Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board passes first reading of domestic-violence reporting ordinance; duplicate file sent back to committee for possible amendments
Summary
An ordinance requiring quarterly SFPD and District Attorney reports on domestic violence calls, charges and dispositions passed first reading Nov. 9. Supervisors debated expanding the covered Penal Code sections and requiring DA victim‑services reporting; a duplicated file will return to the Public Safety Committee for amendment.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Nov. 9 passed on first reading an ordinance requiring quarterly reports from the San Francisco Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office detailing domestic‑violence related calls, charging decisions and case dispositions.
Supervisor Ahsha Safaii and Supervisor Connie Chan joined as co‑sponsors, and Supervisor Shamann Walton presided. Sponsor Supervisor Catherine Stefani said the ordinance was developed after consultation with domestic‑violence providers and prosecutors who raised concerns about charging and disposition patterns that may leave victims at risk. The ordinance would require quarterly reporting of the number of domestic‑violence related 911 calls, whether a child was involved or a firearm was present, how many cases SFPD presented to the DA, and the DA’s subsequent dispositions.
Supervisor Hillary Ronan moved amendments and proposed additional data the board should require, arguing the ordinance should capture a broader set of Penal Code sections that reflect the full range of domestic abuse (for example, criminal threats, stalking, violation of protective orders, vandalism, false imprisonment). Ronan also proposed requiring the DA to report on services provided by the office’s victim services unit (number of victims contacted, services delivered and types of services). Ronan said those additions would provide useful data for budgeting and policy decisions and offered to duplicate the file and return a strengthened ordinance to the Public Safety Committee rather than delay the original measure.
Stefani said the bill uses existing definitions from prior city crime‑victim reporting legislation and said she supported duplicating the file so the committee could consider Ronan’s amendments, but she asked the board not to delay passage of the current ordinance. The board voted unanimously (11–0) to pass the ordinance on first reading and separately voted unanimously to duplicate the file and send the duplicate to the Public Safety Committee for further amendment and consideration.
What changes may follow: Ronan’s proposed amendments (to broaden Penal Code sections covered and to require DA victim‑services data) were not enacted on first reading but will be considered in committee after duplication. The ordinance sponsor and advocates said the current measure sets a reporting floor, not a ceiling, and will not prevent the DA from releasing additional information if the office chooses to do so.
Implementation: The ordinance passed first reading and will return for additional committee review and a second‑reading vote before final adoption. No specific dates for subsequent hearings were set on the Nov. 9 record.
