Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Defender Staffing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public Defender warns staff shortages could force refusal of homicide cases; committee disapproves two paralegal requisitions

San Francisco Board of Supervisors — Budget and Finance Committee · January 21, 2009
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The public defender told the Budget & Finance Committee that rising felony and homicide caseloads and a shortage of paralegals are pushing the office toward refusing assignments; after debate about midyear cuts and projected savings, the committee voted to disapprove (table) two paralegal requisitions.

The Public Defender told the Budget & Finance Committee the office has seen a sharp rise in felony filings and homicides and that current paralegal staffing levels leave it unable to meet constitutionally required defense work. "We can no longer continue to represent the number of homicide and serious cases... being down to paralegals," the Public Defender said, framing the request for two legal‑assistant positions as necessary to avoid turning cases over to private counsel.

Why it matters: The department argued that refusing appointments to excess cases is an ethical obligation under the Sixth Amendment if it cannot provide competent representation. The office estimated private counsel would cost the city roughly $120 per hour for homicide work and as much as $200,000 per case, comments intended to show that failing to staff the public defender's office could raise long‑term costs.

Committee debate and analyst response: Budget analyst Harvey Rose and the controller's office disputed some of the public defender's cost claims and the certifications behind projected savings. Rose said the city's calculation of public defender hourly cost plus overhead put the rate near $93.62, a figure he said falls within the $85–$120 range the Bar Association might charge. The controller reported the mayor's office had identified about $289,006 in realized midyear savings so far but could not certify larger retirement‑based savings the public defender projected.

Outcome and next steps: After extended questioning and public remarks, a motion "not to approve" the two requisitions was made, seconded and passed; the item was tabled. The Public Defender asked the committee to consider a future, holistic fiscal comparison that would include the cost of contracting private counsel if the office declines cases. The committee did not record an itemized roll‑call tally in the hearing record; the motion passed as recorded on the audio/transcript record.

Clarifying details: The public defender requested two existing legal assistant positions at 0.31 FTE each; the PUC/controller cost estimate to fill the positions in 2009 was approximately $49,580 with a projected two‑FTE cost for 2009–10 of about $157,205 if retained in the next fiscal cycle. The controller and budget analyst emphasized that some of the public defender's larger projected savings depend on retirements that the controller would not certify as realized.