All posts by David Onek

Uncategorized

It’s Time for a DA Who Knows How to Prevent Crime

Our criminal justice system is completely broken.

We are spending so much on our prisons that we have practically bankrupted the state – draining resources away from the things that would actually make us safer, like more cops on the street, more teachers in our schools, and more services in our communities.

At the same time, seven out of ten people who come out of prison return within three years. We need to dramatically overhaul the system to prevent crime and make our communities safer.

We have a unique opportunity right now – this Tuesday – to move away from the status quo and towards a system that works. I’m running for District Attorney because I believe we must keep violent offenders off the street and focus on preventing crime with better education, job training and drug treatment.

I’ve earned the support of San Francisco’s teachers and six of the seven School Board members because I am the only candidate with a clear plan – The Safest Generation – to keep our kids in school and out of the criminal justice system.

I have spent the last twenty years bringing law enforcement and the community together to build collaboration around pragmatic criminal justice reforms. My proven record of success is why I have been endorsed by an incredibly diverse coalition including Sheriff Michael Hennessey, the San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco’s teachers, the California Police Chiefs Association, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, the Sierra Club, the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, and thousands more.

Currently, we are wasting our resources on programs and policies that just don’t work. I will look at every aspect of our criminal justice system closely to determine what is working and what isn’t. I have three criteria to determine what works and what doesn’t:

– Does it make us safer?
– Is it cost effective?
– Is it fair and equitable?

If the answer to these questions are “no,” then it is not something we will continue.

I have rigorously applied these criteria to the death penalty – which is why I am the only candidate who has been consistently and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for my entire career and this entire campaign.

We need new leadership. We need someone with the courage to do away with a status quo that isn’t making us safer and is costing us too much.

I hope you will visit my website, www.DavidOnek.com, to learn more about our grassroots campaign. And I hope I’ve earned your vote.

Uncategorized

The Death Penalty Debate: Who Believes What and Why It Matters

A recently released study showed that California has spent over $4 billion on prosecuting capital cases since re-instating the death penalty in 1978. While over 800 Californians have been sentenced to the death penalty, just 13 have actually been put to death. A prisoner on death row is much more likely to die from natural causes than from state-sponsored execution.

The costs of continuing California’s death penalty are estimated at $5.52 billion over the next 30 years. All this cost – yet with no public safety benefit. There is no evidence the death penalty deters crime. And there is clear evidence that the death penalty disproportionately impacts people of color.

What we do know is that the $5.52 billion that will be spent in the next 30 years if we continue the death penalty could instead be redirected towards efforts that actually keep us safer – more community policing cops on the streets, more services to keep kids in school, and more drug treatment and job training programs to keep the formerly incarcerated from committing new crimes.

For all these reasons, the death penalty matters. And since the discretion to seek, or not seek, this flawed penalty rests solely with our local District Attorney, the candidate we elect to this important office is central to the local death penalty debate.

I am the only candidate running for San Francisco District Attorney to state clearly and unequivocally that I will not seek the death penalty under any circumstances. I have looked at the data – and the data guide my decision to focus our precious time and resources on activities that actually make us safer, not on a flawed and failed policy.

My two opponents in the race have taken a less forthright view on the issue.

George Gascón has stated publically numerous times that he is “not categorically opposed” to the death penalty and would seek the death penalty in “appropriate cases” — cases that were “so heinous, so evil per se” that the death penalty was warranted. He expounded in a San Francisco Chronicle Op-Ed that “in my three-decade career as a police officer, I have seen some pretty bad cases… And that experience has caused me to be hesitant to say I would never seek the death penalty.”

Yet he goes out of his way to suggest to more liberal audiences that he does not “support” the death penalty and that he would not seek it in an increasingly specific number of instances. He told one liberal audience that he would not have asked for the death penalty in the case of the “Night Stalker,” who murdered at least 14 people while terrorizing communities in both Northern and Southern California. He told another audience last week that the mass murderer of children in Norway did not merit the death penalty. When asked directly exactly what types of cases he would consider for the death penalty, he has refused to answer. This is not the clarity San Franciscans deserve.

Sharmin Bock also lacks clarity when it comes to the death penalty. She says she is personally against it and implies she will never seek it – but she will not categorically rule it out. Instead, she says she will set up an internal committee to review potential death penalty cases and make a recommendation to her on a case-by-case basis. But if she is truly never going to seek the death penalty, this committee is a meaningless waste of resources. Bock has also publicly expressed concern that the Attorney General will intervene to take cases away from her if she does not go through this process – but that is an extremely unlikely scenario given Attorney General Kamala Harris’ record on this issue.

Why does this matter?

It matters because the death penalty matters. And it is vital to elect a DA in San Francisco who will unequivocally end this wasteful practice at home and thus have the moral authority to lead the fight to end the death penalty statewide and nationwide. And it matters because we need candidates for office to give us clear and consistent answers to serious questions like the death penalty – not responses so finely parsed we have trouble understanding just where they stand.

Our criminal justice system is severely broken – it has nearly bankrupted the state while failing to keep communities safe. Fixing this system won’t be easy. I’ve spent my entire career studying, shaping and implementing criminal justice reform, and I know exactly how hard it is going to be.

I also know this process starts with building trust in every community. And building the kind of trust it takes to make real change starts with giving a clear and forthright answer on an issue as important as the death penalty.

Uncategorized

Gascón’s Three Strikes Charge Inappropriate

Interim District Attorney George Gascón has charged Lucinda Moyers, who allegedly burglarized the hotel room of “Jeopardy” host Alex Trebek, under California’s Three Strikes law, which could lead to a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

Gascón’s spokesperson said he was taking this step based on Moyers’ two prior burglary convictions, in 1990 and 1991. Moyers has stated to reporters that she had a heroin addiction, and denies the charges in the most recent incident.

Moyers, if found guilty, certainly needs to be punished for her actions. But a punishment of 25 years to life is completely disproportionate for someone who has never been convicted of a violent crime. Moyers is 56 years old. Does it make any fiscal sense to keep her locked up into her seventies and eighties at a average cost of $47,000 per year – and likely more as she has greater health care needs as she ages?

As District Attorney, I would have a clear policy against charging third strikes for non-violent crimes. Based on the information we know about this case, I would absolutely not have charged Moyers under Three Strikes.

There has been a lot of rhetoric about Three Strikes in this campaign, and claims that all the candidates have the same views about it. This case is evidence that we most certainly do not.

Uncategorized

Gascón’s Three Strikes Charge Inappropriate

Interim District Attorney George Gascón has charged Lucinda Moyers, who allegedly burglarized the hotel room of “Jeopardy” host Alex Trebek, under California’s Three Strikes law, which could lead to a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

Gascón’s spokesperson said he was taking this step based on Moyers’ two prior burglary convictions, in 1990 and 1991. Moyers has stated to reporters that she had a heroin addiction, and denies the charges in the most recent incident.

Moyers, if found guilty, certainly needs to be punished for her actions. But a punishment of 25 years to life is completely disproportionate for someone who has never been convicted of a violent crime. Moyers is 56 years old. Does it make any fiscal sense to keep her locked up into her seventies and eighties at a average cost of $47,000 per year – and likely more as she has greater health care needs as she ages?

As District Attorney, I would have a clear policy against charging third strikes for non-violent crimes. Based on the information we know about this case, I would absolutely not have charged Moyers under Three Strikes.

There has been a lot of rhetoric about Three Strikes in this campaign, and claims that all the candidates have the same views about it. This case is evidence that we most certainly do not.

Uncategorized

The Safest Generation: Creating a Safer City by Reforming Our Juvenile Justice System

2 Comments

(David is a candidate for SF DA – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

My campaign for District Attorney is focused on making San Francisco the safest and fairest big city in the country. And San Francisco’s children – whether they are at home, at school or in their neighborhoods – can and should be safer than any generation that came before them. Achieving this goal will not only protect our children – it is the most effective way to make our entire city safer. And it will be a hallmark of my District Attorney’s office.

We are bankrupting ourselves by supporting a broken criminal justice system. Taxpayers and San Franciscans who depend on local services are paying the price for the inefficient and frequently ineffective policies of the past. Incarcerating adult prisoners costs more than $47,000 per prisoner per year and the dramatic increase in prison costs is nearly bankrupting our state.

In order to improve safety – as well as bring costs under control – we must fundamentally change the way we prosecute, and prevent, crime in this city. And the very first priority must be fundamental reform of our juvenile justice system.

The majority of adult criminals started out in the juvenile justice system. It is time to refocus our efforts to cut crime at the source instead of merely treating the symptoms – by keeping youth who enter the juvenile justice system from becoming adult criminals.

