SF Supervisors push proposal to persuade police to to delay retirement

San Francisco Supervisors went to great lengths Tuesday to ensure a controversial public safety measure reaches the November ballot.

The board voted 8-3 to advance a charter amendment that, if approved by voters, would offer financial incentives for older police officers to delay retirement. But it did so only after holding back-to-back special meetings to beat a deadline to get the measure on the ballot.

Those moves came after Supervisor Hillary Ronen attempted to spike the proposal last week by leading a 2-1 vote on the Rules Committee she then chaired to delay the measure past that deadline.

Critics of the proposal like Ronen argue that it could send pay for some officers soaring close to $500,000 a year.

“This is not going to be popular if we tell the voters the truth,” Ronen said Tuesday.

But backers contend such costs are worth paying to address the police department’s staffing crisis. As of May, The City had only 1,583 officers, well short of the 2,079 it is estimated to need, Supervisor Matt Dorsey said.

“We are not doing enough to staunch the bleeding of retirements,” Dorsey said.

The measure would create a Deferred Retirement Option Program, or DROP, that would allow eligible officers to delay their retirement for up to five years. During that time, the officers would earn their regular pay and the retirement benefits they would have received would be set aside and accrue interest.

The authors of the proposal — Dorsey and Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin — argue it is a way to buy The City time to bolster recruitment and bring more officers onto the police force.

Peskin and his allies on the board scheduled the two special meetings to overrule the Rules Committee.

Ronen has questioned the wisdom of the proposal, given that The City previously operated and then abandoned a DROP. Last week, she resigned as Chair of the Rules Committee over the dispute.

Ronen was joined by Supervisors Shamann Walton and Dean Preston as the only supervisors to vote against se advancing the proposal.

Ronen’s decision to delay the measure was unusual, as were the board’s twin special meetings to effectively bypass that move.

Much of Tuesday’s debate centered on the cost and efficacy of a DROP.

In its first year, the program would cost $600,000 to $3 million, according to an analysis by the City Controller . After that, the picture becomes muddier. By DROP’s fifth and final year, it could save The City as much as $300,000 or cost it as much as $3 million, depending on how many officers opt in, according to the City Controller.

Ronen, who is nearing the end of her second and final term in office, accused her colleagues last week of having political motives for pushing the measure. The DROP proposal and a separate measure to improve the retirement benefits of firefighters come as most members of the Board of Supervisors are seeking reelection or higher office this November. Both the police officers and firefighters have politically powerful unions.

Mayor London Breed has not taken a stance on the police measure. The Police Officers Association supports it but doesn’t see it as a make-or-break measure.

“If you want to do it, great, if you don’t, we’ll go back to the drawing board for something else,” POA President Tracy McCray said at Tuesday’s special meeting.

Opponents include the ACLU of Northern California.

“This is just another ill-conceived plan to send more money to the police department that already has a $800 million budget,” said Yoel Haile, director of the ACLU’s Criminal Justice Program.

Ronen came prepared Tuesday with a PowerPoint presentation outlining her opposition to the proposal. The measure would increase city spending at a time when San Francisco has slashed spending on social programs.

The Police Officers Association's recently negotiated contract included new and significant retention bonuses for officers, she noted, as well as wage increases that totaled $166 million over three years.

If the DROP program is approved, officers could be paid a base salary, a retention premium, overtime pay, and a retention premium on that overtime pay. The average officer enrolled in the program would receive $437,289 in annual pay, she said, excluding benefits like health insurance.

Rather than burden itself with such costs, The City should focus on its recruitment efforts, which are already showing signs of improvement, Ronen said.

Dorsey countered that the board’s own budget analyst estimated that the program could stave off as many as 50 retirements each year. Dorsey tied The City’s budget struggles and economic suffering to its inability to address public safety issues, particularly for large employers in his district, which includes South of Market.

“The problem that they are having with commuters not wanting to come into work has to do with street conditions and safety,” Dorsey said.