tv Police Commission SFGTV January 6, 2022 7:00am-10:01am PST
press pound twice. you may submit it also in either of the following ways. e-mail the commission at email@example.com. if you would like to make public comment at this time, please press star three. >> caller: commissioners, my name is francisco de costa and i would like ya'll to pay attention to what i'm saying. i've mentioned many times during these virtual meetings
that san francisco has to focus on quality of life issues. right now, we are drowning in a cess pool and we worried about emergencies in the tenderloin and so on and so forth. and what has the commission done legislators to legislate coming to the meetings and telling us what they propose to do maybe 50 years from now. you commissioners need to get a grip on your life because the divisiveness in our city has
reached a breaking point and the [ indiscernible ] are doing what they please. [ indiscernible ] a few other statements, but i'll write to him personally. and now i'm asking ya'll that the people from the tenderloin who have the wisdom to be at the table to all the real plans you have made. >> secretary: thank you
caller. good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: as we look back on 2021, what can the police commission say that benefits our black founders. i'm going to call it what it is into blackness when it comes to the ice of force, arrest, and racial profiling by the sfpd. i have grown tired of talking to the police xhigsz. where is the urgency. if the tables were turned and these statistics represented white folks, i know there would be an urgency. as you took an oath to uphold
the law and seek the good for all san franciscans. as i said, i'm tired. not tired enough to quit, however, tired of beating a dead horse. tired enough to look to new sources who find this anti-blackness inside of the chambers and urgency and therefore we sought the help from the attorney general. last month about 60 broken taillights as a way to decrease racial disparities. a black driver is six times as likely to be stopped by sfpd. the conversation of traffic stops or pretext stops. other states have already done the same in order to improve.
>> secretary: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello. my name is jean bridges and i volunteer with wealth and disparities in the black community. the following is a quote from our founder felicia jones. there's an urgency to address black san franciscans, i'm going to call it what it is, anti-blackness. i have grown tired of talking to the police commission to the san francisco police department and to the board of supervisors. where is the urgency? if the tables were turned and these statistics represented white folks, i know there would be an urgency. i agree with first lady michelle balm when she stated, "own that. that happens to us." when are you going to realize the unbiased and love of statistics for all san franciscans, not just black san franciscans which is truly your responsibility as you took an
oath to uphold the law. as i said, i'm tired, not tired enough to quit, however, tired of beating a dead horse and tired of our concerns following on deaf ears. tired of looking to new sources who find this anti-blackness inside your chambers and therefore we've sought help from the attorney general. nine times as likely to be subject to use of force and six times as likely to be subject to a traffic stop. a black san francisco ups driver posted a video on instagram stopping sfpd while she was in her uniform. sfpd has proven. we need the mrigs commission to support our demands that traffic stops by sfpd as has been done in many other cities, including berkley.
>> secretary: thank you, caller. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: good evening. my name is kit hodge and i also volunteer with black community. the following quote is from our founder. quote, there's an urgency to address black san franciscans. i'm going to call it what it is. when it comes to use of force, arrests, and racial profiling. i've grown tired of talking to the police commission, sfpd and the board of supervisors. the tables were turned and if this represented white folks, i know there would be an urgency. >> when are you going to take responsibility to address all san franciscans, not just black san franciscans. as you took an oath to uphold the law and seek good for all san franciscans. i'm tired of beating a dead
horse, i'm tired of our concerns. tired enough to look to new sources to find anti-blackness inside new chambers and therefore we've sought help from the attorney general, unquote. despite sfpd's compliance with cops, operations and outcomes continue. a black this has to change despite five years of reform work and 2021 closes as the new year begins. thank you. >> secretary: thank you, caller. and president cohen, that is the end of public comment. >> president cohen: all right.
thank you. calling for any questions on this? all right. seeing none. let's keep moving forward. >> secretary: line item three. presentation by andrew mull lynn from supervisor stefani's office to require the analysis for implementation of the article 25, which provides for registration of private protection and security services with the police department. this is a discussion item. >> president cohen: thank you very much for introducing this item, sergeant youngblood. we have with us andy who is the chief supervisor for supervisor stefani. she supervisor stefani's had a medical emergency and therefore she's not able to be with us today. i want to extend a hearted welcome to supervisor stefani
and her staff. supervisor stefani and i have worked together on the board of supervisors. she's got a distinguished career on public service particularly paying attention to gun violence. and as a deputy district attorney for contra costa county, she argued 25 jury trials. she servered on the san francisco county clerks in two of her appointments to the board of supervisors which took place in january 2018 and she was elected in november of 2018. so her service is very distinguished. she's been a member of the board of supervisors filling in the seat of district two. she's worked with the california department of justice and also the speaker of california assemblyman herb wessen. she's a leader with the moms demand action for guns in
america which aims to reform gun laws. she speaks from a position of great appearance and quite frankly great personal conviction. we all know that there have been responses by retail businesses to enhance the security of their businesses and the safety of their customers. and these enhancements have included private security guards and in these developments, what has come about is the need to rediscuss our policies. that we restrict the use of firearms by security guards. it's appropriate for the city to conduct a thorough review of the use of arms with security guards. these are the policies that are -- that govern their operations. so we have an obligation to create both the reality of
security and then the necessity of just and fair treatment without discrimination and racial profiling. you may recall several months ago last year, a caller came through public comment and expressed concern about a young african american boy who had a gun drawn on him by a private security guard. so with that, i'd like to introduce andy and the floor is yours. welcome. >> thank you and good evening, president cohen, vice president elias, and honorable members of the police commission. and thank you so much, president cohen, those are incredibly kind words and i will certainly pass them on to supervisor stefani. my name is andy mohen and i'm really grateful for you all for inviting me today to present on this important issue. in november 2020, members of the district two community came forward with troubling allegations about how private security was being deployed in
our city. they shared several stories of residents facing harassment by armed private security guards while walking in a private right of way. like most instances sort of any kind or in the city were not reported at the time they occurred -- >> president cohen: i think we lost speakers. can you hear? >> commissioner: yeah. it looks like it. >> president cohen: including youngblood. folks listening at home or
. >> vice president elias: >> can everyone hear me okay? i'm so sorry about that. we unearthed article 25 of and two there was a high profile incident which a young student of color was accused by theft by a security guard. article 25 was passed by the board of supervisors in november of 1972 and created a pretty extensive framework for the police department to oversee in san francisco including requiring private security firms to register and pay a fee according to a set schedule. it became clear to us almost immediately that article 25 is not currently implemented in any meaningful way and it isn't clear if it ever was. the issue gets further
complicated by the existence of significant state licensing regulations that have come into existence since article 25 was codified 25 years ago and it's currently unclear what if any conflict exist at the state level. rightfully, the members of the public who are concerned about private security, many of whom you've heard from at the police commission were pretty unsatisfied with that discovery. given the significant number of open questions, supervisor stefani sent a letter to chief scott in may of 2021, asking about noncompliance and how do we correct these deficiencies to walk through our neighborhood without risk of victimization or harassment and i have to take a moment to thank chief scott because he always is a forthcoming and willing participant to work on this issue. the ordinance supervisor
stefani introduced and i'm happily here to talk to you about it is sort of the next step in that process. it amends the police code to require the police department in consultation with the controller's office to conduct a gap analysis and the purpose of that analysis is to ascertain what it would take to feasibly implement article 25 and assess what updates or changes are necessary to meet the challenges of 2021. this means that at a minimum, it will include the development of an sfpd registration process, the development of internal procedures to manage and sustain other management. guidelines or revocation for failing to comply with article 25. an appellate process, nondiscrimination and elimination of bias requirements for businesses and individuals subject to article 25. penalties for engaging in discriminatory practices and