Moving from Punishment to Restoration

Over the past two decades, legislatures throughout the country, including California’s, have responded to the issue of juvenile crime by adopting laws instituting harsher treatment of juvenile offenders. Yet, there is a substantial body of evidence indicating that juveniles, in fact, lack adult capacities with respect to judgment and impulse control. At the same time, juveniles are more amenable to rehabilitative interventions than adults.

Under my leadership, the District Attorney’s Office’s juvenile justice efforts will be guided by a restorative justice model. Restorative justice can make San Francisco safer, and keep San Francisco’s children from becoming adult offenders. The focus of restorative justice is on repairing the harm done by an offender’s actions. It puts the victim’s needs and offender accountability to those needs at the center of a community-involved process to repair the harm. High-quality restorative justice programs have been shown to reduce recidivism, increase victim satisfaction, engage the community, and reduce costs.

Changing the Juvenile Justice Status Quo

While my District Attorney’s Office will be predicated on a restorative justice model, it cannot be the only solution. We have to change the focus and mindset of how we operate our juvenile justice system.

To do that, I will elevate the juvenile unit to a full Division within the District Attorney’s Office, headed by a Juvenile Division Chief deeply knowledgeable about all aspects of approaches to juvenile crime and offenders and committed to working closely with affected communities.

It is critical that this new Juvenile Division is staffed by Assistant District Attorneys with specialized knowledge and qualifications regarding juvenile justice. Thus, Assistant DAs recruited to work in the Juvenile Division will receive increased training in specific issues effecting juvenile crime.

Furthermore, the data show that transferring youth from the juvenile justice system into adult court does not make us safer. Youth who remain in the juvenile justice system have lower recidivism rates because there are much better rehabilitation opportunities in the juvenile system. As District Attorney, I will never “direct file” a youth into adult court. Instead, in the very rare instances where I feel a juvenile should be tried as an adult, I will bring the case to a hearing before a judge, who will hear evidence from all sides and decide what is appropriate.

Taking the Expert Approach

There are many other issues that we must focus on in overhauling our juvenile justice system – all in partnership with the community – including: the overrepresentation of youth of color; the unique needs of girls; health; foster care reform; schools; and recreation, after-school and employment opportunities. For a more in depth look at my step-by-step juvenile justice policy, I encourage you to click here.

The Safest Generation of San Francisco youth will be the first, and most important step, in making this the safest and fairest city in America. With the community’s help and guidance, this will be a top priority of my administration.

David Onek is the founding Executive Director of the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney. His plan, The Safest Generation, can be viewed by clicking here.

San Francisco

George Gascón: Violating Conflict of Interest Standards

Former San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón’s “conflict of interest challenge” continues to grow with yet another allegation of police misconduct by officers serving under his command.

The latest allegation stems from a video showing officers allegedly improperly searching a  residential hotel room and taking property from the room that was not marked into evidence – and then allegedly lying about it under oath.

These serious allegations of police misconduct require a serious response – and Interim District Attorney George Gascón can’t be serious if he proposes to investigate officers who were under his command at the time of the alleged misconduct.

When similar allegations arose last month, Gascón said he was under no obligation to recuse his office from any potential criminal prosecution. After the Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped in to review the allegations of misconduct, Gascón said he was stepping away from investigating those earlier allegations because of “resource” issues while continuing to insist that he had no conflict of interest. He has not defined what resources he was lacking.

From day one, Gascón had the clear obligation to recuse himself from investigating the Police Department he so recently led. And that obligation only becomes more pressing as the number and scope of allegations of police misconduct during Gascón’s tenure as police chief widens.  

The National District Attorneys Association’s National Prosecution Standards clearly states:

“The prosecutor should excuse himself or herself from any investigation…where personal interests of the prosecutor would cause a fair-minded, objective observer to conclude that the prosecutor’s neutrality, judgment, or ability to administer the law in an objective manner may be compromised.”

In my career as a criminal justice expert I have learned that our community is safest when the police and prosecutors earn – and keep – the public’s trust. Our appointed District Attorney undermines years of progress in building trust when he refuses to acknowledge his clear conflict of interest.

