Police Staffing | San Francisco Voter Guide

Police Staffing

Shall the City amend the Charter to remove the requirement that the San Francisco Police Department maintain a minimum of 1,971 full-duty sworn police officers and replace the requirement with regular evaluations of police staffing levels?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: In 1994, San Francisco voters approved a change to the City Charter (Charter) that requires the San Francisco Police Department (Police Department):

• To have at least 1,971 full-duty sworn police officers; and

• To maintain a minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers for neighborhood policing and patrol.

Among its duties, the San Francisco Police Commission (Police Commission) oversees the budget and staffing of the Police Department.

The Proposal: Proposition E is a Charter amendment that would remove the requirements that the Police Department maintain a minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers and a minimum number of full-duty sworn police officers for neighborhood policing and patrol and replace them with regular evaluations of police staffing levels.

Under Proposition E, the Chief of Police would provide a report to the Police Commission that evaluates the current number of full-duty sworn police officers and the number of officers recommended in the future. The Police Commission would hold a public hearing on the report.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to remove the City Charter requirement that the San Francisco Police Department maintain a minimum of 1,971 full-duty sworn police officers and replace the requirement with regular evaluations of police staffing levels.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "E"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition E:

Should the proposed Charter amendment and ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, in and of itself it would not affect the cost of government.

The proposed Charter amendment would eliminate the minimum staffing requirement of 1,971 sworn full-duty officers and instead require the Police Department to prepare a report describing the current number of full-duty sworn officers and recommending staffing levels of full-duty sworn officers.

The report will include an assessment of overall staffing, workload, public service objectives, legal duties, and other relevant information to determining proper staffing levels of full-duty sworn officers. The Police Commission would be required to hold a public hearing to consider the staffing report when approving the Police Department’s proposed budget every fiscal year, but would not be required to accept or adopt any of the recommendations in the report.

The amendment would make it possible for the City to achieve cost savings in the annual budget process by allowing for reallocation of funding that is currently set aside to meet the minimum staffing requirement, and the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors would have additional discretion to use some portion of this funding for any public purpose under the normal budgetary and fiscal provisions of the Charter. The estimated annual salary and fringe benefit cost of a full duty sworn officer is approximately $155,000.

How "E" Got on the Ballot

On July 21, 2020, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition E on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton, Yee.

No: None.

This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained in Words you need to know >.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E

Vote YES on Proposition E - remove the outdated mandatory minimum police staffing requirement, and establish a regular process to set police staffing levels based on data and the needs of our communities.

In 1994, Voters approved a Charter Amendment, which required the City to maintain a minimum of 1,971 full-duty sworn officers. This staffing requirement is arbitrary and does not allow flexibility to go up or down in response to data, the needs of our city, or crime rates.

The establishment of this process would allow the Police Commission, with public input, to regularly assess how effective the department is in meeting the needs of communities, and to make changes to improve services. Staffing decisions deserve careful consideration. Staffing levels impact which neighborhoods have more officers than others, how quickly police are able to respond to emergency calls, how well police officers know our communities, and how accessible police services are to immigrant communities and community members with limited English proficiency.

Police officers have tough jobs, and we should not depend on them to be social workers, mental health professionals, or substance use counselors. The Mayor and other leaders have announced that they are going to join the growing number of cities dispatching teams of social workers and substance use counselors to respond to calls seeking their skills and service when appropriate. The minimum staffing levels in the City Charter make this transition more difficult.

Being “smart on crime” means being intentional about how we use all available resources to improve public safety. This Charter Amendment allows us to be more thoughtful and effective in keeping San Francisco safe.

Join us in voting YES on Proposition E.

Board President, Norman Yee

Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer

Supervisor Matt Haney

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

Supervisor Shamann Walton

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E

No Rebuttal to the Proponent’s Argument In Favor of Proposition E Was Submitted

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Opponent's Argument Against Proposition E

VOTE NO ON E!

The Board of Supervisors in 1994 voted to place in the Charter a minimum number of mandated police officers. Unwitting voters allowed it.

Requiring additional, unnecessary taxpayer expense, such legislation should've been in an ordinance, not requiring taxpayer costs to amend at an election as populationchanges.

Vote NO on E.

San Francisco Taxpayers Association

Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret.)

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition E

Vote YES on E. Even the Opponent to this measure agrees that the minimum police staffing requirement never belonged in the City’s Charter. Proposition E saves taxpayers money by ensuring that city services are used as effectively as possible. By funding the police department according to data and community needs—instead of decades-old mandatory staffing mandates—the City can more responsibly allocate resources and services.

For the last 25 years, the minimum staffing requirement has handcuffed San Franciscans and our budget, and it hasn’t made our city safer. The population of our city changes. The needs of our communities change. The needs of neighborhoods change. That is why the staffing mandate is ill-suited to ensure San Francisco’s public safety needs are met. Proposition E would allow the City to staff its police department at levels based on thoughtful analysis of current data.

