Abolish the San Francisco Police Commission?

QA with former SFPD officer Lou Barberini

Despite denials from the political fringe and spins from biased media outlets, the City by the Bay has a serious crime problem. The latest episode that took Twitter by storm involved a family parked at Alamo Square. On July 4, 2023, they watched helplessly as their car was plundered by thieves.

Yes, San Francisco is down somewhere around 600 sworn officers and the crew on the beat just can’t be everywhere at once. But what is driving these types of shameless smash and grabs, as well as the entire span of escalating criminal events (such as a shootout in Pacific Heights that occurred on July 5, that so far has been ignored by the San Francisco Chronicle)?

Direct your attention to the San Francisco Police Commission. Currently comprised of president Cindy Elias, vice president Max Carter-Oberstone, and commissioners Larry Yee, Jim Byrne, Jesus Yáñez, Kevin Benedicto, and Debra Walker, this group has had quite the impact on the way officers can perform their jobs. 

The official role of the commission is to oversee the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and the Department of Police Accountability. Sounds darling on the surface.

I spoke with Lou Barberini, a retired 21-year veteran SFPD officer, about what’s really going on with the police commission.

Can you describe the overall political make-up of the police commission? 

The San Francisco police commission is composed of seven commissioners. Four are nominated by the mayor, and three by the SF Board of Supervisors. 

Even though the mayor gets to nominate four commissioners, her picks still have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Thus, the effects of aberrant supervisors that are elected by ranked-choice, instead of a consensus, has had an outsized influence on the SF police commission’s unconventional positions and consequentially on the morale of SFPD.

What is the relationship between the police commission and SFPD? Friendly, acrimonious?

As the police commission works closely with the Department of Police Accountability (which has oversight of SFPD) to institute rules that have removed tools from SFPD’s ability to enforce laws, the relationship between the commission and SFPD has deteriorated to an all time low.  

The relationship between SFPD and the commission should be distinguished from SFPD’s Chief Scott’s relations with the commission. 

Chief Scott has accepted and is implementing the 2016 Department of Justice recommendations for SFPD without any questions.  Some of the DOJ’s and Scott policies, including those that conflict with the recent Supreme Court decision on Harvard’s admission policy, have created disincentives for talented SFPD officers that choose not to seek promotions. 

How has the police commission changed the way SFPD functions?

The police commission has the right to fire and discipline officers. As officers watch the commission’s implementation of new policies, they view the commission as anti-police, and thus likely to render biased disciplinary findings.

Can you name a few things that the police commission has done that has impeded law enforcement?

The police commission is close to eliminating California Vehicle Code sections that SFPD officers can pull cars over for. It is my understanding that the City Attorney has to review the commission’s proposed general order before it becomes effective.  

The commission is also planning to monitor foot chases of suspects that SFPD officers are involved in “because they are concerned about the officers’ safety.”

The commission is also trying to prevent SFPD officers from looking at suspected criminals’ social media accounts to research the weapons used and the crimes that have been committed.

All this points toward the commission’s de-policing philosophy.

Ok, Lou, let’s speculate: do you believe the police commission has the city's best interest in mind? Or do they have other motives?

Let me put it this way: the three Board of Supervisor-appointed commissioners were all fans of [ousted district attorney] Chesa Boudin.

The three Board of Supervisor-nominated commissioners have an anti-law enforcement philosophy. President Cindy Elias has benefited economically from her husband earning a living by suing SFPD civilly.  Elias has a huge conflict of interest that survives in a one-party city.  

Is there a specific commissioner who is particularly egregious? 

In theory, Mayor Breed should control the Police Commission through her ability to nominate four commissioners. Remember, the Board of Supervisors still has final say on her nominations. The Mayor was fooled by Commissioner Max Carter-Oberstone who presented himself to the mayor as a moderate.

Without consulting with the Mayor, Carter-Oberstone penned a Time Magazine article advocating for the elimination of traffic laws SFPD can enforce. He voted for Cindy Elias as President of the commission, despite the mayor’s advocacy for a different commissioner.  And after agreeing with the mayor to submit an undated resignation letter, almost a year later he outed the mayor for such letters. I am not justifying undated resignation letters, just illustrating how Carter-Oberstone lacks a morale compass.  

Additionally, while he imposes restrictions on SFPD from reading criminals social media accounts, Carter-Oberstone uses a non-police commission email platform, instead of his police commission email, to circumvent public records requests.  Carter-Oberstone is the president of double standards

Interestingly, none of the current commissioners has had any experience as a police officer. Do you think this matters? 

Yes, the police commission is political body without technical law enforcement skills.  It does not appear that the commission weighs the risk to public’s safety when they codify new rules for officers.

Finally, there is so much concern about there not being enough officers to prevent and respond to crime. Has this commission had an impact on recruiting and keeping officers? 

To recruits, the police commission has a reputation of being very anti-law enforcement, which discourages applicants.

Also, that reputation has triggered a mass exodus of veteran police officers from SFPD, which has drastically reduced the law enforcement coverage of San Francisco.

— End of interview

So, would San Francisco be safer without this particular band of commissioners? In my opinion, yes. I look forward to your comments and thoughts.

To read more about Lou Barberini and what he thinks about San Francisco, policing, politics and much more, check out Lou's Newsletter. You can also find him on Twitter at @LuigiCPA (yeah, he’s also a Certified Public Accountant).