Gascón’s failure to address conflict of interest issues was also highlighted by recent disclosures that his former campaign consultant potentially violated city ethics laws by lobbying him on behalf of the San Francisco Police Officer’s Association, the police union. The campaign consultant also potentially violated the same ethics rules in lobbying another former client, San Francisco’s City Attorney. The City Attorney acted quickly to recuse himself from any investigation regarding the matter. Gascón has taken no action to recuse himself, despite the nearly identical fact set.

The people of San Francisco deserve and demand a District Attorney who will avoid clear conflicts of interest as a matter of policy – rather than personal whim. Gascón must recuse himself as a matter of policy from police misconduct cases of officers who served under his command. And Gascón is under an ethical obligation to develop and publish a clear conflict of interest policy.

–

David Onek is a Senior Fellow at Berkeley Law School, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney.

San Francisco

Knee-Jerk Responses vs. Smarter Safety Policies

Last September, the San Francisco Police Department – under the command of former chief George Gascón – submitted a proposal responding to the uptick in violence outside a handful of San Francisco nightclubs.

The proposal was supposed to be heard this week by the city’s Entertainment Commission, but Mayor Ed Lee appropriately delayed the hearing for more debate.

The violence outside of nightclubs is a serious problem that must be addressed in a thoughtful way. But the SFPD’s flawed proposal is a knee-jerk response that will not make us safer and will violate our privacy rights. We need to understand why a city as progressive on policy as San Francisco is being offered flawed political solutions to serious public safety challenges.

A Plan Likely to Backfire

The SFPD proposal mandates venues to swipe patrons’ identification cards and keep this personal information on record for subsequent police review and to place metal detectors at some venues with occupancy levels exceeding 100, among other requirements.

This proposal is extremely problematic on a number of levels – the first of which is that it will likely backfire. Most nightclub violence takes place outside, not inside the clubs. Creating bottlenecks and barriers to entry will have the effect of keeping more trouble outside. And creating an environment so unwelcoming that many law-abiding people will stay home or go to other cities, while some potential troublemakers will simply go to unregulated clubs, could make our streets more dangerous at night.

The police proposal has been rightly criticized by the California Music and Culture Association (CMAC), which is proposing more sensible reforms. The SFPD proposal has also come under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union, which has weighed in on very real First Amendment and privacy concerns. Choices of art and music venues often reflect private political and personal preferences; requiring that venues store patrons’ identification information thus raises serious constitutional issues.

As the father of two young daughters, I don’t make it out to clubs as much as I used to. But I know what a vital role nighttime venues play in our culture, our identity and our economy.

We don’t want to put responsible club owners out of business with costly proposals that do not improve public safety. Instead, we should be working collaboratively with these responsible owners on real solutions, such as enhanced training of security personnel, improved lighting and better coordination with the SFPD. I also believe we should look more closely at the licensing status of clubs where crime patterns emerge – and be more aggressive about revoking the permits of those operators who don’t provide a safe environment for their patrons and neighbors.

These are practical steps that would make us safer by targeting the problem clubs, not every venue, and they are steps that would not violate the First Amendment and privacy rights of people who patronize San Francisco’s clubs.

A Political Proposal

But instead of practical solutions, the nightclub plan exemplifies the reactive “do something – do anything” mentality that so often creates “safety” policies that actually make us less safe. If it is adopted in anything like its current form, it will be yet another example of knee-jerk responses beating out thoughtful policies.

Our police chief at the time – George Gascón – was under pressure to “do something.” But instead of a reasoned and collaborative solution, what was proposed was simply more politics. The public and the politicians demanded action – so the police proposed action even though their proposals would not make us safer, would violate our constitutional rights and would be tied up in the courts for years.

The best tool to create a safer community is not to violate the privacy rights of San Franciscans who contribute to our culture and economy by patronizing our clubs, but to enlist club owners and the broader community to work collaboratively with law enforcement to support a safer environment around the clubs.

We need to reduce the violence outside of nightclubs. But let’s do so with thoughtful policies – not knee-jerk, political responses.

–

David Onek is a senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, host of the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast and a former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission.

San Francisco

George Gascón’s Conflict of Interest Challenge

When San Francisco’s sitting police chief was chosen to become San Francisco’s district attorney, there were two clear schools of thought on such an unprecedented move.

Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union and others wrote to underscore the conflict of interest inherent in elevating a sitting police chief to district attorney in the same city. They predicted that new District Attorney George Gascón would be terribly challenged by the conflict of interest posed by his tenure as police chief.

