California. Grand Jury (San Francisco).

Civil Grand Jury reports (Volume 1976-77) online

. (page 14 of 32)
Online LibraryCalifornia. Grand Jury (San Francisco)Civil Grand Jury reports (Volume 1976-77) → online text (page 14 of 32)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Considering the large number (approximately ^50) of
cases the Board hears yearly, the Board should receive one
additional employee. Specifically, this should be a clerical
employee with court reporting skills to assist the Board during
official hearings.

Lastly, the offices of this Board are deplorable.
As another Grand Jury recognized, that while staff performance
outweighs the condition of facilities, this committee found no
improvement in the shabby and poorly kept offices.


The Port of San Francisco Is at a crossroad. Acting
Port Director Edward L. David manages an important service
agency which provides the entire San Francisco region with a
maritime transportation center.

Technological innovations such as containerization,
have left the San Francisco Port with a small number of up-to-
date piers. At the same time, the Port is developing non-maritime
facilities which are economically beneficial to San Francisco.

Newly developed Pier 96 (LASH facilities) provides
$2 million annual revenue, according to Deputy Director
Anthony J. Taormina. Pier 9^> with one berth and two cranes,
together with Pier 96 will be established as the San Francisco
Public Container facility. Pier 80 (at Army Street) is the
only grain terminal In the Bay region. Together, these up-to-
date facilities enhance the future of the Port.



The financial situation of the Port is a complex one.
A report (for years 1976 and 1977) entitled Examinations of
Financial Statements of the Port prepared by Touche Ross and
Company shows that current assets have increased compared to
liabilities. This is a favorable development and hopefully the
trend will continue.

Complicating the financial situation is the matter of
Bond debts. Since 1969 the Port assumed the responsibility of
retiring the debt on State of California Bonds. Currently,
the Bond debt payments are almost half of the Port budget.
These future payments hamper the Port staff's current programs
and future development.

The Port budget currently includes the fireboat
Phoenix. The 70 foot vessel has an assigned crew of 21*.
During fiscal year 1977-78, the San Francisco Fire Department
and the Port have Jointly maintained the fireboat. If the
Port's share of $1 million were borne by the Fire Department,
that sum of money could be devoted to future development of
Port facilities.

The Port management must maintain two sets of
personnel records dating from the agency's years as a state
agency. Investigation of ways to eliminate this double duty
should be made.

Finally, the problem of a permanent port director
must be solved. The Port Commission and management should
rectify this as soon as possible. Then the Port staff could
focus its attention on the development of maritime facilities
for the Port.


The San Francisco Public Library, including 27
branches, provides services to a cross section of San
Franciscans. Headed by City Librarian John Frantz, who has
three major subordinates (Chief of Branches, Chief of Tech-
nical Services, and the Chief of the Main Library), the
system had a 1977-73 budget of $3.^ million.

This committee found the Library relying heavily
on CETA employees, who form 20* of the staff. Additionally,
the Civic Center facility is strained; it is overaged,
overflowing and inadequate for the level of current operations


The City Librarian has initiated a master plan with
the draft to be completed in mid-1978. Hopefully, this master
plan will attack the problems of over-reliance on CETA employees
and the antiquated and overburdened facilities.

The staff is instituting an Automated Circulation
System (supplied by Computer Library Systems, Inc.) at the
Business Branch. The same system is to be installed in the
near future at the Main Library. Not only saving time and
being more efficient, the new check out system should cut
book losses due to theft.

The services of two watchmen at the Main Library
are inadequate. The City should examine the idea of outside
contracting for guard services.

Within existing financial limits, the Library should
expand its foreign language collection catering to the diverse
language group of this City.

During the past year the study Library Services in
San Francisco was conducted by the Friends of San Francisco
Public Library. The report's findings should play a role in
future staff planning for future library services in San


The War Memorial, located in the Civic Center,
consists of the Opera House and the Veteran's Building which
contains the Museum of Modern Art.

