F!L.

ED
From: PUEBLO (People United for a Better O~kland)
.
OFFICE Of ,.T\r.~,~ f~rli1 y CLER ~
To: Chairperson Wan and members of the Fmance CommIttee
2003 JUN - 5 At~ 9: 07
Date: June 10, 2003
Re: Risk Management Incentive Program
Background:
In 2002, PUEBLO participated in the PSG "Moving Oakland Forward" 2B Working
Group on Risk Management. We attended every meeting, and, in addition to contributing
to the 2B report, submitted our own Risk Management Proposal independently to City
Manager Robert Bobb, City Attorney John Russo, and all members of the City Council
for their consideration prior to or at the Council retreat in October, 2002. Our report was
based on independent research in 'best practices' in public entity risk management and
was reviewed by former City Council person Dick Spees, who has been consistently the
loudest voice for years in advocating a more aggressive approach to controlling the City's
losses. PUEBLO has demonstrated its commitment to developing a strong risk
management policy for the City of Oakland since 1997, when it presented the City with
the Risk Management Incentive Program (RMIP), based on a similar model used by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Council adopted this proposal unanimously and
enthusiastically in January of 1998.
In light of PUEBLO's demonstrable commitment to strengthening risk management in
the City of Oakland, assertions in the Staff report about PUEBLO's motivations and
'intentions' with respect to the RNIIP, such as,
"Its intended purpose was to monitor police activities by tracking general liability losses paid on
behalfofthe Police Department, " (p 1) and, "Their goal was to monitor the actions ofOakland Police
Department during arrests and other areas ofdirect contact with the public that could be related to
improper police procedures, " (p 1) are not only inappropriate and erroneous, but also

presumptuous. It is especially ironic that Staff purports to know PUEBLO's intention in

presenting RMIP to Council because our participation in the PSG 2B group revealed the
astonishing fact that almost every Associate that the City had designated to
participate in this working committee on risk management had never heard about
the Risk Management Incentive Program and didn't know it existed!!! In fact, our
purpose in proposing RMIP was and is the same as that attributed to the City Council as
an 'unspoken' goal (P2): " ... that through this program, departments would be punished
or rewardedfor their loss performance, thereby encouraging them to reduce their overall
losses. " Although PUEBLO originally intended for RMIP to be implemented in OPD,
because, as the City's statistics in the Attachments reveal, OPD's payouts were
significantly greater than those of any other department in the years leading up to 1997,
the Council was so enthusiastic about this concept that they decided to extend the RMIP
to the other three departments, as well.

FINANCE &MANAGEMENT CMTE.

JUN 1 0 2003

As for the specific assertions contained in the report:

I. "This report transmits information regarding the effectiveness ofthe General Liability
Risk Management Incentive Program (RMIP) during its initial five years of
implementation. " (p 1)
Unfortunately, it does not. The assessment of effectiveness rests on the
assumption that the program has been operational! In fact, it has not, and
certainly not for five years. It took at least a year to be 'up and running' and the
lack of awareness by designated associates from PWA, aPR, OFD and OPD
demonstrates that the program has never been fully implemented. In fact, there is
no evidence that any transfers of funds by Departments back to the General Fund
have ever occurred!!! The City, therefore, can be compared to the patient who
dutifully fills his doctor's prescription but doesn't take the medicine, and then
concludes that it didn't help!
2. Fiscal Impacts: " ... it should be noted that the City Council's rejection ofstaff's
recommendation to discontinue the Risk Management Incentive Program will result in
significant financial penalties assessed against three ofthe four participating departments. "
(pI).
This warning to Council of impending doom should RMIP be maintained is both
factually erroneous and deliberately deceptive. In fact, RMIP explicitly stated
that reimbursement from a Department to the General Fund could not come at
the expense of direct services to the public and, moreover, that if a Department
was unable to remit the assessed amount to the General Fund, it could explain to
Council why it was unable to do so, ask to be exempted from the requirement for
that fiscal year, and present a plan which would describe steps to mitigate
departmental liability in the future. All of this is plainly documented.
Clearly, this scare tactic is a thinly disguised effort to avoid the white elephant in
the middle of the room: the Riders' class action settlement. Can anyone seriously
doubt that this huge and ongoing expenditure is one of the driving motivations in
the effort to terminate RMIP? Or are we to believe that it is merely coincidence
that only now does there exist a reason to end a program, which, as a result ofthe
Riders' expenses, would severely impact the police department's budget?
Clearly, it is not a question of the effectiveness ofRMIP at all--- it is a question
of minimizing the pain associated with these astronomical payouts!

3. (p2) "Since the inception ofthe Risk Management Incentive Program (RMIP), the City
has tracked the total payouts for the participating departments and assessed incentives and
disincentives when directed to do so by the Council. "
In fact, the RMIP program mandated annual reporting to the Council: it was not
left to Council to 'direct' such reporting. And, in fact, there has not been a report
since December, 200 I, in which Dolores Blanchard recommended that funds
owed to the City's General Fund not be reimbursed at all.

4. Analysis of Payouts: (p3) Staff invents a false choice when it comes to measuring
liability: frequency of incidents vs. severity of incidents, implying that we cannot or should
not measure both. The truth is that there is no reason to segregate incidents in this way, and
that there is every reason to measure a department's aggregate liability, due to both
frequency and severity of exposure. Again, Staff is being disingenuous, not to mention
offensive, in suggesting that it is somehow more relevant to assess frequent fender benders
but ignore occasional wrongful deaths or civil rights violations. And, as a correlative, Staff
wants to exempt altogether sworn officers (the likely source of civil rights and excessive
force violations) and imply a deductible penalty to PWA and OPR for only minimal
infractions. How is it managing risk to ignore the most egregious behaviors and costly
payouts and assess only the more minor and inconsequential incidents? Such a
recommendation is reminiscent of Dick Spees' rhetorical question (Dec. 2001), "Is this City
serious about risk management?"
The recommended "General Liability Deductible Plan" is based on studies (that are
not named) that allege that departments can better control the frequency of loss than
they can regulate the severity of loss. (p 7-8) PUEBLO's research uncovered no
such thesis, and, lacking analysis, is this assertion is indefensible. To suggest that
OPD cannot control officers' behaviors that lead to enormous payouts belies the very
purpose of the court appointed monitor and set of reforms mandated by the Riders'
Consent Decree. Further, it appears that, despite the training provided to Associates
in order to reduce the frequency of vehicular collisions, it is clear that this type of
incident continues to be problematic, as well.
The assertion that such a program would be "easy to explain and communicate to the
stakeholders ofthis program (the City Council and the public) as well as the
participants "(p 8) implies that the RMIP program does not meet these criteria. This
sounds like nothing more than a rationalization for Staffs failure to make high level
department administrators, not to mention lower level employees, aware that RMIP
existed, let alone aware of its provisions.
5. Another false choice: (p6) In recommending the discontinuation of RNIIP, Staff suggests
that if an alternate risk management incentive plan is desired it should be based on nonmonetary incentives. We ask, "Why 'either ...or?' Why not do both?" There is no reason at
all for concluding that "recognition" for meeting loss reduction targets cannot be added
components of the existing incentive system, rather than a replacement for financial
incentives. The assumption that one must choose between these strategies is illogical and,
once again, simply designed to bolster the argument to discard RMIP.
6. Staff concerns about the time delay in reaching settlements is not only irrelevant
because it is beyond our control, but it is also a bit ironic since the recent Riders' class
action suit took less than two years, not six, to settle. Staffs own statistical presentation
show that approximately 50% of complaints, overall settle in less than two years. More to
the point, substituting 'frequency' goals for 'severity' goals does not mitigate this
problem in any way, whatsoever!

