Controller Speaks at February Meeting

Longtime San Francisco Controller Ed Harrington took questions for three-quarters of an hour at CSFN’s February meeting. As the city’s chief accountant and auditor, he spoke about the current budget and specifically about the accountability of city departments to us, the taxpayers. It came as no surprise that the delegates’ questions focused mainly on the management of the Recreation and Parks Department (RPD).

     Even though the audit had been conducted by Harvey Rose, Harrington described new performance criteria, worked out with the gardeners, RPD administrators and his office. The first step was to establish agreement on standards for “a well-kept park.” Amazingly, none had existed. (Go to www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark and look under “Park Standards.”) Once standards were agreed upon for each site, three levels of inspection were put into place: one by the supervising gardener, another by the park management and a third by a supervisor from another jurisdiction. Each looks at how many gardeners are working on a given day, at which park, during what hours, and how they are fulfilling the standards agreed upon for that park or playground.

     When queried by Joan Girardot (MCIPOA) about the wisdom of the recent investment made in improving Harding Golf Course, he said that “consultants told us that the money put into Harding was an investment that would pay for itself through additional greens fees,” but when the city decided to have set-asides (preferential fees) for local players, the profits were curtailed.

     Nancy Wuerfel (SPEAK) asked Harrington to look at the blight at India Basin, which had been a feature story in CSFN’s February newsletter. He said that Natural Areas are more difficult to appraise for proper upkeep by virtue of their very “naturalness,” but agreed that they should certainly not be dumping grounds.

     After expressing admiration for the record of the controller’s office, Richard Magary (BVNA) asked why the department is not doing a performance audit on RPD’s failure to collect their statutory percentage on receipts from park events. Harrington said that, in light of the recent financial audit by Harvey Rose, he intends to revue it, but not during this fiscal year (ending June 31).

     Of course, monitoring Rec and Park is only one small part of the controller’s job. Harrington and his expanded staff is attempting to set work standards for all departments. They have recently completed a performance audit on taxi services, contracts with non-profits, management of Treasure Island, foster care, and transit effectiveness.

     They are currently conducting a performance audit on street cleaning — inspecting streets just after the cleaners pass through to evaluate what is picked up and what is left.

     In the next few months they will be looking at Sunset Scavenger’s impound accounts (amount collected for recycling efforts) and the Office of Citizen Complaints. Harrington is also working with the Mayor’s Office on an economic (master) plan for the city.

     He spoke hopefully about Prop I, passed last year, which requires economic analysis of any new legislation originating from the Board. If it works, it will curb legislation that is fraught with hidden costs and unexpected economic consequences

     When Charlie Marsteller (VNN), asked why the Department of Elections was $1.5 over budget, Harrington said he believed it was because of the intermittent nature of elections and the retention of some temporary staff, hired during the last election, who stayed on. He is now looking into this.

     When asked about the city’s budget deficit, in spite of the reduction of employees, Harrington indicated a decrease in sales tax. “The number of jobs in the city are at their lowest level in 15 years; there are 6 million fewer users of the airport. If it weren’t for the real estate market, we’d be in much worse shape. One-third of all downtown property has been sold in the last three years. We’re being kept alive on property taxes and the real estate transfer tax.” And then there are restaurants. “No city brings in more on restaurant income (per capita) than San Francisco,” said Harrington.