presented before you today, to reduce your fleet from 17 to 15 as cars go out of service in exchange for this one vehicle that i think you could use for multipurposes. >> yes. >> president yee: could i make one more comment, though? >> chair fewer: yes, president yee. >> president yee: in regards to the logging in and logging out, i could buy that, in an emergency, you don't have time for that thing. but i don't know how you explain when you bring a car back, you couldn't log it, somehow indicated that you used it. so if there's no enforcement, i think you need to let your officers know that yes, maybe when you take it out, you don't have time, but certainly, you have time when you return it. >> agreed. >> chair fewer: you're not the only department actually that is a little lax on that. >> supervisor ronen: i just wanted to make the point is that if anyone has ever accused

this committee of not being meticulous, this shows how serious we take every cent of this budget and how much we respect the feedback from the budget and legislative analyst. so i just want to use this as an example that this is how granular we're going to get about every single budget and legislative analyst recommendation that has not been accepted by the department. for you, this is just an example to other departments when they get ready to defend themselves. i think you did an exceptional job, so thank you, chief. but i just want to remind everyone that every dollar that we spend, even though we have a $12 billion budget, means that we're not spending it on

something else. and the community and supervisors have come forward with $500 million in requests of life or death asks. so it is the job of this committee to make sure that every we're spending is essential and more important than one of those $500 million of essential life saving asks, so i really wanted to use that as a teaching moment -- >> chair fewer: thank you. >> supervisor ronen: because we got very meticulous and granular about one vehicle, but i hope that other departments are paying attention and recognizing how serious we take this responsibility. >> chair fewer: thank you. so having said that, i also want to say please extend to the range master thanks for his willingness to use his own vehicle for this length of time, and save driving. >> it is appreciated. >> chair fewer: so mr. controller, can you please note that it is the intention of this committee to accept the b.l.a.'s recommendation for this department minus this agreement from this department. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your consideration. it's appreciated. >> chair fewer: thank you. thank you. so let's have city planning come up.

i think mr. john rahaim is here, and madam clerk, can you please call item number 4. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so before we hear the city budget, i'd like to take care of item 4 first, so mr. ram, would you like to speak on item 4? >> certainly. thank you, board members. this time something like an accept and expend. the state is asking us to put forward this grant a specific piece of legislation to highlight this board. sb-2, the grants are specifically intended to stream line the production of housing. so we have been working with the mayor's office, the housing

department, the mayor's office of housing to put together a proposal. the proposal is 625,000, but half of it could go to the city administrator's office for electronic plan review which will help us bring our processes into the 21st century. there are other things that i can get into, other policies and procedures that we are putting forward for proposing this grant, as well. >> chair fewer: okay. any comments or questions from my colleagues? there's no b.l.a. report. let's open this up for public comment. hello, mr. wright. >> good morning to you. all right. s.f. viewer, please. before i get started, i want to give my condolences to the

police officer female, miss o'sullivan, that lost her life in the line of duty. as far as housing is concerned, we've been spending money in areas that's not providing permanent housing for the people in need. you have a shortage of mental health beds here in the city, but yet, you keep getting billions and millions of dollars every year in your budget. here's the example of the rates of beds that's divided and it's in here and it's demonstrated that you have shortage of beds. you have statements made by supervisor stefani, tell us your wish, no matter how big. what can we do to stop and prevent homeless people from going back on the streets after the opening of your behavioral health center. you have explanations from

nurses that the best way is to provide permanent housing. i urge you to move the fact that this is a three-story, 144 dlsh unit apartment complex for a bargain price of $56 million. the building on the left, that's 86 apartment units at $57 million. nine times three is 27. you could get nine of these buildings with the $500 million budget, and by the same response, this location, that's a total of approximately 2,070 units that you could use these

people with the mental disabilities and disabled people and also rehabilitation centers for people on drug problems and staffing the city. [inaudible] >> chair fewer: seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this forward to the full board, the meeting of july 16. okay. now, let's hear from mr. ram. could we have a report from the b.l.a., please. [inaudible] >> -- 2019-20 budget of

$55,164,225. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $378,808 in fiscal year 2019-20. all of these $378,808 in recommended reductions are one-time savings. these reductions would still allow a reduction of $129,430 or 2.2% in the department's 2020 budget. we do not have any recommended reductions for the fiscal year 20-21 budget, and i believe we have full agreement with the recommendations. >> chair fewer: mr. ram? >> yes. thank you. we are in agreement with the proposed -- >> chair fewer: thank you. mr. controller, could you take note of the committee's intention to approve the recommendation of the department. thank you very much.

let's have the public defender, and let's hear from the b.l.a. please. >> the proposed budget for 2019-20 is 6.4% more than the proposed budget. of department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is $1,956,902 or 4.7% more than the mayor's fiscal year 2019-20 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $224,130. of that, $186,130 are ongoing savings, and 37,800 are

one-time. this would still allow a 5.7% increase of the department's 2019-20 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $242,792. and would still allow an increase of 4.1% in the department's fiscal year 20-21 budget. our understanding is we don't have full agreement with the department. i will let the department speak to what they agree or don't agree to, but my understanding from talking to our analyst is that they might agree to

recommendation 1 and 2 but not 3 and 4, and i'll let them speak to that. >> chair fewer: okay. mr. public defender. thank you for joining us here. >> thank you for having me. matt gonzales. that's correct, we are agreeing with the recommendations 1 and 2. and just so the board members know, we have a plan of what we're doing with the 68,000. we're going to have on-the-ground social workers that are going to be in place. moving on to number 3, this integrity unit, i can't -- i can't overemphasize the importance of this. there has been a wave of criminal justice reform and mandates for more integrity to the system, but it ends up being an unfunded mandate if we

can't guide the river back to the people that the reforms are designed to assist, and these are the clients. there are several areas that we're going to be working in that this integrity unit -- areas that we'll be working in. we asked for eight f.t.e.s. the proposal was two attorneys and one paralegal, and as i mentioned last week, any pennies spent in our office goes a long way. it's the most valuable money i believe that can be utilized in the criminal legal system. we have resentencing hearings that have to occur under

sb-1437. these are extremely complex cases with boxes of evidence that need to be sorted through. if i could have the overhead turned up, madam clerk. these are the ones in white here represents 38 cases where there are young people who are sentenced to 15 years or more or perhaps longer indeterminate sentences that need to have the work done to determine what their state of mind was at the time of the alleged offense. this may entail extensive analysis, mitigation, school records, family records. it's almost equal to the

mitigation work down -- done in death penalty cases. these are 40 cases where the work hasn't been done. so if you look at these youthful offender and felony resentencings alone, we have -- the court will conflict us off the cases if we can't take them, and they'll be paying the private bar for those cases. we had the will, we had the expertise in the cases, but we really need two attorneys and one paralegal to effectively accomplish our goals in this area, no -- yeah. so i'm happy to answer any

questions about the integrity unit. but just understand -- the reason we're calling it a broad integrity unit, for years, they weren't applying the correct mental restrictions law -- there are people that weren't even there that are doing life sentences. there are people that didn't have a right to a meaningful parole hearing that now have that right, but we have the right to develop out where that person's social, cultural, and mental state was at the time so they can have a meaningful

hearing. all these pages, they have to be organized, categorized, and make sure they can be effectively used in the cases that we have, otherwise, all those -- the flow of the materials isn't going to benefit the client. that's why we asked for eight positions, and the mayor's office allowed us two and one paralegal. that's why we're going to do so much with what we have. >> chair fewer: colleagues, questions? yes. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: i think if you can take a step back --

we're real ae familily familia 1421, but if you could explain the other two laws and what they are and how they changed the workload and the dynamic just so the committee has a sense of the huge task ahead of it. >> so with 1437, that was a change in the felony murder law which led to an -- and the change is basically if you did not have -- if you didn't act with reckless indifference to life or you were not a major participant in the crime then you should not be -- you're not liable for murder. so now, we have to go back and look at all those cases. there are a lot of people doing life for murder who did not commit reckless indifference to life -- >> chair fewer: oh, okay. i am -- would you speak directly into the microphone, please. would you mind, public

defender, repeating your explanation of 1437? >> yes. >> chair fewer: thank you. >> president yee: thank you. >> so there's been a change in the law which states that if you did not act with reckless indifference to life and were not a major participant in the underlying felony then you're not liable for murder. and so those cases where people were sentenced, they were convicted on murder, they're bringing back those petitions so then litigation to -- to then litigate to show that that person should not be serving a conviction. this is a case where someone could potentially be walking out or doing life sentences that are coming in. >> president yee: is that a list that you just gave us, this list reflects that? >> no. this list reflected the people that will potentially be

entitled to young offender patrol hearings because -- parole hearings because they were convicted of sentences -- >> president yee: sorry to interrupt you. >> sorry. i was moving to that next -- of 15 years or more, and they're entitled to a meaningful parole hearing. in order to have that, the obligation is on us to provide a snapshot of where that young person was at the time of the alleged offense, which could involve going back in time, getting psych records, family records, school records, getting a psych analysis, going to the former attorney so they can have effective representation at that hearing. so that's a massive amount of work. i've identified on this case, there's about -- page, there's about 80 total -- about half of

those are already identified public defender cases. the other half, we're determining who it should go to, and ochbviously, we want t take as many as possible, but if we can't do that, they'll be assigned to conflict counsel, or the court will assign them to conflict counsel, but we want to take as many as we ethically can. i think 1421, you said you're familiar with. >> supervisor ronen: yes. and with 1437, can you speak to how many cases you have to reopen, basically? >> we've been getting -- there's an outreach program in prison, so we've been getting a coup couple letters from prisoners a

week. we have to review them. at this point, i don't know what the numbers will be. we haven't done a review, but it's been a constant stream -- >> supervisor ronen: how long have 1437 been in effect? >> january 31st of this year. >> supervisor ronen: how many cases have you had so far? >> i would say a handful of -- actually in court, maybe 20 or so that are filed. >> supervisor ronen: 20? >> i would guess. >> supervisor ronen: so in addition to your normal work of staffing the courts and accepting every client that needs representation, you've had 20 new cases that you'd essentially interest to relitigate, you have to prove there wasn't attempt to commit the crime. >> yes. the classic case, the get away driver, the nonkiller.

but they can still be liable for the life sentence if they're a major participant or a -- and they have reckless disregard. just last week, we've had to put a couple things over, and we've got a couple tongue lashings from judge conroy, so we're stretched thin now. >> supervisor ronen: right. i would say it's clear to me that this is a huge undertaking, and i see why two attorneys might not cut it, but what would be helpful to us is if you maybe could come back with as much of that detail -- i mean, you did it with the juvenile cases, but the felony murder rule change is a huge development in criminal law in this state, and it would be good to know what the scale is

that we're talking about because i couldn't agree more with all of you that these laws are only going to make the change they're intended to make if they're -- if there's the representation make to make use of these new laws, but it would be great to have as much detailed information as we can. and two, the budget and legislative analyst, i'd love to hear your thoughts more because to me, i -- you know, i have some familiarity -- i've never practiced criminal law, but i have some familiarity with -- you know, i remember criminal law in law school, and this felony murder rule change is a massive change to our criminal justice system in the state. and to me, two attorneys then seek to reopen all the old cases that we may have going back quite some time seems incredibly reasonable if not

incredibly understaffed, so can you explain more your thought process behind this? >> sure. so we absolutely are not disagreeing with the importance of the unit and the changes in state law. what we're saying is the department does not really know work this is going to be, what the actual caseload is really going to be, so we said, instead of start with two attorneys, start with one attorney, see how it goes. and with the legal assistant, our recommendation is actually hire the legal assistant. what we're saying on that position is to adjust it to reflect what we think is actually going to happen in terms of the hiring timeline of january 1 rather than what they're saying is october 1. >> supervisor ronen: and did the department give you this list of the juvenile cases? >> no, we did not see that, but they kind of described the --

what they expected the caseload to be, but they didn't go into specifics. >> supervisor ronen: do you want to explain? >> yes. we want to hire someone in the next couple weeks, and as far as attorneys, they're not civil servants, they're helpful in this area. our feeling is this caseload would justify the two attorneys. some of these cases are from the 70's, so you have to to have somebody not familiar with the case now going through and digging through those materials, so it's a massive undertaking. and frankly, just the 1421 alone, just organizing that data in such a way that can be useful. the whole purpose of getting

