Sheriff Oversight | San Francisco Voter Guide

Sheriff Oversight

Shall the City amend the Charter to create a Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General and a Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board that would make recommendations to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors about the operations of the Sheriff’s Department?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: The Sheriff is elected by San Francisco voters. In San Francisco, the Sheriff’s primary duties are managing and operating City jails, being responsible for people in custody, and preserving the peace.

The San Francisco Sheriff directs about 800 sworn employees. The Sheriff’s Bureau of Internal Affairs investigates employee misconduct in the Sheriff’s Department. The District Attorney investigates and prosecutes criminal misconduct by the Sheriff and Sheriff’s Department employees. The City Ethics Commission investigates violations of ethics laws. The Sheriff’s Department also has a policy that governs the use of force by its sworn employees.

There is no City department, board or commission dedicated to the oversight of the Sheriff or Sheriff’s Department.

The Proposal: Proposition D is a Charter amendment that would create the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board (Oversight Board).

The OIG would be a City department independent of the Sheriff’s Department. An Inspector General would head the OIG. The OIG would have at least one investigator for every 100 sworn employees of the Sheriff’s Department. The OIG would report to the Oversight Board and provide information and recommendations to the Sheriff.

Subject to certain limitations, the OIG would have the power to:

• Investigate certain complaints regarding Sheriff’s Department employees and contractors;

• Investigate in-custody deaths, unless that investigation would interfere with a criminal investigation;

• Recommend the Sheriff take disciplinary action when the OIG determines an employee violated law or Sheriff’s Department policy;

• Make recommendations regarding the Sheriff’s Department use of force policy;

• Monitor Sheriff’s Department operations; and

• Refer cases to the District Attorney or the City Ethics Commission.

The Sheriff’s Bureau of Internal Affairs would maintain its ability to investigate in-custody deaths, employee misconduct and violations of department policies. Criminal misconduct could still be referred to the District Attorney.

The Oversight Board would consist of seven members, four appointed by the Board of Supervisors and three appointed by the Mayor. One of the Board of Supervisors’ appointees must be a person with experience representing labor unions.

Subject to certain limitations, the Oversight Board would have the power to:

• Appoint, evaluate, renew and remove the Inspector General;

• Evaluate the performance of the Office of Inspector General; and

• Seek input from the public and people in custody regarding the Sheriff’s Department operations and jail conditions.

Based on information from the OIG and its own processes, the Oversight Board would make at least four reports a year to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors. The Oversight Board would be responsible for an annual report to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors about the activities of the OIG and the Oversight Board.

Subject to certain limitations, both the OIG and the Oversight Board would have the power to hold hearings and subpoena witnesses.

Proposition D would not prohibit or limit the Sheriff from investigating the conduct of an employee or contractor or taking disciplinary or corrective action.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to amend the City Charter to create a Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General and a Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board that would make recommendations to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors about the operations of the Sheriff’s Department.

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

Controller's Statement on "D"

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

Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government.

The proposed Charter amendment would create a new seven-member Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board (SDOB) and a new Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General (OIG), separate from the Sheriff’s Department. The SDOB would appoint an Inspector General and would evaluate the work of OIG. The OIG would receive, review and investigate complaints against the Sheriff’s Department, its employees and contractors, and other City employees serving persons in custody, and investigate in-custody deaths. The OIG would also recommend a use of force policy and internal review process for use of force and critical incidents for the Sheriff’s Department. The OIG would take over some investigative functions currently performed by the Whistleblower unit of the Controller’s Office.

The estimated annual cost for the SDOB, including staff and material costs for commissioners, board secretary and analytical staff is $400,000. The amendment specifies staffing for the OIG as follows: the Inspector General, one Attorney, and one Investigator per 100 sworn Sheriff’s Department staff. The estimated annual cost for the OIG, including 13 staff, office space and materials/supplies costs is $2 million to $2.5 million.

How "D" Got on the Ballot

On July 21, 2020, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition D 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 D

Time for oversight and accountability in the Sheriff’s Department, vote Yes on D!

We must act now to join the national movement for justice reform and end the decades of discrimination and unfair treatment rampant within the Sheriff’s Department. It is time for us to work together to stop the injustices and abuse towards individuals in custody and staff and give voice to those impacted.

Yes on D will create an oversight board who will:

• Appoint an Inspector General to evaluate the work of the Sheriff’s Department, compile and recommend best practices, and conduct community outreach to hear public input regarding operations and jail conditions.

• Develop a use of force policy and comprehensive review process for all use of force and critical incidents.

• Investigate the death of any individual in the custody of the Sheriff’s Department.

