Municipal budget woes are not news these days, although what is happening with taxpayer funds merits constant attention. Social worker Judi Iranyi points out in FogCityjournal.com in a guest editorial of June 28, 2009 how "San Francisco’s budget for social service programs, permanent housing, and homeless shelters is already stretched to the maximum. As the economy worsens, the budget for social services will be further reduced and some programs even eliminated while more San Franciscans will need those services." See, http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2009/06/28/is-the-community-justice-court-meeting-its-intended-purpose/

Lack of resources for social programs serving the less powerful in our city is exacerbated because an excess of taxpayer funds is being unnecessarily spent to fund other programs which could be provided at much less expense. Support for those other programs is clearly influenced by entrenched political forces including organized labor. For example, one has only to note the practice of "pension spiking" especially in the police and fire departments, exposed recently by the July San Francisco Grand Jury report. See,   http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/courts/divisions/Civil_Grand_Jury/Pension_Beyond_Our_
Ability_To_Pay_Final.pdf  and see news reports, http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=35211

Allowing career civil servants to add on excess overtime assignments and earnings to the last three years of their salary upon which their annual pension is determined after retirement, is just plain wrong. It burdens many generations of San Franciscans to come, not to mention taking away resources needed for present San Franciscans in other needed social programs.

Part of the problem is also clearly due to aggressive marketing efforts by the SF Police Department-administered (with taxpayer funds) off-duty police officer program known as the "10B" program, referring to the San Francisco Administrative Code Sec. 10B. Officers who already have a nine-to-five job protecting the city, earn time-and-a-half afterhours for lucrative security provided to street festivals, Giants and 49er games, and other sporting, entertainment, social, or educational events.

It’s not a piddly amount that’s involved.  The 2006-07 budget reveals that the SFPD income from 10B amounts to over $1 million. See, http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/police/information/annual_report_2007.pdf

In 1996 the Budget Analyst conducted a study of the Special Events 10B program, and found that:  For every special event in FY 1996-97, an average of 260 hours of police coverage were provided by the Police Department, at a cost of over $8.2 million annually.

What private clients pay for 10B coverage has historically not funded all city costs to administer the program. In 1996 the Budget Analyst noted:  According to recently developed reports, the Police Department provided police coverage for 706 special events in FY 1995-96, for a total cost of $7,303,564 to the Police Department. However, the City was reimbursed by outside parties for only $3,157,296, or 43 percent of total costs, resulting in a net cost to the General Fund of $4,146,268.

Research is presently needed, and being conducted, to compare today’s costs and practices with those from over 10 years ago, and to see if the remedies and cautions the Budget Analyst recommended to benefit the taxpayer, have been implemented.

In the summer of 2009, about 15 bar owners in the Castro district began considering whether they needed to seek additional patrol service beyond that already provided consistently over the prior 17 years by an officer from the Patrol Special Police. The group originally discussed adding four additional hours of late night/early morning patrol on Friday and Saturday nights, and consulted with the Executive Director of the Castro Community Business District, a tax assessment district having a budget available for security. They also discussed adding additional security on weekday nights as well.

The Director presented a price apparently worked out in advance with the 10B program to provide coverage on Friday and Saturday nights. In response, the Patrol Special Police Officer serving that district presented her own price for the same service as seen in this chart, demonstrating that the cost per hour for coverage by the10B officers was $95.26 compared to the Patrol Special rate of $48.00 per hour! The Executive Director proposed to subsidize the 10B rate with an annual contribution from the Community District budget of $9,295, bringing the 10B hourly rate down, but only to $72.92--still an amazing price compared to that normally charged by the Patrol Special Police, who pay all uniform, arms, and liability insurance costs from their fees. The 10B officer benefits by using tax-payer funded patrol cars, uniforms and weapons, and the City refuses to provide liability coverage while these 10B Officers are on duty--a further business risk to those who hire them.

For an unknown reason, the Director refused to consider applying CBD funds to subsidize the Patrol Special hourly rate, clearly preferring that bar owners hire10B. One is led to wonder at the logic of any business person paying three times the hourly rate for a public police officer working after putting in a normal 9-to-5 business day, compared to what he or she would pay for an additional neighborhood police officer from a tried-and-true policing service working his or her normal shift. The sole justification for doing so was presented by one of three bar owners at a meeting I attended. He believed that for his public relations goals, screaming sirens and flashing lights on SFPD patrol cars were needed to demonstrate that bar owners truly cared about community safety and were doing something about it. As to whether or not residents sleeping next to his bar would agreed, that is an easy question to answer.