Upon inspection the plant was found well kept.
Despite construction and remodeling, performances and programs
were presented throughout the year. The major construction
project is a 38,000 square foot addition to the Opera House
facing Franklin Street. Costing $5 million, it will enlarge
the stage and provide additional office space. The Managing
Director, Donald Michalske, informed us that the project is
to be completed by mid-1979.

The major remodeling effort is the Herbst Theater
to be reopened in mid-1978. Here the staff has taken great
care to provide access for wheelchair patrons.

The Performing Arts Center, currently under con-
struction, is the focus of the Managing Director's staff.


WAR MEMORIAL (continued)

Hopefully, the Center's garage will serve as a catalyst for
discussion by all departments regarding an overall parking
plan in the Civic Center district.

The snack bar, currently a Greyhound concession, is
a profit-making enterprise. This venture might serve as an
example for other City and County managed enterprises to be
contracted to the private sector.

In sum, the War Memorial staff is to be praised for
successfully managing both current operations and the
construction of the Performing Arts Center.

James K. Br ode rick
Willie J. Crosby

Steven H. Rosen, Chairman



Mayor Koscone waded through this fiscal year in politi-
cal waters that tested his effectiveness as Chief Executive of
the City. In addition to his continuing efforts in lowering the
crime rate, curbing unemployment, promoting economic development,
etc., Mayor Moscone was given two major challenges. On January
9, 1978, eleven new supervisors elected by district were sworn
into service. This changed the political complexion of the City
because the supervisors come from districts of differing and com-
peting interest. The threat of the Jarvis-Gann Initiative and
the subsequent passage of Proposition 13 was yet another challenge
for the Mayor.

The Mayor and his budget executives have become aware
that their skill and knowledge in finance management and account-
ability is a major concern of the people in the City. In order
to manage the distribution of revenue in a more meaningful and
rational way than that of the past, a system has been developed
and implemented by Mayor Moscone. The system is FIRM (Financial
Information and Resource Management ), a multi beneficial performance
budgeting system, enabling a better understanding of a particular
department's fiscal needs. FIRM is covered in detail in the re-
ports on the Controller and EDP.

By request of the Mayor's Office, San Francisco Plan-
ning and Urban Renewal (SPUR) was asked to study City department
fiscal statements and to offer any suggestions as a result of
their findings. SPUR found that accounting for all departments
was handled differently, resulting in confusion. The Controller's
audits of City functions by his office and by private CPA firms
were combined separately in his annual report , and there was no
one place where a person could find a total of revenues with a
listing of total expenditures. The Mayor's Office with the help
of SPUR, the accounting firm of Arthur Young & Co., and invest-
ment bankers White, Weld & Co., developed a proposed redesign of
the Annual Report. The new report will contain the City's income
statement, balance sheet matching assets against liabilities, and
a ten year tracking system of various revenue and expenditure
items. This annual financial report together with detail infor-
mation through FIRM should keep the Mayor and his fiscal team
aware of the economic condition of the City and eliminate the
embarassment of "not knowing".

During this fiscal year two major issues of concern by
Mayor Moscone are underway after being in suspension. The Yerba
Buena Project, its completion a definite goal of the Moscone
administration, will finally begin construction. The Simmons


MAYOR (continued)

Project received final approval and will also get underway.

A policy position by the Mayor was made this year con-
cerning privacy of an individual. In the form of a veto, the
Mayor disallowed the authority to check for criminal records of
Job applicants in the State Attorney General's files, excepting
peace officer Jobs. He feels that "once a person has been con-
victed of a crime and has paid a debt to society, he should be
free to apply for a Job and to become a useful member of society
once again."

Through the Mayor's Office of Employment and Training
6,600 persons were placed in a regular unsubsidized Job, con-
tributing to a reduction in unemployment. The Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act (CETA) funded program received much
criticism as a result of monitoring a report by the Budget Analyst
of the Board of Supervisors, Harvey Rose. Oddly enough, his moni-
toring staff were CETA employees . It is stated as a fact, that
retention rates of those in the CETA Program who after training
remained on the Job, are close to 90%. A separate report on the
Mayor's Office of Employment and Training (MOET) follows this re-

In light of the probable passage of the Jarvis-Gann In-
itiative, Mayor Moscone on March 16, 1978, declared a hiring
freeze on filling vacant City positions. We believe he exercised
"good Judgment" at a crucial time. But we criticize his lack of
good Judgment during his European jaunt, with the purpose being
to promote San Francisco, at a time when wasteful government
spending was the issue.

There is no doubt in anybody k mind that the passing of
Proposition 13 put our City into a funding crisis. During the
budget revision, the Mayor and his finance team worked very well
with the Board of Supervisors in order to meet the deadline. The
crisis situation proved again that people can work together. It
is said that the Mayor shall coordinate and enforce cooperation
between all departments of the City and County of San Francisco.
We hope that Mayor Moscone will establish a meaningful and pro-
ductive relationship with the new Board of Supervisors.

Proposition 13 has benefited big business in San Fran-
cisco. Their savings in property tax, as reported, runs in the
millions. This has opened the door for the Mayor to persuade
businesses to establish and expand in the City.

With the expected $100,000,000 from the state and the
"miraculous" discovery of hidden City money, it seems as if the
massive budget cuts and personnel layoffs will not occur. It is
obvious that the state cannot be expected to help us again with
$100,000,000, nor is it probable that we'll find misplaced
millions again next fiscal year. Very serious consideration to


MAYOR (continued)

executive staff cuts must be made. Working under the rules of
Jarvis-Gann, Mayor Moscone's Job as Chief Executive of the City
assumes greater importance than ever.

In conclusion we commend Mayor Moscone in his show of
leadership during this crisis year, and we hope that he exercises
"good Judgment" on the overall needs of the City operating on a
constricted budget.


The Mayor's Office of Employment and Training adminis-
ters the CETA program under the direction of Ms. Eunice Elton.
Ms. Elton indicated that this Grand Jury was the first to visit
her office. Rather than explaining CETA, she provided us with
the following program description, after which we conducted our




The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA)
was passed by Congress in 1973 and became effective
in July, 197 1 *. CETA provides federal money to create
training and employment opportunities for unemployed,
underemployed and economically disadvantaged people.
The Act requires that these programs be planned and
managed on a local level by 'Prime Sponsors' desig-
nated by the U. S. Department of Labor. The City
and County of San Francisco is one of these prime
sponsors. In San Francisco, the CETA Program is ad-
ministered by the Mayor's Office of Employment and
Training (MOET).

CETA is aimed at helping different groups with differ-
ing employment problems. Titles I and III are the
'employability programs' with emphasis on training
people to prepare them to move into Jobs not sub-
sidized by CETA monies:



Title I - provides training programs and ser-
vice s — for — pe op le unemployed, underemployed, econo-
mically disadvantaged or who have limited English
speaking abilities. Some of the kinds of training
currently being offered in San Francisco include:
entry level clerical, advanced secretarial, Journey-
men chefs, home health aides, licensed vocational
nurses, draftsmen, psychiatric technicians, welding
and others. In addition, Title I also provides for
work experience and affirmative action programs.
Other programs serve the elderly, the handicapped,
and other special groups .

TITLE III - serves special groups such as youths,
Native-American Indians, etc. MOET presently conducts
these programs under Title III:

Skills Training Improvement Program (STIP) -
a new program which began in January and is
intended to provide long-term training in
highly-skilled professions leading to high-
paying Jobs. In San Francisco, STIP is pro-
viding training for jobs such as medical
clerks, paramedics and engineering technicians.

Youth Employment and Training Program (YETP) -
another new program as of January, 1978, pro-
viding a flexible range of training and employ-
ment services to in-school and out-of-school
youths ages 16-21.

Youth Community Conservation Improvement
Program (YCCIP) - also new as of the first of
the year - provides community improvement and
conservation work for youths ages 16-19, with
the provision that they must return to school
(half time work; half time school).

