however i was only in that assignment for a year but i will answer whatever i can. to provide you with that information mr. gray did send me an email last year. i believe it was patrol special byer, the beat owner going to sponsor him through the program but i did not receive an application. >> the office never received one from him. >> no. >> did you respond? >> i did. >> that you didn't have an application? >> i never received an application. >> ok. just in the normal course of stuff if someone wanted to be a patrol and it would take you a couple of weeks to go through it and hand it up to backgrounds? >> it is fair to say that it would take a few weeks. >> i don't want to go on at length but if you could communicate with the commission the rough backlog and how long that takes so the public knows

after tonight's meeting. that would be fine for me. that is all i have at this point. >> i wanted a clarification talking about the gun holster, how many patrol specialists carry guns and are all required to go to the range? and how do they have the guns. >> they are supposed to qualify twice per year in april and october. >> are they post certified? do they have a license to carry the guns? >> the assistants have guard cards but the beat owners are exempt from possessing a guard card. >> ok. thank you. >> if i may say in october i did attend their qualification. and at the time the range master expressed concerns in regards to the retention level and that is how the memo was

generated. and therefore how the policy was implemented to increase the safety of the holsters. >> how much training does it take to get a guard card? >> it is basically an application. i believe that you also need to complete the 832, the basic course. i don't know exactly how many hours of increase. hour members also require possession of the guard cards if they are to work off duty as well. >> you mentioned 18-hour training, lieutenant. what was the training before? it is 18 hours now and when is that supposed to start? >> i will let robert speak to the past. but this was submitted and approved. basic firearm safety, four

hours. basic first aid response, four hours. basic statement writing, two hours. use of force, six hours. radio etiquette and procedures, two hours. legal update, two hours. in essence it is 24 hours. that was approved by the commander and also denise schmidt. there was some discussion that instructors would have to come in and teach this that it was a cost recovery that i am holding. and i haven't even announced this yet. out of fairness to them they have been calling me. i received three calls asking when this training would transpire so they could schedule their vacation. again i defer to my associate. i know that in october we had training at the police academy. i can't remember.

>> is that annual, lieutenant or every two years. >> the rules call for 24 hours of training. >> a year? >> that's correct. >> ok. thank you. >> you said that there were 27 patrol specials and 18 assists, is that correct? >> correct. >> so the assistants work for the patrols and, correct? >> yes. >> ok. i wanted to make that clear that it is not just 20. from the public's perspective, a member of the public won't tell the difference between a patrol special. i can't do the math out there. >> now a beat owner can work for another beat owner. >> i am slow today. i am sick. i am sorry. there are nine beat owners. the total number of people the public would assume are patrol special between the patrol specials and the assistant. 27 or 27 plus. >> 27. >> ok.

thank you. i'm sorry. >> ok. thank you for your update. at this point in time we would like to hear from the patrol special officers and their representatives. i know that there are several in the audience working diligently on this issue. if you can come forward and please provide us with your presentation. >> i am the president of the san francisco patrol special association. i would like to hand each of you a letter here from our newly elected supervisor, district 8, scott wiener. it is basically saying that he endorses us. we serve to the community. and that the community also

enjoys our presence. several months ago we started a letter writing campaign. our last meeting with you we gave you approximately 750 letters. i have approximately another 130 that i would like you to enter into on record. the commission who has given this report and focused in on liability, the cost of operating our program and training. as far as the liability, i have sent an email notice out to all of our beat owners to increase their liability insurance from $1 million to $2 million. i haven't received one email back saying no. the beat owners i talked to increased it up to $2 million

or more. let it also be known that the security companies that work in this city are only required to have $200,000 liability so when the pssg report says we enjoy special benefits, i think it is the security companies enjoying special benefits. we are more regulated by the city. security companies are regulated by the state. you have more control over us than you do with security companies. also another thing we looked at is the business tax that security companies are paying and the payroll tax. in a meeting with a couple of the commissioners in november we brought the fact up that they are not paying the business tax. this is costing the city up to $15 million per year. we think that should be looked into. we are doing our part to help the city. we think it should be another

part that should help the city. as far as the training, i have been talking to many people through email. and i have the city's request for what criteria the patrol specialists meet as well as the application forms, about 25 pages long. i have sent it out dozens and dozens of time by email. i have approximately 10-12 applicants who would like to go forward with this process. i have also stated to them that we will not accept anybody that has the 832 certificate. we want at least a level 3 reserve certificate or higher. the 12 applicants that i have all have that certificate or a full post. so you are looking at least 160 hours training on top of the 83 , all the way up to a full basic post, which i think is six and a half months of academy.

that is what i have been telling people. i will not accept applications unless this is met. this is, number one, to protect the citizens of san francisco a lot more because they will have training. when i first went through this, all that was required was the 832, basically 40 hours, a college course. i put myself through levels a, b and c and have kept up with all of the training. if you added up all of the training that i had it would be way above level 3. to make this a viable organization, this is what we need. and one other thing you need to take into account, the finances of the city. you have 40 police officers that if you discount the pssg program and look at the police

website, costs the city next to nothing. we realize the numbers that you are going to take from here and say this is how much it costs. if we had 40 more officers, assistants, you would get 40 officers for free for the city. hard to tell the citizens that we are getting rid of 40 officers. the city shortfall this year is $308 million. next year 460, next year 680. board of supervisors talked about dropping the drop program. if they do that you will lose approximately a quarter to a third of the police department.