for drawing a firearms in violation of article 25 and a complaint process for any alleged violations including but not limited to violations of the nondiscrimination provisions. once you've received the analysis, we can all take the steps to modernize this function in whatever form that may take including having a better understanding about the cost and staffing associated with what these requirements would require. i really want to thank president cohen, deputy city attorney, and chief scott who have just been incredible, and deanna orosco who have been incredible partners on this issue and have worked with me for months. i also have to thank katie cally, julie evans for sounding the alarm on what this issue is about and sort of kicking off with what this very long journey has become. with that, i'm not sure where i
cut out, so if i missed anything at the beginning, i'm happy to repeat anything, but i'm also happy to answer any questions or facilitate any discussion in the best way to be helpful to you all. thank you so much for this time. >> president cohen: thank you very much. i actually have a couple questions i'd like to get on the record. again, thank you for your leadership on this. can you talk to us a little bit about how the security services are currently regulated in san francisco? >> this -- the rules governing by the security regulation currently all exist in article 25. it is my understanding that article 25 is not implemented in any way whatsoever and so the first part of article 25 requires private security firms to be registered with the police department and it gives the police chief the ability to
sort of revoke registration if they misbehave and to my knowledge, that isn't occurring and has not -- and to be fair to the command staff is my understanding it's never been implemented, but that's a little bit of a historic lookback. >> president cohen: can you tell me how long article 25 has been on the books? >> since november of 1972. >> president cohen: so it's been on the books since 1972 and has not been enforced? >> i could not find a time when it has been. so if it has been, it was a long time ago. >> president cohen: no problem. i understand. and we can talk about it. they probably have a little more context to contribute. so when thinking about the overall public safety capabilities in the city, how do patrol special officers fit in especially with respect to
security services and private protection? >> my understanding is that the patrol specialist in the program is regulated separately through that code and that that is as far as i know is adhered to. this article 25 is further definitions that have been in existence and they're old sort of outdated definitions if you were to look in at them. it's sort of like i don't know if this reflects the 2021 world. this l really governs private companies that engage in security services and the patrol special is a public/private public officers engaging in private activity. >> president cohen: can you talk to me a little bit about
what is the legislation? the private. what is the legislation, what are you trying to do? >> so the legislation requires the police department to conduct a gap analysis. article 25 is long and extensive and at this point, it's believed that many elements of it may conflict with state license, state laws that have come on the books since that time. this police code change requires the police department to take six months and do a comprehensive analysis of how we're failing to meet the article 25 requirements, what they require us to do. how they are either outdated or conflict with other state law and come up with a plan for coming into compliance up to and including and i listed a few things at the end. a registration process, policies and procedures for how to manage and sustain the mandates of article 25. guidelines for revocation, an
appellate process, and then what's missing entirely from article 25, right, which wouldn't surprise us given that it was created in 1972, there is no mention of nondiscrimination or elimination of bias in anything in article 25 and i think that that we would all probably agree that that needs to be incorporated in a really meaningful way. because the police department hasn't done this or to our knowledge the cost in staffing also needs to be assessed as part of this, what would it take to feasibly implement article 25 and what would it feasibly take to implement a 2021 version of article 25. >> president cohen: okay. real quick. i've got a couple questions in the chat. i'm acknowledging folks, but i want to ask you questions. you said that the legislation would create a gap analysis.
could you please tell us what a gap analysis is for those that don't know. >> sure. i might of misspoke. it's a gap analysis and it's an analysis to determine what the rules are and how far are we complying from those ruleses. what is the gap in compliance. >> president cohen: got it. with that said, i've got three names on the roster, i want to recognize director paul henderson and then vice president elias and then commissioner hamasaki. so director henderson, the floor is yours. >> director: thank you, andrew, for being here. i'm honestly having these guesses actually improves this process. so thank you both for being here tonight. i just wanted to flag for you as you're moving forward and developing this to the degree there is a component of the
force analysis that presumably is based on specific data. i just want to make sure that we have a component that institutionalizes a process to share both that data and the analysis with d.p.a. and with the commission as well specifically because a lot of the audit functions that we're doing and a lot of our analysis for evidence-based policies is based on data that we collect from the department. so if you're going to be forcing that, it's going to be collected, that would be really helpful as an added amendment to the legislation. that was my point. that's all i wanted to say. >> president cohen: thank you for your point. vice president elias. >> vice president elias: thank you. i just had a couple of questions. first of all, welcome. thank you for being here. my first question is what mechanisms or do we have for
providing and ensuring that we have [ indiscernible ] [audio cutting out]. >> president cohen: commissioner elias, we just lost you. your question was choppy. we're going to move on to commissioner hamasaki's comments. we'll come back to you. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. sorry. so can i ask because i and i guess others weren't familiar with article 25 and it sounds like it hasn't been used in the city. are there other cities, you know, big cities, major jurisdictions that have a means of regulating private security
that we can look to as an example because i have no idea about this area. >> that's a great question, commissioner hamasaki. in looking at this issue, most of the examples i found are exist at the state level and so it's a lot of state licensing requirements. i didn't see any -- and this would be something to look at as this analysis kicks off and is conducted. i was doing research as one person to be honest with you, googling to sort of find out what's going on. obviously, private security agents and officers have to comply with all sorts of city rules. they're not allowed to do all sorts of things nobody is
allowed to do. in so far as additional legislation i had a hard time finding any that weren't at the state level. >> commissioner hamasaki: that's where i guess my -- so what is the goal of this if the regulations already exist at the state level, what do we need to do as a city and county because obviously we want anybody who is acting as private security armed with a firearm to not put people in danger, to not racially profile people or engage in any violence or harm to the community ourselves, but where would this fill in and i may be using the word if 'gap' informally. but what gap would this fill in? >> i think to answer your
question is to tell the story a little bit backwards. the issue was there were several incidents in the community and the people who experienced those incidents had nowhere to go and no mechanism to report or felt like they had no mechanism to report. there was no place to go and say a private security guard, an armed private security guard improperly harassed me on the streets or parks of san francisco, and trying to understand how that happened, i discovered that we actually already have this obligation in san francisco we have had for 50 years and it hasn't existed in a fully functioning way. and so the question becomes we have this body of law, it's pretty outdated. i think it probably is good to update and enforce the provisions that we think are meaningful and good, update the
ones that we think aren't, but i would never be so -- i would never proclaim to know what all of those things are as myself without some sort of longer process and that's what i think we've asked for this this like a real analysis what ideally private security in san francisco would look like and how we go about doing that and this ordinance would create sort of a -- requires they do that analysis and then present back to everybody. >> director: if i may because this might help explain, andrew. part of the difference is there's no oversight for like the stuff that d.p.a. does. d.p.a. is excluded from the oversight with all of that work. so whereas you would have a normal whole history of policy,
valuations, data did i seminations, you don't have that. so the three separate accounts is all action. civil action, criminal action, and administrative action. you do have lawsuits and you do have complaints, but there's always a challenge as to where those complaints can go and/or should go and typically, they end up with civil lawsuits which as you know are somewhat expensive and this is before we start unpacking the gap or the missing component of race analysis which we all know and we're talking about but isn't a function of either data collection and/or a response for the public or on behalf of the public to address for the behaviors. so i just want to point out those two crucial things that are just from jump are lacking or might be helpful in terms of addressing accountability. it sounds like that's what we're moving towards not just towards the reform, but the accountability as well.