Other San Francisco leaders took a different view. They argued that Gascón had shown signs of being a reformer as police chief and that this was the same spirit necessary in the district attorney’s office. Conflict of interest issues, these thinkers argued, could be identified and isolated.

But the events of the past few months have highlighted just how significant the conflict of interest challenges faced by former chief Gascón are going to be. And his responses have not been encouraging.

San Francisco police officers have been accused of allegedly conducting illegal searches and committing perjury – incidents that occurred while they were under Gascón’s command as chief. Most of these cases occurred at Southern Station – the one station located in the Hall of Justice, the same building where Gascón worked as chief (and where he works today as district attorney). As chief, Gascón was responsible for the training and supervision of the involved officers.

When confronted with these facts, the former chief insisted he was perfectly capable of handling the investigation in his new office. He maintained he could fairly investigate the San Francisco Police Department for conduct that occurred when he led the agency.

Gascón maintained this position for nearly a week. Finally, after lawyers for the accused officers met with the police officer’s union, Gascón announced he was turning over the investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office – but insisted that it was due to unspecified “resource” issues, not because of a conflict.

His decision to turn over these cases to a third party, regardless of the motive, is a correct step. Yet something absolutely foundational is still missing – Gascón has not made it a policy to recuse himself from investigations relating to his own tenure as chief.

Gascón’s decision to continue – as a matter of policy – to investigate incidents involving police officers when they were under his command is fundamentally flawed on at least two basic levels. First, every suspect is entitled to a fair, objective investigation. When Gascón sits in judgment of his own service as police chief, this foundational principle of the law is undermined.

The second flaw underscores a management principle rather than a legal principle, but is vitally important if you are an advocate of reform in San Francisco or elsewhere.

When Gascón makes the decision to investigate the officers who served under his command, he is saying clearly that he himself holds no responsibility for their behavior. Such a position of inoculating the leader from the behavior of his agency undermines the basic tenets of reform – and frankly, the basic principles of sound management.

In the not too distant past, San Francisco saw the bulk of the police department command staff criminally indicted for allegedly covering up an incident involving off-duty officers on the street. Those charges were dismissed, but the underlying culture of top command looking the other way rather than embracing oversight and responsibility was identified as a problem that needed to be fixed.

The new chief after that incident was Heather Fong, who embraced a culture of responsibility starting at the top.

If former chief Gascón is now saying that he was not responsible for the actions of his own officers – he is saying he does not understand the foundational principles of how to lead a reform movement.

For the sake of justice – and for the sake of reform – former chief Gascón needs to implement a clear conflict of interest policy that would recuse him and the office he now leads from investigating the San Francisco Police Department.

David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney.

Uncategorized

George Gascón’s Conflict of Interest Challenge

When San Francisco’s sitting police chief was chosen to become San Francisco’s district attorney, there were two clear schools of thought on such an unprecedented move.

Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union and others wrote to underscore the conflict of interest inherent in elevating a sitting police chief to district attorney in the same city. They predicted that new District Attorney George Gascón would be terribly challenged by the conflict of interest posed by his tenure as police chief.

Other San Francisco leaders took a different view. They argued that Gascón had shown signs of being a reformer as police chief and that this was the same spirit necessary in the district attorney’s office. Conflict of interest issues, these thinkers argued, could be identified and isolated.

But the events of the past few months have highlighted just how significant the conflict of interest challenges faced by former chief Gascón are going to be. And his responses have not been encouraging.

San Francisco police officers have been accused of allegedly conducting illegal searches and committing perjury – incidents that occurred while they were under Gascón’s command as chief. Most of these cases occurred at Southern Station – the one station located in the Hall of Justice, the same building where Gascón worked as chief (and where he works today as district attorney). As chief, Gascón was responsible for the training and supervision of the involved officers.

When confronted with these facts, the former chief insisted he was perfectly capable of handling the investigation in his new office. He maintained he could fairly investigate the San Francisco Police Department for conduct that occurred when he led the agency.

Gascón maintained this position for nearly a week. Finally, after lawyers for the accused officers met with the police officer’s union, Gascón announced he was turning over the investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office – but insisted that it was due to unspecified “resource” issues, not because of a conflict.

His decision to turn over these cases to a third party, regardless of the motive, is a correct step. Yet something absolutely foundational is still missing – Gascón has not made it a policy to recuse himself from investigations relating to his own tenure as chief.