these police misconduct records and so they can be used effectively in criminal trials and they were wrongfully convicted and going forward. so with all of these massive materials, we need a staff for that. >> supervisor ronen: to the budget and legislative analyst, with this additional information about the juvenile youth offenders and understanding how much we've staffed up other departments to deal with 1421, realizing the public defender also has a major role to play in using that information to the defense of their clients, have you changed your opinion at all today or are you still seeking additional information? >> we're standing by our recommendation. >> supervisor ronen: okay. so then what i would suggest -- and i'll leave it to my colleagues, but what i would suggest is you coming back tomorrow, and maybe between now and tomorrow getting at much data as possible specifically around the 1437 cases? because to me, if they can show

that between january and june they've taken 20 cases, that -- 20 cases for one attorney -- which for these felony murder cases seems legitimate to me. so i'm wondering if they can come back and prove that to you, if that would convince you to change your thoughts. >> we'd be happy to take a look at any additional information that they could provide. sorry -- not to -- >> chair fewer: oh, i i'm sorry to interrupt. so i just want to give the suggestion that you don't have to come back tomorrow. and what i would say, if those members on this committee now and the b.l.a. would like that information, that you can make that information available to us without coming back. and if you don't mind, supervisor ronen, i'm going to call on supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. thank you, mr. public defender for being here today.

just one question. was this an unfunded state mon date when 1437 and 1421 was passed. >> unfunded as far as we didn't have any positions for those. >> supervisor stefani: so was there any grant funding or state funding or anything like that? >> no. >> supervisor stefani: okay. great. thank you. >> chair fewer: supervisor yee? >> president yee: basic question here. some of the work -- other departments have asked for additional staffing, and we concluded that some of those requests would be, rather than permanent positions, would be temporary positions. this is one of them where at some point, we catch up with all those backlogs of people that qualify now that are already incarcerated.

would you then need these attorneys or as many attorneys to do the work? >> with the 1437, at some point in the future, we will have exhausted those cases, although that'll be a while. with the youthful offender, we have to do that going forward, and there are other positions in the state that are doing that extensive litigation work. the further away you get from the events, the staler the information gets, the more difficult it is to capture what that young person's state of mind was at the time, and that's why we really need to get going on that work now. so it is the type of thing that's ongoing. and as there are more reforms.

>> president yee: this is something not completely related to what we're discussing right now, but it's a budget issue. when you take on a client, we assume that they can't afford it and so forth. do we actually ask people whether they can afford it and whether or not --

>> if they can afford an attorney, then we're not appointed. [inaudible] >> maybe i wasn't clear. the defendant fills out a form, and then, the court makes the decision whether they can afford it or not. >> president yee: that was my question. here's my thinking. i'm -- i'm seeing these numbers of people, cases that are not being dealt with, and then, you're talking about those other cases in which for the six months, you've seen 20 or whatever, that it's going to climb, that i would probably support the ask.

i think it's fair to say that maybe you could come back to the board of supervisors and report how many annual cases so that we could continue to support those positions. and if we find that the cases -- the caseload that you're anticipating isn't really materializing, then i think if we hear, that we'll ask you to cut it. >> absolutely. i think we're going to be very good at documenting exactly what these positions will be doing. >> president yee: so that's our ask, that you have to come back annually to let us know how many cases they're actually handling for this new unit. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much, president yee. so i will just personally say this, is i don't think i'm

hearing consensus. i started the immigrants legal defense fund in your department. i think one attorney, one aide -- one paralegal is ample to start this huge, huge project. so what i am going to ask is i am not going to ask you to come back, but i will ask for you to provide this committee and the budget legislative analyst with the information that they've requested today. and i will deliver -- i will ask my committee members to take this into consideration. you know, i know that we get a document from the b.l.a., and

we go wow, how much work did they put in? they put in a lot of work, much more work than any of us on this committee. mr. public defender, i think you don't need to come back. we've all voiced our opinions on this. but i will ask that you provide the information to us, and i will ask the controller to note that it is the intention of this board to citizenshaccept recommendations on 1 and 2, but we will deliberate on 3 and 4. so if you don't mind, i think that's the direction i'd like to take. committee members, do i have consensus on that? >> president yee: i didn't make a motion, but i think it's fair to wait a couple of days. if it proves otherwise, i will

change my mind, but if the numbers show what i'm talking about, i'm sticking to my guns. >> chair fewer: thank you. i'm just thinking this is something new, and i don't think all of us understand about 1437. so thank you for sharing the information, and if you don't mind sharing the information with b.l.a. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. that's great. so let's have the sheriff's department now.

all right. mr. b.l.a., could we have a report on the sheriff's department. >> yes. the department's budget is 5% more than the original fiscal year 2018-19 budget. the department's proposed $268,461,282 budget for fiscal year 20-21 is 2.8% more than the mayor's proposed budget.

our recommendations to the propos proposed budget total $126,167, $50,000 are are one-time savings. -- in addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended encumbrances with a total general fund savings of $129,40 #. our recommendations to the proposed budget for fiscal year 20-21 total $322,962, all of which are ongoing savetions. these reductions would still allow an increase of $7,995,912 or 2.7% in the department's fiscal year 20-21 budget. my understanding is we do not

have agreement with the department. i do not believe we have agreement on any of the recommendations, so i'll just walk-through them quickly. so the first recommendation is to reduce request for senior legal process clerks. that's recommendation number one. the department's requesting three new legal process budget clerks in each of the two years, so that would be six total positions over the two years. just based on our knowledge of the department's ability to absorb new staff, we believe that instead of adding three in each new year, we recommend adding two in each new year for four new legal process clerks in total instead of six new legal process clerks total. the department already has --

currently has 32 senior legal process clerks. our plan would allow 34 in the first year and 36 in the second year. so we're saying yes to the addition, but not quite as much proposed. the second is related to the department requesting two new 1241 human resource analysts in 2019-20. our recommendation is to allow for one new position instead of the two new positions. the -- the approval of one new human resource analyst instead of two would allow the department to have one senior analyst position as well as one analyst position. and the next is recommended to

a line item for c.b.o. services -- the department carried forward unspend dollars from c.b.o.s of $519,000, and $300,000 of that was specifically to reentry programs, and based on their spending to may 2019, they're going to underspend their c.b.o. programs in the current year, and also i'll note that our recommended reduction is only 1.7% of their total budget amount for c.b.o. services. i'm available for any questions if you have any. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. sheriff hennessy. >> thank you very much.

i'm going to ask crispin hollissey to go through a presentation with you. >> we came last week and talked with you about several proposals from the department, one of which including the expansion of pretrial services project. so on reducing over time, the controller issued a report yesterday, one the controller referenced last week when we were all here. it was -- it's titled strategies to help reduce the reliance on overtime. and from 2016 to 2017-18, total hours of work decreased 13% primarily due to work order and

training requirements, but this pushed up the proportion of work outs from 14 to -- work orders from 14 to 20%, and they also noted the harmful effects that come from working overtime. the department agrees with the findings in this report. it is our priority to reduce overtime. one of the -- also in this report, the proposed solution is -- includes civilianizing 39 positions, and reading from their report, would allow the sheriff to reduce costs and improving staff in law enforcement functions. so this would move deputies to law enforcement functions. this will reduce overtime. the report suggested that we civilianize 34 positions. in the budget, we propose that we civilianize 24 positions. in the budget, this got

whittled down to 7 positions in the coming year. this delays civilianization, it decreases productions and increases our personnel costs. by shifting sworn staff into civilian positions, we're replacing these sworn staff with lower -- lower salary rates, and then, we are replacing the overtime with regular full-time on a one-for-one basis. we believe -- and our overtime budget came down as a result of moving these positions. and then, next, on expanding the services of -- of san francisco pretraial, the budge supports reforms. it does not anticipate funding

of federal court order which may come soon. this is a potential for add-back funding. and then, it also does not include additional add back -- potential add back funding to increase security of pretrial population. the b.l.a. recommendation reduced pretrial security by 500,000, which basically eliminates one pretrial position. so for -- and then, actually to show you how pretrial's workload has increased, we bring you back to a chart we showed you last week which shows our out of custody pretrial population going up 10% under the care of the sheriff, and then alternatives to growth in incarceration.

