Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Body Worn Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses SFPD on camera procurement and data storage; patrol special item pulled for documentation review
Summary
Commissioners requested an agenda item to review procurement and storage plans for the mayor's proposed $6 million body‑worn camera purchase, and the commission removed an item on patrol specials from the calendar after the City Attorney and SFPD identified documentation irregularities.
Commissioners on June 10 sought clarity from SFPD about how the department will acquire and store body‑worn camera data and directed staff to calendar a procurement update.
Commissioner De Jesus asked whether the mayor's proposed $6 million for cameras will go to competitive bid, whether the department will seek an exemption to bypass an RFP, whether camera hardware and storage will be procured together or separately, and what alternatives exist for storage. "When we talk about the storage component, that was my biggest concern…are we exploring other ways to store the information, are there other vendors to store the information, or are there alternatives perhaps like storing it ourselves?" the commissioner asked.
Chief Sur said the department’s earlier pilot procurement went out to bid and that Taser won that bid, but he agreed to provide a more detailed presentation and update to the commission on acquisition and operational considerations. The commission agreed to calendar a detailed discussion of camera acquisition and data storage to coincide with policy development.
Separately, Commissioner Marzuko announced item 5 (discussion/action to approve patrol special officers) was taken off calendar because the City Attorney and SFPD found irregularities in documentation; staff contacted the patrol special in charge (Alan Bayard) and the item will return when appropriate documentation is rectified.
Why it matters: procurement and long‑term data storage are core operational and fiscal decisions with privacy, cost and public‑records implications; commissioners signaled they want transparency and competitive procurement. The patrol‑specials removal highlights documentation and oversight questions that will return to the commission when resolved.
The commission did not vote on camera procurement or storage at the meeting but asked the department to provide a scheduled update.
