Police officers at the scene of an incident at 24th and Mission streets Sunday morning. Photo by Joe Rivano Barros

The San Francisco Police Commission unanimously rejected the police department’s budget proposal on Wednesday night, which would have laid off 167 police officers, cut technology to aid reform efforts, and reduced the department’s overtime funds. 

But the commission’s vote against moving the budget forward was a largely symbolic action that will signal to Mayor London Breed and the Board of Supervisors that the commission was unhappy with the proposal as currently drafted. 

In other words, the mayor and the supes will receive the budget, no matter what, with a somewhat negative recommendation from the commissioners. 

It seemed everyone agreed that such dramatic reductions to the police budget were unacceptable, and at least needed deeper consideration. In urging the Police Commission to reject the budget, Chief Bill Scott repeatedly called the cuts “devastating.” 

“I am not supportive of these cuts,” Scott said of his own budget proposal — one he is being forced to make. “They will be devastating to this department.” 

Under the department’s current proposal, the police budget would be reduced by $64.9 million in fiscal year 2022, which begins in July, 2021. That includes a mandate from Mayor London Breed to cut the department’s budget by $37 million to shore up a gaping budget deficit wrought by the pandemic. 

As the city faces a $653 million deficit in the coming two fiscal years, Breed in December directed every city department to propose 7.5 percent slashes to their budgets and plan for 2.5 percent more in cuts in case economic conditions worsen. 

Nevertheless, Scott said that much of the mayor’s mandatory reductions would mean cuts to existing police officers and civilian staff — cuts he successfully fought off last summer amid growing calls to “defund the police” in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. 

This year, however, the coronavirus may succeed where activists fell short. 

“We cut everything we can cut,” Scott said, referring to the last budget cycle, in which the overtime pot was diminished and vacant positions and academy classes were slashed. All that is left, he said, are cuts to police officers, a move that could have consequences both to public safety and the diversity of his police department, he said. 

The chief explained that a majority of those exposed to layoffs are officers of color who joined the department in recent years as the SFPD reformed its hiring and recruiting policies. 

Of the 167 police officers closest to the chopping block, 50 are Latino, 47 are Asian, 15 are Black, three are Filipino and six are “other” — totaling 121. Forty-six are white. If the economic situation worsens, another 56 officers could be laid off, although that group’s ethnic makeup is unclear. 

The chief added that the budget reductions would also mean less money for technology that helps the department complete the 272 Department of Justice recommendations, such as updating the department’s “early intervention system.” The system is designed to flag and intervene with problematic police officers before their misconduct gets worse — and the system the SFPD is currently using is obsolete.

He said the department will be finished with more than 90 percent of the reforms in the coming months.

Moreover, the chief said that response times to crime would get longer with fewer officers, especially as the city has seen an increase in gun violence and burglaries this year. He pointed to a slide that showed that shootings are up 266 percent so far this year, compared to last year. 

“It’s self-explanatory,” he said, “we don’t want gun violence to go in the direction that it’s going.”

Yet in terms of staffing, some commissioners appeared to broadly embrace reductions in staff as the department “reimagines” how it responds to non-violent calls, and saw Scott’s warnings about escalating crime as alarmism. 

“We’re in a very large state of transition, and I think that transition is ultimately going to be hard for certain aspects of the police department,” said Commissioner John Hamasaki. “We’ve all accepted that police should not respond to … non-criminal calls.” 

The chief argued that his department supports the vision of a police force that doesn’t respond to every single call. “But that has not happened yet — that’s a transition that’s going to take some time,” he said. “Meanwhile, the police department still gets calls.” 

In the end, however, the chief and the commissioners agreed: They were all unhappy with the proposal for one reason or another — whether for its dramatic cuts, its lack of detail, or its impediments to the reform effort. And the commissioners voted 4-0 against moving it forward.

It will nonetheless go to the Mayor’s Office, because the Police Commission’s role in the process is merely advisory and it does not have the unilateral power to implement big changes. 

Following the vote, Commission President Malia Cohen told Mission Local that, after the budget proposal is fine-tuned by the Mayor’s Office, it will be presented to the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee, a body she once helmed as a supervisor. 

Speaking from experience, Cohen said, “This is only the beginning of a long and painful process.” 

Follow Us

Julian grew up in the East Bay and moved to San Francisco in 2014. Before joining Mission Local, he wrote for the East Bay Express, the SF Bay Guardian, and the San Francisco Business Times.

Join the Conversation


    1. The juxtaposition of these comments is perfect – the first smugly secure in his assumption that there is something nefarious about cops in Walgreens and the second so comfortable with racist dog whistles and apparently of the belief that only elderly Asians will suffer if these cuts are made. I happen to agree with sentiment expressed by each – there is something fundamentally rotten within SFPD. As a Black man in SF I am more likely to be killed by a cop – for no reason – than some random member of the public. Think about that.

      1. And the second, smugly secure in his statement that he is more likely to be killed by a cop than a random member of the community.

        1. The vast majority of people, of any race, do not get shot by cops. It is almost trivially easy to avoid being shot by a cop. You have to do something aggressive or at least non-compliant or evasive to ever get yourself into that situation. Which is why most voters do not fear the police at all, but rather those they arrest.

    2. Walgreens, and other business that have SFPD officers posted at them, lay those wages, the money doesn’t come from the city.

    3. The city makes a percentage of money on any contract stores have that employ off duty officers at their businesses. So you should be happy that Walgreens is employing Off duty SFPD officers, because the city is making money in a time when money is desperately needed.

  1. Cuts to SFPD are Insane given the spike in brazen crime , and assaults.
    To cut Police protection of the Elderly Asian population of SF even further would just make them easier targets of Racist Thugs.

  2. Probably 75% of the police budget is payroll, why not no layoffs and everyone takes a 15% reduction in pay. Seems pretty simple.

    1. Would you take a 15% reduction in pay to continue with your job? SFPD pay is already below that of surrounding agencies, so if you cut the pay, more Officers will lateral out to other departments.

  3. Do people know what the overall budget of the San Francisco Police Dept. is? The data for the 2018-2019 year was $611,701,869. That’s right over 600 million dollars. I can’t find the amount for 2019-2020 but I believe it was close to $700 million. That is an obscene amount of money to spend on policing. Cutting that bloated budget and reallocating the funds to meed much-neglected community needs is an absolute necessity. The USA has the most militarized police force of any democracy, the most brutal, and the most per capita cops. This has got to change.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *