監察長
市府是否應修改市憲章,在主計官辦公室設立新的監察長職位,以審查和調查有關欺詐、浪費和濫用的投訴,並賦予主計官辦公室在州法允許的情況下發出傳票和執行搜查令的額外權力?
本提案需要有50%+1的贊成票才能獲得通過。
摘要由選票簡釋委員會撰寫
現況:
主計官由市長任命,並由市議會確認,負責監督市府的財政事務。市憲章要求主計官受理並調查有關政府服務的品質和提供、市府的浪費或低效行為、濫用市府資金以及市府官員和僱員不當活動的投訴。市憲章也要求主計官監督市府為居民提供服務的水準和效能。
包括市府律師、地方檢察官和道德委員會在內的其他市府部門有權調查欺詐、濫用和其他與公共誠信有關的事項。人力資源部有權調查僱員的不當行為。
主計官可以檢查市府董事會、委員會、官員和各部門的記錄,但是不能簽發傳票要求第三方(如市承包商、持證人或說客)提供記錄。州法律授權主計官辦公室的僱員在某些情況下執行搜查令,但市憲章中沒有類似規定。
市憲章也設立了一個稱為縣警局監察長辦公室的獨立部門,負責調查涉及縣警辦公室僱員的投訴。該部門與主計官辦公室並不相連。
建議:
提案C會修改市憲章,在主計官辦公室設立新的監察長職位,以審查和調查有關欺詐、浪費和濫用的投訴。監察長將由主計官任命,但需經市長和市議會批准。主計官將負責監督監察長,並可將其解僱。
監察長將諮詢道德委員會、市府律師、地方檢察官和人力資源部,有關這些部門對於欺詐、浪費或濫用的調查。監察長可將具體事項轉交給這些部門,也可以與相關部門協調調查這些事項,或是獨立進行調查。監察長每年至少要發佈兩次公共報告,匯報其活動以及其他市府機構對於公共誠信問題的所有調查結果。
提案C將賦予主計官向第三方(包括承包商、持證人和說客)發出傳票的權力,也將允許監察長、主計官和主計官辦公室的員工在州法律允許的情況下執行搜查令。
根據提案C,縣警局監察長辦公室將更名為「縣警監察長辦公室」。
投「贊成」票的意思是:如果您投「贊成」票,即表示您同意在主計官辦公室設立新的監察長職位,以審查和調查有關欺詐、浪費和濫用的投訴,並賦予主計官辦公室在州法允許的情況下發出傳票和執行搜查令的權力。
投「反對」票的意思是:如果您投「反對」票,即表示您不同意做這些更改。
市主計官對提案「C」的意見書
市主計官Greg Wagner就提案C對本市財政的影響發表以下聲明:
我認為,如果建議的市憲章修正案獲得選民批准,將對政府成本產生中等程度的影響——每年由72.5萬至77.5萬美元不等,外加額外的調查性法律支援費用,每年視乎需要而有所不同。
建議的市憲章修正案將在主計官辦公室內設立監察長一職,並擴大主計官的調查權。監察長的職能將由市憲章規定的市府服務審計處的現行的預留資金提供經費,相當於市府總預算的0.2%。修正案將現有資金轉用於監察長的新職責,可能會減少市府服務審計處原本用來監督市府服務水準和效力的其他活動的資源。
修正案也在州法律允許的範圍內擴大了主計官傳喚證人、強制出示證據和執行搜查令的權力。它還擴大了主計官可受理的舉報人投訴的範圍,涵蓋那些與市府有業務往來的人員。
建議修正案每年將耗資約72.5萬至77.5萬美元,在主計官市府服務審計處內設立一個監察長和兩個工作人員的職位。此外,一次性的辦公室設置費用大約在12.5萬美元至17.5萬美元之間,這不包括搜查令和傳票的費用。舉例而言,執行傳票的費用為每張傳票1,000美元至20,000美元不等,取決於是否需要透過訴訟來執行傳票。準備搜查令的費用為每份搜查令9,000美元至20,000美元。如果建議修正案導致舉報人投訴的數量增加,政府成本也可能增加,但是目前無法確定增加的幅度。
注意,建議修正案將會改變預備本聲明的主計官辦公室的職責。
提案「C」如何被列入選票
2024年7月23日,市議會以11票對0票通過將提案C列入選票。市議會的投票如下:
贊成:Chan、Dorsey、Engardio、Mandelman、Melgar、Peskin、Preston、Ronen、Safai、Stefani、Walton。