• Receive, review and investigate complaints of non-criminal misconduct by employees and contractors of the Sheriff’s Department and in-custody deaths.

• Develop policy recommendations

Lawsuits against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department have cost the city millions in settlements excluding the staff time and resources spent on these cases. Having a Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board and an Inspector General will provide public transparency when investigating these incidences of misconduct, mistreatment, and abuse.

Yes on D: Sheriff Oversight will establish true public transparency, oversight, and accountability of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. This measure was submitted to the ballot by a unanimous vote of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Please join us and vote Yes on D: Sheriff Oversight now!

Supervisor Shamann Walton

Supervisor Matt Haney

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Norman Yee

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer

District Attorney Chesa Boudin

Public Defender Manu Raju

San Francisco Democratic Party

San Francisco Labor Council

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 D

Please vote NO on Proposition D.

The proponents claim that it will create oversight and accountability. I'm a big fan of both, but I don't think Proposition D is the right way to get there.

I'm not sure if this is part of a national movement for justice reform, and I'm not convinced that there have been decades of discrimination and unfair treatment, injustices, and abuse by the San Francisco Sheriff's Department.

The Sheriff's Department already:

• Conducts internal investigations;

• Has a use of force policy;

• Investigates in-custody deaths;

• Investigates alleged employee misconduct; and

• Develops (and implements) policy recommendations.

In-custody deaths are all serious and are already investigated by the Sheriff's Department, the Police Department, the Medical Examiner, and the District Attorney, at a minimum.

As a state law enforcement agency, the Sheriff's Department has various duties to perform. New responsibilities involving oversight should come from Sacramento and apply uniformly in all 58 California counties.

Despite the unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors, there is still no guarantee of any meaningful oversight or saving any money from settling lawsuits. It's just another new City department that we don't need right now.

Please vote NO on Proposition D. Thank you.

David Pilpel

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 D

Please vote NO on Proposition D.

You may think that more oversight of the Sheriff’s Department is needed. It's an arguable point, but I disagree. I respectfully suggest that Proposition D is not the solution that we need at this time.

The Sheriff’s Department already has an Internal Affairs Unit to conduct administrative investigations and a Training Unit to train sworn personnel. While seeing fewer people in custody, the Sheriff’s Department is expanding a relationship with the existing Department of Police Accountability (formerly the Office of Citizen Complaints), as well as referring personnel investigations to other independent outside agencies when circumstances warrant.

If you want more government services, you should vote for additional taxes (like Propositions F, I, and L on this ballot) or seek other resources to pay for them.

If you support government efficiency and oversight, there are existing tools available, including:

• Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst, and its power of hearing and inquiry;

• City Attorney investigations and civil enforcement;

• Civil Grand Jury investigations and public reports;

• Controller's Office fiscal and performance audits;

• District Attorney investigations and criminal enforcement; and

• Ethics Commission investigations and administrative enforcement of ethics laws.

The City Controller says that Proposition D would have a moderate to significant impact on the cost of government. It would certainly add more administration, bureaucracy, and overhead, but no guarantee of any meaningful oversight.

We don't need new City Departments, unnecessary spending, or other gimmicks during a pandemic. We should be using existing resources and oversight mechanisms more effectively. Please vote NO on Proposition D. Thank you.

David Pilpel

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 D

No Rebuttal to the Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition D 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.

Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition D

No Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition D Were 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.

Paid Arguments Against Proposition D

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition D

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION D! It's Dumb!

This would add more bureaucracy to an elected official's duties, an "Inspector General," yet one more commission to the present 123 and 8 investigators for some 800 Sheriff employees.

Additionally, the Board of Supervisors, our alleged legislative body, would appoint (an executive mayoral function) 4 of 7 commissioners. The cost? The Controller predicts up to $10,000,000 annually.

Stop the taxeaters!

Vote No on Proposition D!

San Francisco Taxpayers Association

Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret.)

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

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Scott Feldman, 2. Paul Sack, 3. Claude Perasso, Jr.

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 create the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board to advise and report findings and recommendations to the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors regarding Sheriff’s Department operations; to create the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General, under the direction of an Inspector General appointed by the Oversight Board, to investigate complaints of non-criminal misconduct by employees and contractors of the Sheriff’s Department and in-custody deaths, develop policy recommendations for the Sheriff’s Department, and report quarterly its findings, results, and recommendations to the Sheriff and the Oversight Board.

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 adding Section 4.137 and revising Section 15.105, 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. 4.137. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OVERSIGHT.

(a) Establishment of Oversight Board.