The arbitrary staffing requirement added to the City Charter is an obstacle to progress. Proposition E requires our Police Chief and Police Commission to make decisions based on actual staffing needs. Vote YES on Proposition E to give San Francisco the power to meet the needs of its residents and the challenges of the moment.

Join us in voting YES on proposition E.

Board President, Norman Yee

Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer

Supervisor Matt Haney

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

Supervisor Shamann Walton

Police Commissioner Petra DeJesus*

Police Commissioner John Hamasaki*

Police Commissioner Cindy Elias*

Bar Association of San Francisco

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition E

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E

"The safest communities don't have the most police; they have the most resources."

We should decide the number of police on our streets based on data, evidence, and the needs of our city today—not the needs of our city in 1994.

In 1994, the SFPD minimum staffing requirement was established at the height of the failed War on Drugs. To make our city safe, voters believed that we needed to put people in prison for using drugs like marijuana. This did not make us safer but led to the imprisonment of tens of thousands of San Franciscans.

The staffing requirement states that the City must employ at least 1,971 armed police officers. This rigid requirement limits our ability to respond to budget deficits and fully fund critical services like healthcare and education.

This arbitrary number was chosen because of the number of police officers employed in 1994.

The City has changed dramatically since then. Our understanding of the role of policing has evolved. We rely on too many officers to do too many things. Trained, unarmed professionals should handle many situations now handled by police and avoid use of force.

Prop E will replace the minimum staffing requirement with a requirement that the police department must submit a data and evidence-driven report to guide police staffing decisions.

Voting YES on Prop E will allow us to make informed decisions on what is best for our city and SFPD.

Vote YES on E!

Kaylah Williams, Co-chair of Afrosocialists & Socialists of Color Caucus SF

Naeemah Charles, Co-chair of Afrosocialists & Socialists of Color Caucus SF

Alex Karim, Co-chair of DSA SF Justice Committee

Dylan Yep, Co-chair of DSA SF Justice Committee

Hope Williams, Co-chair of DSA SF Electoral Committee

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Kaylah Williams.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E

San Francisco is over-policed, with more officers per capita than Paris had when the hated aristocracy of Louis XVI kept the peasantry under their thumb before the French Revolution (https://bit.ly/3azrpm9).

According to the Controller's statement, each sworn SFPD officer costs us an average of $155,000 in salary and benefits, not even including their pension costs we'll be paying long after they're gone.

Even if every officer were faithfully defending the constitutional rights they swore to uphold, this would be excessive. Sadly many do not, and their abuses have disproportionately come at the expense of the poor, black and brown. Hence a growing sentiment, here and elsewhere, to defund or even abolish the police.

Capping the number of cops at a level more in keeping with that of neighboring cities like San Jose is a relatively minor reform.

We urge a YES vote on Proposition E.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

www.LPSF.org

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Libertarian Party of San Francisco.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Scott Banister, 2. David Jeffries, 3. Tim Carico.

End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition E

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments Against Proposition E

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E

Vote NO on Proposition E

This measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors to CUT the number of police officers serving our neighborhoods. It will enable the Board to reduce SFPD funding, which will result in staff shortages, increased response times, and elimination of essential training programs. San Francisco is experiencing the highest property crime rates in the nation (including burglaries and larceny), and homicides are increasing. We need MORE police officers, NOT FEWER!

San Francisco Republican Party

John Dennis, Chairman

Delegates:

17th Assembly District: Christian Foster, Cale Garverick, Krista Garverick, Lisa Remmer, Joseph C. Roberts.

19th Assembly District: Edward Bate, Howard Epstein, Stephanie Jeong, Tom Sleckman, and Richard Worner.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Republican Party.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Maurice Kanbar, 2. San Francisco Assoc. of Realtors, 3. Friends of John Dennis for Congress 2020.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Legal Text

Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters at an election to be held on November 3, 2020, to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to remove the minimum police staffing requirement, to require the Police Department to submit a report and recommendation regarding police staffing levels to the Police Commission every two years, and to require the Police Commission to consider the report and recommendation when approving the department’s proposed budget.

Section 1. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on November 3, 2020, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County by revising Section 4.127 and 16.123, to read as follows:

NOTE: Unchanged Charter text and uncodified text are in plain font.

Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

Deletions are strike-through italics Times New Roman font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Charter subsections.

SEC. 4.127. POLICE DEPARTMENT.

The Police Department shall preserve the public peace, prevent and detect crime, and protect the rights of persons and property by enforcing the laws of the United States, the State of California, and the City and County.

The Chief of Police may appoint and remove at pleasure special police officers.

