Issue Closed

I think maybe I am missing something. I just went by this again while walking my dog and it is extant as reported. How is this closed? Is this closed as in "we don't care?" or "we have no budget for this?"

This is now cleaned up and can be closed. How is it that these are getting closed days before they are being addressed? Is this another situation like MUNI's on-time performance where the numbers are fudged by closing on assignment? Just curious.

Thank you for cleaning up the graffiti. It IS appreciated.

issue now resolved.

My guess would be that there's a person at SFDPW who's responsible for keeping tabs on this website (which: good job). They collect reports and enter them into whatever system they use to assign workers to tasks. At that point, they close the issue.

Of course, I suppose that person could follow up on every issue as well, keeping it open here and even copying over whatever report is made after the job is done, but they probably don't consider this a high priority. It's just more paperwork. Anyone who's interested can always follow up using that job number they've provided. As long as the job gets done, who cares?

In the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter, you are correct. I would just point out that, just like with private industry customer service, time to resolve an issue is a commonly applied performance metric. And just like in private industry, there are pressures to make things appear to be resolved faster than they really are. In the case of MUNI, that I referenced obliquely, certain administrators got some bonuses based on such a performance metric (http://www.baycitizen.org/transportation/story/muni-paid-bonuses-tied-inflated-time/) that wasn't truly met - at a opportunity cost to using that money for other, more valid uses. I am not saying that is what is going on here, your analysis suggests that it is easier to just close the 311 issue when it is assigned to a divisional queue. I would just point out that there is a disconnect when a citizen reports an issue and it is declared closed, and the evidence under their nose is that it remains open. This can in no way contribute to a sense of belief in city government telling the truth (as in what words actually mean). Is this worth the hassle of leaving the 311 issue open until it is confirmed resolved - I would suggest that it is. The act of closing an issue takes place just the same, only in a more transparent manner if the closure takes place when issues are actually resolved. In the grand scheme of things does this matter? No. But, when you ask who cares, I, at least, respond that I do, I accept that you do not.

I will point out that in general I am a strong believer in sf311, and have seen responsiveness to issues that I consider quite exemplary and think this is a far site better than in previous times, when requests for city services were even more opaque than they are today. I appreciate sf311, as any observer of my responses to actual closures indicate - a thank you is always returned and sincerely so.