(1) The Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board (“SDOB”) is hereby established. The SDOB shall consist of seven members. The Board of Supervisors shall appoint four members (to Seats 1, 2, 3, and 4), and the Mayor shall appoint three members (to Seats 5, 6, and 7). Seat 4 shall be held by a person with experience in labor representation.

(2) Members shall serve four-year terms, beginning at noon on March 1, 2021; provided, however, the term of the initial appointees to Seats 1, 3, and 5 shall expire at noon on March 1, 2023, whereas the term of the initial appointees to Seats 2, 4, 6, and 7 shall expire at noon on March 1, 2025.

(3) No person may serve more than three successive terms as a member. No person having served three successive terms may serve as a member until at least four years after the expiration of the third successive term. Service for a part of a term that is more than half the period of the term shall count as a full term; further, this subsection (a)(3) makes no distinction between the two-year terms referenced in subsection (a)(2) and four-year terms.

(4) Members may be removed from office only for official misconduct under Article XV.

(5) All members shall complete a training and orientation on custodial law enforcement, constitutional policing, and Sheriff’s Department (“SFSD”) policies and procedures, within 90 days of assuming office for their first term. The Sheriff or the Sheriff’s designee shall prescribe the content of and shall administer the training and orientation regarding SFSD patrol and custodial law enforcement, policies and procedures. SFSD shall develop the training content based on guidelines recommended by the National Association of Civilian Oversight for Law Enforcement (“NACOLE”) or successor association, the Bar Association of San Francisco or successor association, and/or the American Civil Liberties Union, and SFSD shall consult with the Department of Police Accountability, Public Defender, and the District Attorney in developing the training content.

(b) SDOB Powers and Duties. The SDOB shall:

(1) Appoint, and may remove, the Inspector General in the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), established in subsection (d).

(2) Evaluate the work of the OIG, and may review the Inspector General’s individual work performance.

(3) Compile, evaluate, and recommend law enforcement custodial and patrol best practices.

(4) Conduct community outreach and receive community input regarding SFSD operations and jail conditions, by holding public meetings and soliciting input from persons incarcerated in the City and County.

(5) Prepare and submit a quarterly report to the Sheriff and Board of Supervisors regarding the SDOB evaluations and outreach, and OIG reports submitted to SDOB.

(6) By March 1 of each year, prepare and present to the Board of Supervisors or a committee designated by the President of the Board, an annual report that includes a summary of SDOB evaluations and outreach, and OIG reports submitted to SDOB, for the prior calendar year.

(c) In performing its duties, the SDOB may hold hearings, issue subpoenas to witnesses to appear and for the production of evidence, administer oaths, and take testimony.

(d) Establishment of Office of Inspector General. There is hereby established the Sheriff’s Department Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), which shall be a department under the SDOB, and separate from the Sheriff’s Department. The OIG shall be headed by the Inspector General, appointed by the SDOB as set forth in subsection (b)(1). The Inspector General shall be exempt from civil service selection, appointment, and removal procedures.

(e) OIG Powers and Duties. The OIG shall:

(1) Receive, review, and investigate complaints against SFSD employees and SFSD contractors; provided, however, that the OIG shall refer complaints alleging criminal misconduct to the District Attorney, and refer complaints alleging violations of ethics laws to the Ethics Commission.

(2) Investigate the death of any individual in the custody of the SFSD. The OIG shall refer evidence of criminal misconduct regarding any death in custody to the District Attorney. Notwithstanding such a referral, the OIG may continue to investigate a death in custody unless OIG’s investigation will interfere with a criminal investigation conducted by the District Attorney, or any law enforcement agency to which the District Attorney may refer the evidence of criminal misconduct.

(3) Recommend disciplinary action to the Sheriff where, following an investigation pursuant to subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2), the OIG determines that an employee’s actions or omissions violated law or SFSD policy; provide notice of and a copy of the recommendation, the reasons for the recommendation, and supporting records, to the extent permitted by State or federal law, to the employee; and make available to the public any records and information regarding OIG’s disciplinary recommendations to the extent permitted by State or federal law.

(4) Develop and recommend to the Sheriff an SFSD use of force policy and a comprehensive internal review process for all use of force and critical incidents.

(5) Prepare and submit a quarterly report to the Sheriff and the SDOB regarding OIG investigations that includes the number and type of complaints under subsection (e)(1) filed; trend analysis; the outcome of the complaints; any determination that the acts or omissions of an employee or contractor, in connection with the subject matter of a complaint under subsection (e)(1), or a death in custody under subsection (e)(2), violated law or SFSD policy; the OIG’s recommendations, if any, for discipline; the outcome of any discipline recommendations; and the OIG’s policy recommendations under subsection (e)(4).

(6) Monitor SFSD operations, including the provision of services to incarcerated individuals, through audits and investigations, to ensure compliance with applicable laws and policies.

(f) In performing its duties, the OIG may hold hearings, issue subpoenas to witnesses to appear and for the production of evidence, administer oaths, and take testimony. The OIG also may request and the Sheriff shall require the testimony or attendance of any employee of the SFSD.

(g) Cooperation and Assistance from City Departments. In carrying out their duties, the SDOB and OIG shall receive prompt and full cooperation and assistance from all City departments, officers, and employees, including the Sheriff and SFSD and its employees, which shall, unless prohibited by State or federal law, promptly produce all records and information requested by the SDOB or OIG, including but not limited to (1) personnel and disciplinary records of SFSD employees, (2) SFSD criminal investigative files, (3) health information pertaining to incarcerated individuals; and (4) all records and databases to which the SFSD has access, regardless of whether those records pertain to a particular complaint or incident. The Sheriff also shall, unless prohibited by State or federal law, allow the OIG unrestricted and unescorted access to all facilities, including the jails. The SDOB and OIG shall maintain the confidentiality of any records and information it receives or accesses to the extent required by local, State, or federal law governing such records or information.

In carrying out their duties, the SDOB and OIG shall cooperate and collaborate with organizations that contract with SFSD to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals.

(h) Budget and Staffing. Subject to the fiscal, budgetary, and civil service provisions of the Charter, the OIG staff shall include no fewer than one investigator for every 100 sworn SFSD employees. No SDOB or OIG staff, including the Inspector General, shall have been employed previously by a law enforcement agency or a labor organization representing law enforcement employees.

(i) Nothing in this Section 4.137 shall prohibit, limit, or otherwise restrict the Sheriff or the Sheriff’s designee from investigating the conduct of an employee or contractor of the SFSD, or taking disciplinary or corrective action permitted by City or State law.

(j) Nothing in this Section 4.137, including but not limited to subsections (f) and (g), is intended to or shall be interpreted to abrogate, interfere with, or obstruct the independent and constitutionally and statutorily designated duties of the Sheriff, including the Sheriff’s duty to investigate citizens’ complaints against SFSD personnel and the duty to operate and manage the jails, the California Attorney General’s constitutional and statutory responsibility to oversee the Sheriff, or other applicable State law. In carrying out their duties, the SDOB and OIG shall cooperate and coordinate with the Sheriff so that the Sheriff, the SDOB, and the OIG may properly discharge their respective responsibilities.

SEC. 15.105. SUSPENSION AND REMOVAL.

(a) ELECTIVE AND CERTAIN APPOINTED OFFICERS. Any elective officer, and any member of the Airport Commission, Asian Art Commission, Civil Service Commission, Commission on the Status of Women, Golden Gate Concourse Authority Board of Directors, Health Commission, Human Services Commission, Juvenile Probation Commission, Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors, Port Commission, Public Utilities Commission, Recreation and Park Commission, Fine Arts Museums Board of Trustees, Taxi Commission, War Memorial and Performing Art Center Board of Trustees, Board of Education or Community College Board is subject to suspension and removal for official misconduct as provided in this section. Such officer may be suspended by the Mayor and the Mayor shall appoint a qualified person to discharge the duties of the office during the period of suspension. Upon such suspension, the Mayor shall immediately notify the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors thereof in writing and the cause thereof, and shall present written charges against such suspended officer to the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors at or prior to their next regular meetings following such suspension, and shall immediately furnish a copy of the same to such officer, who shall have the right to appear with counsel before the Ethics Commission in his or her defense. The Ethics Commission shall hold a hearing not less than five days after the filing of written charges. After the hearing, the Ethics Commission shall transmit the full record of the hearing to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation as to whether the charges should be sustained. If, after reviewing the complete record, the charges are sustained by not less than a three-fourths vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors, the suspended officer shall be removed from office; if not so sustained, or if not acted on by the Board of Supervisors within 30 days after the receipt of the record from the Ethics Commission, the suspended officer shall thereby be reinstated.

(b) BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF APPEALS, ELECTIONS COMMISSION, ETHICS COMMISSION, SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OVERSIGHT BOARD, AND ENTERTAINMENT COMMISSION. Members of the Building Inspection Commission, the Planning Commission, the Board of Appeals, the Elections Commission, the Ethics Commission, the Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board, and the Entertainment Commission may be suspended and removed pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a) of this section except that the Mayor may initiate removal only of the Mayor’s appointees and the appointing authority shall act in place of the Mayor for all other appointees.

* * * *

Text-only version