>> supervisor tang: good mornin morning -- >> supervisor kim: i want to acknowledge and thank our county clerk, john care ol, and thank the staff at sfgov tv for making sure that our meetings are available on-line and to the public. mr. clerk, do you have any statements? >> clerk: items acted upon today will appear on the april 3rd, 2018 board of supervisors

agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, mr. clerk. can we take a motion to excuse supervisor peskin? and we have a motion to excuse supervisor peskin. we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk, can you please call the first item. >> clerk: item number one is a resolution approving an historical property contract between patrick mooney and steven g. tom, the owners of 60 to 62 mooney street, a. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. this is, i think the third time we are now hearing this item, but supervisor sheehy did request that we bring this back to gao, and i know that we have sharon johnson from supervisor sheehy's office as well as tim frye from the historic preservation to present on this item, and my understanding is the owners, steven mooney and

patrick tom is here as well, and i also want to thank supervisor malia cohen and supervisor aaron peskin. mr. frye? >> thank you, supervisors. tim frye, planning department staff. 6062 carpal medicalita street is a contributor to the duboce landmark district, and it was ordered and prioritized as part of the landmark district as part of the octavia plan. it is a concentration of homes built by the master builder fernando nelson in the unique setting of duboce park. at its october 4th hearing, the commission unanimously approved the maintenance plan for said property with an amendment to remove the scope of work to install a garage. since then, the project sponsor has been amenable to making

that exclusion, and at this committee's meeting on november 21st, 2017 they requested some over ja overall information on the move in program. we did forward that information and learned from the rent board there is an agreement between the former tenants and the current property owners that the former tenant were not a protected class, and the owners can speak more to that when they present, the department believes to date there is no change to bring this back to the historic preservation commission or to change our positive recommendation for support at this committee. so i'm available should you have any questions, and the project sponsor is here, and i believe would like to say a few words, as well. >> supervisor kim: quick question. you said that the property owners agreed to the exclusion. the exclusion of the property garage? >> to include it as the scope of work in their mills act

contract. >> supervisor kim: i got it. and just to clarify, is 6062 two units exactly? >> yes. >> supervisor kim: all right. so seeing no further comments from staff, we are going to open up for public comment on this item, and i do have both steve tom and patrick mooney, the property owners, so please come up. >> good morning. >> supervisor kim: thank you for being here. >> thank you for having us. we first wanted to apologize for not attending the november 1st meeting. we did not get any notice of the meeting, so we were not able to attend, but we would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> supervisor kim: yes, thank you so much. so at the november 1st meeting, members of the committee had questions about a possible eviction on the site and recording with the rent board and staff, at that time did not have answers to the questions, so we continued this item because we just want to make sure that our landlords are acting accordingly to the law, and so i just wanted to

confirm, as mr. frye said, that this is a two unit building, and i have a letter from one of your tenants that said that they lived in the unit before you bought the residence and continue to live there. i. >> it's our primary residence. >> supervisor kim: oh, it's your primary residence, and it's a buyout are the tenants. >> peradvice of our counsel at that point -- we're new to this. we want today have somebody guide us through it, and he was guiding us through. and at that point, the existing tenant was not being cooperative, so we thought, perthe lot we filed a notice with the rent board, perthat, we were able to come to an agreement of waivers on both sides of any obligations and to close the lease, so we were able to have that executed, i

believe, in february 2018. >> we also wanted to make sure that we did everything perfectly -- >> supervisor kim: could you move up to the mic. >> we also wanted to make sure that we did everything correct and we didn't take any missteps so there could not be any allegations of improprieties that this were hidden agendas or anything else there. >> supervisor kim: no. no. thank you very much. this actually answers my questions, and i don't see any questions from the committee. i apologize. you didn't get a notice from sharon ferguson about the november 1st meeting? >> not until about a day and a half before the meeting. >> supervisor kim: okay. i will bring that to their attention. >> we actually did resolve that. >> supervisor kim: okay. i'd just like to say thank you for coming to answer our questions. >> i'd squlust like to say this is our home. as you can see by the letters

