Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hospital Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hospital clinicians and nurses clash over contracting out security at San Francisco General
Summary
Physicians and hospital administrators argued Proposition J would let non‑sworn security integrate with clinical teams and save money; nurses, institutional police and many staff strongly opposed privatization, citing training, authority and safety concerns.
The record on Proposition J — which would allow the Department of Public Health to pursue contracting for security at San Francisco General Hospital — featured contrasting testimony from hospital clinicians and front-line staff.
Leslie Dubin, director for clinical operations at San Francisco General, and Dr. Todd May, the hospital’s chief medical officer, told the committee the current model limits staff flexibility in clinical crises because sworn deputies lack certain legal authorities to act in noncriminal medical situations. They urged the board to support Prop J, describing a model where contracted security would be integrated into the health care team.
Dr. Mark Leary, a longtime psychiatrist at the hospital, said contracting could yield fiscal savings and better match personnel skills to clinical needs. He cited an estimate that contracting could save “over $4,000,000 a year,” and pointed to examples in other counties where non‑sworn security had been used in hospital settings.
Nurses and institutional police officers disputed both the safety and savings claims. Multiple nurses from inpatient psychiatric units described situations in which institutional police or deputies restrained patients on psychiatric or surrogate holds; they said private security typically observes and reports and lacks authority, training and the ability to perform arrests or restraints when needed. IP officers and union representatives noted high turnover and limited training in private security and warned of liability and continuity risks.
Several speakers cited the Alameda County experience and asked for independent cost verification. The record presented competing operational rationales: clinical flexibility and fiscal pressure on one side; on-the-ground safety, training and liability concerns on the other. The committee took no final vote on Prop J at this meeting but accepted technical fiscal amendments and scheduled further departmental negotiations.