反對:無。
以上陳述是本提案的中立分析。贊成和反對本提案的論據在本文後刊登。所登載論據為作者意見,其準確性未經任何官方機構校核。英文原文的拼寫及文法錯誤均未經改正。中文譯文與英文原文儘可能保持一致。
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition C
為建立有效和可問責的政府,投票贊成提案C
在過去幾十年來,聯邦調查局一直帶領揭露三藩市的腐敗現象,導致二十多個部門的高層領導人、民選官員、非營利組織領導人和企業說客被逮捕、起訴和定罪。然而,這可能只是冰山一角。
在過去幾十年來,聯邦調查局一直帶領揭露三藩市的腐敗現象,導致二十多個部門的高層領導人、民選官員、非營利組織領導人和企業說客被逮捕、起訴和定罪。然而,這可能只是冰山一角。這將設立我們自己的監察長,有權調查關於浪費、欺詐和濫用職權的投訴,並將罪犯繩之以法。
由於這將隸屬於主計官辦公室,因此無需新的稅收來提供資金。
監察長的權力
- 設在管理市府財務的主計官辦公室內
- 負責調查浪費、欺詐和濫用,以及與公共誠信有關的其他任何事項
- 有權發出傳票查閱所有市政記錄以及傳喚第三方,包括承包商、持證人和說客
- 與現有執法機構進行協調,包括地方檢察官、市府律師和道德委員會
由監察長調查的事項:
- 市府官員、市府資助的非營利組織和第三方濫用納稅人資金的行為
- 金權交易式的政治偏袒,即民選官員向競選大額捐款者提供非法好處
- 妨礙腐敗活動曝光的政治恐嚇和報復
- 從下而上各級政府違反公共誠信的行為
三藩市有機會加入其他設有監察長的美國主要城市之列。根據過去幾年的逮捕情況,我們需要設立這一職位。
請和我們一起投票贊成提案C。
市議會主席Aaron Peskin
市議員Connie Chan
市議員Catherine Stefani
市議員Joel Engardio
市議員Dean Preston
市議員Matt Dorsey
市議員Myrna Melgar
市議員Rafael Mandelman
市議員Hillary Ronen
市議員Shamann Walton
市議員Ahsha Safai
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition C
市議會聲稱提案C將確保市府保持清廉。
不要被誤導。提案C讓不受約束的官僚機構發展壯大,卻對一個簡單的真理視而不見:上樑不正下樑歪。
「監察長」不會帶來問責,提案C授予的是無需對選民負責的權力。這是不民主,甚至危險。
三藩市市民希望政府高層官員承擔責任!市長London Breed、地方檢察官Brooke Jenkins和市府律師David Chiu——或是更好的情況,今年11月選出的新領導班子。
為什麼市議員不譴責市長、地方檢察官和市府律師的執法失敗?別忘了,去年我們本可以投票讓他們全部下台,但市議員卻取消了選舉!
提案C每年將花費至少75萬美元,加上法律和執行成本,將達到一百萬美元。這意味著關鍵的市府服務將會被減少。
投票反對提案C。
要求我們的領導人為我們的城市的誠信承擔個人責任。
Larry Marso, Esq.
Opponent's Argument Against Proposition C
提案C是偽裝成改革的奪權行為。根據本憲章修正案,在主計官辦公室設立一名非民選的監察長,負責「調查腐敗」。但我們必須清楚,這只會帶來更多的官僚主義。
三藩市不需要權力不受制約的非民選官員。我們需要的是對現有領導人問責:市長London Breed、地方檢察官Brooke Jenkins和市府律師David Chiu——或是民主選舉的下一任——而不是一個不對選民負責的傀儡。
可悲的是,在現任領導層的領導下,我們需要聯邦調查局的介入。所以,就投票淘汰他們!
為什麼要相信某個新官員來解決我們的問題? 三藩市的腐敗醜聞由來已久,另一個官僚也解決不了問題。我們需要的是新的民選官員、透明度和問責制。
我們已經見過這些「改革」。他們承諾整頓市政廳,但是問題越來越加深。這只不過是重蹈覆轍 - 分散了對公務員進行問責的注意力。
投票反對提案C。
Larry Marso
Marso先生是技術高管、併購顧問和律師。他是一位堅定的財政責任倡導者,撰寫了規範三藩市無家者導航/收容中心的選票提案,打擊政黨和非營利組織中的腐敗和欺詐行為,並作為本地共和黨委員會的成員和前執行官,提出了有原則的反對意見。
停止對三藩市選民的大欺詐!瀏覽 visit: https://bigfraud.com
Larry S. Marso
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition C
請投票贊成提案C,讓三藩市有機會加入紐約和芝加哥等已成功設立監察長的美國主要城市之列。鑒於過去幾十年的腐敗現象,我們需要這樣一個職位。
以下是反對者忽視的一些監察長效益:
政治獨立:將監察長設在主計官辦公室內,可以防止那些政治上有權勢,而且可能受到調查的人對監察長進行政治干預。
財政負責:投票贊成提案C,監察長的費用主要來自為主計官預留的基金,這意味著無需為這項工作增加任何預算資金。
授權打擊欺詐、浪費和腐敗:主計官辦公室目前負責審計和接聽舉報熱線。監察長將有權發出傳票查閱與市府有業務往來的承包商、非營利組織和第三方的記錄。
如果您厭倦了一再聽到濫用納稅人資金、金權交易式的政治偏袒、政治恐嚇和報復,以及違反公共誠信的新醜聞,現在就是採取行動的機會。
請投票贊成提案C,為三藩市提供其他許多主要城市擁有的工具,建立更有效、更可問責的政府。
請和我們一起投票贊成提案C。
市議會主席Aaron Peskin
市議員Connie Chan
市議員Catherine Stefani
市議員Joel Engardio
市議員Dean Preston
市議員Matt Dorsey
市議員Myrna Melgar
市議員Rafael Mandelman
市議員Hillary Ronen
市議員Shamann Walton
市議員Ahsha Safai
Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition C
1
贊成提案C的付費論據
提案C:杜絕腐敗
自1999年以來,三藩市已有二十多名僱員、官員和承包商因在市府業務中貪污或受賄而被捕並受到刑事檢控 - 其中包括負責工務局和公用事業的兩名部門主管!
多虧了聯邦檢察官,我們市政廳長期以來的腐敗文化才得以曝光。
為什麼會這樣?
因為三藩市是美國少數幾個沒有自己的監察長的大城市之一。監察長專門負責調查有問題的市府活動,根除市政腐敗。讓我們從現在開始確保這件事真正得到落實!
贊成提案C ,讓我們徹底整頓市政廳!
Build Affordable Faster California
John Elberling
Peter Stevens
這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:租客和屋主開發機構。
2
贊成提案C的付費論據
贊成提案C,一個值得信賴的三藩市政府
我擔任市府主計官長達十七年。在此期間,我們設立了城市服務審計部門,並開通了市府舉報熱線。但是這些監控措施還不足以杜絕聯邦調查局和美國聯邦檢察官最近發現的欺詐行為。提案C將為主計官設置一名監察長,有權調查並根除市政府以及與市府有業務往來者的腐敗行為。將監察長設在獨立的主計官辦公室內,可保持其免受政治干預。它也會從主計官的預留資金中提供這項工作的資金,這意味著無需為這項工作增加任何預算資金。我懇請您的支持。
投票贊成提案C
Ed Harrington,前市主計官
這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:真正的改革,贊成提案C,反對提案D,贊成提案E,小企業、鄰居和Aaron Peskin聯盟。
委員會提供資金的真正來源的三大貢獻者是:1. Douglas Engmann,2. Robert Anderson,3. Christin Evans。
3
贊成提案C的付費論據
贊成提案C去打擊腐敗
設立監察長對於根除腐敗和恢復公眾對市政廳的信任至關重要。迄今為止,聯邦調查局已經發現並逮捕了數十名民選官員、部門主管、承包商和非營利組織。贊成提案C設立一名監察長,有權調查浪費、欺詐和濫用職權的行為,並杜絕根深蒂固的徇私舞弊和恐嚇。
三藩市市民有機會邁出決定性的一步,整頓我們的政府,建立一個透明、問責、真正為三藩市市民服務的政府。投票贊成提案C!
州眾議員Phil Ting
前市長Art Agnos
前州參議員Mark Leno
前州眾議員Tom Ammiano
Bruce Wolfe陽光工作組成員*
道德委員會前主席Paul Melbostad
*作者僅以個人身份簽名,不代表任何組織。
這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:真正的改革,贊成提案C,反對提案D,贊成提案E,小企業、鄰居和Aaron Peskin聯盟。
委員會提供資金的真正來源的三大貢獻者是:1. Douglas Engmann,2. Robert Anderson,3. Christin Evans。
4
贊成提案C的付費論據
投票贊成提案C,這是確保政府公平公正的明智選擇
監察長設在主計官辦公室內,他將與地區檢察官、市府律師和道德委員會等現有執法機構合作,調查欺詐、浪費和濫用職權行為。作為獨立的監督機構,監察長將以最高的公共誠信標準要求我們的政府,並確保沒有人可以淩駕於法律之上。投票贊成提案C!
法官Ellen Chaitin(退休)
法官Julie Tang(退休)
這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:真正的改革,贊成提案C,反對提案D,贊成提案E,小企業、鄰居和Aaron Peskin聯盟。
委員會提供資金的真正來源的三大貢獻者是:1. Douglas Engmann,2. Robert Anderson,3. Christin Evans。
5
贊成提案C的付費論據
民主黨領袖贊成提案C
在這個政治時刻,作為一個自豪的民主城市,我們看到不道德行為和腐敗可以侵蝕我們的民主基礎。現在比以往更有必要堅持我們對各級政府問責的價值觀。
投票贊成提案C,設立一個有權調查濫用、浪費和欺詐行為的監察長,將有助於保護我們的城市免受腐敗之害,並為全國樹立起以我們三藩市為榜樣的價值觀,投票贊成提案C!
前市長Art Agnos
前州眾議員Tom Ammiano
灣區捷運董事Bevan Dufty
前市議員Norman Yee
前市議員John Avalos
前市議員Sophie Maxwell
前市議員Sandra Fewer
三藩市租客聯盟
可負擔房屋聯盟
這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:真正的改革,贊成提案C,反對提案D,贊成提案E,小企業、鄰居和Aaron Peskin聯盟。
委員會提供資金的真正來源的三大貢獻者是:1. Douglas Engmann,2. Robert Anderson,3. Christin Evans。
6
贊成提案C的付費論據
設立監察長將確保市政廳以誠信和透明的方式為我們的社區服務。市府資金管理不善和徇私舞弊直接影響到我們的組織。
投票贊成提案C ,確立明確的流程調查腐敗及恢復公眾對政府的信任。投票贊成提案C!
Haight Ashbury鄰里委員會
三藩市鄰里聯盟
電報山居民協會
這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:真正的改革,贊成提案C,反對提案D,贊成提案E,小企業、鄰居和Aaron Peskin聯盟。
委員會提供資金的真正來源的三大貢獻者是:1. Douglas Engmann,2. Robert Anderson,3. Christin Evans。
Paid Arguments Against Proposition C
1
反對提案C的付費論據
這項提案賦予監察長的所有權力在三藩市政府內部早已存在。主計官辦公室包括一名市府服務審計員,負責績效、財務和合規性審計。市議會可以發出傳票,地區檢察官可以提出刑事訴訟,市府律師可以提出民事訴訟,道德委員會、民事大陪審團以及其他100多個委員會也擁有監督權。
這些都未能有效減少腐敗,因為它們要不是有其他優先事項,或是更糟糕,它們不是獨立的。提案C複製了這個致命缺陷,規定監察長的任命必須經由市長和市議會批准,而這些官員的工作表現本應是審計目標清單上的首要調查對象。這種利益衝突將會而且肯定會破壞選民對監察長的信任,因為監察長很可能成為市政廳中暫居上風的某一派系的政治攻擊工具。選民應該得到更好 — 一名專業、有權力、獨立的監督官員對選民負責,而不是像此處描述的對政客負責:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics-op-eds/article/how-to-fix-sf-government-17430726.php。
投票反對提案C。
Jay Donde - The Briones Society主席*
*作者僅以個人身份簽名,不代表任何組織。
這項論據的刊登費用的資金真正來源是:Jay Donde、Bill Jackson、Nicholas Berg。
Legal Text
Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters at an election to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to establish the position of Inspector General in the Controller’s Office; to provide that the Inspector General be nominated by the Controller subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor; to authorize the Inspector General to initiate and lead investigations regarding potential violations of laws or policies involving fraud, waste, or abuse; to expand the authority of the Controller’s Office to issue subpoenas; and to authorize the Controller’s Office to execute search warrants to the extent permitted by State law.
Section 1. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on November 5, 2024, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County by revising Sections 3.105, 4.137, 10.104, F1.106, F1.107, F1.110, and F1.113, and deleting Section F1.114, to read as follows:
NOTE: Unchanged Charter text and uncodified text are in plain font.
Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman font.
Deletions are strike-through italics Times New Roman font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Charter subsections.
SEC. 3.105. CONTROLLER; CITY SERVICES AUDITOR; INSPECTOR GENERAL.
(a) The Mayor shall appoint or reappoint a Controller for a ten-year term, subject to confirmation by the Board of Supervisors. The Controller may only be removed by the Mayor for cause, with the concurrence of the Board of Supervisors by a two-thirds vote.