Summary:
Staff s analysis fails to address the inherent incompatibility between the need to reduce
City-wide liability and the departments' interest in protecting their budget allocations. In
other words, while it is important for the taxpayers of Oakland that wasteful expenditures
due to litigation be minimized, City departments' priorities are directed toward protecting
their budgets. By being allowed avoid financial responsibility for incurring loss,
departments lack incentive to drive the departmental 'culture changes' that are necessary to
transform behaviors and policies in order to minimize the City's exposure to legal action.
The Staff s historical and ongoing unwillingness to enforce the provisions of RMIP are, in
effect, enabling the continuation of huge losses to the City.
PUEBLO maintains that it is the responsibility of the City Council to adopt policies that
serve the interest ofthe many, not the few. Specifically, the Council must advocate for the
residents of Oakland - their constituents, not for the City Associates who, in this instance,
represent a 'special interest' group whose interests are at odds with those of the community.
Most often characterized as 'no pain, no gain,' effective risk management mandates are
seldom embraced warmly by administrators who must ensure compliance by those they
oversee. While Departments try to minimize the pain which results from their incurred
liability, at the same time, the community looks for the 'gain' that comes from reduction in
losses. That is why 'best practice' requires that the Risk Manager have sufficient authority
to compel compliance. Otherwise, despite the merits of any risk management strategy, the
lack of enforcement will result in failure. Without the certainty of positive rewards for
success and negative consequences for failure to meet targets, no risk management strategy
can be expected to reduce loss significantly.
Recommendations:
1. PUEBLO agrees with Staff's recommendation (p7) to develop a comprehensive
Loss Control Program for the City of Oakland which embraces reductions both
general liability and Workman's Compensation. In fact, PUEBLO's own Risk
Management report offered similar suggestions.

2. The description of the desired "Cost Allocation Program" (p7): "a method of
assigning the costs incurred in handling risk to the operating departments where the
costs have occurred, " is also a description of the existing RMIP that Staff wishes to
terminate! Without evidence that the program has actually been implemented,
resulting in fund transfers from the four departments to the City's general fund,
PUEBLO, strongly rejects the recommendation to terminate RMIP because
effectiveness can only be judged on the basis of operational results. However,
PUEBLO would be willing to work with the City Manager's Office to determine if
improvements that might the enhance the effectiveness of RMIP can be identified,
such as adding non-monetary positive incentives for departments' success in
reducing loss.

FINANCE &MANAGEMENT CMTE.

JUN 1 0 2003

filED

OFFICE Of THE CIT Y CLERK

(j"'l:L,'~W

2003 JUN -5 AM 9: 57

PUEBLO (People United for a Better Oakland)

Risk Management: Interim Report

September 30, 2002

Authors:

Jackie Thomason (main author), Member

Rashidah Grinage, Member
Reviewers: Vildrid Dawson, Member
Gwen Hardy, Member

Dawn Phillips, Executive Director

Jo Su, Community Organizer

Authors may be reached as follows:

Jackie Thomason: jackiett@mindspring.com
510-332-5998
Rashidah Grinage: rashidah@earthlink.net
510-306-0253

FINANCE &MANAGEMENT CMTE.

JUN 1 0 2003
Page 1 of15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

October 16,2002

Executive Summary
PUEBLO's proposals are directed toward the following goals:
1) The controlling of losses through improved risk management; and
2) The creation of additional financial resources that can be used to fund programs
that improve services and improve the quality of life for residents of Oakland.
Specifically, PUEBLO's recommendations

Endorse the recommendations of the PSG-2B Working Group on Risk

Management;
Incorporate Risk Management goals in the Flexible Performance Agreements of
Department heads;
Strengthen the role of the Risk Manager and the Risk Management organization
to ensure the appropriate level of focus on and leadership of Risk Management
activities at all levels of the City of Oakland;
Facilitate the cultural changes necessary for the success of Risk Management
throughout the City;
Create a citywide incentive program;
Create incentives to Department and Division managers to support the behavioral
changes needed for the success of the Risk Management efforts;
Ensure that Departments and Divisions have the support needed to achieve
significant success in managing risk in the City of Oakland;
Continue and enforce the existing Risk Management Incentive Program.

Page 2 of15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

October 16,2002

Objectives
1. Control losses by improving the management of risk in all City Departments;
2. Make available additional resources to fund programs that promote safety for both
citizens and City employees and to enhance the quality of life for Oakland
residents through improved services.

Recommendations of PSG-2B Working Group on Risk Management

PUEBLO has participated in the PSG-2B Working Group on Risk Management and
endorses the recommendations of the working group. Those recommendations include
the
1. Creation of structured departmental and individual accountability for general
liability and workers' compensation claims;
2. Development of minimum program structure requirements for the Big 4
departments and agencies;
3. Creation of a Risk Management Council to address and communicate general
liability, workers' compensation and safety issues on a citywide basis;
4. Standardization of City-wide training, communication and procedures of risk
management and safety;
5. Development of co-operative relationships between employee management
divisions (Employee Relations, Equal Opportunity Programs, City Attorney's
office, and Personnel Divisions in the Big 4).

PUEBLO's Additional Recommendations

PUEBLO's recommendations are entirely complementary to those of the Working Group
and in some cases simply state explicitly items implicit in those proposals. We believe
our additional recommendations will serve to tie together those of the working group and
enhance their effectiveness.
While the recommendations ofthe PSG-2B Working Groups focused on structural
changes, mostly in the individual departments, PUEBLO emphasizes the need to
strengthen of the role of the Risk Manager and the Risk Management central organization.
We also developed specific recommendations to facilitate accountability for risk
management at all levels in all City departments.

Page 3 of15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

October 16, 2002

Accordingly, PUEBLO offers the following additions:

PUEBLO believes that additional emphasis must be given to the strengthening of

the centralized Risk Management functions, especially the responsibilities of the
Risk Manager.

Department Managers must be held accountable for safety, general liability, and
Workers' Compensation. Specific goals in these areas shall be reflected in their
performance objectives. Performance objectives should be reviewed and
assessed by the Risk Manager as part of the Flexible Performance Agreement
process.

The Risk Management Organization shall provide additional tools, advice, and
analysis to facilitate data gathering, data analysis, and development of programs
to mitigate the City's risk in the areas of safety, workers' compensation, and
general liability.

