Bored of Supervisors - 8/5/08

Bicyclists - 1; Local Businesses - 0

In a close vote that split the usual voting blocks of Supervisors Peskin-Daly-Mirkarimi on one side and Alioto-Pier-Chu-Elsbernd on the other, the Board failed to pass a resolution directing the Office of Economic Analysis and the Office of Small Business to conduct studies on the economic impact of the "Sunday Streets" program before the program can be implemented. Supervisors Ammiano, Chu, Daly, Dufty, Maxwell and Mirkarimi voted against the measure.

During the Government Audit and Oversight Committee hearing on this measure, one public commenter pointed out the irony of this Board calling for an economic analysis of the "Sunday Streets" program even though the SF Department of Public Health has never even been audited.

He obviously had nothing to fear. This Board avoids math like a popular seventh-grade girl. You can count on it. 

McGoldrick's Posthumous Charter Amendment

I wrote on Monday about Supervisor McGoldrick's plan to leave the City with a gift that keeps on giving even after he is out of office. That proposal passed with only Supervisors Chu and Elsbernd voting "no". Look for the third attempt in this decade to expand Supervisorial office staff on the November 2009 ballot.

From Chunky to Smooth - It's Still OT

Y'all, there is a reason I watch the committee hearings on important pieces of legislation, and it ain't to boost my social life. Surprise. I do it so I can report the truth to my Constant Readers. Which is often not reported by lesser-nerds in the media. And so here goes: the recently passed ordinance to "limit overtime" will not cut back on overtime very much, if at all.

The purpose of the ordinance, proposed by Supervisor McGolrick and Mistermayor, is (as McGoldrick likes to repeat) to "smooth and spread" the distribution of overtime, not limit it in the aggregate. In other words, it may prevent some dude in the fire department from working 5, 24-hour shifts in a row, but it will not prevent that employee's supervisor from assigning that OT amongst the other firemen. Cost = about the same.

Here's what is in the ordinance (or read it for yourself: Download ot_ordinance.pdf):

• An increase in the amount of OT an appointing officer can assign an individual to work from 16% of total annual hours to 30% per year. For a full-time employee, that works out to an increase from 333 to 624 hours.
• After hitting that 30% mark, or 80 hours in a workweek, the appointing officer has to argue that there is a "critical staffing shortage" and get permission from the Director of Human Resources or the Director of the MTA to have that employee work any more overtime.
• In the event of a disaster or if necessary to protect public safety, the appointing officer can go ahead and exceed those limits without approval.
• The law now applies to police and firefighters, which were previously exempt.  
• Each month the Budget and Finance Committee will get a report on the 5 biggest OT hogs and may hold a hearing on the issue. Incidentally, beyond this public humiliation, there is no enforcement mechanism.

Let's face it: the only way to cut down on overtime is to hire more people and institute tighter controls so that employees don't game the system. Both of which are also being done according to the testimony of SF Director of Human Resources Micki Callahan in the Budget and Finance Committee. Just not with this ordinance.

I can remember staying up for days at a time during law school finals and after about 50 hours, the little purple monkeys that fly around making weird noises and stealing my Wild Berry Skittles seemed altogether real. Such exhaustion-induced delusions may explain the disposition of some Muni operators, 46% percent of whom exceed the current "limit" on overtime, according to Ms. Callahan. So I'm not saying that the Board was wrong to pass the law, just that it is really meant to deal with performance issues resulting from one person working too much OT, not the overall amount of OT. 

Bottom line: it looks like instead of a "crackdown on costs," we got "smoothing and spreading." Unanimously.

QUOTES OF THE MEETING:

"Supervisor Mirkarimi, I'm worried about who's patrolling the streets of San Francisco right now."

-Supervisor Peskin during Supervisor Mirkarimi's personal recognition of every officer, Cap'n and Major Major who have contributed to foot patrols. It was part of the National Night Out festivities. Which was sweet, but took about 10 hours. Wonder if they were on overtime...

"We're twins but people don't know that."

-Supervisor McGoldrick on a computer glitch that confused his vote with Supervisor Alioto-Pier. No comment from Supervisor Alioto-Pier. Awkward!

--Melissa

Comments

[generic]

"... avoids math like a popular seventh-grade girl"

Um.

http://xkcd.com/385/

[Sweet Melissa]

@Generic - Great comic link! And I couldn't agree more. The common misperception that girls are bad at math is why many avoid it. Especially ones who want to be popular. Hence my statement.

[vansmack]

I didn't know you at all in 7th grade, but I'm just guessing you can't solve for x.

[Byron]

Why don't you post something about the Daly rules committee on blacks leaving the city and the proposed solution to exempt them from taxes. that's what I want to read about.

[Sweet Melissa]

@vansmack - You are correct that I suck at math, but it's not for lack of trying, so I was also profoundly unpopular in 7th grade. Worst of both worlds, I'm afraid.

@Byron - You're not the boss of me.

[John]

Rich. Go over the OT limit = "public" shaming. Put a banana peel in the black trash bin as opposed to green, $10-100 fine. I love this town.

[chester]

The problem goes a lot deeper than removing seniority dibs on OT opportunities or spreading it out or even just simply hiring more workers. There needs to be an element of all three, but the answer's not a simple one.

Not giving right of first refusal based on seniority and spreading things out reduces garish paychecks to specific individuals, but doesn't reduce overall expenditure, as you argue. Furthermore, sometimes those OT hogs are actually the best people to perform the OT jobs. And they probably spread the wealth to the general economy, given all the Red Bull and coffee they undoubtedly live on.

Hiring more people is necessary to not just spread OT around but obviate the need to pay OT, but then what happens when changes in conditions mean that these personnel counts are no longer efficient or their skills no longer relevant? Getting hired by the City is an awful lot like getting tenure and can end up biting the city in the ass later on.

While I don't think I'd be in favor of seeing the City manage its personnel with the financial callousness of a private-sector entity, I think there has got to be some tinkering done to make it easier to fire and lay off City workers.

But, obviously, good luck doing anything like that...