(b) The Controller shall be responsible for the timely accounting, disbursement, or other disposition of monies of the City and County in accordance with sound financial practices applicable to municipalities and counties. The Controller shall have the power and duties of a County auditor, except as otherwise provided in this Charter. The Controller shall have authority to audit the accounts and operations of all boards, commissions, officers, and departments to evaluate their effectiveness and efficiency. The Controller may require periodic or special reports of departmental operations, contracts, revenues, and expenditures, and shall have access to, and authority to, examine all documents, records, books, and other property of any board, commission, officer, or department. Further, the Controller may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and compel the production of books, papers, testimony, and other evidence with respect to matters affecting the conduct of any department or office of the City and County. The preceding sentence authorizes the Controller to compel testimony or production from any person or entity including but not limited to City and County officers and employees; persons or entities that have or are seeking a contract, grant, lease, loan, or other agreement with the City and County, and their employees or officers; applicants for or recipients of permits, licenses, land use entitlements, tax incentives, benefits, or services from the City and County, and their employees or officers; and registered City lobbyists. The Controller and employees of the Controller, including the Inspector General, may seek and execute search warrants to the extent permitted by State law.
(c) The Controller shall also serve as City Services Auditor for the City and County. As City Services Auditor, the Controller shall be responsible for monitoring the level and effectiveness of services rendered by the City to its residents, as set forth in Appendix F to this Charter.
(d) Should the Controller determine at any time during the fiscal year that the revenues of the General Fund, or any special, sequestered, or other fund are insufficient or appear to be insufficient to support the remaining anticipated expenditure from that fund for the fiscal year for any department, function, or program, the Controller shall reduce or reserve all or a portion of the expenditure appropriation until such time as the Controller determines that the anticipated revenues for the remainder of that fiscal year are sufficient to support the level of expenditure anticipated for the remainder of the fiscal year. Whenever the Controller makes a reduction or reservation, the Controller shall so inform the Mayor and Board of Supervisors within 24 hours.
(e) The Controller shall exercise general supervision over the accounts of all officers, commissions, boards, and employees of the City and County charged in any manner with the receipt, collection, or disbursement of City and County funds or other funds, in their capacity as City and County officials or employees. The Controller shall establish accounting records, procedures, and internal controls with respect to all financial transactions of the City and County. Such records, procedures, and controls shall permit the financial statements of the City and County to be prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to municipalities and counties.
(f) The Controller shall within 150 days of the end of each fiscal year prepare an annual report of the financial condition of the City and County. Such annual report shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The annual report shall contain such information and disclosures as shall be necessary to present to the public a full and understandable report of all City and County financial activity.
(g) The Controller shall prepare an impartial financial analysis of each City and County ballot measure which shall include the amount of any increase or decrease in the cost of government of the City and County and its effect upon the cost of government. Such analysis shall be issued in sufficient time to permit inclusion in the voters’ information pamphlet.
(h) The Controller shall issue from time to time such periodic or special financial reports as may be requested by the Mayor or Board of Supervisors.
(i) All disbursements of funds in the custody of the Treasurer must be authorized by the Controller. No officer or employee shall bind the City and County to expend money unless there is a written contract or other instrument and unless the Controller shall certify that sufficient unencumbered balances are available in the proper fund to meet the payments under such contract or other obligation as these become due, or that the Controllerhe or she expects sufficient unencumbered balances to be available in the proper fund during the course of the budgetary cycle to meet the payments as they become due.
(j) The Controller’s Office shall include an Inspector General whose responsibilities shall include reviewing complaints, leading and coordinating investigations, and collaborating with the City Services Auditor on audits, inspections, and monitoring, all with the purpose of preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse.
(1) The Controller shall appoint the Inspector General, subject to approval by the Mayor and confirmation by the Board of Supervisors. The Controller may terminate the Inspector General in the Controller’s discretion. The Inspector General shall be exempt from civil service selection, appointment, and removal procedures.
(2) The Inspector General shall initiate and lead investigations regarding potential violations of laws or policies involving fraud, waste, or abuse. The Inspector General shall coordinate with employees in the Controller’s Office investigating whistleblower and citizen complaints under Section F1.107, and the Controller may assign the Inspector General to supervise those employees and/or employees supporting investigation work in the City Services Audit Unit under Section F1.101.
(3) The Inspector General shall consult regularly, individually or jointly as circumstances warrant, with the Ethics Commission, City Attorney, District Attorney, and/or Department of Human Resources to coordinate the departments’ investigative strategies in matters involving fraud, waste, or abuse to the extent feasible. The Inspector General shall refer investigations that the Inspector General has initiated or complaints that the Inspector General has received to the Ethics Commission, City Attorney, or District Attorney as provided in Section F1.107. After receiving such a referral, the Ethics Commission, City Attorney, and District Attorney shall report quarterly to the Inspector General on the progress of the investigation, and shall report to the Inspector General at the conclusion of the investigation, to the extent providing such reports would not compromise the investigation. These reports shall be considered confidential information to the extent permitted by state law.
(4) The Inspector General may hold public hearings regarding fraud, waste, or abuse.
(5) The Inspector General shall submit a public report at least twice each calendar year to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors regarding the Inspector General’s activities and the outcomes of other City agencies’ public integrity investigations to the extent those activities and outcomes are not confidential under federal, State, or local law. In these reports or at any other time, the Inspector General may make recommendations to the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and City and County agencies regarding City ordinances, rules, regulations, or policies that impact public integrity in City government.
(6) In carrying out the objectives set forth in this Section 3.105, the Inspector General shall receive prompt and full cooperation and assistance from all departments, officers, and employees of the City and County.
SEC. 4.137. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OVERSIGHT.
* * * *
(b) SDOB Powers and Duties. The SDOB shall:
(1) Appoint, and may remove, the Sheriff’s Inspector General in the Sheriff’s Department Office of Sheriff’s Inspector General (“OSIG”), established in subsection (d).
(2) Evaluate the work of the OSIG, and may review the Sheriff’s Inspector General’s individual work performance.
(3) Compile, evaluate, and recommend law enforcement custodial and patrol best practices.
(4) Conduct community outreach and receive community input regarding SFSD operations and jail conditions, by holding public meetings and soliciting input from persons incarcerated in the City and County.
(5) Prepare and submit a quarterly report to the Sheriff and Board of Supervisors regarding the SDOB evaluations and outreach, and OSIG reports submitted to SDOB.
(6) By March 1 of each year, prepare and present to the Board of Supervisors or a committee designated by the President of the Board, an annual report that includes a summary of SDOB evaluations and outreach, and OSIG reports submitted to SDOB, for the prior calendar year.
(c) In performing its duties, the SDOB may hold hearings, issue subpoenas to witnesses to appear and for the production of evidence, administer oaths, and take testimony.
(d) Establishment of Office of Sheriff’s Inspector General. There is hereby established the Sheriff’s Department Office of Sheriff’s Inspector General (“OSIG”), which shall be a department under the SDOB, and separate from the Sheriff’s Department. The OSIG shall be headed by the Sheriff’s Inspector General, appointed by the SDOB as set forth in subsection (b)(1). The Sheriff’s Inspector General shall be exempt from civil service selection, appointment, and removal procedures.
(e) OSIG Powers and Duties. The OSIG shall:
(1) Receive, review, and investigate complaints against SFSD employees and SFSD contractors; provided, however, that the OSIG shall refer complaints alleging criminal misconduct to the District Attorney, and refer complaints alleging violations of ethics laws to the Ethics Commission.
(2) Investigate the death of any individual in the custody of the SFSD. The OSIG shall refer evidence of criminal misconduct regarding any death in custody to the District Attorney. Notwithstanding such a referral, the OSIG may continue to investigate a death in custody unless OSIG’s investigation will interfere with a criminal investigation conducted by the District Attorney, or any law enforcement agency to which the District Attorney may refer the evidence of criminal misconduct.
(3) Recommend disciplinary action to the Sheriff where, following an investigation pursuant to subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2), the OSIG determines that an employee’s actions or omissions violated law or SFSD policy; provide notice of and a copy of the recommendation, the reasons for the recommendation, and supporting records, to the extent permitted by State or federal law, to the employee; and make available to the public any records and information regarding OSIG’s disciplinary recommendations to the extent permitted by State or federal law.
(4) Develop and recommend to the Sheriff an SFSD use of force policy and a comprehensive internal review process for all use of force and critical incidents.
(5) Prepare and submit a quarterly report to the Sheriff and the SDOB regarding OSIG investigations that includes the number and type of complaints under subsection (e)(1) filed; trend analysis; the outcome of the complaints; any determination that the acts or omissions of an employee or contractor, in connection with the subject matter of a complaint under subsection (e)(1), or a death in custody under subsection (e)(2), violated law or SFSD policy; the OSIG’s recommendations, if any, for discipline; the outcome of any discipline recommendations; and the OSIG’s policy recommendations under subsection (e)(4).
(6) Monitor SFSD operations, including the provision of services to incarcerated individuals, through audits and investigations, to ensure compliance with applicable laws and policies.
(f) In performing its duties, the OSIG may hold hearings, issue subpoenas to witnesses to appear and for the production of evidence, administer oaths, and take testimony. The OSIG also may request and the Sheriff shall require the testimony or attendance of any employee of the SFSD.
(g) Cooperation and Assistance from City Departments. In carrying out their duties, the SDOB and OSIG shall receive prompt and full cooperation and assistance from all City departments, officers, and employees, including the Sheriff and SFSD and its employees, which shall, unless prohibited by State or federal law, promptly produce all records and information requested by the SDOB or OSIG, including but not limited to (1) personnel and disciplinary records of SFSD employees, (2) SFSD criminal investigative files, (3) health information pertaining to incarcerated individuals,; and (4) all records and databases to which the SFSD has access, regardless of whether those records pertain to a particular complaint or incident. The Sheriff also shall, unless prohibited by State or federal law, allow the OSIG unrestricted and unescorted access to all facilities, including the jails. The SDOB and OSIG shall maintain the confidentiality of any records and information it receives or accesses to the extent required by local, State, or federal law governing such records or information.
In carrying out their duties, the SDOB and OSIG shall cooperate and collaborate with organizations that contract with SFSD to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals.
(h) Budget and Staffing. Subject to the fiscal, budgetary, and civil service provisions of the Charter, the OSIG staff shall include no fewer than one investigator for every 100 sworn SFSD employees. No SDOB or OSIG staff, including the Sheriff’s Inspector General, shall have been employed previously by a law enforcement agency or a labor organization representing law enforcement employees.
(i) Nothing in this Section 4.137 shall prohibit, limit, or otherwise restrict the Sheriff or the Sheriff’s designee from investigating the conduct of an employee or contractor of the SFSD, or taking disciplinary or corrective action permitted by City or State law.
(j) Nothing in this Section 4.137, including but not limited to subsections (f) and (g), is intended to or shall be interpreted to abrogate, interfere with, or obstruct the independent and constitutionally and statutorily designated duties of the Sheriff, including the Sheriff’s duty to investigate citizens’ complaints against SFSD personnel and the duty to operate and manage the jails, the California Attorney General’s constitutional and statutory responsibility to oversee the Sheriff, or other applicable State law. In carrying out their duties, the SDOB and OSIG shall cooperate and coordinate with the Sheriff so that the Sheriff, the SDOB, and the OSIG may properly discharge their respective responsibilities.
SEC. 10.104. EXCLUSIONS FROM CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENT.
All employees of the City and County shall be appointed through competitive examination unless exempted by this Charter. The following positions shall be exempt from competitive civil service selection, appointment, and removal procedures, and the person serving in the position shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority:
* * * *
14. The law librarian, assistant law librarians, bookbinder of the Law Library, purchaser, curators, Assistant Sheriff, Deputy Port Director, Chief of the Bureau of Maritime Affairs, Director of Administration and Finance of the Port, Port Sales Manager, Port Traffic Manager, Chief Wharfinger, Port Commercial Property Manager, Actuary of the San Francisco Employee's’ Retirement System, Director of the Zoo, Chief Veterinarian of the Zoo, Director of the Arboretum and Botanical Garden, Director of Employee Relations, Health Service Administrator, Executive Assistant to the Human Services Director, Inspector General in the Controller’s Office, and any other positions designated as exempt under the 1932 Charter, as amended;
* * * *
F1.106. OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTING PROCEDURES.
The Controller shall have the duty to perform regular oversight of the City’s contracting procedures, including developing model criteria and terms for City Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and auditing compliance with City contracting rules and procedures., and, wWhere appropriate, the Inspector General shall investigateing cases of alleged abuse or conflict of interest. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter the existing jurisdiction of City departments and agencies with respect to contracting. Should the Controller Inspector General find that there has been an abuse or conflict of interest, he or she the Inspector General shall refer that finding to the Ethics Commission, the District Attorney, and the City Attorney for possible enforcement action. Nothing in this Section F1.106 shall be construed to alter the existing jurisdiction of City departments and agencies with respect to contracting.
F1.107. CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS; WHISTLEBLOWERS.