Every major incident will be investigated and reported on by the Safety Officer in
collaboration with the Risk Manager and the City Attorney's Office. Reports
will include preventative measures to be implemented. An example of the type
of incident that should be investigated is a vehicular collision.

The Risk Management Council shall be permanently chaired by the City

Manager.

Risk Manager

Often discussed by the Working Group was the recognition that significant behavioral
changes by Department and Division heads would be essential if the reduction ofloss
was to be achieved. The cultural change required for the success of the recommendations
requires strong leadership and consistent focus on Risk Management.

PUEBLO recommends that this objective be realized by strengthening the role of

the Risk Manager and the Risk Management organization. Therefore, we
recommend revising the Job Description of the Risk Manager in the following
ways: (Note: Both the current and PUEBLO's revisedjob descriptions are
attached.)
1. Establish measurable objectives for each department. This must be done in
partnership with the department management and staff and be based on Delta
between an established standard of performance (benchmarks) and current
Oakland performance. Objectives will address service, safety, and financial
performance.

Page 4 of15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

October 16, 2002

2. Establish action plans with quarterly deliverables based on the objectives.

Objectives will be established based on data on previous departmental
performance as well as standards for best practices. Action plans and
progress will be reviewed quarterly to ensure compliance with the plans.
3. Participate in the performance assessment of department and division
managers, reviewing levels of achievement of objectives relating to risk
management.
4. Review and report on departmental progress on incentives in the Risk
Management Incentive Program (RMIP).
5. Design, develop, and implement a citywide employee recognition program
that is competitive and provides substantial benefits and a high level of
recognition to the employees who are recognized at the city level.
6. Provide expertise to the departments and divisions in developing employee
incentive programs that recognize and reward staff for achieving goals, using
proven practices
o Examples: "Scratcher" programs, team competitions, time off for best
team, individual bonus awards for outstanding achievement. Rewards
must be tangible and valued by staff.
o High-level acknowledgement of achievements such as Excellence in
Service awards for individuals and teams.
7. Provide leadership in the Risk Management Council.

Risk Management Organization

The attached Job Description is a revision of the original description for the Claims and
Risk Manager. The revisions highlight the need for the Risk Manager's qualifications to
include leadership and the ability to influence colleagues at all levels of the organization.
Clearly, the Risk Manager needs to have a high degree of institutional influence in order
to perform some of the duties described. Therefore,

PUEBLO recommends that the Risk Manager and the Risk Management
organization report directly to the City Manager and that the position be on a par
with that of the leaders of the four major organizations targeted: OFD,OPD,
OPR, and PWA.

Risk Management currently provides analysis and charting of risk-related information.

This data was very helpful during the data gathering efforts of the PSG-2B Working
Group. The Risk Management Organization also serves in advisory and consulting
capacities, bringing their own and outside expertise to bear on Department issues. The
PSG-2B Working Group's recommendation 5 addresses some of the issues of data
analysis. The following recommendations extend that recommendation.

Page 5 of15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

October 16, 2002

PUEBLO recommends that this function be enhanced to support more detailed

analyses. We further recommend that the members of the Risk Management
organization play an active role with the departments in developing data about
activities in the department, analyzing the data, supporting "early warning"
interventions within the departments, and tracking performance of such
interventions.

Departments must develop strategies for controlling loss through liability and
must be held accountable to meet targeted goals for loss reduction. Risk
Management will monitor the implementation of departmental activities and
assist departments to evaluate their success in reducing liability and/or identify
the obstacles, which prevented departments from so doing. Risk Management
needs the authority to ensure that Departments are performing the required
functions.

Risk Management Incentive Program (RMIP)

PUEBLO strongly recommends that the current Risk Management Incentive

Program be continued and enforced as a core strategy to encourage loss
prevention in OPD, OFD, PWA and OPR. The Risk Manager should review all
departments and divisions to determine whether the RMIP should be extended to
additional City departments.

Page 6 of15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

October 16, 2002

Resources
PUEBLO used the following resources as a foundation for our recommendations:
1. Internal and external research provided by the members of the PSG-2B Working
Group on Risk Management
2. Risk Management Services, "Management Audit Report Prepared for the Office
of the Oakland City Attorney" (undated)
3. Deloite and Touche, "Review of the City of Oakland's General Liability
Program" (January 2000) and the report by the Oakland City Attorney in response
to this report.
4. Public Entity Risk Institute (http://www.riskinstitute.org), "Benchmarking, Best
Practices, and Performance Measurements for Public Entity Risk Management
Guidelines" (November 1999)
5. Archbold, Carol A, "Innovations in Police Accountability: An Exploratory
Study of Risk Management and Police Legal Advising' (May 2002).
6. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Civil No. 0011769 GAF. (http://www.usdoj.gov.crt/split/documents/loconssentpart2.htm)
Consent Decree in United States of America v. California Board of Police
Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Police
Department O~ovember 2000)
7. Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). Best Practices Review, Vo.l, Issue
5 (http://www.parc.info). (September 2002)
8. Policy Link and the Advancement Project, Community Centered Policing: A
Force for Change 2001 (http://www.policylink.org).
9. "Fifteenth Semiannual Report of Special Counsel and Staff on the Los Angeles
Sheriffs Department (LASD) (http"//www.parc.org) (July 2002)
1O. Public Entity Risk Institute, "Tracking Performance in Public Risk Management:
A Catalog" Developed by the Institute of Government, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill (no date).

Page 7 of15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

PROPOSED Job Description for Risk Manager

October 16, 2002

PROPOSED Job Description

RISK MANAGER
DEFINITION
In the Office of the City Manager, provides leadership throughout the City of Oakland in
all areas of Risk Management. Supports Departments in the design and implementation
of measurable risk management goals and employee incentive programs. Develops and
implements a citywide employee incentive program. Develops tools to gather and analyze
data on safety, workers' compensation, and general liability. Represents the City of
Oakland in Risk Management public policy organizations.

Ensures that the City of Oakland is using "best practices" in Risk Management and
supports the use of standardized data management. Provides leadership in the Risk
Management Council. Plans, organizes, manages and directs the risk management, loss
control and insurance administration programs; trains and supervises assigned staff; and
performs related duties as assigned.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
This is a department manager classification, responsible for a variety of risk management,
loss control and insurance administration for the City of Oakland. This position has
significant interaction with other departments in the Office of the City Manager, especially
the OPR, PWA, OFD, OPD and with personnel management departments and with
organizations that perform research on Risk Management for governmental organizations.

The incumbent receives direction from the City Manager and exercises direction over
professional, technical, clerical, and contract staff within the Risk Management
Department.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES
Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Works with department managers and staff to establish measurable objectives for each
department in the areas of service, safety, and financial performance.
Assesses performance of department and division managers against their risk
management objectives.
Works with department and division managers to establish action plans with quarterly
deliverables based on the objectives. Reviews action plans and progress quarterly to
ensure compliance with the plans.

