Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Osig Budget And Recruitment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oversight board approves inspector general budget, hears DPA caseload rise and presses for IG recruitment
Summary
The San Francisco Sheriff's Department Oversight Board voted 5-0 to approve the Office of Inspector General's proposed budget for FY 2025'027, heard DPA's report that caseloads rose to a three-year high and that most use-of-force allegations were not sustained in 2024, and directed staff to work with Human Resources on a national recruitment and legal memos about interim appointments.
The San Francisco Sheriff's Department Oversight Board on Feb. 7 approved the Office of Inspector General's proposed budget for fiscal years 2025'027 and spent substantial time discussing staffing, oversight capacity and recruitment of a permanent inspector general.
"We still have the base FTEs that are in the budget, but those positions are not funded at this time," Nicole Armstrong of the Department of Police Accountability told the board as she presented the final OSIG budget. Armstrong said the budget instructions directed departments to cut general fund support by 15% (about $200,000) and noted the office is technically allocated 13 full-time equivalents but that only two positions are currently funded.
After that presentation the board voted to approve the OSIG budget. Dan called the roll and the board recorded five ayes, zero nays.
The board also heard a statistical briefing from the Department of Police Accountability. "We have the heaviest caseload over the past three years," Marshall Kine said, summarizing DPA's Q4 2024 and 2024 annual statistics. Kine said DPA received 19 complaints in Q4 and that, while allegations of unnecessary or excessive force remain the most commonly reported subcategory, DPA's 2024 sample yielded only one sustained excessive-force finding and nine sustained allegations overall (largely categorized as neglect tied to documentation failures such as missing incident reports, failure to log force events, or failure to activate body-worn cameras).
DPA described several projects and constraints. A planned integration of the DPA complaint portal onto jail tablets is paused because DPA lacks staffing to handle a likely surge in complaints, and earlier tablet availability was briefly interrupted by a cybersecurity issue; the vendor Nucleos was identified as a vendor counterpart in discussions. DPA said it has launched a case management system and an online complaint portal and is preparing dashboards and additional recommendations for the board.
Board members repeatedly returned to staffing and accountability. Several commissioners asked DPA and OSIG staff to emphasize, when presenting budgets to the mayor's office and the Controller, that the office needs more funded investigators and operational staff to meet charter responsibilities and avoid an ongoing dependence on borrowed support.
Recruitment for a permanent inspector general was discussed at length. The board directed staff to ask the Department of Human Resources to solicit national recruiters and requested a cost comparison (DHR vs. national firm) to be brought back in March. The board also asked the city attorney's office for a legal memo on whether a current city employee below department head rank could be appointed temporarily and whether campaign and governmental conduct code section 3.22 and California Government Code section 1099 create conflicts that would bar dual roles.
Legal counsel Jana Clark explained the board can appoint and remove an inspector general but cannot impose a binding employment term; the board may label an appointee "interim" but cannot create a legally enforceable fixed term for the appointment. Clark said certain code provisions may prohibit the holder of two city offices when both positions carry salaries of $2,500 or more.
Votes at a glance: - Motion to excuse Member Winn: moved (Speaker 4), seconded (Speaker 5); approved unanimously. - Approval of minutes for 12/06/2024 and 01/24/2025: moved by Speaker 5, seconded by Speaker 4; vote 5-0 (ayes). - Approval of OSIG FY2025-27 budget: roll call vote passed 5-0 (ayes). - Approval of SDOB Q4 2024 report: roll call vote passed 5-0 (ayes). - Approval of SDOB 2025 priorities/timeline: roll call vote passed 5-0 (ayes).
Next steps: DHR will provide cost information about recruitment options; the city attorney's office will prepare a legal memo on appointment constraints and whether temporary internal staffing options are permissible; DPA and OSIG will return with additional data visualizations and staffing/budget justifications for mayoral and Controller review.
