Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Csa Work Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Controller outlines CSA work plan, highlights audits, Transit Effectiveness implementation and follow‑up schedule

Board of Supervisors Government Audit and Oversight Committee · March 24, 2011
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Controller Ben Rosenfield and City Services Auditor staff presented the CSA's FY10–11 activity and plans, noting 49 audits completed this fiscal year, about 37 in progress, a staff of roughly 45, and a risk‑driven process to finalize the FY11–12 work plan by July 1. Supervisors asked for regular implementation follow‑up reports.

David Campos, chair of the Board of Supervisors Government Audit and Oversight Committee, opened Thursday’s committee meeting noting the Controller’s Office would present an update on the City Services Auditor (CSA) work plan.

Ben Rosenfield, Controller for the City and County of San Francisco, told the committee the CSA office was established and substantially strengthened by the 2003 charter amendment (appendix F/Proposition C) and is financed by a baseline allocation equal to 0.2 percent of departmental expenditures. He said the office combines performance, financial and compliance audit functions with a city performance unit and that the CSA employs roughly 45 staff across audit and performance teams.

Rosenfield said the CSA is wrapping one set of work and beginning planning for FY 2011–12. He described a consultative, risk‑based work‑planning process that weighs dollars involved, staff turnover, contract volume and other indicators; the office solicits input from departments, the mayor’s office, the Citizens General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee, the Audit Review Board and the Board of Supervisors. Rosenfield said the office expects to return to this committee for input in the coming weeks and to complete its work plan by July 1.

Tanya Lettigy of the Controller’s Office described the CSA’s current portfolio: since January the unit has completed 49 audits, with 37 in progress, and several major projects underway, including capital construction audits for the San Francisco General Hospital rebuild and MacArthur Park, a redevelopment audit, and payroll and cash‑transaction reviews. Andrew Murray (Controller’s Office) reviewed technical assistance work, citing evaluations of street and park cleanliness required by the charter and performance work with the Department of Public Health to improve medical‑supply procurement.

Supervisors asked about cost and impact. Murray and Lettigy said some evaluations mix in‑house work and vendor inspections (DPW funds a vendor for street inspections), and described a structured follow‑up process: published audits require an auditee response and a plan of action, with scheduled follow‑ups at six months, 12 months and two years and additional testing where warranted. Rosenfield emphasized the CSA’s dual approach—auditing to detect problems and technical assistance to help departments implement recommendations.

Supervisors also requested clearer, regular reporting on the status of audit recommendations across the CSA’s entire portfolio. Rosenfield and staff agreed to develop a more comprehensive reporting format and asked the committee for guidance; the chair asked the Controller’s Office to return with a meaningful implementation‑tracking report.

The office discussed Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) work: Rosenfield said the TEP is a multi‑year, line‑by‑line review of transit service developed jointly with the MTA, that many recommendations have been adopted, and that the office and MTA have a final draft implementation plan pending MTA review. He said environmental review (CEQA) and capital funding remain the primary next steps for the largest improvements.

Committee chair Campos closed public comment on Item 1 and, after routine procedural action, continued the matter to the call of the chair for further monitoring and follow up. The committee also directed the Controller’s Office to return with the proposed FY11–12 work plan and with a clearer, periodic implementation‑tracking report for previously issued audits.