with ‘‘several of the assertions’’ in the report and urged collaborative solutions rather than ‘‘binding’’ code changes.

John Walton, who leads the Department of Technology, said substantial organizational steps have been taken in the past five years — creation of COIT and subcommittees, planning and budgeting processes, and performance reporting to the controller — and defended a partnership model across independently elected departments. He told supervisors that DT’s budget had been reduced from $95 million to about $73 million over five years while maintaining core services.

Supervisors pressed officials on specifics: how the $250 million estimate was derived, why email consolidation has moved slowly, which metrics will demonstrate savings, and what governance changes (including possible administrative‑code amendments) might create accountability. Several supervisors described past reforms as necessary but incomplete, calling for timelines and monitoring mechanisms to make consolidation efforts stick.

What the board asked for: President David Chu told staff and COIT to develop clearer tracking and accountability measures for ICT projects and recommended a 3–6 month timeframe for many of the report’s proposed follow‑ups, including a management audit by the budget analyst or controller and a timeline to recruit two nonvoting public members to COIT. The committee recorded many findings as ‘‘partially agree’’ while committing to pursue audits, asset management and staffing plans, and implementation monitoring.

Next steps: The committee tabled one hearing item for follow‑up and moved the board’s written responses to the civil grand jury’s findings without objection. Officials said they will update the five‑year ICT plan, pursue consolidated asset and staffing inventories, and work with the controller and budget analyst to quantify citywide IT expenditures and projected savings. The board requested implementation timeframes and regular progress reporting.

The committee did not adopt structural, code‑level changes on the spot; several supervisors said those legal changes require further analysis and, in some cases, waiting until a permanent City CIO is hired. The hearing closed with officials agreeing to continued dialogue and data exchange so elected officials can track implementation.

Sources: Civil grand jury presentation by Morton Rafael; Mayor’s office response by Cindy Serwin; Department of Technology remarks by John Walton; committee exchanges and public comments during the Oct. 29 special meeting.