the rules and regulations need to be looked at and they need to be redone. i offered to sit down with the police department to make it work. >> i am confused again. you said there are 40 patrol special officers when we heard there were 47. if you add up the numbers we have, we have officers not working that have not been heard from. i would like to say 40 officers because we are still in contact with some of them but the numbers will be between 27 and 40. >> that is one of the things that we need to correct. any other place of employment they would know who is working and employed, not a number between 40 and 27. what do you charge a typical merchant on your beat for a month's of service. >> i have one client that i charge $25. >> how about other clients? >> it would depend on what they want me to do. i respond to their calls, i

drive by and patrol their place to see if anything is going on out front and i charge them $300 per month. >> commissioners, any questions? >> you know, i want to make a statement. i understand you are doing your presentation. i read your report. i read the report. and i understand that you guys talk about, you know, raising liability insurance. i think that is one of the concerns that the city has. this thing about level 3, that is something we can talk about. the thing that your clients, that the identification of your clients and their fees. correct me if i am wrong, the way it is right now there is no confidentiality. if you turn it over, you are just turning it over. there is no protection that

others can access that. that is my understanding. i don't know if that is your understanding. >> that is correct. there is no way that can stay confidential. we have been looking for ways to keep it confidential so at least that we could prove to you that we are not overcharging. >> that is one of my concerns. if we talk about where we decide to go, we have to talk about the customer list and the fees. you know, those certainly are an asset. it is a recognized asset for the business and in some cases confidential. so i think that is something we should talk about and what protection we will give to these individuals who are running a business and are a valuable asset we are asking them to expose. i think that is something that we need to talk about as well.

>> maybe with our personnel files being confidential, why not find a way to take our client list and integrate it into the personnel file so only certain people have access to them and the general public or anybody walking by the file cabinet does not. >> that is a concern. i think it is a legitimate and valid concern. >> i agree. that is a great idea. we are concerned if you have anything from the san francisco police department you have to be transparent. somebody has to monitor to make sure that there is uniformity in fees and that there are not high fees being charged in some areas of the city. that is a good idea. >> commissioners, we met with you. we met a couple of times. we were blunt with you. we said here are what they are saying. can you step up to them.

some of them are fiscal concerns. it is costing the city a lot of money to have extra protection for some citizens. can you make it more cost neutral for the city. we talked about training. what can patrol specials do to address the cost of that. i am sensitive to that. i think that it is important that we have oversight in that the charter gives you a monopoly and you can't have an unregulated monopoly. we brought up training. when we get to the end of tonight in terms of where i am coming from, i don't think anybody should have a san francisco police patch and a gun unless they have a very high level of training. one thing we talked about is at least level three training. i think we owe it to the

citizens of san francisco. and finally, and you broke into that, i think. and the rules need to be up indicated. you sound open to that as well. how do you address the concerns out there. and they are real concerns. >> when you say monopoly, basically i think we are a third choice. citizens in this city can either hire private security. they can hire off duty officers or they can hire the patrol specials. >> you offer something more. i have seen you folks on the street. i knew jane warner. that is where i come from. before i was a commissioner, i was just a citizen of san francisco. i think you provide a valuable, policing service to a lot of folks. i strongly support them. but we made it clear that i think you need to and have

started to address the real concerns people have so we can keep you going. that is why we are here tonight. i am speaking in the memory of jane warner. >> just for the record we are letting patrol special officer myers speak more than three minutes obviously because he is the representative and this is their main presentation. commissioner kingsley. >> i would like more clarification on the business and payroll tax. i didn't get the point on that if you would go back to that, please. >> the city and county of san francisco requires to all security officers be licensed in the city to pay a payroll tax and a business tax. they need a business license. from what i understand the business license is just $50. but the gross payroll tax, i think it 1.2%.

there are many security companies doing business that do not pay this tax from our calculations, the loss to the city is anywhere from $10 million to $15 million. >> as a patrol specials do pay the taxes. >> payroll tax or a city tax because we are enshrined in the city charter. this was the original intent from the 190's when we were first put in the city charter, 1936. >> thank you. >> one of the concerns in the report relates to liability. and you mentioned it in your presentation that you asked patrol specials to increase their insurance. couple of questions. one, the fact that they are required to carry liability and

workers' comp. is that right? >> correct. as employees they do carry workers' comp. >> and they have liability, correct. >> correct. >> the city is named as know an insured on those policies? >> correct. >> there is obviously a way we can confirm the city is named as an insured on those policies. >> this is the information that we have until february 28th to turn in our insurance and car records. we also have $1 million policies on the insurance that we use. >> knowing we had an issue with potential liability to the city, you asked folks to raise it to $2 million. have you heard anything that they actually have? do we know for each of the 27 patrol specials or whatever it is, do we know precisely how much insurance they are

carrying right now? and if you did not have an increase to the levels committed to in your papers that were submitted, why has it it been that we haven't seen the liability insurance increased? >> i have talked to probably four of the beat owners. and they have increased it to $2 million. there are several beat owners who have more than that. >> that does not answer the question. do we know how much each has. right now we don't. >> as of what was turned in from february, no. they have not received the updates. >> it is an absolute necessity. if we don't know the

information and we can't come in a public meeting like this when we have this report that recommends terminating your program. we would have to do a charter amendment. i understand that if the program continues we will have to change some of the rules. but the idea that it has been since august and you can't come here and tell this commission what the status is is striking to me and a huge concern that demonstrates to me some of the lack of oversight, lack of knowledge about what is going on out there. when you have a uniform that is identical. a member of the public won't know the difference. they won't know the difference. if we don't know what is going on, you know, i don't see how we can just blindly say yes, you are a great thing.

we have obligations here. and at this rate it is disturb to me. and the idea we haven't seen action since last august is surprising. >> as of february is when the lieutenant requested all of this information be given. >> last august there was a report produced that said we should terminate this program. and liability is just one issue. there was an easy way you identified to address that issue. as far as i can tell you have not done it. some have. some haven't. some might have more. we don't know. the we don't know is a huge problem. it is a massive problem. we can't have we don't knows as the oversight body. and not coming in here with specifics is a problem for me.

it is obviously not on here. there is nothing we can do to vote. but you are not demonstrating the professionalism that we need to see from an organization that is sanctioned by the city. you know, again i go back to it. you have a uniform. you look like a cop. the public thinks you are cops. if that is the case we have to treat you like it. it is a problem. >> most of the general public cannot tell the difference. i agree with that. however there is a large criminal element out there that we deal with. they know the difference. we have had several officers get in altercations so far because of that. it is something that we have to deal with. and again, bringing up the insurance. it is something we have to deal with. we talked about raising the insurance up to $10 million. however when i called and got

several quotes it ranged between $25,000 all the way up to $80,000 for one year which would make it cost prohibitive and could even be seen as punitive damages against us. >> you can see the other side of the ledger there, the idea that to protect the city against potential liability to the city from actions taken by the patrol specialist. that is the purpose. if it is cost prohibitive, it is. i don't have an opinion right now on what the right level of liability insurance is but the report believes that the level we have now is inadequate. and, you know, to come in here and say here is a way to address it. having had six or more months and not being able to say yes, we have addressed this very significant and important and specific issue that was raised in the report is troublesome to me. there are a lot of people that want to present.

i will save more comments for later. >> this is along the lines of what the chair laid out. i know what i am looking for in this discussion. it is sort of reaction to what brought us here and what brought us here originally. the report laid out some strong certains ending in the recommendation that the program no longer exist. when the president laid out the parameters for him it is the same for me. there were five areas they talked about. i am hoping the speakers address those areas as they come to the podium. i know that is what i will be looking for. individual commissioners may have questions. that is their right. they want that information. i know for me what brought us

here is this document. what i am looking for or how you addressed the issues and i hope i hear that as we move forward. thank you. >> commissioner. >> right. i want to the say, and i commission your concerns, however my understanding was that you would address the concerns that they raised. you met with some of us and you suggested ways that we can work with us. and i thought it was more of a working meeting so we can come together and change the rules so that they would reflect some of the changes that would reflect the concerns that both sides agreed to make changes and we would change the rules. that is what i thought we were doing. i don't know if you needed to come here and be signed, sealed and delivered. i thought you were willing to do that. the question is what is the right number. you know, what is feasible in terms of economics and maybe changing the rules and making

it a requirement. the training, that goes to the training. that goes to the uniforms. that goes to the monthly reports. of course they goes to the customer list giving you protection before they have to turn it over. that is my understanding of what we were going to do and revise the rules to address a lot of the concerns. >> well, one of the things that you can save cost on this, i get approximately three calls every night from my clients. if i was not responding they would be calling sfpd. that is savings just alone. i work seven nights a week, 365 days per year. so, if you times those three calls per night over the year, this is how much money i save the city. if i wasn't there doing these calls, then regular p.d. would have to respond. most of them are c priority calls, once in a while it is a

b-priority call. just being there and doing this, i think the patrol specials actually pay for the program themselves by saving the city money. we should look at the way we save the city money. >> thank you. i want to respond to one thing. if your clients are calling you instead of the san francisco police department, i am concerned that they should call the police department as opposed to the patrols and. >> i wanted to thank the commander for his comment and echo it. in my experience these officers behave competently and they are

also professional in their demeanor in the way they approach caring for me in my community of glen park. i would like to answer several of the commissioners specific concerns. >> to the commissioners, i concur that it is important for you to take the care that you are. i appreciate if they are spending time to look into detail had asked for opinions on these matters. we want you to continue to regulate because officers. i want higher training standards entire application standards when new officers come into force. for the cost, i would like to address several comments. the cost for you to oversee the program announced to 0.06% of the police depen