>> let me follow up. is it a point to have a civilian oversight over private security or d.p.a. to, you know, receive complaints from people or about the guard at walgreens. >> i would say we have a problem. in doing the research for this, we discovered and that's why i used the phrase 'unearthed article 25' which was so unold and unused that it had cobb webs on it. we have this whole body of work that's never been meaningfully implemented. we shouldn't just blindly implement a law from 1972. we need to update it.
like i said before, there's no mention of nondiscrimination in article 25 and that reflects a 1972 view of this function and we -- so my goal really is to have the department perform this analysis in conjunction with the controller and figure out where all the gaps are. right. what parts are we not implementing anywhere? what would it take to implement article 25 as it is. in addition, we want to do that next level analysis and say maybe we don't want to implement article 25. here are the recommendations we would make. and to director henderson's point, you know, i fully hope and it's our aspiration that he would be involved in at least, you know, the development of those recommendations if his department wanted to take over some of those functions or felt it had the capacity to do so. i don't think he will, but i'm open to it.
there's no preordaned outcome . >> director: if you're talking about an agency that's going to be acting under police code, then they need to be investigated as such as well just to make sure we have reform and accountability built into it. that's not the whole answer, but it absolutely should be part of what gets built in if we're building out reforms for actions like that are going to be taking place in san francisco and it won't be a conflict necessarily with the state if they're doing things that are outside of the restrictions from whatever the state mandates, but collecting data, sharing data, having oversight or identifying where complaints can be directed, especially complaints that address race disparities is never going to be or shouldn't ever be a problem and should be part of the institutionalized solution built into the legislation in my humble
opinion. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. >> president cohen: i'm sorry. i didn't mean to cut you off. will you complete your thought? i want to go back to vice president elias. >> commissioner hamasaki: please vice president elias. >> vice president elias: thank you. i'm sorry i was disconnected and you may have covered this while i was rejoining but it goes along the lines of what director henderson said which is what is the accountability piece and who is going to oversee any complaints that are made for this program and my concern is the racial disparity. we have a department that's heavily regulated and we can't fix the racial disparity. so what are we going to do about this program that's not regulated at all it seems or has any oversight. so how would private citizens know who to make complaints to in events that certain
situations are happening that shouldn't be. those were my two areas of concern. >> yeah. i share those concerns there extremely well founded. the -- and i think -- should i continue -- commissioner elias. i want to make sure i answer so you can hear me. >> president cohen: looks like we lost her again. >> so how do i describe this the best way. i share everybody's concerns. we discovered a problem. we had an incident, i dug into it. we discovered a pretty huge body of law that's never been enforced that we have a responsibility too in the city. not only that, the body of law is wildly outdated and many elements of it shouldn't be enforced based on my current
andy mullan humble opinion and we have to start to course correct this ship, you know. and that begins by in a real earnest way which i have to say the police department has been fabulous about. they are really -- they understand that we got caught with our pants down and like are very willing and earnest in helping form late what a body of recommendations to help come into compliance and reform so that compliance is meaningful and it achieves the 21st century goals. what those things are today i can't say because we're at the beginning of this analysis process. but i would fully expect to come back to you all when the analysis is completed. i'm here today because i don't
believe this should be a secret and i would come back afterward and i would actually hope that you all would have more thoughts being experts of this, would have more thoughts about the validity of that analysis than i would. i imagine at the end of this analysis, we will have to pass several pieces of legislation. just for an example. the fee structure was set in 1972 and the fee has never been collected, but that fee is i think it's $6 per private security firm and $1 per officer. maybe it's time to revisit -- so maybe it's time to -- that's something that has to be changed through ordinance. what the definition of private security is i think will need to be revisited and that will be based on you all and the department subject matter
expertise. you know, the definition out there is very magnum p.i. in our article 25. so these are all like major policy -- major blocks of a piece of policy that i'll have to fit together in a tetris board and this is sort of outlining what that process will look like and what a bare minimum this analysis will need to include. it set the floor, not a ceiling, you know. and i imagine in addition to some ordinance changes, there will have to be new d.g.o.s that are written and implemented that will have to come through you. there will also have to be general policy and procedure updates and we don't know what those things are at this point. >> president cohen: before we pivot and listen to the department, can you talk a little bit more about the type of considerations that you're hoping that the department
addresses in its analysis? >> yes. first and foremost, we need to understand the feasibility of our registration process. what would it take to require every private security to register which is the current requirement by the way. guidelines for denial or revocation of the ability to operate and what the conflict with state law would be if we were to do that. an appellate process, and then penalties for engaging in behavior that violates article 25. and then the analysis needs to set nondiscrimination and elimination of bias requirements which currently do not exist. those would be the main.
those were the things that we thought would be important, but again, i would describe those as a floor, not a ceiling. >> vice president elias: you're muted, president cohen. >> president cohen: the legislation that you're working on, has it been introduced or will it be introduced? >> it has been, yes. >> president cohen: has the committee heard the item? >> no. it is going to public safety and neighborhood services on january 13th. >> president cohen: and do you have advocates in support of the legislation? >> we do. mostly community advocates. the folks who have called into the police commission. the families and community members who are -- yeah -- who and sort of reviewed this
legislation and draft and agreed this was a necessary step forward. university high school is a big one. >> president cohen: all right. colleagues, do you guys have any other questions? yes, go ahead, mr. hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm sorry. did we get a copy of that legislation draft? >> president cohen: no we didn't. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. i was just looking at my folder. thank you. yeah. i feel like i'm missing -- oh. >> president cohen: not a problem. it's just been introduced into the chat. so you can click on the link. thank you very much, mr. mullan. now, i want to pivot to the department. i'm not quite sure who's going to speak on this. deputy chief, is that you? i think you're muted, sir. >> can you hear me? there we go. okay. yes, president cohen, i
certainly can speak to that. first of all, i'd like to say thank you to mr. mullan for his presentation. the department is in full support of the legislation. we definitely look forward to working with the controller's office to work on a gap analysis and really kind of determine kind of those key points that mr. mullan presented, really looking at, number one, at what a registration process would look like and, number two, what does regulation look like. kind of building that out, looking at all those steps that we need to cover. looking at what type of workload we're going to be facing. what type of personnel that would require the systems that we would need to take in place, the data collection so on and so forth. so we're very eager and working with the controller's office on that process and moving forward and definitely are in full support. the thing that i would like to add is when we're talking about
administrative functions and regulations, that's one thing and then the other side of the house is really if there were any other criminal violations which we've always investigated any kind of criminal investigations anywhere tlut the city whether it be by a private person, security, what have you, certainly criminal violations have been investigated and certainly will continue to be investigated and this is really talking about more of the regulation administrative side of the house. >> president cohen: thank you. question. how is the department going to or prepared to draft or suggest accountability or guidelines for race disparities,
transgender, communities not being disproportionately stopped? >> certainly. so that would really be in line with the city's values and that would be something that we would work with the controller's office when we're doing a gap analysis to really understand how we would weave that into any regulations and how would we enforce that? how would the complaint process work? how would the appeals process work? and so forth and really kind of meshing to that to any kind of state requirements that are out there for regulation as well. >> president cohen: and who would you partner with on the state level? >> well, i don't know if it's necessarily a state level partnership. i think it's looking at what functions the state may already have. i know there's certain registration functions that the state has. if i'm not mistaken, it might
