Supervisors advance amended POA MOU adding retention pay, referral bonuses and a disciplinary disqualification

Supervisor Tom Ammiano, chair of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee, moved on Thursday to forward an amended memorandum of understanding with the San Francisco Police Officers Association to the full Board of Supervisors after staff won agreement from the union to add a disciplinary disqualification.

The amendment, presented by Phil Ginsberg, director of human resources, is intended to blunt a significant staffing shortfall in the San Francisco Police Department by encouraging experienced officers to delay retirement and by expanding recruitment. Ginsberg told the committee the city faces a shortfall relative to the department’s stated minimum staffing levels and noted heavy attrition: “We are trying to influence them quite candidly financially to delay their retirement decisions,” he said.

Under the amendment, officers with 30 or more years of service would receive a 4% retention premium, payable only to officers who are actively working. Staff said the premium would be conditioned on a minimum of 1,700 hours worked in the prior 12 months to avoid paying those on extended leave. The package also includes a $1,000 referral bonus (split into $500 after academy completion and $500 after finishing field training), a $5,000 lateral signing bonus for experienced officers joining from other agencies after a mini‑academy, and a $250,000 recruitment fund for joint labor‑management initiatives.

Supporters and critics framed the proposal around tradeoffs between immediate staffing needs and standards for accountability. Steve Currier of the Outer Mission Residents Association voiced support for recruitment and laterals while warning of local public‑safety impacts: “We need the cameras to help the police do their job,” he said, urging more resources for neighborhoods that have lost officers. Mark Solomon of the North Mission welcomed eliminating the practice that allowed retirees to take 90 days off before retirement but pressed for screening to avoid rewarding officers with disciplinary records: “There should be a test here before you give any recruitment bonus on whether the officer has a good disciplinary record,” he said.

Several supervisors raised similar concerns during questioning. Chair Ammiano said he could not support the retention premium if it allowed officers with recent disciplinary problems to receive the bonus. Ginsberg told the committee staff had discussed pension impacts with the retirement system and that the system “does not believe that this will have a substantial cost impact,” while acknowledging some incremental pension cost could occur for individuals who retire with a higher final salary base.

After a recess to consult with the union, Ginsberg reported that POA negotiators agreed to make officers who had a sustained suspension of 30 days or more within the prior 12 months ineligible for the 30‑year retention premium. With that change incorporated into the amendment language, Supervisor Ammiano moved to send the MOU amendment to the full Board as a committee report with the amended MOU to be provided to supervisors the next day.

The committee did not take a formal roll‑call vote on the floor at that time; members agreed to forward the item with the negotiated discipline language and to present the revised MOU in advance of the full Board consideration. The item will appear on the Board agenda as a committee report and staff said the MOU text reflecting the disciplinary disqualification will be circulated tomorrow.

Next steps: staff will provide the revised MOU language to the Board and the matter will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors.