Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chief Hiring Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco Police Commission debates contract status, severance and term for next police chief
Summary
The Police Commission discussed whether to recruit the next chief as a contract employee with severance and a fixed term, weighing PERF—s 5-year recommendation against the city—s existing MOU, retirement rules, and a likely months-long process to change terms; commissioners asked staff and DHR for more analysis.
The San Francisco Police Commission on March 11 debated whether the city should change how it hires its next police chief, including converting the position from a mayoral at-will appointment to a contract employee with a specified term and severance protections.
Dave Cabrera of the Office of the Legislative Analyst told the commission that most large jurisdictions either specify a term of office or use a contract with severance and that the commission—s report compares San Francisco to examples in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and New Orleans. "As you know, the chief of police is hired appointed rather by the mayor," Cabrera said, explaining that San Francisco currently treats the job as at-will while the new MOU provides a modest severance (described in the presentation as payment in lieu of 30 days— notice and an amount equal to one month—s pay for every 10 years of service).
The commission discussed trade-offs. Some members said a multi-year term or contract could help recruiting and insulate the chief from short-term political pressure; others warned that many jurisdictions with apparent "terms" still treat chiefs as at-will in practice. DHR Director Mickey Callahan told the commission that many changes could be negotiated through an MOU amendment with the management union but that anything affecting retirement would require a charter amendment and voter approval. Callahan also noted meet-and-confer obligations with labor groups and a months-long timeline to amend an MOU.
Several commissioners said the legislative analyst—s memo raised more questions than answers and urged independent follow-up research. Commissioner Lee noted the April 13 deadline for applicants and cautioned against implying a change to hiring rules before the application window closes. President Sparks asked commissioners to define the objectives the commission wants (for example, recruitment incentives, severance formula, term length) so staff can translate those goals into legal options.
The commission assigned follow-up: Commissioner De Azuz agreed to work with DHR, the legislative analyst and the mayor—s office on contract and severance options, and the commission asked staff to return with clarified options and timelines.
Next steps The commission did not adopt a policy change at the meeting. It asked DHR and the legislative analyst to provide more precise comparisons of contract language, severance formulas and legal constraints and to return with recommended options the commission can forward to the mayor and Board of Supervisors.