Gascón’s decision to continue – as a matter of policy – to investigate incidents involving police officers when they were under his command is fundamentally flawed on at least two basic levels. First, every suspect is entitled to a fair, objective investigation. When Gascón sits in judgment of his own service as police chief, this foundational principle of the law is undermined.

The second flaw underscores a management principle rather than a legal principle, but is vitally important if you are an advocate of reform in San Francisco or elsewhere.

When Gascón makes the decision to investigate the officers who served under his command, he is saying clearly that he himself holds no responsibility for their behavior. Such a position of inoculating the leader from the behavior of his agency undermines the basic tenets of reform – and frankly, the basic principles of sound management.

In the not too distant past, San Francisco saw the bulk of the police department command staff criminally indicted for allegedly covering up an incident involving off-duty officers on the street. Those charges were dismissed, but the underlying culture of top command looking the other way rather than embracing oversight and responsibility was identified as a problem that needed to be fixed.

The new chief after that incident was Heather Fong, who embraced a culture of responsibility starting at the top.

If former chief Gascón is now saying that he was not responsible for the actions of his own officers – he is saying he does not understand the foundational principles of how to lead a reform movement.

For the sake of justice – and for the sake of reform – former chief Gascón needs to implement a clear conflict of interest policy that would recuse him and the office he now leads from investigating the San Francisco Police Department.

David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney.

Uncategorized

George Gascón’s Conflict of Interest Challenge

When San Francisco’s sitting police chief was chosen to become San Francisco’s district attorney, there were two clear schools of thought on such an unprecedented move.

Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union and others wrote to underscore the conflict of interest inherent in elevating a sitting police chief to district attorney in the same city. They predicted that new District Attorney George Gascón would be terribly challenged by the conflict of interest posed by his tenure as police chief.

Other San Francisco leaders took a different view. They argued that Gascón had shown signs of being a reformer as police chief and that this was the same spirit necessary in the district attorney’s office. Conflict of interest issues, these thinkers argued, could be identified and isolated.

But the events of the past few months have highlighted just how significant the conflict of interest challenges faced by former chief Gascón are going to be. And his responses have not been encouraging.

San Francisco police officers have been accused of allegedly conducting illegal searches and committing perjury – incidents that occurred while they were under Gascón’s command as chief. Most of these cases occurred at Southern Station – the one station located in the Hall of Justice, the same building where Gascón worked as chief (and where he works today as district attorney). As chief, Gascón was responsible for the training and supervision of the involved officers.

When confronted with these facts, the former chief insisted he was perfectly capable of handling the investigation in his new office. He maintained he could fairly investigate the San Francisco Police Department for conduct that occurred when he led the agency.

Gascón maintained this position for nearly a week. Finally, after lawyers for the accused officers met with the police officer’s union, Gascón announced he was turning over the investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office – but insisted that it was due to unspecified “resource” issues, not because of a conflict.

His decision to turn over these cases to a third party, regardless of the motive, is a correct step. Yet something absolutely foundational is still missing – Gascón has not made it a policy to recuse himself from investigations relating to his own tenure as chief.

Gascón’s decision to continue – as a matter of policy – to investigate incidents involving police officers when they were under his command is fundamentally flawed on at least two basic levels. First, every suspect is entitled to a fair, objective investigation. When Gascón sits in judgment of his own service as police chief, this foundational principle of the law is undermined.

The second flaw underscores a management principle rather than a legal principle, but is vitally important if you are an advocate of reform in San Francisco or elsewhere.

When Gascón makes the decision to investigate the officers who served under his command, he is saying clearly that he himself holds no responsibility for their behavior. Such a position of inoculating the leader from the behavior of his agency undermines the basic tenets of reform – and frankly, the basic principles of sound management.

In the not too distant past, San Francisco saw the bulk of the police department command staff criminally indicted for allegedly covering up an incident involving off-duty officers on the street. Those charges were dismissed, but the underlying culture of top command looking the other way rather than embracing oversight and responsibility was identified as a problem that needed to be fixed.

The new chief after that incident was Heather Fong, who embraced a culture of responsibility starting at the top.

If former chief Gascón is now saying that he was not responsible for the actions of his own officers – he is saying he does not understand the foundational principles of how to lead a reform movement.

For the sake of justice – and for the sake of reform – former chief Gascón needs to implement a clear conflict of interest policy that would recuse him and the office he now leads from investigating the San Francisco Police Department.

David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney.