The Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board on Feb. 7 discussed starting a national recruitment for a permanent sheriff’s inspector general and whether the board can appoint an interim or temporary inspector general while the search proceeds.

President Hsu said she had spoken with Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the director of public safety about soliciting national recruiters and wanted to confirm budget availability before formally launching recruitment. Board members asked DHR to report cost differences between an in-house DHR-led recruitment and using a national search firm; the meeting record noted the last national search cost about $10,000 more than the DHR process.

Deputy City Attorney Jana Clark advised the board on legal constraints. Clark said the board has authority to appoint and remove an inspector general but cannot establish a binding fixed term for the appointment; a board could designate someone informally as “interim,” but such a time limit would not be legally binding. Clark also cited San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.22 and California Government Code section 1099 as potential constraints on holding multiple public offices simultaneously.

Board members discussed options if hiring a permanent inspector general takes months: whether an existing city employee (for example, a DPA staffer) could take on the role temporarily without violating conflicts or incompatible-office rules, and whether a sitting department head (for example, DPA director) could serve as inspector general; Clark said a department head accepting the inspector-general role could forfeit their original position by operation of law.

The board asked for written memos addressing (1) whether the title/branding for the OSIG can be changed informally while a charter amendment would be needed to change the name permanently; (2) whether a city employee who is not a department head could serve temporarily as inspector general without giving up their other position; and (3) the full cost comparison for national recruitment versus DHR recruitment. No appointment or hiring decision was made at the meeting.

Why it matters: The board identified an urgency to fill the inspector-general role to preserve momentum for oversight and to avoid losing funded positions if hiring is delayed, but legal and budgetary constraints mean the board must resolve recruitment costs and evaluate legal options before acting.

Ending: Staff and counsel will supply written memos to the board explaining the legal constraints and cost estimates; board members were invited to submit written questions for those memos.