League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	San Francisco County, CA June 8, 2010 Election
	Proposition E Budget Line Item for Police Department Security for City Officials and Dignitaries San Francisco County Ordinance - Majority Approval Required Pass: 80364 / 55.82% Yes votes ...... 63600 / 44.18% No votes See Also: Index of all Propositions

Arguments For Proposition E

Arguments Against Proposition E

No secret budgets. The decades-long habit of not disclosing the City's dignitary security budget is out of step with Federal and State practices. The Secret Service publishes its budget for presidential security. The California Highway Patrol discloses the costs for protecting state officials. Proposition E is a simple, good-government measure that will provide transparency on how the City spends your money. It requires a single line item in the City's budget disclosing the San Francisco Police Department's annual costs for providing security to elected officials and visiting dignitaries. San Francisco is experiencing unprecedented budget crises. Every taxpayer penny should be accounted for in good and bad economic times. Granting the Police Department a waiver on sharing budget details doesn't make us any safer. During these times of chronic budget deficits, we cannot afford to place any City expenditure above the scrutiny of the annual budget process. Proposition E simply brings much needed budget transparency to an otherwise undisclosed expenditure of taxpayer's money without limiting or changing how the Police Department deploys or provides security. San Francisco Democratic Party Board of Supervisors President David Chiu Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi Supervisor David Campos Supervisor John Avalos Supervisor Eric Mar Richard Knee, Chair, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force* For identification purposes only; author is signing an individual and not on behalf of an organization. Rebuttal to Arguments For Prop E is a bad policy that will not make our City safer or save the City money Prop E was placed on the ballot by politicians looking to score political points, not by law enforcement professionals looking to make our City safer. It is bad for public safety, not good for government. Prop E will not make us safer Prop E politicizes the protection of our elected officials and visiting dignitaries by taking budgeting responsibilities away from law enforcement professionals and turning them over to career politicians. Prop E will discourage public officials who need protection from seeking it if the costs are made public and subject to the regular political process. Prop E will not save the City money Prop E singles out the Police Department for scrutiny despite the fact that several other San Francisco law enforcement are also responsible for dignitary protection. Prop E will not result in cost-savings for the City as the true costs for dignitary protection remain elsewhere in the budget. Vote NO on Prop E George Gascón, Chief of Police* Supervisor Sean R. Elsbernd* Supervisor Carmen Chu* For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

Providing security to City officials is a responsibility that is shared by several San Francisco law enforcement agencies. This proposition ignores this fact and naively singles out the San Francisco Police Department. In addition, Prop E attempts to solve a problem that does not exist. The City spends only what is appropriate to ensure the safety and security of City officials and visiting dignitaries. Prop E will neither enhance the safety of City officials nor will it save the City money. Prop E puts politics before public safety Prop E will shift the safety of our elected officials from experienced law enforcement officials to politicians looking to score political points. Currently, the S.F.P.D. provides protection for the mayor, other City officials, and visiting dignitaries; and already publicly discloses to the Board of Supervisors the annual cost of this protection. Providing security for City officials and visiting dignitaries is a necessary expense, but politicizing the costs of this service is unnecessary and unwise. Prop E will not increase safety or save the City money Prop E will subject the security provided to City officials and visiting dignitaries to "politics as usual" in San Francisco. Prop E will reduce the police department's control and increase the influence of politicians with little or no security expertise. Prop E may place public officials at greater risk Prop E's disclosure requirements may also deter some City officials from requesting legitimate law enforcement, when it would be clearly be justified, due to potential political fallout. The public's safety will not be served if those who need protection do not seek it. Please join us and vote NO on Prop E George Gascón, Chief of Police* Supervisor Sean R. Elsbernd Supervisor Carmen Chu* For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization. Rebuttal to Arguments Against Proposition E requires transparency where there is none. No other facet in San Francisco's $6.6 billion budget is held secret or unverifiable, except for dignitary security. Arguments for keeping the budget secret are without merit. Proposition E requires the Police Department to provide accountable data consistent with the city's budget process and Charter so that the City may exercise its fiduciary responsibility to you, the taxpayer. Opponents want it both ways: they claim that disclosing the cost of dignitary security endangers public safety while admitting they disclosed to the media a budget of $2.1 million for dignitary security. No one, including the Controller has verified this. Proposition E shouldn't be necessary -- but whether in good economic times or bad, there is no reason to hide budgetary data. The federal and state governments account for and disclose their dignitary security budget. The City should too. Just like on the federal and the state levels, Proposition E neither prevents nor reduces the Department's ability to provide personal security nor does it compromise their protection service. It is your money. You have the right to know how it is being spent. Vote Yes on Proposition E. San Francisco Democratic Party Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi Board of Supervisors President David Chiu Supervisor David Campos Supervisor John Avalos Supervisor Eric Mar Richard Knee, Chair, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force* For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.