City Hall Digest: New Legislation to Fight Fentanyl Dealing and Problematic Teacher Resignations

City Hall Digest is TogetherSF Action’s weekly dispatch from San Francisco’s City Hall, broken into bite-sized pieces—because understanding local government is your fundamental right.

Mayor Asks for Extra Police Budget to Address Officer Shortage

The San Francisco Police Department is facing a serious staffing shortage, which is affecting their ability to provide adequate levels of service across the city. While the Tenderloin has been receiving much well-deserved attention lately, other areas of the city like SoMa and the Mission are in need of equal attention. 

But, because the SFPD is short 600 officers under the recommended staffing level, it’s difficult to reach every neighborhood in need with adequate level of services. In order to compensate, the city has been spending millions of dollars on overtime for existing officers—between 2021 and 2022, the department saw a 121 percent increase in demand for overtime. In addition to issues with retention, the SFPD is struggling with recruitment—just 12 officers graduated in the most recent Police Academy class, as opposed to the usual 30 to 50. 

The Mayor is responding with a $26.7 million tack-on to the SFPD’s budget to retain the basics by covering overtime costs. This funding is critical to ensuring that the city’s pervasive open air drug markets are closed for good. Without it, we will see an even steeper reduction in police presence in the Tenderloin and SOMA.

Mayor Breed needs eight votes on the Board of Supervisors to get this supplemental passed. If this supplemental does not pass, the city Controller will have to freeze overtime spending and hiring, as well as preventing spending on new police academies. This would negate progress that has been made in recent weeks, and put additional pressure on the SFPD.

This legislation is so crucial to our city ending open-air drug markets that we’re making it easy for you (and your friends and family!) to email your supervisor urging them to pass the supplement. Click here to find your supe and hit send. 

Supervisor Matt Dorsey Introduces Legislation to Revoke Sanctuary Policy for Fentanyl Dealers

We’re making San Francisco’s drug crisis (and what the city could be doing better to solve it) one of our top priorities this year. And City Hall is listening: under new legislation proposed by District Six Supervisor Matt Dorsey, dealers convicted of fentanyl-related crimes who are also undocumented immigrants would lose the privileges currently afforded to them under San Francisco’s Sanctuary City policy.
The policy “prohibits City employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law unless such assistance is required by federal or state law.” This is meant to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants and encourage immigrant communities from using city services without fear of deportation. Undocumented immigrants are exempt from the policy under a narrow set of exceptions, including being convicted of murder or other violent felonies.

Dorsey’s legislation would add another exception to the list: for people who have been convicted of fentanyl dealing in the past seven years and then are charged with a new fentanyl-dealing felony or other serious felony. Under this exception, a judge would need to make a finding of probable cause that the defendant committed the crime.

We cannot continue to let SF be a place where people believe they can sell drugs without repercussions. This policy is a disincentive to sell drugs in SF and is in line with the other exemptions for sanctuary. More people die of fentanyl overdoses than from murder in San Francisco. It's a rare exemption but it's a tool that we can use to disincentivize drug dealing. 

We’re hosting an event about what the city could be doing better to get those suffering from substance use disorder the care they need on April 5. Register here!

SFUSD Quietly Lets Predatory Teachers Resign

Last week, The SF Standard reported that SFUSD has been letting teachers accused of sexual assault by students (among other infractions) resign or retire quietly instead of being fired in settlement agreements. A former SFUSD student, now an adult, alleges in a lawsuit against the district she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a former athletic director at George Washington High School—and made reference to these settlements in her suit. 

For context, this is a national problem, and the practice has been criticized by the federal government. The U.S. Congress even said in a 2015 education law that districts should individually prohibit the practice because it exposes students in other districts to potential abuse. In light of the recent reporting on these settlements, school board members Kevine Boggess and Alida Fisher have expressed their concerns about the practice.

So, how does this process play out here in San Francisco? 

It starts with the level of protections afforded to teachers as members of their unions. Union contracts say that a school employee must be kept on staff during a pending dismissal, though not necessarily on-campus. The employee also has a right to a hearing with testimony from witnesses, potentially including victimized students. This means that the alternative to a quiet resignation is a long, drawn-out and very public process which could be mentally taxing for student victims. On a national scale in states like New Jersey and Texas, unions have not endorsed measures to prohibit settlements because of due process concerns regarding their employees. 

Board President Kevine Boggess said that the approval of the settlements (which happens in closed session) always entails long conversations, but generally approves of them because of staff recommendations to do so. Boggess has also said, though, that settlements represent an “institutional failure.” 

By law, school districts are required to report suspected abuse to law enforcement—but reporting from the Standard shows that employees in the district have not adhered to that. Teachers may opt for retirement before they have to defend themselves in termination proceedings, colleagues may be dismissive of allegations from students, police may not actually charge someone with a crime—the ways in which bad teachers can evade accountability are many. This is obviously extremely problematic and SFUSD should look long and hard at the settlements for what they are: the easy way out, and a political choice.

Students’ wellbeing should always come first, and these settlements do not comport with keeping them safe. 

TogetherSF Action is making advocating for an end to the drug epidemic in San Francisco a top priority this year. Our first step? Flooding inboxes at City Hall. We need thousands of concerned San Franciscans to send letters to their leaders demanding they end open-air drug markets in 2023. Are you in?