Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Awards Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police commissioners debate disclosure when awards are considered
Summary
Commissioners and department leaders disagreed over whether nominees for department awards should trigger disclosure when there are pending OCC, internal affairs or DA investigations. Captain David Lazar explained the awards process; several commissioners urged a simple notification to allow the commission to calendar closed-session review.
Captain David Lazar, the department's commanding officer of the training division, walked the Police Commission through the San Francisco Police Department's awards process and the standards for its medals, highlighting General Order 3.09.
Lazar outlined the hierarchy of honors ' gold, silver and bronze medals for valor ' plus meritorious conduct, lifesaving awards, unit citations and captain's complimentary reports. He described the nomination flow (memorandum, captain review, chain of command), the award screening committee of three civil-service captains, the 60-day nomination window for valor awards and the committee's voting rules, including a two-thirds requirement that can lead to downgrading a proposed award if the supermajority is not reached.
Commissioner Chan, who had requested the presentation, said the public ceremony and the honors are vital to recognize bravery but raised a procedural concern: when commissioners receive the list of nominees, the packet sometimes lacks information about whether there is a pending OCC, internal affairs or district attorney investigation tied to a specific incident.
"It would be helpful for the commission secretary to note if there is any type of current investigation going," Chan said, arguing that such a heads-up would let commissioners decide whether to calendar discussion in closed session rather than be surprised at the podium.
Several other commissioners echoed that position. Commissioner Kingsley said narrow disclosure of a pending investigation would keep the commission informed without compromising the awards process. Commissioner De Jesus and Commissioner Loftus described past instances where awards were delayed because of parallel litigation or investigation and urged a simple, transparent notification rather than overhauling the general order.
Chief Sur defended the existing system, saying the order provides commissioners with the prerogative to ask questions and request further investigation. He warned that some DA investigations can take years and said delaying awards for long-running civil litigation would be unfair to nominees. "There is an order that is replete with checks and balances," the chief said, adding the department and the award screening committee scrutinize nominations closely.
Director Hicks of the Office of Citizen Complaints told the commission OCC will report whether it has any open investigations related to a nomination but said OCC does not have access to every DA or department internal file. Commissioners settled on a practical step: have the commission secretary and OCC flag nominees with pending OCC complaints or investigations in the packet so the body can decide whether to move a nomination into closed session or postpone a vote.
Action items from the discussion included placing a brief notation in the nomination packet when OCC has a related open matter, and calendaring the topic for a follow-up action item in January to consider formalizing that notification or a narrow DGO amendment.
The commission did not change the awards policy immediately and emphasized the awards's value to officers and the department while seeking a modest procedural improvement to ensure commissioners have the information they need before voting.