be through the state board of equalization. i'm not positive on that. i think it's really a matter of looking at what's already in place in the state as well and i think you have to take that into account. maybe mr. mullan can speak to that state piece as well. >> my understanding and it's limited is that the state -- there's the consumer licensing agency is the one that issues the licenses and regulations for that and it primarily looks to me like a um, like if you pay the fee, you'll get your license or, you know, up to just a bare minimum of a requirement and the way this conflicts with city law maybe is that right now article 25 gives the chief of police the ability to sort of revoke the ability to operate for
administrative violations and i don't know if that state law, a company license at the state level, if the chief locally would still be allowed to issue that kind of revocation of operating privileges. and so that's really -- i think that's the heart of the question of state interaction and getting the answer to that question. and i actually. deputy city attorney cabrera will have to dig into that depending on where and how the chief's authority can extend. >> president cohen: thank you. okay. so that is my question. it looks like my commissioners have no other questions. let's go ahead and pivot at
this point and take public comment. >> secretary: at this time, the commission is going to take public comment. if you'd like to make a comment, press star three now. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: first and foremost, chronologically, we had in san francisco a month over the san francisco police department ren gate and if chronologically, we want to find out who is the san francisco patrol police or the san francisco police department, you will find out that there were there before the san francisco police
department. we have to consider for how many years was the san francisco police department under consent comment speaker. >> secretary: any other member that would like to make public comment for line item three press star three now. and, president cohen, that is the end of public comment. >> president cohen: great. thank you, mr. mullan. we appreciate your update and we'll be watching this legislation as it works its way through the board of supervisors. >> thank you, president cohen and commissioners for this opportunity. i just want to please extend an invitation to all of you to provide input, insight,
suggestions, at any point at any time to our office. supervisor stefani remains super committed to making sure everybody has the right to move to the city free of discrimination and harassment and that's big work and this is a small piece of that and so we really couldn't do it without all of you so we really appreciate your time and attention and help. >> director: thank you for that invite. i'll follow up with you directly and i'm sure we've got some suggestions that i believe will make the legislation much better and much more well-received for the broader public. honestly, i'm not kidding, i really do appreciate the invite. >> president cohen: thank you. no action is needed. let's call the next item. >> secretary: item four. adoption of minutes. action for the meeting of december 1st and december 8th,
2021. >> president cohen: any discussion? >> vice president elias: move to adopt. >> president cohen: if i'm not mistaken, i believe we need to take public comment. >> secretary: yes, ma'am, i just need a second. >> commissioner: i second. >> secretary: all right. members of the public if you'd like to make a comment online item four, press star three. >> president cohen: all right. let's take a roll call vote. . >> secretary: [roll call]
you have six yeses. >> president cohen: all right. the motion carries unanimously. next item, please. >> secretary: line item five, chief's report. discussion. weekly crime trends. provide an overview of offenses occurring in san francisco. provide a summary of planned activities and events. this will include a brief overview of any unplanned events or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. >> good evening. i'm filling in for chief scott this evening. i'm going to start the report
with going over overall property crime and a weekly statistic comparison and just a reminder for part one class crimes, that includes burglary, arson, and larceny. this week, there was a decrease of 39% in the week ending december 26th. there was a decrease in burglaries of 29% and a decrease of auto burglaries of 44%. for overall violent crimes citywide which includes homicides, rapes, robberies, assaults, arsons, and human trafficking, there was an overall 12% compared to the previous week and robberies down 17% and assaults down 5% from the previous week. for homicides, there was one homicide from january 2nd and an additional homicide reported
on january 3rd which we will highlight later. looking at the end of year statistics for homicide, we finished 2021 with 56 homicides compared to 48 homicides the year previously. that's a 17% increase. for gun violence, there was one shooting resulting in injuries to two victims. firearm seizures including ghost guns are year-to-date totals for 2021, we seized 1,088 guns which represented a 12% increase from the previous year. there were no incidents of alleged hate crimeses during this week and i now will speak on a few significant incidents that occurred during our last reporting. as mentioned earlier, we had a
homicide, it was a robbery, car-jacking homicide that occurred on 12/31 at 9:32 p.m. in the area of 4th and cornwall in the richmond district. the victim who lives in oregon was in san francisco with a friend shooting an amateur video and during that contact, the victim was shot and two suspects fled in the victim's vehicle. of the victim was transported to the hospital and succumbed to his injuries. we have not made an arrest in that case yet. outside of the reporting period. now, this occurreded on the 3rd at 3:22 p.m., this occurred on the 100 block of brandon in the southern. officers responded to a call regarding a possible shooting. when officers entered an apartment, they located a victim suffering from an apparent gunshot wound. they rendered aid and some medics to the scene and despite their efforts of the officers
and medical personnel, the victim was pronounced deceased at the scene. officers were notified the 43-year-old subject turned himself in at san francisco county jail and it was determined that the subject was the suspect and he was booked on charges of murder, assault with a firearm and assault with a deadly weapon. we had one shooting incident for the week ending 1/2/22. that occurred in the area of battery and jackson in the central district. three victims were in a vehicle when a subject in another vehicle began shooting at them. one victim sustained a gunshot wound to the head and the second victim a graze wound to the head and the third did not sustain any injuries. officers located numerous shell casings in the area. no arrests on that case. other significant incidents, we had two robberies of note.
the first occurred on new year's day at 10:40 a.m. in the northern area of beach and broderick. in that case, the victim was walking with her two dogs when a suspect exited a vehicle forcibly taking one of her dogs, a dog by the name of 'rosy' we do have video of that incident. later, a man from sacramento called the tip line and said he had seen postings on social media regarding the case and advised that he purchased the dog and had it in his possession. members of sfpd responded to sacramento to retrieve rosie and the dog was ultimately returned and reunited with its owner. we had a second robbery that occurred on the 3rd. this occurred at 7:43 p.m. in the park district in the area of walker and octavia streets.
the victim and his dog were approached by an unknown suspect who briefly engaged the victim in conversation. the suspect then grabbed the dog's harness and fled with the dog. the dog is a certified service dog and we have no arrest in that case as of yet. there were no stunt driving incidents over the weekend. no fatal traffic collisions. no threats of domestic -- other major events. new year's eve after action report, staff was already busy given the new year's eve homicide that occurred in the richmond district however there were numerous incidents. there were several shot spotter
incidents, there were no shooting incidents. there was one stabbing, but not as a result of any new year's eve related events. in other news in the department, the chief made an announcement of promotions to the rank of captain and lieutenant. he has promoted nine persons to the rank of captain and 17 to lieutenant and those promotions are scheduled to take effect on january 29th. and, finally, for covid related issues, as of january 5th, we currently have 184 members who are quarantined as a result of covid exposure and 136 of those members are positive. those exposures are and positive cases are throughout the department. quite a few of them in our
patrol station, however, we've been able to maintain staffing by adjusting our personnel throughout our stations and we continue to monitor that on a daily basis and a shift by shift basis and continue to make adjustments as necessary. and that concludes my report. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> president cohen: thank you. couple questions. well, we haven't met since the mayor's emergency declaration for the tenderloin was passed by the board of supervisors and i'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about the police department, its plans, and how it fits into the mayor's overall vision as well as the impact on staffing levels, the impact on budget. over time, police presentation in other neighborhoods such as bayview. >> so what i can't say and i wasn't prepared to speak on this, but what i can say is
that we're certainly committed to assisting with the plan. we understand that we have a role in that plan. it also entails work with the department of public works and we have a part to play. any involvement with the police department, we will ensure that it does not take away from the functions of other districts. certainly, whenever we have initiatives that we conduct throughout the city whether it be ongoing initiatives, whether it be special events, we make contingency clients not to affect staff and the other districts and we're very cognizant of that, but we will continue to offer support as the mayor's plan moves forward.