these are items that case management needs to deal with. and with that, we're ready for questions. >> supervisor mandelman: chair fewer, i have one. so i'm actually -- i want to thank you trying to get a handle on your overtime issues and coming forward with proposals to do that. my sense of the b.l.a. recommendations is that they're not based so much on the right direction that you're moving in, but if your department is capable of moving as quickly as you want to move. so in the first -- in the positions, they seem to be raising the issue can you hire quickly enough to actually get these positions in place. and with regard to the pretrial c.b.o. funding, they're seeing

the money that went unspent this year and wondering why would they give you more? >> right. i believe we can hire these people. i believe that was one of the concerns of the mayor's office, why they reduced that from 13 to 6. i think that's why they did that. we can handle 6. we're a department of 1,000. i don't think there's a problem getting those people on board. >> supervisor mandelman: c.b.o. funding -- >> go ahead. >> with regard to that, we have about $350,000 left in c.b.o. funding. that was because we had a training project that we had some savings. in our work with the mayor's office, our plan is to carry forward that funding to fund that pretrial, to fund that additional services for pretrial.

>> supervisor mandelman: and that program is going away? >> no, that's sticking around, but we have savings from this fiscal year that we're going to carry over to next fiscal year just to fund these additional pretrial positions. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. thank you. >> chair fewer: okay. president yee? >> preside >> president yee: in your presentation, you went kind of fast, but you mentioned in civilianization of positions, that this helps reduce the over time piece. >> yes. >> president yee: i'm sorry. so i think, then, it was just sort of a trivial question for me. if this is a reduction in how

much do you need for overtime, then, a reduction -- are there any -- in this budget book, it's not very detailed, so it's hard for me to really read it, but was there a reduction in your overtime line item? >> well, there are a lot of moving pieces. the mayor's office gave us budget for training, so we could have a staffing also to replace overtime. but in our initial ask from the mayor's office, we had a certain level of overtime, and that was reduced by the same number of hours for this civilian position. >> president yee: can you

please explain. i don't understand that. >> so the -- our proposal is to bring on seven civilian employees roughly halfway through the year is how it's been budgeted, so that equates to about 3.5 f.t.e.s for next year times about 2.5 hours per f.t.e., so that's about 7,000 hours, so we reduced our overtime ask by 7,000 hours in order to accommodate this shift into civilian positions. >> president yee: so if i were to look at the budget line item for overtime, it should have been reduced for year 4. >> well, there were a lot of moving pieces, and the mayor gave us additional overtime to bring on -- to increase our training, our academy class,

essentially -- really, to fund an academy class. >> president yee: how does that work? you need overtime to do the academy class? >> well, we need the dollars to do the academy class. it's -- essentially, these people, they come in. they're with us for nine months. they're not becoming -- they're becoming deputies, but for the first nine months, they don't count toward the minimums, but we need the dollars so we can bring them in and make them productive employees so they can then substitute out hours with regular full-time hours. >> preside >> so even when we hire people, we still have to wait nine months before they actually count against minimums. >> president yee: right. >> and we're still filling --

backfillng those people. >> president yee: right. but in addition -- i mean, but that's consistent for all. i don't know why that would change in terms of -- did you have -- did you have no training last year? >> i had to -- i had to cancel my mandatory training in october of last year because i didn't have the funds. >> yeah. the reason we came here for an overtime supplemental is because we were struggling so much with our training. we were ultimately able to bring that training down to a level where we cut out all non -- all discretionary training so that we could give that overtime supplemental money back to the budget. that's also being carried forward into this year's budget. >> so supervisor, one of the things that i think is important in the sheriff's department, police department, fire department, the overtime is pretty much the same amount, straight time as an f.t.e. while we got funded for

f.t.e.s, we didn't get the money behind that in some cases, so we're trying to get that money behind that so we don't have an overtime percentage of 15, 20%, which is unmanageable, and we've been struggle now for the last few years with that, and it creates a number of operational problems. >> president yee: and i'm -- i'm just trying to figure it out, but i'm not completely following -- it seems like what you said, there's a lot of pieces to overtime, which makes it hard for me to sit here in a minute and figure it out. maybe b.l.a., do you have any comments on overtime? was there any savings in

overtime, then, we should be able to pay for the overtime piece to add to the civilianization. >> i have something to add to that. in the last few years, our budget staffing has been going down for 1%. that still accounts for the overtime, but we still have to go up a little in overtime to continue to work in these positions in order to bring the overtime down to what we have. >> we could paint a picture to show you how the overtime came down as a result of these civilian positions. there are also -- if we add all of the nuances to this picture, you'll also see an increase, a temporary increase for next year only that allows us the funding to bring in an additional academy class. >> madam chair? >> chair fewer: yes. >> so our understanding is the

department wants to add these positions to redeploy deputy sheriffs to other areas of work, which was recommended in the controller's report. so these positions, that's what their goal is. our recommendation still allows them to do that. it's just instead -- we would allow eight new civilian positions in the first year and two new additional -- two additional new civilian positions in the second year, totaling ten new positions in the department for that purports and allows the department to recruit, hire, train a large number of staff and assess the workload for that staff. it gives them some time to do that. now, the overtime and deputy sheriff, they have six posts. we know that that is sort of a separate tradeoff. what we're doing is this is allowing them to free up some deputy sheriff to staff those six posts, so these are, again, 10 new civilian positions that we're recommending over the two

years. and if you would like more information about the overtime, we'd be happy to -- if the department could provide us with any of their parts regarding the overtime, we'd be happy to look at that and give it a quick analysis. >> chair fewer: thank you. >> president yee: i think that would really clarify these positions and so forth. i know you're trying to explain it to me. >> no, that's fine. we can do that. >> chair fewer: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i'm wondering if maybe the b.l.a. can help me understand a little bit better how you think what is absorbable by a department. it seems like the department has asked for 34 -- 13

positions, and it would be seven in one year, and six in the next. so the mayor's view of their capacity to hire is that 13 can't happen in one year, but seven can happen in one year and six in the next. you think that that's more than this department can do. how do you reach that? >> that's our experience of looking at this department and other departments coming back year after year seeing that departments are not able to fill these positions like they promised they'd do in the budget hearings in june. so it's an accumulation of experience looking at that, which is -- and we don't disagree that they shouldn't have some additional civilian positions so they can redeploy

at deputy sheriffs. >> supervisor mandelman: and if we think they're always going to miss their target, so if we give them 10, they're going to hire 8, we give them 8, they're going to hire 6 -- >> we're very skeptical. >> can i say, supervisor, the three years that i've been sheriff, i've hired 150 sheriffs and brought them on board. i've hired 30 civilians and brought them on board. >> we have a current vacancy of - 25, unlike other departments last week who said they have a number of vacancies, we're in negative territory because we're really striving to bring down our overtime. >> may i add just one point about the other recommendation just to put it in context? our recommendation is to reduce

the c.b.o. line by $50,000. their total budget for that line item is 4.3 million. >> the only -- >> chair fewer: so i just want to ask, so you're unable to find savings within your department to actually fund some of these positions that the b.l.a. is cutting. we have heard from department after department their willingness to come forward and actually come to a compromise or even suggest one, but your department has not. >> that's correct. >> chair fewer: so you can imagine that we have seen this -- we have heard from 50 departments, time and time again, smaller than yours, that are willing to give. but in your one department, you have said, i refuse to give anything. >> no -- >> chair fewer: i just want to say that that is unacceptable to this committee, that we think within your department that you can find something, and that is in good faith for

the people of san francisco is paying good taxes for this department to run. i just want to say quite frankly that that level of not working with this committee and also with the b.l.a. is, i would say, somewhat disturbing. and regardless, i think you present a good argument, and the b.l.a. is presenting a good argument. and you had a carryover of unspend funds of $232,000. >> can i say something? >> chair fewer: yes. >> the $232,000, we'll give

back. which item do you think we're being unreasonable about, because in the last four years, our staff budget has not gone up. i would draw your attention to the c.s.a. audit that we just received yesterday that includes all the information about our staffing and our budget and about their recommendations, and i've accepted all their recommendations because i think they did a good job on this. so it's hard to adjust and say say wait a minute, i want to bring my overtime down, like i've been requested to do, and also do it in a way that makes sense through civilianization, but also in a way that moves deputies back into sworn positions but also getting enough people hired that we won't be back here again with this overtime issue and continuing on that through the next year. and overtime isn't just -- it's not just about the money in overtime, it's about the toll it takes on the department trying to fill