that -- of support we've gotten from our neighbors, we've gotten a home that was -- it was very badly neglected, and we've spent a lot of time working with our neighbors and experts to essentially renovate it to something we would be proud of. i'm a fourth generation san francisco, and this is essentially my legacy that i'm going to leave for the city, and you know, i'm very proud of it. you know, our tenants basically, we're very proud to have them be part of it, also. you know, that when we bought the building, they were a family of three, and now we're very proud that they essentially have added one more member to their family. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. thank you so much, mr. tom and mr. mooney, and we appreciate all of your work. we do support our homeowners;

we just want to make sure that there weren't any unnecessary or unlawful evictions on your site, but i'm satisfied with the answers that you brought. you know, the mills act, just for members of the public is -- can be a significant discount on your property taxes and in exchange for up keeping a historical property. we want to make sure that when we do that, that we have landlords that are complying with our existing laws, so i just want to thank you so much for being there. all right. so is there anymore public comment on this item? >> good morning, supervisors. sharon johnson from supervisor sheehy's office, and i'm just here to support mr. money and mr. tom's application, and the supervisor really wants to sponsor this. we find them very caring and very loving owners and tenants and support their application. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much miss johnson. soying no further public comment, public comment on item number one is closed.

>> thank you. i just also wanted to mention to staff that you know when these applications are brought to us, you know how very sensitive the board of supervisors is about evictions in general, and so it would be preferred that we clarify that information and provide it in a documentation before we even mention it because i think that, you know, unfortunately by even mentioning it, it set off an alarm with this particular property when, in fact, that wasn't the case. and so now that that has been settled, i'm comfortable with moving this item forward with positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors, and i just want to make sure that in the future, if we could add that as an additional responsibility on your plate to address those kinds of issues in advance with the appropriate documentation, it will help us become more efficient in moving forward with this process. >> supervisor kim: agreed. so i think we have a motion to move this item forward with

positive recommendation to the full board, and we can do that without opposition. thank you very much. i am going to skip over tight number two, which is a staff report on the budget legislative analyst's performance and move onto item number three because we have quite a number of individuals here to speak at public comment. i know folks are time limited, so i do want to get to that item as quickly as possible, so mr. clerk, can you please call item number three. >> clerk: item number three is a success or item memorandum of understanding between the city of san francisco and the san francisco police officer's association. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much mr. clerk, and the author or sponsor of the hearing, supervisor malia cohen is here today. supervisor cohen, i want to thank you, and hand it over to you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i'm so excited and thank you. the reason why i called this hearing today is because it's the right and the authority of the san francisco board of

supervisors to provide consultation and input to the mayor and to the department of human resources on the successor mou negotiation between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco police officer's association. and for the first time in over ten years, we are negotiating the terms of this mou. it is appropriate that the board exercise its role in bargaining as a branch consider consider bargaining as a branch of the employer, meaning that as an extension of the mayor's office, particularly given the sequence of acting an appointed mayors over the last 3.5 months, excuse me, this is an important conversation that we're having on behalf of the people of the city and county of san francisco, and i just want to ensure that we're doing a good job of making clear the scope of what is legally discloseable, what exactly is

being negotiated, and whether those items reflect the public's desire and sentiment. while it is the mayor's job to consult the board of supervisors through dhr, that's the department of human resources before any final agreement is negotiated, it is the board's job, this body, to approve the mou submission. so before -- before i'm comfortable on approving anything, i thought it was appropriate to have a hearing. i want to publicly express a few concerns that i have already about specific -- a few specific issues that i will detail shortly. i also want to identify the changes that i'd like to request publicly, that the mayor and dhr press in -- press for in their final award. first, since his appointment, the mayor has not shared anything with the board to date with regard to contract negotiations. second, i am concerned that up until very recently, one of the

mayor's current senior advisors, nate ballard, was also a consultant to the boa, third, beyond this perceived conflict, this mayor's recent endor endorsement of the tazer ballot initiative made him quite frankly the only elected official to take such position. now this position not only undermined our own sitting police chief, the police commission, and many other elected officials, let alone concerned citizens and community members, including myself. we are all vehemently opposed to proposition h, as it is shown that the mayor is opposed to show that he is on once again the wrong side of the issue. so ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be a fiery conversation. i hope you're in for a good time, and going to be with us

for the long haul because this is an important conversation that we need to have publicly to ensure that there is transparency and sunshine on an issue that has an impact on people's every day life's particularly people of color that are adversely affected by law enforcement. thank you. but i have to remind you there is no applause in the chambers. if you like what you hear, just snap your fingers, but no thumbs. all right. we are here today because we want to be sure that the mou done on behalf of the people of san francisco is done with effective unbiased leadership. the bottom line is we must make every possible effort to improve our public safety and the efficiency of our he esteemed police department. mou negotiations may impact safety and efficiency, the city should seek to accomplish those goals through bargaining.

it's important for me to make clear that this is not intended to be an antagonistic exchange or statement of position. i am making statements of historical fact, so to you members of the public -- i mean, of the press, make sure you report it right. despite everything, we believe in fair wages and benefits for officers, particularly those on the operations side. every day, human beings who have taken the oath 20 protect and serve and put on the uniform ask ask go o-- and go out in the world and protect tus on our behalf, they make split second decisions. i don't want to and i'm not trying to undermine their work. we want to select the best candidates for our police force. we want those who believe in the value of good community

policing. we believe in approximate our police chief and acknowledge that he needs flexibility to do that. sfpd cannot provide necessary -- this is all bad. i was on a roll. all right. we want elegant, thoughtful public safety, and we do not want the ham handed leadership style of mr. donald trump. not in this city, not in this town, so we are in the midst of a national conversation about police reform and police safety, and i think it would be negligent for us to ignore that reality as we move through negotiations. with that, i'd like to begin my questions. madam chair, may i begin questions or may i -- >> supervisor kim: no, no. you may ask since there are no further comments from committee members. >> supervisor cohen: to be fair, i want to acknowledge we have a stack full of public comment cards, and we will get through each and every public comment.

just a reminder, everyone will have two minutes. you'll have a soft chime, indicating 30 seconds remaining on your two minute allotment of time. we're going to hear from the department of human resources, the county attorney, the leadership of the police officer's association who respectfully denied an opportunity to come to this body. now that said, could the representative from dhr come on down. come on down and introduce yourself to us. >> am. >> supervisor cohen: good to see you. >> my name is carol izen. i'm with the department of human resources. i have prepared some remarks. >> supervisor cohen: and we would be happy to hear them. >> and i'm happy to deliver them. i just want to start by letting the audience know and you know that the department of

relations division and department of human resources is very receptive and interested to hear and listen to the concerns and complaints and incorporate that into our process and into our practice and i'm going to talk a little bit about that after i create some context. i'm here with chief scott, as you say. we've been actively working together as two agencies, the department of human resources and the police department to do everything we can to ensure a fair and decent labor agreement between the city and the police officers association. but i just want to provide a little context for the committee and for the members of the audience. the setting of wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for p.o.a. represented employees is subject to charter section 88.590. this charter section constitutes san francisco's local agency reasonable rules

for labor associatinegotiation are mandated under california law, the myers millions background act. the rules have been in police since 1 # 91. they require the city and department meet in good faith. they require january 20th of any year that we are renegotiating the contract, that we name a tripartite panel who may be called on in the event the parties cannot reach agreement. the same section requires that we submit to the board by may 15th even a negotiated agreement or in the event an agreement cannot be reached the awhere the of the arbitration panel, and i can assure you committee members that deadline will be met and we will be back here with one of those two things before the deadline. as you stated, supervisor cohen, the labor agreement between the p.o.a. and the city has not been fully renegotiated

since 2007. it has been amended on five occasions, and anybody who wants to go to our -- the dhr's website and look at the contract, it's there for public viewing. you'll see that it says the agreement between the p.o.a. and the city amendment number five. it's been amended five times, mostly for economics, in some instances to add money to the contract, and in other instances and notably in 2011 and 2012, to take money away from the contract when the city was in financial distress. so this is our first full round since 2007. it is being led by our very able employer relations manager, luanna preston who has many years in labor relations working with unions and public agencies. she could not be with us today so i am representing the whole team. we have been meeting with the p.o.a. and with the union's