Page 8 of15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

PROPOSED Job Description for Risk Manager

October 16,2002

Reviews and report on departmental progress on incentives in the Risk Management

Incentive Program (RMIP),
Provides expertise to the departments and divisions in developing employee incentive
programs that recognize and reward staff for achieving goals, using proven practices.

Plans, organizes, manages and directs the work of the Risk Management Division
including safety and loss, disability benefits, insurance administration, safety, worker's
compensation and vocational rehabilitation programs and activities.
Develops and implements management systems, procedures and standards for risk
management program administration and evaluation.
Directs the preparation of a variety of studies and reports relating to current and 10ngrange risk management program needs; develops specific proposals to meet them.
Negotiates, coordinates and administers a wide variety of contracts for insurance,
administration and consulting services.
Develops and directs the implementation of goals, objectives, policies, procedures and
work standards for the division.
Directs the selection, supervision and work evaluation for division staff; provides for staff
training and development.
Prepares or reviews reports for the City Manager, City Councilor commissions; works
closely with Council and other public and private groups to explain or coordinate plans for
proposed projects and to respond to their concerns.
Establishes and maintains positive working relationships with individuals, service
providers, public and private agencies and others to ensure that programs and activities are
responsive to City needs.
Coordinates the work of the division with other City departments, outside agencies and
concerned citizens.
Monitors developments related to risk management and loss control programs, evaluates
their impact on City operations and implement policy and procedure improvements.

QUALIFICATIONS

Page 9 of 15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

PROPOSED Job Description for Risk Manager

October 16,2002

Knowledge:
Extensive knowledge of the principles and best practices of risk management,
claims management and asset protection.
Extensive knowledge of management principles and practices, including
organizational development, leading change, goal setting, program and policy
development and implementation, and employee management.
Extensive knowledge of best practices in customer services, with emphasis on
incentive programs.
Extensive knowledge of principles and practices of data gathering and analysis.
Considerable knowledge of laws and regulations relating to risk management, asset
protection, safety and worker's compensation programs.
Considerable knowledge of policies and procedures regarding insurance processing
and control.
Working knowledge of principles and practices of public relations.
Working knowledge of the principles and practices of contract administration.
Working knowledge of the principles and practices of budget development and
administration.
Working knowledge of computer systems and applications.

Ability to:
Influence and lead at all organizational levels.
Lead organizational change.
Develop policy.
Select, motivate and evaluate staff and provide for their training and professional
development.
Analyze complex technical and administrative risk management problems, evaluate
alternative solutions and recommend or adopt effective courses of action.
Develop and implement goals, objectives, policies, procedures, work standards
and internal controls.

Page 100/15

PUEBLO Risk Management Proposal

PROPOSED Job Description for Risk Manager

October 16, 2002

Communicate effectively orally and in writing.

Exercise sound independent judgment within general policy guidelines.
Establish and maintain effective work relationships with those contacted in the
performance of required duties.

EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

Any combination of experience and education that would likely provide the required
knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities
would be:

Experience:
Three years of responsible supervisory or managerial experience in risk
management program management in a public agency or corporate setting.

Education:
Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in public or business
administration, industrial engineering or related field. M.B.A. is highly desirable.

LICENSE OR CERTIFICATE
Incumbent is this position is expected to operate automotive vehicles in the performance
of assigned duties. Due to assignments and hours worked, public transportation may
not be an efficient method for traveling to required locations. Individuals appointed
will be required to maintain a valid California Driver's License while employed.
Certification of completion as an Associate in Risk Management by the Insurance Institute
of America is highly desirable.
Civil Service Board #:
Date Approved/ Exempt:
Date Revised:

Page 11 of15

PUEBLO, Risk Management Proposal

Current Job Description for Risk Manager

October 16,2002

CURRENT JOB Description

Class Code: 0255

CITY OF OAKLAND

Rep. Unit: K
CSB Status: CU

CLASS SPECIFICATION

CLAIMS AND RISK MANAGER

DEFINITION
In the Office of Retirement, and Risk Administration, plans, organizes, manages and
directs the risk management, loss control and insurance administration programs; trains
and supervises assigned staff; and performs related duties as assigned.
DISTINGUISIDNG CHARACTERISTICS
This is a division manager classification, responsible for a variety of risk management,
loss control and insurance administration programs. It is distinguished from the Director
of Retirement and Risk Administration which is a department head, responsible for the
administration of assigned functions.
The incumbent receives direction from the Director of Retirement and Risk
Administration and exercises direction over the Safety and Loss Control Coordinator,
Disability Benefits Coordinator, professional, technical and assigned clerical and contract
staff.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES - Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Plans, organizes, manages and directs the work of the Risk Management Division
including safety and loss, disability benefits, insurance administration, safety, worker's
compensation and vocational rehabilitation programs and activities.
Develops and implements management systems, procedures and standards for risk
management program administration and evaluation.
Directs the preparation of a variety of studies and reports relating to current and longrange risk management program needs; develops specific proposals to meet them.

Page 12 of15

PUEBLO, Risk Management Proposal

Current Job Description for Risk Manager

October 16,2002

Negotiates, coordinates and administers a wide variety of contracts for insurance,

administration and consulting services.
Develops and directs the implementation of goals, objectives, policies, procedures and
work standards for the division.
Directs the selection, supervision and work evaluation for division staff; provides for staff
training and development.
Prepares or reviews reports for the City Manager, City Council or commissions; works
closely with Council and other public and private groups to explain or coordinate plans for
proposed projects and to respond to their concerns.
Establishes and maintains positive working relationships with individuals, service
providers, public and private agencies and others to ensure that programs and activities are
responsive to City needs.
Coordinates the work of the division with other City departments, outside agencies and
concerned citizens.
Monitors developments related to risk management and loss control programs, evaluates
their impact on City operations and implement policy and procedure improvements.

QUALIFICATIONS

Knowledge:
Considerable knowledge of the principles and practices of risk management,
claims management and asset protection; and self-insurance plan program
development and administration.
Considerable knowledge of laws and regulations relating to risk management, asset
protection, safety and worker's compensation programs.
Considerable knowledge of policies and procedures regarding insurance processing
and control.
Working knowledge of administrative principles and methods, including goal
setting, program and policy development and implementation, and employee
supervision.
Working knowledge of principles and practices of public relations.
Working knowledge of the principles and practices of contract administration.

Page 13 0115

PUEBLO, Risk Management Proposal

Current Job Description for Risk Manager

October 16, 2002

Working knowledge of the principles and practices of budget development and

administration.
Working knowledge of computer systems and applications.

Ability to:
Manage and direct a comprehensive risk management program.
Plan, organize, direct and coordinate a variety of risk management programs to
meet City needs.
Select, motivate and evaluate staff and provide for their training and professional
development.
Analyze complex technical and administrative risk management problems, evaluate
alternative solutions and recommend or adopt effective courses of action.
Develop and implement goals, objectives, policies, procedures, work standards
and internal controls.
Communicate effectively orally and in writing.
Prepare clear and concise reports, correspondence and other written materials.
Exercise sound independent judgement within general policy guidelines.
Establish and maintain effective work relationships with those contacted in the
performance of required duties.

EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

Any combination of experience and education that would likely provide the required
knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities
would be:

Experience:
Three years of responsible supervisory or managerial experience in risk
management program administration in a public agency setting.

Education:
Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in public or business
administration, industrial engineering or related field.

LICENSE OR CERTIFICATE
Incumbent is this position is expected to operate automotive vehicles in the performance
Page 14 of15

PUEBLO, Risk Management Proposal

Current Job Description for Risk Manager

October 16,2002

of assigned duties. Due to assignments and hours worked, public transportation may
not be an efficient method for traveling to required locations. Individuals appointed
will be required to maintain a valid California Driver's License while employed.
Certification of completion as an Associate in Risk Management by the Insurance Institute
of America is highly desirable.
Civil Service Board #:
Date Approved/ Exempt:
Date Revised:

FINANCE &MANAGEMENT CMTE.

Page 15 of15

JUN 1 0 20m

CITY OF OAKLAND
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

2003 MA Y29 PH I: 42
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:

Office of the City Manager

Robert C. Bobb
Office of the City Manager, Risk Management Division
June 10, 2003

REPORT REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT

INCENTIVE PROGRAM AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 1997 AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM REVISIONS TO MORE DIRECTLY
TRACK WITH DEPARTMENT LOSS ACTIVITY

SUMMARY
On December 2, 1997, City Council directed staff to implement a Risk Management Incentive
Program (RMIP) to monitor the general liability claim payout activity of the Oakland Police
Department, Oakland Fire Department, Public Works Agency and Office of Parks and
Recreation. The RMIP was adopted in response to a prototype program brought before Council
by a citizens' group named People United for a Better Oakland (PUEBLO). Its intended purpose
was to monitor police activities by tracking general liability losses paid on behalf of the Police
Department.
This report transmits information regarding the effectiveness of the General Liability Risk
Management Incentive Program (RMIP) during its initial five years of implementation. Based
on staffs assessment, program revisions are recommended that will result in more direct
correlation to loss activity within departments.

FISCAL IMPACTS
While this report is informational only, it should be noted that the City Council's rejection of
staffs recommendation to discontinue the Risk Management Incentive Program will result in
significant financial penalties assessed against three of the four participating departments. In
light of the current budgetary constraints, departments would likely have to eliminate additional
positions in order to comply with the imposed assessment.

BACKGROUND
On December 2, 1997, Council adopted the Risk Management Incentive Program that had been
proposed by a group of Oakland citizens known as People United for a Better Oakland
(PUEBLO). Their goal was to monitor the actions of Oakland Police Department during arrests
and other areas of direct contact with the public that could be related to improper police
procedures. The chair and members of the Finance and Management Committee subsequently
expanded the scope of incident tracking of liability claims of the Police Department to also
include the departments of Fire, Public Works and Parks & Recreation.

Finance & Management Committee

June 10, 2003
Agenda Item # _ _

June 10, 2003

Page 2

The Risk Management Incentive Program (RMIP) was developed by a staff working group
representing each participating Agency and the City Attorney's Office, the City Manager's Office
and the Budget and Finance Agency. The RMIP was developed based on three essential core
elements:
1.
The budgets of the participating agencies and departments should include a
specific line item amount for claims and litigation payouts;
2.
A positive incentive program should be devised that would provide pecuniary
rewards to the agencies/departments in years where the actual payouts were less than the
line item amount; and
3.
A negative incentive program should be devised that would provide pecuniary
losses to the agencies/departments in years where the actual payouts were greater than the
line item amount.
Based on these core elements, a formula was developed by the working group that would be used
to calculate cost incentives/disincentives against specific departments. The intent of the RMIP is
to create a budgeted line item amount for claims/litigation payouts incurred by the Oakland
Police Department, Oakland Fire Department, Public Works Agency and Office of Parks and
Recreation. The RMIP was implemented initially for the Oakland Police Department (FY
1997/98) and for the remaining agencies/departments the following fiscal year (FY 1998/99).
Under adopted guidelines of the RMIP, each AgencyiDepartment has the opportunity to receive
or lose a portion of its annual budget according to its performance in reducing liability payouts.
The guidelines are based on the average payouts for the last seven to nine years, gradually
building up to a ten-year running average in Fiscal Year 2002/03. If the Agency's actual payouts
exceed the calculated baseline, the Agency will be responsible for re-directing funds within its
budget to cover 25% of the overage. If the Agency's actual payouts are less than the baseline, the
Agency will be allowed to spend 25% of the savings on capital items and/or one-time
expenditures proposed by the Agency.
This report provides an assessment of the effectiveness of the RMIP since its inception.
KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
Since the inception ofthe Risk Management Incentive Program (RMIP), the City has tracked the
total payouts for the participating departments and assessed incentives and disincentives when
directed to do so by Council. The original intent of this program was to create a "carrot and
stick" approach to departmental accountability for their General Liability losses. Through the
system of incentives and disincentives, the unspoken goal of the City was that through this
program, departments would be punished or rewarded for their loss performance, thereby
encouraging them to reduce their overall losses.

1. RMIP Incentive/Disincentive Amounts

The FY 2001-02 loss performance for each participating department was analyzed by Risk
Management staff. Attachments A through D (Table 1) provide the detailed findings of the
RMIP Loss Performance Analysis as regards each respective Agency or Department. "
Finance & Management Committee
June 10, 2003
Agenda Item # _ _

June 10,2003

Page 3

In summary, the FY 2001/02 allocations for the participating departments are as follows:

Agency/Department

Oakland Police Department

Oakland Fire Department
Public Works Agency
Office of Parks and Recreation

Total
Adjusted
Losses
$3,362,339
$ 140,765
$1,660,537
$ 213,030

Amount
Over/(Under)
Baseline
$ 1,706,673
40,745
$
$ 831,129
($ 276,443)

Incentive/
(Disincentive)
Allocation (+1- 25%)
($ 426,668)
($ 10,186)
($ 207,782)
69,111
$

Under the guidelines of this program, those departments with a positive resulting incentive
receive monies to use toward "wish list" items. The departments with a negative incentive
are required to transfer funds back from within their operating budget to the general fund
reserve.
Note that beginning with fiscal year 2000/01, the Total Adjusted Losses for Public Works
Agency "backs out" the payouts related to Sewer Claims. These losses are funded via an
account separate from the Self Insured Fund, and therefore are not considered in the overall
incentive/disincentive totals. As such, the "running average baseline" for Public Works has
been recalculated for the entire program period. However, the effect of this change will not
be made retro-active to prior years. The 2000/01 Incentive/(Disincentive) Allocation is the
first year this change will be applied.

