>>We need your help! Become a 48hills member today and help us continue covering great local news and culture. Just $20 a month will support our work. Join here.
The Council bypassed the Rules Committee on Tuesday and approved Mayor London Breed’s nomination of Debra Walker to the Police Commission.
The vote was 7-3, with Principals Dean Preston, Hilary Ronen and Sherman Walton voting no. Principal Asha Safai, who voted against Walker’s nomination on the committee, was absent.
The vote came despite Walker essentially reiterating before the full committee that he doesn’t think the committee should set policy for the police department beyond a very broad statement and collaboration with the chief.
She said civilian commissioners should not be involved in “the fine print of general orders” – writing the rules that define how officers should behave.
She said that in the disciplinary cases she has heard so far, ” [officers] They have no understanding of the general order.”
It seems to be a training issue, not a policy setting issue for the supervisory committee.
She also defended her position in favor of allowing “pretextual suspensions.”
Walton, Preston and Ronen all said Walker doesn’t seem to believe in the commission’s mission of civilian oversight of police.
Part of the debate has been about the role of the commission and the city charter, but a growing number of people on all sides of local politics agree that the city charter needs significant changes.
Mayor Rafael Mandelman has taken a stance in favor of a stronger mayor and more control over the executive branch: “The police are part of the executive branch and policies should reflect the chief executive’s worldview.”
That’s why the mayor appoints the majority of commission members, he said.
But over the past two years, one of Mayor Breed’s appointed commissioners, Max Carter-Overstone, hasn’t always done what the mayor wanted. Does that mean the mayor can fire him? Is a police commission even necessary if the mayor is in charge of all policy?
This would be a dramatic change to the charter, which distributes power and some policy-making to supposedly independent commissions (though in reality they are all largely controlled by the mayor).
This means Walker will serve another term as president.
City officials then voted 9-2 to give Breed and her department chiefs the power to collect donations from companies that do business with the city to fund the construction of a new panda facility. A zoo with serious problems. (The zoo’s problems are not new and date back to the decision to turn the facility over to a private zoological society; see here, here and here.)
In any case, the city’s “vested payment ordinance” prohibits public officials from soliciting money for their pet projects from private donors who do business with or lobby the city. The city scandal surrounding Mohammed Nur and the Ministry of Public Works.
Board officials could, and did, waive those rules for the pandas and the zoo, but board Chairman Aaron Peskin and Ronen disagreed.
Peskin noted that PG&E is on the list of companies the mayor wants to approach, saying, “They’re constantly lobbying City Hall, and that’s not a good sign.” Indeed, if City Hall moves forward with the public utility, PG&E risks losing its franchise in San Francisco.
How can a mayor ask for funding for pandas and at the same time act directly against the interests of a large private utility? That’s a real contradiction.
When the bill first came before the committee, it didn’t include the names of potential donors. Preston requested a list, and now has one in hand. Here are the businesses Breed hopes to solicit donations from:
![](https://48hills.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Screen-Shot-2024-06-11-at-7.42.49-PM-1024x1006.png)
Additionally, some businesses have not signed contracts or lobbied the city in the past 12 months, but could have done so.
![](https://48hills.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Screen-Shot-2024-06-11-at-7.43.13-PM-821x1024.png)
Breed wants the pandas to help her navigate her troubling mayoral campaign, but she won’t budget for zoo renovations, so she will turn to the private sector, including corporations willing to do her bidding.
This pretty much defines why voters approved the mandate to limit payments. This is the very definition of potential corruption.