Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Risk Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civil grand jury urges San Francisco to fix risk‑management reporting; city cites technology limits
Summary
The Feb. 2008 civil grand jury told the Board’s Audit & Oversight Committee that San Francisco lacks a usable 'loss run' for tracking claims and department losses, urging stronger risk‑management practices. City officials said the City Attorney’s system was not designed for that purpose and recommended funding commercial software.
Patricia Knight, foreperson of the February 2008 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, told the Board of Supervisors’ Audit & Oversight Committee on Sept. 22 that the jury remains concerned the city cannot produce a comprehensive loss‑run that tracks claims, settlements and litigation costs by department.
"I think this is really significant," Knight said in presenting the 'Fits and Starts' report, arguing without a loss run "you cannot evaluate losses or develop a risk‑management program." The civil grand jury recommended the mayor and board ensure departments provide timely, consistent loss‑history data during budget reviews.
The Mayor’s Office, represented by Star Terrell, disagreed with making grand‑jury recommendations mandatory in budget instructions but said the administration would ask departments in the FY09/10 budget process to consider independent reviews and to include independent audits and reports in departmental planning. Terrell said the mayor’s office believes existing response processes should continue and that some recommendations would be pursued in other ways.
Deputy City Attorney Miriam Morley told the committee the City Attorney’s 'CityLaw' calendaring and litigation system is not a purpose‑built risk‑management platform and cannot generate the detailed loss‑run requested. "It wasn't designed for that purpose," Morley said, and suggested the board could fund commercial risk‑management software; the office would cooperate in implementation.
Peg Stevenson of the Controller’s Office said the controller provided the grand jury with a financial‑system report showing three years of claims and judgments by department and that standard monitoring processes exist (monthly, six‑ and nine‑month budget reports). Stevenson acknowledged the controller's records lacked some of the litigation‑specific metrics the grand jury sought but said the controller would support targeted follow‑up testing of critical recommendations where workload permits.
Public commenters, including former grand juror Bob Planthold, raised trust concerns after learning the civil grand jury’s assigned counsel later spoke for the city in defending departmental responses. Planthold said that practice "leaves a question of ... whose interest is advanced or thwarted by this dual action." Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams defended the practice to the committee as a consistent representation of city interests and said the office maintains internal confidentiality and appropriate firewalls where needed.
The committee adopted an amended response resolution — classifying recommendations the board could accept, partially disagree with, or refer for additional public deliberation — and sent the item to the full board with the committee’s recommendation.
The committee did not order purchase of a specific risk‑management product; city attorneys and the risk manager instead told the board they would support procurement and implementation if the board funds the software. The mayor’s office and controller highlighted resource and technical constraints and said they would work with supervisors on next steps.
The committee’s action sends the amended response to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration.