negotiating committee on a regular basis since october. the mediation and arbitration dates have been scheduled in the event that they are need and had will continue through the month of april and early may. as you state correctly, we do report to and take direction from the mayor. we've had very unusual circumstances in this round of negotiations where we've reported to three mayors, and i will say that because of the nature of labor relations and the generally stablizing influence that this charter section provides, those directions have not very substantially changed. there have been various 'em if a cis a -- emphasises and we've tried to meet those under the approach. we're happy to come back whenever you would like us to come back. we also work closely with city

departments in labor negotiations. those departments typically serve on the city's negotiating committees. in this instance, it is one city department that is impacted, the police department, and we work very closely with the executive leadership team in that department to work our way through the various issues that are in the contract. we do hope and our intention is to reach a negotiationed agreement and present this to the board of supervisors for consideration. but if we do not achieve that, and we deadlock and we cannot reach agreement, then the matter is submitted to a tripart item arbitration panel, and the factors that that panel must consider are enumerated in the charter and i just want to make sure everybody's aware of what they are. they're very common. they can essentially be describeds described as the conditions

dealing with out in the community versus what the department can pay for awards. the amount paid for goods and services, the wages paid to employees performing services compared to other departments performing similar services, wages hours and terms of employment of employees in the city and county of san francisco. as you know we have other active labor contracts that have been established for the coming fiscal year. and finally, the financial condition of the city and county of san francisco and its ability to meet the cost of the decision of the award. one thing of note, and i'll end with this. the charter does exempt certain key aspects of employment conditions from the interest arbitration provisions in the charter. it doesn't mean we don't have to meet and confer about them,

it just means if we deadlock, the arbitration panel has no jurisdiction to rule on them. these are key matters between the city and its police union. number one, disciplinary procedures are not subject to this proceeding. two, the procedures and practices relating to the processes and disposition of complaints handled by the department of police accountability. crowd control policies and compliance with antidiscrimination laws. there are others. these are the ones that i'm calling out. and finally, the matters not specifically in the jurisdiction of the police commission generally are subject to interest arbitration provisions. as i said earlier, we are aware of the concerns of the no justice, no deal coalition, the human resources director, miss callahan recently met with representatives from the coalition to address the concerns and describe the restrictions that we operate under labor negotiations, but

we're sensitive and concerned and we're here to listen to you, and we thank you the opportunity to speak to you. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you for coming here. sorry. you're not done. >> i was hoping to come back. >> supervisor kim has some questions. >> supervisor kim: i just have some questions. if you could talk about the package that the p.o.a. is actively negotiating for for police officers. >> i really -- you know, these -- they're in flux. where we started is not where we are, and what will happen and what always happens -- >> supervisor kim: i understand it's a negotiation, but i'm asking what is the value of the package that the p.o.a. is currently negotiating on behalf of the officers in terms of the budgetary allocations that we afford and the mayor would be considering to add to our general fund budget? >> i think that would probably

prejudice the negotiations for me to announce that number right now, and i'm not sure that the number that it was walking into this meeting is the same number it will be when i walk out of this meeting. it's a number that is constantly in flux. >> supervisor kim: that, i understand. there are numbers that are being reported in the press regardless of what you state here today. is there a number that you're comfortable -- >> we don't sunshine -- we don't sunshine the initial proposals of either side. we've explained them in closed session to the board, and we're hoopy to come back and tell you the current state of affairs in terms of any numbers or issues that the state is seeking at this point. >> supervisor kim: how is it that the press has put out numbers? >> i cannot answer that. it has not come from our negotiating committee. we've -- we've been at this, between myself, mis-preston and

mis-callaha miss callahan, we probably have a solid 100 years in labor negotiations, and discussing with the press is not something that any of us would do. >> supervisor kim: thank you. impressive to see that there's 100 years between you ladies, and i know you'll get it done. >> supervisor cohen: i just want to follow up on what supervisor kim was talking about. in a letter from the p.o.a. that they sent to us yesterday, they said that san francisco police officers are below market in total compensation. would you agree with that statement or would you not agreement with that statement? >> i don't want to comment on the specific question of whether above or below. i will just say this: that policing, in terms of recruitment and retention of professional police is a constant struggle for this agency and for the other large policing agencies around the state of california. it -- one of our key goals in coming out of negotiations is to ensure that the department

has the tools available to them to retain a highly professional workforce and that includes competitive wages. >> supervisor cohen: okay. well, where does sf fall in the region, fall in the region for total compensation. maybe you can take it like the west coast versus the east coat or across the entire country. we're just trying to get a feel of where we're standing. >> well, surveying is an art, not a science. and one of the things if we do end up in an arbitration will be a point of contention is what that survey universe is. generally speaking, we are not -- certainly not the top pai payers in the bay area, but we are nowhere near the bottom. we're able to recruit with the salaries that we pay, but these things can change, and we're -- you know, policing has become a more difficult profession to recruit to, and so we need to

make sure we keep our police in the labor market. we are a player in the labor market because we employ so many police officers, so this is a concern, but i would say we're certainly in the top third of police officers in the bay area. >> supervisor cohen: very good. do you know which department employs the highest paid police officers in the bay area? >> i believe it might be santa clara, from what i remember, the data that we looked at. so there are really two key factors that we look at. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> one is the wage itself, and the other is total compensation. santa clara's a very high payer for base wage, but it varies across all the agencies how many members of these agencies contribute to their pension, their medical, what the medical is, what the other related benefits are for special skills, for retention, for

longevity and so forth. these are different compensations across police agencies and we look at all of them. >> supervisor cohen: i want to step away from compensation and ask exactly what it is we're asking our front line officers to do? maybe you can give us some detail on the job description. >> i think it's the best -- i didn't come equipped to talk about that. i think chief scott would be the better person to talk to you. >> supervisor cohen: okay. i've got six other questions for you. >> okay. >> supervisor cohen: can we confirm other mou's in the country where the police officers are paid by the county and not the city. >> not common in other occupations. in other occupations across the city, we do have generous release time for union

officials and union activists to engage in union activities on work time. the police officers contract consolidates that into its president's position, but this is a relatively common condition across all of our city agencies. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. can you share anything about what you have laid out as a priority for the mayor? >> for -- excuse me? >> supervisor cohen: through the negotiations, what are some of the priorities, you know, that the mayor has indicated to you or that certainly what you have indicated to him? >> well, i think this is not meant to be any means an exhaustive list, by i did indicate earlier that maintaining a competitive position in the labor market, i think is essential for long-term viability of quality policing in the city. we're very interested in updating a lot of the language in the contract. statutes have changed. our griefance procedure has some flaws that we're trying to

fix. these are common concerns for both parties. it's very common when an agreement has not been looked at for a solid decade that you will find outdated language that needs to be changed. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so sounded okay. >> to ensure that we're in compliance with local, state, and federal law, that we're in compliance with our own charter, that there's nothing in the agreement itself that runs afoul with charter provisions. these are the sort of -- and we look at all of the -- all the -- all the pay types. >> supervisor cohen: here's a question: have we ever considered hiring a third-party consultant to help us out with regard to this negotiation? >> that third-party consultant is built into the proceedings.

>> supervisor cohen: okay. >> that mediator and arbitrator, and that person has already been retained. >> supervisor cohen: are you able to share the -- who -- the firm? >> yes. his name is david weinberg. he is a long-standing federal mediator and arbitrator. many years in public service, and he's now a professional. >> supervisor cohen: i think that's all the questions that i have -- oh, the police officers in certain pay and benefits agreed to certain policy provisions. specifically i'm talking about can the use of force policy be included in the mou. >> no. the use of force policy is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the police commission, and we are actively in negotiation over aspects of that policy representing the police commission. >> supervisor cohen: colleagues -- yeah, supervisor breed, i see you have a

question. >> president breed: yeah. i just have one particular question regarding the lineup and the subject matter discussed during the lineup, and i just wanted to make sure that there's clarity around what is appropriate to discuss in a lineup and what isn't, and i just was wondering. i know there was a memo sent, but how does that play a role specifically in the negotiations for this contract? >> i think that's a matter best taken up in closed session. >> president breed: okay. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: you don't mind, colleagues, i'd like to call up the budget legislative analyst. thank you. miss isen. so for members of the public, i'm calling up the budget legislative analyst, and the about the la is an independent voice that the board of supervisors relies on often to do a lot of critical thinking and legal analysis for us. i'm going to ask them a couple questions, and hopefully she'll be able to answer them.

would you state your name. >> yes. good morning, supervisor -- chair kim, supervisor cohen, president breed. devon campbell from the budget and legislative analyst's office. >>. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. we have asked the bla to conduct a performance management audit, and i was wonder approximating had any open or brief remarks that you wanted to share with us today. if not, i've just got two questions for you all. >> yes. we were requested by the board of supervisors to conduct a performance audit of police department staffing and overtime. we are sort of halfway, two thirds of the way completelied. we plan to have the audit report out prior to the budget in june of 2018. i do want to say that we've had some difficulty or some concerns about obtaining the level of detail that we need on the overtime data this late

into the performance audit process. so we are still working with the department to get that data. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. i appreciate that. first question is how much do we currently spend on police staffing? >> we'll get that number for you. >> supervisor cohen: no problem. how much do we spend on the police department overall. as you know, i'm chair of the budget committee and it will be interesting to have these numbers and it will be informative in the process. >> if you want, we can get the information that you need instead of holding up the meeting. >> supervisor cohen: okay. that's great. at this point, i'm going to

pivot to the city attorney, mr. givner. thank you. okay. mr. givner, hi. good morning. so just a couple questions for you. are we still in active litigation with the sfpoa over the use of force -- use of force policy? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. yes, there is current litigation. the status of this case is it's on appeal in the california court of appeal has been mostly fully briefed, and we expect oral argument in that case probably in the next six to nine months. >> supervisor cohen: okay. and so what are some of the outstanding issues being litigated? >> the lawsuit arises out of the use of force policy adopted by the commission in december

2016. in june or so 2016, the commission adopted a draft use of force policy which was subject to -- which would then engaged in meet and confer with the p.o.a. at the conclusion of meet and confer, the commission adopted a final use of force policy which i believe is now in the department's general orders. the p.o.a. filed suit challenging two aspects of that policy: the proceed hibition on shooting at moving vehicles, and the prohibition on the use of carotid artery hold. the p.o.a. alleged in august that we hadn't engaged in required appropriate meet and confer. they asked a procedure -- a procedua --

procedure -- a superior court to issue a restraining order from stopping the policy to go into effect. the court ruled in the city's favor and did not issue the restraining order. the p.o.a. also asked the city to engage in arbitration on the matter. the court denied that motion as well, and the p.o.a. has appealed that decision. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. so what determines what scenarios trigger a meet and confer? >> the -- the meet and confer process is -- is managed by the department of human resources. our service works with that department and provides advice as we do for all departments. >> supervisor cohen: but who determines the area or triggers a meet and confer? you said dhr manages the

process, but there's something that happens that engages us into that process. hold on. microphone. okay. so the question is what -- what scenario, what action, what would trigger a meet and confer? >> when the city or police commission or some -- or the mayor's office, the department choose -- is seeking a change in a wages, benefits or a term and condition of employment, and the union has a right, depending on the nature of the change to either negotiate over the change itself or to negotiate over the impacts of that proposed change. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. that's very helpful because the example that i was going to use

in the questioning was that we, meaning the police commission and i think overall folks that are involved in this issue made clear that we don't want the police officers using the carotid restraint to subdue suspects. the carotid restraint is understood by many in the public, in the profession to be a chokehold or choking people, and it's also seen as a way to -- to give -- to damage an individual. so i was curious to know why was this considered an -- an n impingement on conditions and what triggers the meet and confer? >> why are we doing a meet and confer? it was over the union polipolie

union had a right to confer over that policy. >> supervisor cohen: how do you reach the policy that body worn cameras -- >> supervisor cohen, my comment on that point is conditioned by what deputy city attorney givner just described as a dispute, and this arises from time to time, not just with this union, but many unions about whether or not a matter is subject to meet and confer or whether it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employer to direct cope cone mr. city attorney, i'll ask to hear from you on this. >> i'd say this. i know this isn't a satisfying answer for the board or the public in the room, but because the litigation is pending, a detailed discussion about the decisions on meet and confer and the negotiations on meet and confer and what led to

the -- to the litigation, probably best to discuss in a closed session with our office and with dhr. we could potentially link up that litigation closed session with negotiation -- the next negotiation closed session that the board has with dhr and the negotiations with p.o.a. >> supervisor cohen: all right. so mr. givner, who decides if -- if a situation is worth a meet and confer? it sounds like a judgment call, and i'm just wondering, who's exercising that judgment? is it the city attorney, is it the dhr? is it the p.o.a. that's making that request? who makes that happen? >> i can answer sort of in abstract. when the board introduces an ordinance, they use supervisor cohen to introduce an ordinance that could impact the working

conditions for police officers in the city, police department employees or deputies in the city. dhr introduced all ordinances that are produced and makes the determination as to whether to notify the you know downof potential need to meet and confer. they discuss with my office if there are any close calls about whether meet and confer is required or whether notification is required. ultimately, that's a -- the department of human resources makes the determination, but it's obviously in a closed collaboration because it's a legal question based on the fact of the proposal. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. i guess my final question is an opinion from the city attorney. is it a conflict of interest for nate ballard to be an advisor to the mayor when he was just recently renaled as a lobbyist for the p.o.a.? >> my office does not provide

advice to officials or other officials. we would provide to the mayor's office any concerns that that position would have. >> supervisor cohen: it's my understanding that he has taken a leave from his role in the p.o.a., so he hasn't officially left. i think it's a real conflict especially around negotiations for this contract, and that gives me pause, and i think it's important that we understand where and how through the city attorney's office we can find out exactly, you know, what is going on, who's at the table, who's making the decisions and how that all is coming together. and if you could provide us with the information as to whether or not an opinion could be provided, whether it's in closed session or not.

>> all right. thank you, mr. givner. i want to go back to the bla, see if they're -- got some answers. so big picture. how much are we spending in the police department overall? >> so the police department budget for the current year is about 590 million. of that about 525 is general fund and about 6 a5. >> supervisor cohen: wait a minute. you're going too fast. 5 # 0 million overall. >> yeah. 525 is general fund. another 60 million is airport fund for the airport police. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> and have that amount of the entire budget, about 420 million is -- excuse me, a little over 500 million is salaried, and about 420 million is uniform salaries and fringe benefits. >> supervisor cohen: i'm sorry.

what's fringe benefits? >> with the fringe benefits, total salaries in the department across the department are a little bit more than 500 million, at 506 million. of that amount, and we're just doing a quick calculation with fringe, is about 420, maybe 415 million is for uniform salary and fringe benefits. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. >> about 415 million? i think uniform salaries are about 300 millions, nick? 300 million for the uniform salaries? yes. and then we're kind of adding on the fringe benefits estimates. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor kim just had a question, 590 million overall, 525 million from the general fund, 600 million from the airport fund, 520 are from fringe benefit and uniform salary. >> correct. the total salaries are a little

over 500 million, and then if you're just looking at salaries and fringe benefits -- excuse me. if you're looking at uniforms and fringe benefits, we're looking at somewhere around 415 million. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. and the final question is can you tell me currently how much we spend on police staffing? >> well, i think that when we say we'll be looking at -- if you're talking about patrol staffing, that would be another number that we'd have to figure out. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> the uniform itself is about $400 in fringe benefits, and uniforms about 415 to 420 million. >> supervisor cohen: appreciate the preview today. thank you very much. chief scott, welcome. >> good morning, supervisor. >> supervisor cohen: good morning, chief. to you. wanted to give you an

opportunity to make a couple opening remarks. i have a series of questions, and i'm not sure if my colleagues do, and once we hear from you, we will then hear from the public. >> just i'll be brief in my opening remarks. i'd like to thank the supervisors for putting on this hearing. it's important that the public understanding what's going on, and we're transparent as much as we can be given the law, and i'm happy to answer any questions for you. >> supervisor cohen: oh, great, that was brief. if only everyone was so brief. what are we -- what are we asking our front line sfpd officers to do? what is the basic function that we are putting forward to officers that are on the streets and that are serving? >> the basic function of a police officer, and they're first and foremost, is being a police officer, it's all about working with people. so working with the