Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances ballot motion to require a budget line for dignitary security despite police chief's concerns
Summary
The Rules Committee voted to forward to the full Board a motion to place before voters a requirement that the city budget include an appropriation for police dignitary security. Chief George Gascon warned a line item could "handcuff the police department" and create an artificial ceiling; supervisors said the aim is transparency and oversight. The city attorney advised the chief retains discretion to exceed a line item.
Item 5 was called as a motion to submit to voters an ordinance requiring the city's annual budget to include an appropriation for Police Department expenditures on security for public officials and dignitaries, with an election scheduled for June 8, 2010.
Supervisor Ross Mercarini introduced the motion and asked Chief George Gascon to discuss operational concerns. Chief Gascon said he opposed a mandatory line item because it could "handcuff the police department" when unpredictable events occur and because public disclosure of detailed expenditures could jeopardize safety. He described recent unexpected demands on resources, including a short‑notice severe threat to an elected official, and said that disclosure can have "a very negative impact in the safety of individuals." He offered to provide year‑to‑date global disclosure and closed‑session briefings instead of a prescriptive line item.
Supervisors, including Chair David Campos and Supervisor Mark, said the motion's objective is transparency and to give the public and the legislative body general information about how much is spent on dignitary protection, while respecting necessary operational secrecy. Supervisor Mercarini and others noted media figures (an approximate $2,000,000 figure was discussed) and asked the controller for data.
Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen and the legislative digest clarified that a line item would not legally prevent the chief from spending beyond that amount if exigent circumstances required it; the chief retains discretion within the department's overall budget. Controller staff explained later that the number is not a precise budget but an estimate drawn from a PSSG study and existing spending patterns.
After public comment closed, Supervisor Mark moved a positive recommendation; the committee took the motion without objection and the item will be forwarded to the full Board. The chief said he remains willing to provide public global disclosure and closed‑session detail and that he prefers discussing details in closed session rather than a prescriptive ordinance.