Summer Youth Employment Program - provides
summer Jobs (and some remedial education and
training) for economically disadvantaged youths,
ages 14-21.

Titles II and VI are the 'employment programs'; they pro-
vide for the creation of subsidized jobs (Public Service
Employment) where none previously existed:

Title II - provides funds for employment primarily
in government agencies, with preference given to persons
from the various training programs, the economically dis-
advantaged, and veterans. Provides a means of access to
jobs to persons who might otherwise not be eligible for
them, as well as interim transition between manpower



training programs and employment in private industry.

Title VI - much the same as Title II, except
that it is basically aimed at the long-term cycli-
cally employed and the program is intended to create
Jobs to stimulate the economy. Some of the Title VI
funding is for "projects" (lasting only 12 months).
Some public service Jobs are with government agencies;
others are with private non-profit agencies.

Examples of some kinds of Public Service Employment Jobs
in both titles: various clerical and secretarial posi-
tions, various positions in the health fields, account-
ants, attorneys, security guards, field conservation
aides, positions in the performing and graphic arts
and many others .

The total budget for this fiscal year was $5^,000,000.
CETA is funded through the federal government including two
grants , one from the State and another from the Department of
Labor. An allocation of $600,000 from Community Development was
also given in order to provide 250 Jobs in the private sector
with hopes for permanence. In addition, CETA received $122,910
from the Community Service Program for the recreational activi-
ties of 8-13 year olds. This money is used to provide for
special events, transportation for the children to such activi-
ties and to purchase supplies for recreation.

Since CETA began, and up to February 1978, more than
6,600 persons were placed in regular unsubsidized Jobs. Reten-
tion rates on these Jobs, six months after termination of CETA
funding, are close to 90 J. Presently, CETA operates through
five different locations:

1. Employment and Training
17^8 Market Street

2. CETA - Public Service Employment Center
45 Hyde Street

3. CETA - Public Service Employment Center
1182 Market Street

4. Training

1276 Market Street

5. Youth Service Center
762 Fulton Street



There is a possible new location at 1453 Mission Street under
consideration by the Board of Supervisors. This would house all
five offices in one building. The building would be leased with
the lease renewable every 3 or 4 years, and paid for with CETA
money .

Administrative staff for CETA numbers 35 persons. The
staff is CETA funded, acquired through EDD. It is under con-
tractual services, in essence, state employees working for the
City. Because of this situation, this department's administrative
accountant may make the same salary as a City accountant but is
not entitled to raises or fringe benefits.

The use of CETA employees in public service Jobs by
government agencies or private non-profit agencies is 35% of
the total number of CETA workers. Salaries for these employees
have a ceiling of $10,000 a year, and the balance is picked up by
the employer. The skill level of the Job determines the length
of subsidization, which can be a minimum of 6 months to the maxi-
mum of one year. After 12 months the employer cannot use CETA
funds .

On February 6, 1978, the Board of Supervisors* Budget
Director and Analyst, Harvey M. Rose, released his monitoring
report of the CETA Title VI Public Service Employment Projects,
operated by private non-profit organizations (subcontractors).
The report states that of 202 monitored subcontractors , the pro-
gram failed to reach those it was intended to reach, including
the hard-core unemployed and Vietnam veterans and also failed to

keep proper records. The report concluded "the management

control exercised by MOET and the private non-profit subcontrac-
tors has been insufficient, relative to the amount of funds ex-
pended and the number of persons served." (Board of Supervisors
Bureau of the Budget, Monitoring Report of the Comprehensive
Employment Act (CETA) Title VI). This was followed by a list of
recommendations .

In a letter dated March 28, 1978, Ms. Elton wrote a re-
sponse addressed to Supervisor Quentin L. Kopp, Chairman of the
Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors. In this response
were numerous references to errors in the Bureau of the Budget
Report, supported by new figures from an EDD study.

The report closes thus:

Concluding Statement

MOET staff has worked very hard in setting up and de-
veloping the Special Projects, and management within
MOET wants to recognize that to be the case. It has



been a difficult Job, and, since issuance of the BOB
report, a thankless one. It is, further, management's
position that we can learn from the BOB report, and
should do so.

We do not feel that the recommendations made by Mr.
Rose at this time need be followed implicitly; some
problems have been identified and are being resolved,
but none that requires punitive action against more
than a very small handful of subcontractors. Those
few that cannot be brought to reasonable performance
will be defunded.

We would like to get on with the Job, preferably in
conjunction with the work of the BOB monitors; we
cannot afford to spend time engaging in hostility
and name-calling. And surely the present adversary
relationship must be ended, for the benefit of both

If program changes are to be made, they must start at
the policy-setting level; the new Manpower Planning
Council will have its opportunity for in-put.

Ms. Elton said that Mr. Rose's initial response to her
letter stated that he continued to stand by his original find-
ings and that the information was correct.

On March 30, 1978, Mr. Rose, in a letter addressed to
the members of the Board, listed corrections to his CETA Moni-
toring Report. Mr. Rose stated, however, that the "report's
conclusions and recommendations are not affected by these correc-

Ms. Elton still maintains that the report, despite
corrections, is not entirely valid. Therefore, she stands by her
concluding statement, as noted above.

Originally, the CETA Monitoring was intended to deter-
mine whether MOET had mishandled CETA jobs for political patron-
age, a violation of the Hatch Act. With this intent, MOET gave
Mr. Rose 10 CETA personnel to conduct the monitoring.

MOET, benefitting from the BOB report, now has its own
monitoring staff. They use a 5 page checklist, which includes
entries such as: separate bank accounts for CETA funds and Jobs
filled by veterans. In addition to the staff, two accountants
are assigned to assist in the monitoring. Quarterly reports are
sent to the Department of Labor.



MOET, as of June, 1978, will be using computers in all
of its operations on a time-sharing basis. This should enhance
its goal for up-to-date records, keeping and retrieval of neces-
sary information for better administration.

It must be noted that MOET is under political pressure
not only from the Board but also from the federal level.

Legislation signed by President Carter, funding more
CETA Jobs for San Francisco, is part of his economic stimulus

MOET has been under heavy pressure from the Department
of Labor to hire more quickly. For example, between February 2nd
and February 28th, 1978, MOET had to meet a quota of U36 persons,
an increase of 10J, in order to meet the hiring schedule set
forth by the department. This deadline was not met until March
30, 1978.

The result of this push to hire people quickly, within
a given time period, is that other work falls by the wayside.

We feel that Ms. Elton is a dedicated, extremely com-
petent administrator who has been the victim of some unwarranted

Recommendation ;

If the desired new location of MOET at 1^53 Mission
Street is not approved by the Board of Supervisors , MOET should
persist in seeking approval.


The purpose of the Controller is to financially plan,
control and manage the City and County of San Francisco.

The Controller's Office is under the direction of Mr.
John C. Farrell, Controller, and his executive assistant Mr.
Frank Byrne. Operating on a budget this year of $19, 258, M6, this
office has a personnel compliment of 129 persons covering seven
divisions. A breakdown of divisions and their staff are:


CONTROLLER (continued)




Accounting * Records






General Office








Payroll 25 6

Legal 1 1

The above figures were obtained through the budget
division of the Controller on June 16, 1978. Part time employees
for the most part are CETA, and a number of the permanent staff
are working outside of the office in conjunction with FIRM
(Financial Information and Management System).

The General Office Division, under the management of
Mr. Tom Nerney, handles dispersements and receipts. Mr. Nerney
stated that two years ago this division had a very high turnover
rate but in this fiscal year the rate is low. An approximate
percentage of turnover is stated to be 20J.

Turnover is generally the result of low salary. In
this division, as in many others in the City, salary levels for
clerical personnel as compared to equivalent positions in private
industry are quite low. The decrease or increase in turnover is
also relative to the economy and job availability. A low Job

Online LibraryCalifornia. Grand Jury (San Francisco)Civil Grand Jury reports (Volume 1976-77) → online text (page 14 of 32)