(a) The Controller shall have the authority to receive individual complaints concerning the quality and delivery of government services;, wasteful and inefficient City government practices;, misuse of City government funds;, and improper activities by City government officers and employees, by persons or entities that have or are seeking a contract, grant, lease, loan, or other agreement with the City and County, and their employees or officers; by applicants for or recipients of permits, licenses, land use entitlements, tax incentives, benefits, or services from the City and County, and their employees or officers; or by registered City lobbyists. When appropriate, the Controller shall investigate and otherwise attempt to resolve such individual complaints except for those which:
(1) another City agency is required by federal, state, or local law to adjudicate,
(2) may be resolved through a grievance mechanism established by collective bargaining agreement or contract, or
(3) involve allegations of conduct which may constitute a violation of criminal law, or
(4) are subject to an existing, ongoing investigation by the District Attorney, the City Attorney, or the Ethics Commission, where either official or the Commission states in writing that investigation by the Controller would substantially impede or delay his, her, or its their own investigation of the matter.
If the Controller receives a complaint described in items (1), (2), or (3), or (4) of this subsection (a)paragraph, the Controller shall advise the complainant of the appropriate procedure for the resolution of such complaint.
(b) If the Controller receives a complaint alleging conduct that may constitute a violation of criminal law or a governmental ethics law, the Inspector General shall review the complaint and decide whether to initiate an investigation. Thereafter, the Inspector General he or she shall promptly refer the complaints regarding criminal conduct to the District Attorney or other appropriate law enforcement agency and shall refer complaints regarding violations of governmental ethics laws to the Ethics Commission and the City Attorney. After referring a complaint to the District Attorney, Ethics Commission, or City Attorney, the Inspector General may investigate the matter in coordination with the department receiving the complaint. The Inspector General may decline to refer a complaint to the District Attorney, Ethics Commission, or City Attorney if the complaint relates to the conduct of that agency. In that circumstance, the Inspector General may refer the complaint to another City, State, or federal agency with jurisdiction over the matter. Nothing in this Section F1.107 shall preclude the Controller from investigating whether any alleged criminal conduct also violates any civil or administrative law, statute, ordinance, or regulation.
(c) Notwithstanding any provision of this Charter, including, but not limited to Section C3.699-11, or any ordinance or regulation of the City and County of San Francisco, the Controller shall administer a whistleblower and citizen complaint hotline telephone number and website and publicize the hotline and website through press releases, public advertising, and communications to City employees. The Controller shall receive and track calls and emails related to complaints about the quality and delivery of government services, wasteful and inefficient City government practices, misuse of government funds and improper activities by City government officials, employees and contractors and shall route these complaints to the appropriate agency subject to subsection (a) of this Section F1.107. The Board of Supervisors shall enact and maintain an ordinance protecting the confidentiality of whistleblowers, and protecting City officers and employees from retaliation for filing a complaint with, or providing information to, the Controller, Ethics Commission, District Attorney, City Attorney or a City department or commission about improper government activity by City officers and employees. The City may incorporate all whistleblower functions set forth in this Charter or by ordinances into a unified City call center, switchboard, or information number at a later time, provided the supervision of the whistleblower function remains with the Controller and its responsibilities and function continue unabridged.
F1.110. ACCESS TO RECORDS; PRELIMINARY REPORTS.
(a) The Controller shall have timely access to all records and documents the Controller deems necessary to complete the inquiries and reviews required by this Appendix F. If a City officer, employee, agency, department, or commission, or agency does not comply with the Controller's request for such records and documents, the Controller may issue a subpoena consistent with the Controller’s authority under Section 3.105(b). The provisions of this subdivision Section F1.110 shall not apply to those records and documents of City agencies for which a claim of privilege has been properly and appropriately raised, or which are prepared or maintained by the City Attorney, the District Attorney, or the Ethics Commission for use in any investigation authorized by federal, state, law or local law.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, or any ordinance or regulation of the City and County of San Francisco, and except to the extent required by state or federal law, all drafts, notes, preliminary reports of Controller's benchmark studies, audits, investigations, and other reports shall be confidential.
F1.113. CONTROLLER'S AUDIT FUND.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, the Mayor and Board of Supervisors shall be required to budget an amount equal to at least two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the City's overall budget, apportioned by fund and excluding bond related debt, to implement this Appendix F and to support the staffing and operations of the Inspector Generalprovision. This amount shall be referred to as the Controller's Audit Fund, and shall be used exclusively to implement the duties and requirements of this Appendix F and to support the staffing and operations of the Inspector General, and shall not be used to displace funding for the non-audit related functions of the Controller's Office existing prior to the date this provision is enacted November 4, 2003. If the funds are not expended or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year, the balance in the fund shall revert to the General Fund or the enterprise funds where it originated.
F1.114. OPERATIVE DATE; SEVERABILITY.
(a) This charter amendment shall be operative on July 1, 2004. This amendment shall not affect the term or tenure of the incumbent Controller.
(b) If any section, subsection, provision or part of this charter amendment or its application to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of the amendment, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.