The Chief of Police shall have all powers which are now or that may be conferred upon a sheriff by state law with respect to the suppression of any riot, public tumult, disturbance of the public peace or organized resistance against the laws or public authority.

DISTRICT POLICE STATIONS. The Police Department shall maintain and operate district police stations. The Police Commission, subject to the approval by the Board of Supervisors, may establish additional district stations, abandon or relocate any district station, or consolidate any two or more district stations.

BUDGET. Monetary awards and settlements disbursed by the City and County as a result of police action or inaction shall be taken exclusively from a specific appropriation listed as a separate line item in the Police Department budget for that purpose.

POLICE STAFFING. By no earlier than October 1 and no later than November 1 in every odd-numbered calendar year, the Chief of Police shall transmit to the Police Commission a report describing the department’s current number of full-duty sworn officers and recommending staffing levels of full-duty sworn officers in the subsequent two fiscal years. The report shall include an assessment of the Police Department’s overall staffing, the workload handled by the department’s employees, the department’s public service objectives, the department’s legal duties, and other information the Chief of Police deems relevant to determining proper staffing levels of full-duty sworn officers. The report shall evaluate and make recommendations regarding staffing levels at all district stations and in all types of jobs and services performed by full-duty sworn officers. By no later than July 1 in every odd-numbered calendar year, the Police Commission shall adopt a policy prescribing the methodologies that the Chief of Police may use in evaluating staffing levels, which may include consideration of factors such as workload metrics, the Department’s targets for levels of service, ratios between supervisory and non-supervisory positions in the Department, whether particular services require a fixed number of hours, and other factors the Commission determines are best practices or otherwise relevant. The Chief of Police may, but is not required by this Section 4.127 to, submit staffing reports regarding full-duty sworn officers to the Police Commission in even-numbered years.

The Police Commission shall hold a public hearing regarding the Chief of Police’s staffing report by December 31 in every odd-numbered calendar year. The Police Commission shall consider the most recent report in its consideration and approval of the Police Department’s proposed budget every fiscal year, but the Commission shall not be required to accept or adopt any of the recommendations in the report. The police force of the City and County shall at all times consist of not fewer than 1,971 full duty sworn officers. The staffing level of the Police Department shall be maintained with a minimum of 1,971 full duty sworn officers thereafter. That figure may be adjusted pursuant to Section 16.123.

All officers and employees of the City and County are directed to take all acts necessary to implement the provisions of this section. The Board of Supervisors is empowered to adopt ordinances necessary to effectuate the purpose of this section regarding staffing levels including but not limited to ordinances regulating the scheduling of police training classes.

Further, the Police Commission shall initiate an annual review to civilianize as many positions as possible to maximize police presence in the communities and submit that report to the Board of Supervisors annually for review and approval.

The number of full duty sworn officers in the Police Department dedicated to neighborhood policing and patrol for fiscal year 1993-1994 shall not be reduced in future years, and all new full duty sworn officers authorized for the Police Department shall also be dedicated to neighborhood community policing, patrol and investigations.

* * * *

SEC. 16.123. CIVILIAN POSITIONS WITHIN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

(a) The Controller shall review sworn and civilian staffing needs in the San Francisco Police Department. As part of that review, the Controller shall review police staffing levels and patterns in comparable jurisdictions, and best practices regarding police staffing.

The Controller and the Chief of Police shall also audit all positions in the Police Department and identify those positions that must be filled by sworn officers and those that could be filled by civilian personnel or that, under best practices in other jurisdictions, typically are filled by civilian personnel.

In conducting these studies, the Controller and the Chief of Police shall consult with the Board of Supervisors’ Budget Analyst, the Director of the Department of Human Resources, and a representative of the bargaining unit representing sworn members of the Police Department.

Upon the completion of these studies, the Controller and the Chief of Police shall forward to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors a list of positions in the Police Department currently filled by sworn officers that could be filled by civilian personnel.

Upon submission of the list of positions to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, the provisions of subsection (a) shall expire and the City Attorney shall cause them to be deleted from future publications of the Charter, and shall cause the remaining provisions to be relettered accordingly.

(a) (b) Positions in the Police Department may only be converted from sworn to civilian as they become vacant. No sworn officer shall be laid off in order to convert a position to civilian personnel.

(b) If the Mayor and or any member of the Board of Supervisors proposes to convert positions in the Police Department from sworn officers to civilian personnel through the budget process, the minimum staffing level set in Section 4.127 shall be reduced by the same number of positions if the Controller and the Chief of Police shall report on whether jointly certify that the reduction would will not decrease the number of police officers dedicated to neighborhood community policing, patrol, and investigations or would and will not substantially interfere with the delivery of City public safety services, including services to protect the public police services or the ability of the Police Department to protect the public in the event of an emergency. In preparing the report required by this subsection (b), the Chief of Police shall solicit input from the Police Commission.