An important question that the Budget Analyst raised in 1995-96 remains today when considering the overall wisdom of the 10B program, and that is one of competency. That question suggests that the San Francisco taxpayer may not be receiving sufficient return for their tax dollar paid for normal nine-to-five policing by their public police: “Special events impact the operations of the district stations by diverting police officers from their normal duties, and requiring that other police officers work high amounts of overtime on their scheduled days off.” See, http://www.sfgov.org/site/budanalyst_page.asp?id=5213

Further, the wisdom of hiring possibly overly-tired officer to work beyond a 9-to-5 shift, is dubious. In "Tired Cops" the writer suggests there are grave consequences to the public and the police from fatigue. That proposition is self evident, but the writer goes on to cite examples of excessive accidents of police driving patrol cars and conducting chases. One can imagine a similar danger even to police and pedestrians from overly-tired foot patrol officers.

Today the 10B program provides off-duty officers to those who wish to pay for extra policing, and the hourly rate commences at $87, with certain upcharges if motorcycle or patrol cars are requested. In addition, a 22% administrative surcharge is billed, bringing the effective hourly rate up to about $106. The SF Examiner in two articles published on April 13 and 20,  exposed the threat of these high hourly costs and the then-new requirement for advance payment of fees by our city's street festival organizers needing extra policing services. Some street festival organizers speculated that they well may not be able to continue sponsoring the festivals at all because of these fees and new practices.

Consider as well the updated total budget of the SFPD with its force of 1971 employed officers, more or less:  $442 million. This amazing budget ignores costs to the city of lifetime pensions, such as that for recently-retired 53-year old Police Chief Heather Fong in the annual amount of $229,000. See,  http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/controller/budget_information/aao/FY2009_10AAO8409_OCR.pdf.

One might be compelled to ask why this size of budget doesn’t support provision of adequate policing for events in the city, without requiring additional security to begin with.

The 10B program is a program of dubious wisdom at base. However, it’s supported by politicians for no apparent reason other than obtaining the endorsement of the powerful police union, because it certainly is not supported by logic or by the necessity of spending every penny with utmost care and wisdom in our severely cash-strapped city.

Compare that hourly 10B rate and required upfront payment, to the extremely cost-effective and highly desirable additional policing service provided for 161 continuous years in San Francisco, by the Patrol Special Police, who over their 161-year meritorious service to San Francisco, have garnered many, many satisfied clients, of whom I am one.

The Patrol Specials typically provide a month's service in advance of billing their private clients. They charge about about $48 per hour, and crime-prevention policing is their normal daily business, not high level, costly law enforcement or subsequent investigation and prosecutorial assistance. They are never exhausted after first putting in an 8-hour shift at the police district office before beginning duty, and never tempted to shirk providing their normal service in order to rush off to a higher-paid off-duty job.

They are motivated to do their best because they are themselves small business owners who are contracted for by merchants, residents, and organizations, client who if not pleased, can easily terminate service. Not so the civil servant, as we all know.

No one would argue with the proposition that we need our SFPD officers who for the most part are overworked and honorable, providing law enforcement to control the development of gangs, address drug proliferation, and pursue career criminals and the newly developing American terrorism.

However, we don't need them "learning how to do community policing" when the Patrol Specials already know how to do it, do it from the start of their service, and are already trusted members of our neighborhoods.

We do need the Patrol Special Police providing a far different and more effective type of neighborhood policing service than the SFPD officer can ever provide--or should be expected to provide. Patrol Specials serve limited geographic neighborhoods and are not required to run off to answer citizen calls, fill out endless paperwork, or turn in statistics at the end of their shift about how many tickets they wrote or arrests they made. Citizens need the Patrol Specials focused on early intervention in quality-of-life crimes that only lead to more serious crimes. We need them listening to their clients and the community, and respecting the particular nature and culture of their service area as they are motivated to do.

Why not let the Patrol Specials do what they do best and are well trained to do--at half the cost of the 10B officer?

And come to think of it, why not demand that our politicians immediately pursue a policy in San Francisco that affirmatively supports the growth of and public knowledge about the availability and effectiveness of the Patrol Specials, and encourage our public police to work in partnership with these officers? It's high time in this city to move away from careless or intentional efforts to marginalize or misrepresent what the Patrol Special Police do.

Perhaps the leadership of San Francisco’s new Police Chief Charles Gascon will pave the way for logic to come back to the process of addressing the safety needs of San Franciscans.

* * * *

Questions may be addressed to the author at: anngrogan@gmail.com