City auditor presents whistleblower program Q2 draft numbers; liaison seeks department breakdowns

Dave Jensen, manager of the City Services Auditor’s whistleblower program, presented an overview of the program and draft second‑quarter statistics to the Citizens General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee.

Jensen said the program has seen a decline in intake volume compared with recent years and provided draft figures for Q2: “In Q2, we had 143 reports received. Of those, 104 were filed anonymously,” he said. He told the committee that 125 reports were closed in Q2 and that 88% of those were closed within 90 days, exceeding the program’s 75% target for closure time. Of the 125 closed, 74 were investigated; Jensen said 79% of investigations were resolved within 90 days.

He described the program’s staffing (a certified fraud examiner, auditors, investigators, a paralegal and policy analysts), the intake and triage process, and jurisdictional limits. Jensen said some report types fall outside CSA jurisdiction and are referred to other offices; he also noted the program issues quarterly and annual public reports and maintains an online “heat map” that breaks out department activity when department employee counts justify separate lines in the report.

Committee members pressed on trends and department‑level detail. Liaison remarks highlighted a written public comment requesting a breakdown showing the proportion of complaints involving the controller’s office and a department‑by‑department complaint count to help identify potential “hot spots.” Jensen responded that departmental breakdowns and a heat map are published in their quarterly and annual reports and referenced the Q1 heat map on page 12.

Public comment came from Francisco DeCosta, who said he had monitored city departments for decades and urged improvements to the whistleblower program. DeCosta criticized the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s contracting and cost controls, citing large cost increases on a sewer system project and asked who within the controller’s office or city attorney’s office reviews complex engineering and contract issues. The committee noted the comment for the minutes.

The committee did not take formal action on the presentation; members thanked Jensen and said they would follow up in liaison meetings and in upcoming reports.