A proposed ballot measure would allow voters to elect the head of police oversight in San Francisco. At present, the mayor appoints the director of the Department of Police Accountability.
Supervisor Shamann Walton presented the proposal Thursday morning before the Rules Committee of the Board of Supervisors and, if approved by a majority of the supervisors, it could end up on the November ballot.
The deadline for board-initiated propositions is August 2.
The city’s Department of Police Accountability investigates complaints of police misconduct and recommends policy to the police department and the civilian Police Commission. Former Mayor Ed Lee appointed his then-chief of staff, Paul Henderson, as the department’s interim director in 2017; Henderson has been there ever since.
Walton said the person in charge of the department should not have to answer to their appointing authority.
“Currently, as a department head, the DPA leader is beholden to the mayor’s office,” Walton said, and lacks “true independence.”
Under the proposal, the director of the Department of Police Accountability would be elected starting in November 2026 for a two-year term. Beginning in 2028, the director would be elected every four years.
Walton and the three other supervisors co-sponsoring the legislation — Hillary Ronen, Ahsha Safaí, and Dean Preston — said that the proposal had nothing to do with Henderson specifically or his performance, or with Mayor London Breed.
In recent years, Breed has been chipping away at police oversight with attacks on the Police Commission and the passage in March of Prop. E, which cut back reform-minded oversight measures like reporting on the use of force.
Henderson had done “a tremendous job,” said Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, but this legislation would allow the director “more freedom to be as objective as possible and not subject to political pressure from the person that’s appointed them.”
But others have raised concerns that an election would only add political pressure to what should be an impartial, non-political position.
“It makes no sense,” said police oversight expert Barbara Attard, who was a longtime policy analyst and investigator at the Department of Police Accountability’s predecessor, the Office of Citizen Complaints. Attard said that an election would not necessarily bring out experts in the field. “It further politicizes an office that should not be political. Choosing a director for a position like that should be a nationwide search, and it shouldn’t be a political game.”
Attard and others were surprised by Henderson’s appointment to the position years ago, questioning his level of experience in police oversight. She suggested that the proposal could be a pushback to Breed’s moves to limit police oversight.
At the Rules Committee today, Attard presented her concerns during public comment, and the presiding supervisors said they would take her feedback into consideration.
Henderson, for his part, said his office is still reviewing the proposal, and did not comment.
“It’s a crucial time for civilian accountability throughout the country, and we remain committed to our award-winning practices, innovations, and outcomes that service the diverse communities of San Francisco,” he wrote in a message.
Walton said his proposal is intended to be proactive and anticipate incidents at the police department before they happen, as there is still an “urgent need for continued reform.”
The proposal was continued to a future yet-to-be-scheduled Rules Committee meeting. At some point, the committee of three members will take a vote on whether to recommend the proposal to the full board.
Of course the job is political. Not Republican-Democrat or “progressive/moderate/conservative” political, but political in a more general sense — the allocation and administration of power — that kind of political. For the past 9 years, the City has been engaged in an “apolitical” “bipartisan” “technocratic” even “collaborative” attempt to establish the bare minimum of police oversight, transparency, accountability and rationality. It pretty much failed. Why? Because politicians like Breed played political games and the Big Money SF guys want to buy the SFPD as their own private security firm. Not to mention the SF’s own cauldron of political reaction, the Police Officers Association. Whoever gets that position will have to be an “expert” in dealing with powerful and competing interests. He or She or They will need the backing of an informed and active constituency. The job could not be more political.
Well put. Always in favor of more democracy, including increased police oversight–unlike the current trend to decrease it.
I’ll vote for anyone who promises to work with the US Attorney’s office and SFDA to bring the racketerring influenced corrupt organization of the SFPOA to justice and to break that reactionary excuse for a “labor union.”
Campers,
A smarter cowboy would probably be discouraged.
That the BOS can’t see that the path to guaranteed Foot Patrols and Police Kiosks and kinder and gentler hires begins at the Office of Police Chief of the City and Country of San Francisco.
Only two explanations:
1. We are living in a Simulation.
or
2. “It’s Chinatown, Jake.”
Go ‘9ers !!
h.