2. Payout Activity Analysis

Analysis of the Payout Activity shows that among the four departments, the most common
loss type by frequency of payouts was vehicle related incidents or tree damage (for OPR).
However, the most severe loss types were typically personnel/civil rights matters, wrongful
death cases and cases related to the maintenance and upkeep of the City's infrastructure as
denoted in loss types described as "Dangerous Conditions." (See Attachments A through D
(Table 2).) These loss characteristics are unchanged from last year's pay-out experience.
The high frequency of vehicular accidents and the high severity personnel matters (i.e. sexual
harassment and civil rights issues) continue to be addressed by specific training and behavior
modification programs. All authorized City drivers must participate in defensive driving
courses and post-accident remedial training in accordance with administrative instructions
587 and 588. Following an accident review process, where accident causation is determined,
departments are encouraged to consider disciplinary action against employees where
equipment abuse and/or misuse is identified.
To address the high severity personnel matters, the Offices of the City Attorney and of
Personnel have implemented the mandatory Workplace Harassment training on a City-wide
basis.

The City's two "sworn" departments, OPD and OFD, have unique opportunities to address
their risk management issues via their training academies. Our analysis indicates that based
on the size of the pay-out, Personnel/Labor matters pose the largest exposures for OFD. The
largest exposures posed to OPD involve public contact matters (Civil Rights, non-force , __
issues and wrongful death issues) and vehicle accidents. These matters can best be
C7
Finance & Management Committee
June 10,2003
Agenda Item # _ _

Page 4

June 10, 2003

addressed through effective officer training and supervision. The training curriculum in the
recruit academies and ongoing professional development of department staff should be
reviewed to ensure the most current and effective practices are being taught to our
employees. Further, department policy documents should be reviewed to ensure proper
account.ability is applied when excesses or violations have been identified.
It should also be noted that the most severe (largest) pay-outs typically involved incidents

that occurred three or more years prior to the fiscal year in which the pay-outs were made.
This supports the theory that as claims and lawsuits mature, the cost to resolve them
increases. Many of these claims are resolved by settlement based on decisions that do not
necessarily reflect wrong doing on the behalf of the department or individual employee.

3. RMIP Program Effectiveness

Staffs review of the past four years of this program, since it was fully implemented,
indicates that the RMIP has had no effect on reducing the frequency ofloss or the severity of
loss. Several factors have been identified that contribute to the program's failure. They
include:
a. Nature of Tort Liability - Statute ofLimitations
The Government Code in the State of California governs the statute of limitations for
third-party general liability claims and lawsuits filed against public entities. They
regulate the method by which the City defends itself against allegations of third party
damages. Built into this system are a series of timelines by which claimants must file for
their loss. At the outset, claimants must file for their loss within 6 months, in most cases,
or within 1 year for Civil Rights violations. The City must then respond within 45 days
by formally accepting or denying the case. If the City does not respond, the claim is
deemed denied by statute. In the instance when a formal claim denial is issued, the
claimant has 6 months from the date of denial to file a lawsuit against the City. If the
City does not respond, and the claim is deemed denied by statute, the claimant has up to 2
years to file a lawsuit. Once a lawsuit is filed, the case then becomes a matter for the
Courts by which the City is governed. Further, as indicated in the previous section, as
claims evolve to lawsuits and mature, their settlement costs tend to increase over time.
The following table demonstrates that the actual financial impact of losses may not be
determined until years after the initial loss, and several years after the department
involved can effect a change in the behavior that caused the loss.

NUMBER OF CLAIMS
PERCENT OF CLAIMS
AMOUNT PAID
PERCENT OF TOTAL
AMOUNT PAID
AVERAGE PAYOUT

FISCAL YEAR 2001-02

CITY-WIDE LOSS PAYOUTS BASED ON DATE OF LOSS
CLAIMSILAWSUITS WITH
CLAIMS /LAWSUITS
DATES OF LOSS AFTER
WITH DATES OF LOSS
7/1/1999
PRIOR TO 7/1/1999
248
36
87.3%
12.7%
$3,897,615
$4,581,825
46.0%
54.0%
$15,716

$127,273

TOTAL CLAIMS/ i
LAWSUITS
284
100.0%
$8,479,440
100.0%
$29,857

Finance & Management Committee

June 10,2003
Agenda Item #

June 10,2003

Page 5

Since the RMIP is based on the total amount paid during a fiscal year, it is actually
measuring losses over a broad span of years, making focused loss control difficult. As
such, measuring a department's performance based on total pay-outs is not an effective
incentive method.
Further, it would not be appropriate to measure a department's general liability
performance based on the number of claims filed during a fiscal year. Since the vast
majority oflosses claimed against the City are found to be invalid and/or denied outright,
measuring a department's performance based on claims filed would result in penalizing
departments for invalid loss allegations.

b. Uncertain Fiscal Impact ofClaim Severity

As designed, the RMIP's fiscal impact on departments was largely based on the severity
of loss, or how much the final payout was for the loss in question. As discussed above,
the severity of a case is not only a measure of the magnitude of loss, but also the age of a
case ~nd the venue by which it is being resolved. Departments can do little to affect a
case's severity directly, since so many of the variables involved are outside their control.
For instance, even if a department reduced the number of incurred losses (frequency), a
single large payout could negate all the good work accomplished by the department.
Departments have little control over the amount of money offered in settlement or
ultimately assessed against the City. However, departments can place emphasis on the
loss prevention as measured by the frequency of loss as demonstrated in a reduction of
accepted general liability claims.
c.

Demonstrated Positive Outcomes for RMIP

Analysis of the payout trends of the RMIP since 1998 indicate that there has been no
appreciable reduction in the payout amounts for the participating departments, despite the
heavy disincentives Council has directed to be assessed against them. In fact, in some
cases, the payout amounts have increased by over 100% while the frequency of loss has
remained constant. The RMIP's formulaic system of incentiveldisincentive creates a "no
win" scenario for departments, since a single "good" year can unfairly skew their
baseline average so that departments are ultimately punished by the lower baseline. This
then creates an incentive for departments to have mediocre years in an attempt to not
significantly lower their baseline average.

d. Budgetary Constraints
As stated in the Fiscal Impact section of this report, this program imposes severe
penalties against departments. By the RMIP rules set forth by Council, the penalties will
fiscally impact program areas within departments that did not influence or cause the loss.
The program rules require that any disincentive charged against a department is to be
assessed against the department's general fund budget. This results in financial penalty
against administrative costs and not costs associated with the programs creating the loss.
Given the current year's budget situation, any additional assessment against the
participating departments' general fund budgets will likely result in additional loss of
personnel. This then will likely result in an increase of loss frequency and severity due to
a department's inability to address matters administratively
Due to its apparent ineffectiveness in reducing the overall pay-out activity in the participating
Finance & Management Committee
June 10, 2003
Agenda Item # _ _

June 10, 2003

Page 6

departments, staff recommends that the RMIP be discontinued and that an alternate incentive
program structure and strategy be reviewed. In determining the new structure and strategy of the
RMIP, Council must consider the overall goals of the program and the desired outcomes. It must
be determined whether the intent of this program is to: 1) reward departments (meaning their
management team) for exceptional risk management efforts as demonstrated in a reduction of
losses measured by frequency of valid claims (incentive program); or 2) hold departments
accountable for losses by allocating a portion of the loss against the department's authorized
budget (cost allocation program).
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
The issues addressed in this report provide no environmental opportunities.
DISABILITY AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACCESS
The issues addressed in this report provide no benefits and impacts for the disability and senior
citizen communities.
RECOMMENDATION(S) AND RATIONALE
Staff recommends that the RMIP, in its current format, be discontinued as an ineffective means
of incentivizing the reduction of general liability losses. Staff further recommends that if an
alternate risk management incentive plan is desired, then it should either involve non-monetary
incentives or be designed to more closely reflect an insurance program's method of allocating
costs - as in a first-dollar deductible plan.
1. Non-Monetary Risk Management Incentive Program

Studies have long shown that the most motivational forms of rewards and recognition
(incentives) tend to be non-financial. The most effective "motivators" tend to involve
achievement, recognition for accomplishment, challenging work and increased responsibility.
In developing an effective incentive program, the measured outcome should be material and
tangible to the department and employees affected. Expecting departments to effect change
in the behavior that caused significant loss up to three or more years ago is not realistic. The
benefits of "good behavior" must be rewarded immediately to encourage continued "good
behavior".
However, it must be recognized that to effectively reduce losses, employees must be taught
how to recognize and mitigate hazards and exposures. They must be trained at all levels of
employment that they have a shared responsibility to reduce hazards and the losses
associated with them. They must develop a commitment to the improved performance in
order to continue long-term success. Without this skill set and commitment, incentive
programs simply become bribes to ignore or under-report losses.
Based on the above, staff recommends a two-pronged approach to the revised "Risk
Management Incentive Program". The first prong would involve an integrated Loss Control
program comprised of departmental program assessment, employee skill development,
management commitment and benchmarking tangible outcomes. The second prong would
Finance & Management Committee
June 10, 2003
Agenda Item # _ _

June 10, 2003

Page 7

involve an incentive program designed to reward departments based on those benchmarked

outcomes.
Staff recommends the City develop a pilot Integrated Loss Control Program. The Loss
Control Program would be designed to train City personnel, from the Director level on down,
in methods of auditing risk exposures in their program areas, identifYing methods of control
or elimination of those exposures. The ultimate goal of the program would be to focus
resources on strategies that will strengthen City Risk Management programs, enlist
management and stafflevel ownership of these strategies and deliver sustainable loss
reduction. This would be accomplished through a comprehensive audit of existing loss
control/safety programs on a City-wide level as well as at the department level. Based on the
audit results, a series of risk management trainings will be developed specific to the City's
nee-ds and systems willbe created to effect and sustain the loss reduction of the targeted
exposures.
Staff recommends that the pilot program focus initially on non-sworn operations (Public
Works and Office of Parks and Recreation). If successful, it should be expanded to Police
and Fire operations. Properly designed, the program would not only impact General Liability
losses, but also have a significant impact on Workers' Compensation losses, thus the
integrated approach concept.
Staff recommends that the incentive program that supports this Integrated Loss Control
Program reward departments by way of public pronouncements of successful efforts,
spotlighting exceptional performance and encouraging continued positive behavior with
intrinsic rewards at all levels of the department.

2. General Liability Deductible Plan

Many public entities have adopted "Cost Allocation Programs" to distribute the cost of
general liability losses among departments. One of their primary goals is to encourage loss
prevention. These "Cost Allocation Programs" vary from simple to overly complex
allocation systems, however they are all generally defined as a method of assigning the costs
incurred in handling risk to the operating departments where the costs have occurred.
Some of the benefits of "cost allocation programs" include: motivating departments to more
actively participate in risk control programs, making the departments accountable for the
financial impact of the losses that occur in their areas; and evaluating the effectiveness of risk
control programs and determining how to best allocate risk management resources to reduce
overall loss and improve safety.
Staff recommends that the City create a simplified "cost allocation program" by which all
departments are responsible for retaining the first dollars of a loss up to a determined amount
(i.e. $5,000, $15,000 or other). This system, referred to as a "General Liability Deductible
Plan" is currently utilized by a number of public entities, including the City of Sacramento,
University of California-Davis and Maricopa County, Arizona.
The proposed "General Liability Deductible Plan" would create an incentive system based on
the frequency ofloss (which can be controlled by the department) as opposed to the severity
ofloss (which is not as easily controlled by the department). It would also create a system
Finance & Management Committee
June 10,2003
Agenda Item # ._ _

June 10, 2003

Page 8

that is easy to explain and communicate to the stakeholders of this program (the City Council
and the public) as well as the participants. Finally, it would also create a direct reflection
within the departments' budgets as to the effectiveness of their risk management efforts,
based on their "aggregate" retention amount.
If monetary incentives are required, staff recommends that the incentive program be
fashioned after the "General Liability Deductible Plan" described above.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff recommends that Council accept the findings and recommendations as listed above.
Respectfully submitted,

~~~

Stephanie Garrabrant-Sierra
Risk Manager

Prepared by:
Deborah Cornwell
Safety & Loss Control Manager

APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO THE

FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE:

Finance & Management Committee

June 10, 2003
Agenda Item # _ _

Page 9

June 10, 2003

Fiscal Year
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
Total

Case #

Attachment A
Table 1
Oakland Police Department - Average General Liability Losses
Running
Previous
Amount
Average
Over/
Less:
Adjusted
Baseline
(Under)
Total
Aberrational
Total
Figure
Baseline
$3,262,330
$500,000 $2,762,330
$1,751,498
$437,604 $1,313,894 $2,762,330 ($1,448,436)
$990,782
$861,504 $2,038,112 ($1,176,608)
$129,278
$2,807,988
$830,000 $1,977,988 $1,645,909
$332,079
$1,728,929
$2,860,128
$2,006,194
$853,934
($874,995)
$1,145,008
$126,000 $1,019,008 $1,553,930
($534,922)
$1,508,188
$428,918 $1,079,270 $1,464,776
($385,506)
$1,842,455
$0 $1,842,455 $1,409,704
$432,751
$3,190,607
$0 $3,190,607 $1,463,798
$1,726,809
$3,362,339
$0 $3,362,339 $1,655,665
$1,706,673
$1,826,333
$22,721,322

Loss T):pe

Incentive/
(DisIncentive)
Allocation

$133,731
$96,377
($108,188)
($431,702)
($426,668)

Table 2
2001/02 LARGE PAY-OUT CASES - OPD
Date of
Total Pa):Brief Description

l&n
21037

City Vehicle against

Another Vehicle
Police:
Conduct 120156
Non-force
L
1980620 Police: Force Wrongful Death
Police: Non-Force
r21412
Civil Rights
I

Number of Payouts
Total Amount Paid
Average Payout per
ClaimfLawsuit

9/9/2000

!llll
$2,000,000

8/1/1997

$350,000

2/4/1998

$236,868

11/26/1998

$195,000

Vehicle Accident at intersection

resulting in serious injuries
Alleges intimidation & rudeness to
claimant & daughter
Alleges father wrongfully shot by OPD
officer
Alleges wrongful arrest & Civil Rights
violations

Table 3
OPD Payout Activity Analysis
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
96
115
103
$1,508,188 $1,842,455
$3,190,607
$15,710
$16,021
$30,977

2001-02
100
$3,362,339
$33,623

Finance & Management Committee

June 10,2003
Agenda Item # _ _

Page 10

June 10, 2003

Fiscal
Years
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98

1998/99
1999/00
2000101

2001/02
2002/03

Total

Attachment B
Table 1
Oakland Fire Department - Average General Liability Losses
Running
Amount
Previous
Average
Overl
(Under)
Less:
Adjusted Baseline
Aberrational
Total
Figure
Baseline
Total
$13,753
$13,753
$0
$2,500,000 $129,360
$13,753
$115,607
$2,629,360
$0 $350,786
$71,557
$279,230
$350,786
$164,633 ($103,682)
$60,951
$0
$60,951
$29,534
$138,713 ($109,179)
$29,534
$0
($19,365)
$97,512
$0
$97,512
$116,877
$18,239
$113,649
($95,410)
$18,239
$0
$0 $140,765
$100,019
$40,745
$140,765
$105,113
$ 3,340,900

Incentivel
(Dis-Incentive)
Allocation

$27,295
$4,841
$23,852
($10,186)

Table 2
2001102 LARGE PAY-OUT CASES - OFD
Date of
Total PayBrief Description
Case # Loss Type
Loss
out
98274
Personnel/Labor: Grievance 4/24/1997 $81,800
Failure to promote according to
merit in violating City charter
City Vehicle against
217/1998
$25,000
99050
OFD truck hit claimant vehicle
Another Vehicle
$12,264
C21788 City Vehicle against
4/512001
Alleges City vehicle struck
Another Vehicle
claimant's vehicle
L
Table 3
OFD Payout Activity Analysis
1998-99
1999-00
Number ofPayouts
14
17
Total Amount Paid
$29,534
$97,512
$2,110
Average Payout per
$5,736
ClaimlLawsuit

2000-01
12
$18,239
$1,520

2001-02
13
$140,765
$10,828

Finance & Management Committee

June 10,2003
Agenda Item # _ _

I
I

June 10, 2003

Page 11

Fiscal
Year
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
Total

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
1,750,004
989,683
3,619,155
1,825,974
3,586,688
1,479,416
2,330,519
2,095,856

X01597
99004
C22099
99065
97472
98221

Amount
Over/
(Under)
Baseline

Incentive/
(DisIncentive)
Allocation

($ 867,493)
($ 319,047)
($ 82,059)
($ 268,608)
$ 532,918
$1,345,014
$ 831,129

$ 67,152
($133,229)
($336,254)
($207,782)

$ 17,677,295

Case #

Attachment C
Table 1
Public Works Agency - A verage General Liability Losses
Running
Previous
Average
Less:
Less Sewer
Adjusted
Baseline
Payouts
Total
Figure
Aberrational
$ 1,162,775
$ 500,000
$ 87,229
$ 500,000
$ 194,401
$ 295,282 $ 1,162,775
$ 2,984,316
$ 224,857
$ 409,982 $ 729,029
$ 1,200,000
$ 540,621 $ 622,680
$ 85,353
$ 3,100,000
$ 333,557 $ 602,165
$ 153,131
$ 398,055
$ 1,081,361 $ 548,443
$
$ 348,242
$ 1,982,277 $ 637,263
$
$ 1,660,537 $ 829,408
$ 435,319
$
$ 933,299

Table 2
2001102 LARGE PAY-OUT CASES - PWA
Loss Type
Date of
Total PayBrief Description
Loss
out
8/1/1996
$375,000
Council authorized construction
Breach of Contract
contract settlement
Dangerous Condition:
2/21/1998 $290,000
Trip & fall in a square patch next to
Streets/SignslLights
sidewalk
Dangerous Conditions:
12/2/2001 $182,949.42 Alleges backed up sewer flooded
Sewer Floods
property
Dangerous Conditions:
2/3/1998
$152,000
Water damage to property due to
Inverse Condemnation
road design
Dangerous Condition:
1/2/1997
$148,206.48 Water damage and landslide due to
Sewer Floods
sewer system
Dangerous Condition:
1/2/1997
$101,941.56 Drainage system caused erosion
Inverse Condemnation
and landslide into property
I

Number of Payouts
Total Amount Paid
Average Payout per
Claim/Lawsuit

T a ble 3
PWA Payout Activity Analysis
1998-99
1999-00
118
128
$3,586,688
$1,479,416
$30,396
$11,558

2000-01
127
$2,330,519
$18,351

2001-02
100
$2,095,856
$20,959

Finance & Management Committee

June 10,2003
Agenda Item # _ _

June 10, 2003

Page 12

Attachment D
Table J
Qffice ofthe Parks and Recreation - Average General Liability Losses
Running
Amount
Over/
Previous
(Under) .
Less:
Adjusted
Average
Total
Aberrational
Total
Baseline Figure
Baseline
349,389 $
$ 349,389
349,389
$
59,733
549,122 $ 140,000
$ 409,122 $
$
(50,475)
379,256
328,781 $
$ 328,781 $
362,431
$
(94,376)
$ 268,055 $
268,055 $
338,837
$
218,361
1,812,198 $ 1,255,000
$ 557,198 $
.$
401,219
382,509
$
18,710
401,219 $
$
$ 1,112,550 $
385,627
726,923
$
1,112,550 $
$ (276,443)
213,030 $
- $ 213,030 $ 489,473
454,918
$
5,034,343
II

Fiscal
Year
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
Total

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Incentive/
(Disincentive)
Allocation

($
($
($
$

54,590)
4,677)
181,731)
69,111

Table 2
2001102 LARGE PAY-OUT CASES - OPR
Total PayCase # Loss Type
Date of
Brief Description
Loss
out
990938 Dangerous Condition:
7/5/1999
$50,000
Alleges fall through bridge at
Children's Fairyland
1_~OPR
5/18/2001
$13,790.73
C22530 Dangerous Condition:
Alleges damage caused by roots of
City-owned
tree
OPR Trees
990735 Dangerous Condition:
7/17/1999
$12,500
Alleges falling offbike due to loose
gravel
Streets
C22421 City Vehicle Against
12/15/2001 $11,937.43
Alleges City vehicle struck
Another Vehicle
claimant's vehicle

I
I

h
I

Number of Payouts
Total Amount Paid
Average Payout per
Claim/Lawsuit

Table 3
OPR Payout Activity Analysis
1998-99
1999-00
64
110
$1,812,198
$401,219
$28,316
$3,647

2000-01
46
$1,112,500
$24,185

2001-02
54
$213,030
$3,945

Finance & Management Committee

June 10,2003
Agenda Item # _ _