>> president cohen: colleagues, do you have any other questions? mr. hamasaki. mr. hamasaki, we can't hear you. >> commissioner hamasaki: sorry about that. and thank you, president cohen. i wanted to follow up on president cohen's question. that's kind of been the big news the last few weeks and there was some very specific i don't know if they're orders or um, hopes or part of the plan that came from the mayor that, you know raised a lot of concern in the civil rights and civil liberties community even
people in the tenderloin. has this plan begun, is there any new action that's already taking place? or is this still at a planning stage as far as the department goes? >> it's still at a planning stage and obviously our officers and the tenderloin been where they continue to do that but that's still in the planning state. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. and so one of the things that came up was the enforcement of the sit/lie law. if people were sitting on the streets, the police were going to be used to i think either jail, arrest, or offer them services. has that part -- i don't think that's something that the
department has been doing. is that something that is being started? >> again, you know, i can't really speak to that. i don't have the answers to the specifics of the plan and what that discussion is. i'm certainly happy. we can come back with further information at the next meeting, but i don't have that. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. that's the answer is that it's at a planning stage and there were some strong statements that got people very concerned, but nothing's being -- has been changed about enforcement in the tenderloin at the moment and chief will be here next week and can answer all of our questions. is that fair? >> that's correct, sir. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. i'll look forward to next week. thank you. >> president cohen: commissioner byrne, i see your
hand. >> commissioner byrne: thank you. assistant chief moser, president cohen, we indicated at the beginning of december we'd revisit the tenderloin in two months. is it possible the first week of february which would be the first two months put that matter on the agenda and have a presentation in light of the specifically before the board of supervisors meeting, a few days after that. >> president cohen: yes. i think that's a great idea. great suggestion. we will work on exact data. i'm not sure if we can do it in exactly two weeks. >> commissioner byrne: that would be four weeks because we have the board of certification that we're off so i was thinking the first week of february. >> president cohen: all right. i can definitely accommodate that. sergeant youngblood, please
make a note and we'll add that to the agenda. thank you, commissioner byrne. >> commissioner byrne: and just to -- obviously anything -- southern station is also impacted and has been noted in previous meetings about the drug dealings at 7th and mission which is -- which i noticed on new year's day was still going on. apparently, they didn't take the day off. but the issue with the tenderloin, 7th and mission is just outside the tenderloin jurisdiction. and hopefully matter in february, that will be talked about as well because when we -- when my wife and i were taking a stroll at the new park set -- at sales force park,
there were officers there, but there weren't any that i noticed around 7th and mission. so i think that i think that in the spirit of what the mayor intended, obviously southern is impacted as well. >> point well taken, commissioner. i think that any time we do any kind of operations or presence, we have to be cognizant of displacement and that certain activity could be displaced to surrounding areas. so we really have to think about that and any type of plans that we come up with. >> commissioner byrne: but obviously, assistant chief, if you go through the tenderloin, you see a marked improvement as to quality of life issues and the ability to walk the street and the drug dealing isn't all gone, it has clearly been
diminished. i would look forward to more of the statistics particularly as commissioner hamasaki pointed out and the part that seems to be contentious which is the number of homeless or people that are addicted to drugs that are arrested as opposed to the dealers and certainly we'd like the department or at least i would, i think the commission would probably agree with me to address that issue. i don't think that's the intent of the police, i think the intent is to deal with the dealing and there's other city departments involved and the other issues of the mayor's plan. but i think that that will asuede the concerns of certain individuals because at least from what i've noticed is i don't see there's any sort of increase in that type of police activity. i think the issue is dealing
with the dealers that are on the street. i think that that needs to be addressed as well in february. thank you, president cohen. >> president cohen: thank you, commissioner. anyone else? commissioner yee. >> commissioner yee: yeah. i was going to ask the assistant chief if he can send me a copy of the list of promotions for january 29th, if you can maybe send me a copy. also, i would say i hope we can peel back what we started over there on the tenderloin. i think commissioner byrnes was starting the ball rolling in the tenderloin. i do go down there every so often and i see a somewhat
improvement, so we've still got a lot of work to do there and it's also a street crisis response team as well as all the other social services. i'm looking forward for a group effort to clean it up. we're making it better for our residents in the tenderloin and throughout the city. i'm looking for i guess a better 2022 year for all of us. that's all i have for you. thank you. >> commissioner, we'll get to over our department notice that has a list of all the promotes. >> commissioner yee: thank you, assistant chief. >> president cohen: colleagues, any other questions? assistant chief, would you be able to get together a presentation with some information that commissioner byrne requested by the first of
february? >> we should be able to accomplish that. >> president cohen: i appreciate that. i'm going to hold you to that, assistant chief, by the way. >> very good. >> president cohen: okay. all right. seeing there are no others, let's take public comment on this discussion item and then we'll move forward. >> secretary: for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item five, the chief's report, please press star three now. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: good evening. this is mrs. brown. i'm just calling about my son who was murdered august 14th, 2006. to this day, his case is unsolved and i'm just concerned about unsolved homicide and for families like myself who are still suffering in silence
concerning our loved ones that have been murdered on the streets of san francisco. i just wanted to keep my son's memory in the public's eye, his case in the public's eye and maybe someone may come forth. it's been several years since my son's been murdered, but i still have hope that his case will get solved. i just wanted to say that i still need -- it's a $250,000 reward for the capture of my son's perpetrators. they're still walking the streets until this day and who's to know if they're murdered or commit any other violence or hurt any other families. with that, thank you. >> secretary: thank you, ms. brown. for members of the public that have any information regarding the murder of abry abacasa
please call the tip line. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: so we have 90 days in the tenderloin to conduct an experiment. and i think this would be appropriate for the san francisco police department to have a whole listic model is to work with the leaders in the tenderloin to assess their priorities i've attended all the meetings and there is no
mention made of the people who live in the tenderloin. i remember way back in 1989 and we had the earthquake and i played a role in the tenderloin. i saw for myself how the city did not come to the rescue of the people in the tenderloin. and today we have the tenderloin is a mess. the drug dealers and as much as some people say that, you know, there's some clean-up done, that's not the case. in today's news, i hear that the mayor wants to buy that big building or leave the big building right there, the united nation plaza, i think now is the right time for the
police to have at least 5,000 square feet of that space for doing some wholistic work. because that's the way to go. not conducting sweeps, but working with the people who need help most and treat them -- >> secretary: thank you, caller. president cohen, that is the end of public comment. >> president cohen: thank you very much. we can move on. will you please call the next item. >> secretary: line item six. d.p.a. director's report. report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. it will be limited to a brief description of d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission will discuss whether any of the issues raised will be to calendar for future
meetings. and a presentation of the october and november 2021 monthly statistical reports. >> director: good evening, commissioners. it's been a busy last couple of weeks. i attended the national association of oversight agency conference in arizona. there's restrictions for participation in the state so none of the other staff was able to come with me except for the folks that monitored and watched the conference on video. of i was one of the speakers there. and i was speaking to the other agency heads specifically on managing resources and responding to the proliferation of complaints with law enforcement agencies post george floyd was the topic of the presentation that i made. and that was a couple of weeks
ago. a lot of the information is really helpful. there were people that were there from san francisco specifically. a lot of the folks that are to be engaged in the sheriff oversight were there and participating in the conference. information was helpful both for i think both for police oversight and for sheriff's oversight. separately from that in the office who we have been expanding the flexibility for the working from home provision that the city has had just because of the covid restrictions and covid risks that have increased recently with the mutation so far but we're continuing to do our work and the office is still open. we're just expanding and trying to be as flexible as we can to continue with the work and i'll give you the numbers in a minute, but i just wanted to
articulate that and talk about that. the other thing that i just wanted to mention for folks so that they were aware of is that i sat down and met with some of the folks in the attorney general's office talking about some of their expected reforms for police reforms and accountability for the role that they will be playing and thank you again, president cohen, for having them come here to talk with us about some of what those issues are and then having them reach out for us to continue those conversations. i'm going to give you the statistics in terms of where we are in the office and what's been going on. we have some of the year end data so far, but i'll share with you and we are at in 2021,
we have 774 cases opened in the agency. last year, the year before that in 2020, we had 799 cases. so in 2021, we closed 864 cases and in 2020, we closed 886 cases. and those are independent investigations when i'm talking about cases closed. in terms of currently pending cases, right now, we have 278 open and pending cases. in 2020, this time last year, we had 354 cases. we sustained 51 cases and 2021 and 2020 we sustained 45 cases. in 2021, we mediated 37 cases and in 2020, we mediated 47 cases. we currently have 27 cases whose investigations have proceeded beyond nine months. at this time last year for
2020, we had 32 cases that had gone and their investigation beyond nine months. of those, 27 cases, 17 of those cases are told. as another reminder, we still have not had a 3304 violation or have dismissed any cases because of deficiencies and tolling. we have 22 cases that are still pending with decisions from the commission. eleven with the commission and eleven other cases that are awaiting decisions from the chief's department or from the department as well. weekly trends, i just summarized the past two weeks, so it's a little more reflective of what's been going on since we haven't been meeting as a commission and here are the top allegations that have been received in the office. 35% of the allegations were for
an officer behaving or speaking in a manner that's unbecoming of an officer, that's the highest allegation that's been made over the past few weeks. 18% of allegations were for officers displaying threatening, intimidating, or harassing behavior. another 18% with officers failing to comply with department notice 20-904. another 18% of the allegations were for officers failing to properly investigate a complaint being made to them. 6% of the allegations were for an officer failing to take required action and 6% were for an officer that was -- 6% of the allegations were for officers issuing citations without justified cause, that's the allegation. this information is also on the website. i won't read through all of them at the macro level. they're on the website.
but just for the district breakdown, i'll just talk about the districts with the highest complaints were in southern for inappropriate behavior during a traffic investigation. i think those complaints came out of one specific investigation and then equal to that were complaints in the eagle side district related to trespass allegations being made in the district. i have nothing to report this week for audit and in terms of outreach right now, what we're doing is working with the law schools in the area. there's seven here in the bay area working on increasing our law and justice reform internship as well as the fellowship program. in addition to that, we have an
up coming virtual information, informational internship program set up with a number of surrounding schools as well. there are no cases tonight in closed session but also present this evening with me is a senior investigator in case there are issues that need to be addressed that come up during the meeting. she is available on the call. if folks need to reach out to d.p.a. directly, the website is sfgov.org/dpa. the phone number is (4) 152-7711. i will move on to the monthly statistical reports. i'll start with october of the 63 cases received in october.
37% of them, the largest percentage of complaints of allegations were for an officer failing to take required action in the next largest percentage which is 32% involved allegations for officers who allegedly spoke or behaved inappropriately. i won't do the full breakdown of all 141 allegations, but they're on our website if you want to see them for the month of october. for the month of november, there were 46 cases that were received. again, the top two allegations and complaints, 41% of those allegations involving officers speaking to or behaving inappropriately and then 33% of the allegations were for
officers failing to take a required action. there were a total of 75 other allegations that were available on our website if you want to see the specifics of them, but those are the monthly statistical reports for the work. i will say that we are currently analyzing the year end data in preparation for the annual report. so a lot of the numbers that i'm just spewing out are going to be analyzed and presented in a much more thorough detail in the up coming annual report and have work ongoing and are taking place right now, so i just wanted to flag it and present that to everyone. and that includes my update. >> president cohen: thank you for that update. it looks like we've lost commissioner [ indiscernible ] okay. any questions for the director? director henderson? yes. commissioner byrne. >> commissioner byrne: director henderson, i understand in the police press account the incident where the officers allegedly stood by
with a marijuana dispensary, the burglary or the robbery that took place, is there any -- i know you can't comment on the specifics, but is there a timeline we can expect since the public has taken a huge interest in this a time line when we can expect the investigation to be completed? >> director: it's hard to give a timeline because it's baseded on when we collect evidence and when we receive some of the information is necessary from the department as well. so that's an ongoing thing. it's hard for me to put a timeline on it because each case is fact specific. i will say part of my reporting out in the cases where i give the specific numbers is to assure folks that the investigations are not languishing or taking long periods of time unnecessarily. and i've assigned some of our most senior investigators to that case specifically in part because it's getting so much attention and we are getting so
many inquiries and thank you for asking the question just so we can affirm for folks so there's no ambiguity and we're not the only agency that could have jurisdiction in the case just since we're talking about it. presumably the department could be conducting their own investigation, the district attorney's office could be conducting their own investigation for potential charging and there could be civil lawsuits related to it as well. i don't know, i can't confirm any of those things, but since we're talking about, giving the full universe of what can be going on concurrently, d.p.a. is not the only lane when these issues come up. so i don't know if that answers your question. >> commissioner byrne: would it be safe to say within six months? >> director: it's hard to say because if information we need
doesn't come within six months, i'm not going to rush to make a conclusion without having information just to meet a time line. i'd rather make sure i do everything i can and i don't control the outside factors in terms of how i receive information. i control what my investigators get on their own, but some of the information that we need, for instance, that may come from the district attorney's office, that may come from the department itself, that may come from internal affairs weigh the factor or create the factor and how quickly i can move forward with my investigation and determination for charging. >> commissioner byrne: thank you. >> commissioner hamasaki: just one follow up. are other particular roadblocks
being put up. who's stopping you from doing your job? >> director: thank you for asking that question. i will look into it and -- i don't want to just guess. i want to have a very specific answer for that and i don't want to presume that there is a roadblock, i will ask and find out and present that answer next week. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you, director henderson. >> president cohen: director henderson, i have a quick question. can you speak broadly about the trends that you're seeing and types of complaints that you're intaking? >> director: yeah. thank you for that question. some of them are sort of obvious based on the weekly stuff. but you're asking me to analyze some of the information that i'm presenting. a lot of the trends that we're seeing spiking now have more to do with how officers are
behaving and speaking to the public. those are tending to be our highest allegations and complaints that are coming into the office. i think it's a fairly interesting thing because it points out what the public's interaction is with law enforcement when they encounter them and it's coming at a time when they're still, we're in the middle of a pandemic and so people have changed their behaviors in large part in terms of how they get around, how they go to work, how they interact with the public and part of their interactions when they encounter the police and one of the primary concerns are one of the primary issues that they want to complain about to our office. i don't know what the solution from that is offhand, but it's what i noticed in looking at these allegations and in case anyone is tracking and watching and you can look through the
website and history in the past six months, three months, eight months, but recently, these complaints have been the highest complaints that have been coming into the office. and, again, i'm speaking about trends that i'm observing about the complaints which is a separate analysis from what is bearing fruit meaning what rises to the level of conducting an independent investigation into the allegation based on the preliminary investigations from body-warn cameras, from corroborative evidence, from whatever people are telling us. i would say that's what i would point out is somewhat interesting to notice from the statistics that i've just reported on. >> president cohen: sounds like you guys are pretty busy over there. >> director: we're trying to get all of the stuff wrapped into the annual report.
it gives us a much more thorough and full picture to the public as to what's going on when we can analyze a full year worth of data in context of what cases have been sustained, what cases have been investigated, what's the conduct, and then the recommendations that are coming from a policy perspective and then what gets adopted and passed with the department. it really is the big picture. it's hard to give a complete analysis week to week, but that annual report is a lot of work, but i think a lot of people wait to hear and see what's actually going on in the city based on what the annual report reflects and making that data as transparent as possible so people can read it, it's important. and really trying to get that out as quickly as possible so people can see it. especially at a time like now where i think the conversation of policing is really important to a lot of communities in the
press. you know, there's people that call here every week that want to talk about these things and we want to give them the answers. >> president cohen: director henderson, what can we expect for your final report? >> director: the annual report? >> president cohen: yeah. >> director: we just started working on it. the year just ended last week. so it's going to take a minute and like i said, we have not increased our staff yet. so it typically comes out around spring, summer, late spring, summer, sometimes as late as midsummer because there's a lot that goes into it. >> president cohen: no explanation needed. i understand. i'm just anxious and excited to see your office and i also like to see your reports and what
your thoughts are. >> director: it's already been started. so we want to include the new data as well and all of that goes into the timing as well of thoung it takes to pull it together. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. let's see. anyone else? commissioner yee. >> commissioner yee: thank you. i just wanted to follow up on a video about a ups driver that was stopped and cited and she wasn't signing citation and
basically it was a double parked issue and it hit social media. so i'm assuming it's probably on this list for december, is that correct? director henderson? >> director: i saw that video. i don't know what the status is it offhand. i'll find out because i am familiar with the video and i saw it. >> commissioner yee: yeah. well, you know, it's -- you guys are doing your investigation. >> director: thank you. i'll report on it next week. >> president cohen: any other questions for the director? all right. thank you, director henderson. i think that's it. >> director: there's more later when we have the d.g.o.
stuff. so i'll be back. >> president cohen: we'll be ready. all right. sergeant youngblood, let's take public comment. >> secretary: for members of the public that would like to make public comment, please press star three now. and, president cohen, there's no public comment. >> president cohen: all right. let's move forward. >> secretary: line item seven. commission reports. this is a discussion item. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of the activities and announcements. and commission announcements identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. i am excited about this.
i'm going to shine a light on the work that they're doing in the department for the analysis of the data. commissioner oberstone, i'll start with you. >> commissioner: sure. at the last commission meeting, i will notice that it's pedestrian and traffic stops and the department, of course, what the department doesn't show is any data that allows us to figure out what's causing those disparities and that's not because the department doesn't have that data, it does have that data because as a matter of state law, the
department has to collect troves of data around its and that data by law has to be sent to the california department of justice. and so really what i was looking for was data already in the department's possession that it has to transmit to the attorney general on a periodic basis. commissioner elias and i met with the chief as well and jason cunningham to discuss the request that i made and the ability of turning over the data and in the week that ensued, there was a lot of back and forth, but i'm hardened to report that as of an hour or two ago, i am in possession of i think most of what i asked for, i wasn't able to fully review the last batch of data i received because tfsz so close
>> maybe it would be helpful as the department turned no that source data to the department of justice they published it to dpa and the commission directly and that would solve all of it and we wouldn't have to run around afterwards to recreate it. >> maybe we should work on that. >> let me just interject here. i take notice that deanna rosenstein's name was on the list to speak. >> she was jumping into answer the question that we're being asked before both about the marijuana case and about the video case but we didn't call on her and i didn't notice it. >> president cohen: i didn't notice it. >> she's on camera and share whatever insights. >> i was really going to explain to commissioner yee the only
ways we have the opportunity to investigate any police misconduct is if someone calls in and actually files a complaint with us and while we received a complaint with the marijuana dispensary case that's been dispensed in the meeting we've not received a complaint regarding the double parking and the ups driver so if we do, we would be happy to investigate it just like we do all of our other cases but at the same time, i'm not aware of anyone filing a complaint with that incident for us to investigate. >> any commissioner can also make a complaint for us to investigate as well as anonymously just so we're clear. >> anybody can make a complaint it doesn't have to be the actual victim, so to speak, of the police misconduct. any civilian can call us to
complain about any police interactions and interactions between sworn members and members of the public but at this time, we have not received a complaint from anyone with respect to that particular incident. so i just wanted to jump in and advise everyone of that. >> thank you, very much. we're going to go back to reports and i wanted to give commissioner elias an opportunity. >> i'm done. i will just add in response to what director henderson it's a great discussion and worthy of consideration and i will note the applicable state law does say that this data shalling made publicly available notwithstanding any other laws so there's no question of the data containing sensitive non-public information and the legislature is already made the determination that data should
be shared with the public. >> thank you for retating the obvious. commissioner elias. >> thank you. side note, it sounds like commissioner yee was inquirying about that and d.p.a. can follow-up with him afterwards to ensure an investigation is opened. >> i was having annaly followed up and i texted that. that was exactly how i interpreted it as well. thank you for the clarification. >> thank you, dr. henderson. my other comment was going to ask president cohen, that when we agenized the 96a and this is a heavy list we agenized the ripa report because it goes hand and hand and the issues are very related and in fact, i have not had a chance to read the 300-page ripa report in reviewing the executive summary the numbers are disturbing and
especially here in the city and it's something we want to discuss, one of the other issues that we discussed on the phone call with the chief, commissioner charter and i was to ask so we know where we are and we know what we're going to do about it. i know it's going to be again a heavy lift and having rpia96-a but they go hand and hand. >> president cohen: i couldn't agree more with you. we'll get that on the agenda for the discussion in february. so, everyone, eat your wheat's and get ready this first meeting will be heavy.
>> you guys are a fantastic team. >> maybe just to get ready, i will post the ripa report on our website so that people can look at it and see but the reason that it's relevant just to connect the dots, is that sfpd participated and is one of the agencies that contributed to the information that's been so when we talk about it in february, it won't be the first time how it connects to the 96a report and what ripa looks at conflates and analyzes the data which is by
the way the first so it's not just raw numbers. >> president cohen: sergeant youngblood, can we post that to our website as well. >> yes, we can. >> thank you, sir. >> all right. are there any other commissioners that have reports out? >> i just got a -- i have a follow-up question. so, is this data the disaggregated, i'm sorry if i don't understand it from a commissioner conner overstone. this is by citation and type of stuff that was insert and can you elaborate on what the data is and sorry for not misunderstooding it the first time. >> sure, no worries. the statute sets out i would say
over a dozen data points that need to be reported and the attorney general implemented regulations and clarified and the statute and i couldn't possibly cover everything that is in the data and it's dozens of data points and you asked about that type of stuff and reasons for staff is one things that needs to be reported on and under reason of staff there are numerous options that describe, for example, if it was a traffic stop, whether the staff had an equipment violation or moving violation whether it was based on reasonable suspicion and things like that. so, it's my understanding i haven't had a chance to review it thoroughly and it's department sends to the aeg and compliance and basically a b 953 and the implication it covers a
lot of staffing. >> so it will tell you that was riding a bicycle on a sidewalk and is it that specific or is it more you just said, moving violations and pedestrian or this is something we've been trying to get to the bottom for years. it would be great if we have that specific data. >> i understand but there's, for example, a narrative section where that is part of the data. most of the data points officers are required to indicate among the list of possibilities, for example, the reason of a stop. and that's obviously allowed for an easy -- i'm not sure if that
directly answers your question. >> typically there's a closed universe of things that an officer can use to describe although there's like a narrative portion and whatever he perceived at the time. >> right and so i was trying to understand is this more granular than the data that was given to the ag? meaning, i know that there was some more details that some of us have been interested and trying to understand why do we have in 2021 and the numbers are shocking as far as racial disparities and is this separate and apart, did you get anymore details from the department outside of what was provided or
is this the provided to the ag? >> you don't know yet. >> my understanding is this is what (inaudible). and it's no more or no less than that, that's my understanding. thank you, very much. other commissioners? >> president cohen: no problem. all right. sorry about that. i toggled off my active window. first off, i want today share that there's a town hall that i wanted the public to be aware of. the state of black san franciscans, january 14th,
2022 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. san francisco city hall on the front steps. this is a town hall that has been being announced and supported by the wealth and disparities from the black community. that was my first announcement. the other thing i wanted to talk about is that we are still actively going through the reviewing d.g.o.s and considering what the department's state of d.g.o. revisions are and for this year and what they should be. so i'll be culminating all of this information and presenting it in the next couple of weeks. also, i wanted to codify -- i also wanted to acknowledge last year we set some priorities for
the commission and so i want to do an assessment to see where we met or mark and where we fell short so that's also fourth coming and also actively reviewing the roles and responsibilities commission staff working with the chief's office on that. so in closing, i would just say that i've just been busy giving thought to the over all is over sight and structure and having conversations of people about how to always continually improve the work that wore doing here with the commission. so that's a high level more detailed to come next week. that is it for the commission reports. let's take public comment and then we'll move on. >> clerk: at this time the public is welcome to make public comment regarding line item 7, commission reports. if you would like to make public comment, press star 3 now.
president cohen, there's no public comment. >> president cohen: thank you very much. let's head to the next item. line item 8, discussion impossible action to improve the awards certification recommendations discussion and possible action. i'd like to ask commissioner burns and commissioner yee to talk about the awards panel process. as for the wards themselves. everyone has been vetted and congratulations to the award recipients. i was wondering if the commission could share with us their perspective in experience.
commissioner yee was later added to the committee so basically processes commissioner yee chief scott and myself to discuss the different awards of valor and different sorts of citations and our role adopted by previous members of the commission is to look at cases where the police officer has a prior disciplinary and if it was post the action and are for the granting of the award. and the idea of the theory behind it is we don't want to
give awards to officers that have been involved in egregious conduct even though they were involved in something otherwise they would get another -- a particular metal and we know that as myself and others were not perfect human beings, so certain type of disciplinary action, you should not should effect the officer's ability and that's basics of what these meetings along with the police commission staff is what we do and i know mr. yee and myself and the chief let alone have spent hours and the staff from the commission has had to prepare a lot of documentation.
and that is basically what the panel does. the police department, through their own internal things, makes the recommendations of the awards and what we do is we vet the disciplinary records that have been our past discipline foray warding such an award. commissioner yee, if you want to add that and. >> thank you, i joined in in the last meeting and i was on the tale end and there was -- i guess a few officers that had issues and may come to life and i ask that the chief and also staff put their input into it
and with the limited knowledge that i have, information that i got, i gave it supported jim byrnes on his recommendation along with the chief on there. i would say, i guess, this is is two four hour employees who does outstanding service and puts their life on the line everyday. i'd like to also support them that opportunity to receive those awards because it's something special that they do get and i would like to acknowledge them on that with regards to that. but again, i asked i asked the chief and the staff and look into the past and see if anything else that can be
brought to life with that and i end the staff on these recommendations going forward. >> instead of our third wednesday meeting, we will convene at the sky right temple on 19th and slope for the presentation of those awards. and i'd like to personally thank the commission staff because i know in the meetings they've done a lot of work and put in a number of hours to. so thank you. >> thank you, very much, gentlemen for doing that work. i wanted to just acknowledge that the gold medal of valor, is
being awarded to michael tumi as well as michael tien and the silver medal of valor is being presented to officer kyle roche. the bronze medal of valor is being offered to officer thomas lee. are there any other questions or comments on this? seeing none, let's go ahead and take public comment and then we will take a motion to approve the award certification of the panel recommendation. public comments. >> at this time the public is welcome to make public comment regarding line item 8. if you would like to make public comment press star 3 now. president cohen, there's no
public comment. >> president cohen: great. i'll make a motion to accept and to approve the awards certification panel's recommendations. is there a second. >> i'll second it. >> thank you. >> commissioner burns has made a second. let's take a roll call vote. >> clerk: on the motion to accept commissioner tarter overstone, how do you vote? [roll call vote] >> clerk: you have six yeses. >> president cohen: great. this passes unanimously and congratulations again to the award recipients.
can we call item 9. >> clerk: discussion and possible action to adopt a apartment general order 5.01 use of force policy and proper control of a person. meet and confer draft was approved through the commission on december 8th, 2021 and discussion and possible agency. >> president cohen: colleagues, i'd like to continue this item for one week. >> thank you, very much. we will revisit this item one week from today. do we need to take public comment or a motion on that? i don't think so. >> clerk: i don't believe so. >> president cohen: let's keep moving. call the next item. >> clerk: line item 10. adopt advice the general 6.09 domestic violence and meet and confer draft was approved on january 13th, 2021 and
discussion and possible action. >> president cohen: ok -- >> we have several members from sbu for any questions. >> president cohen: thank you, very much. where do we want to begin? commissioner elias, i'll start with you. >> thank you, president cohen. there are some corrections that i would like to make before we pass this dgo. commissioner burns made an excellent point with respect to reviewing the dgo in that the legal standard that is outlined on page 7 and 8 with respect to felony and misdemeanor arrest and the language needs to be changed from reasonable cause to
probable cause. it's the legal standard that is required for a police officer to make a arrest. sergeant youngblood make those two corrections to those two different sections. additionally there are two other corrections that we are asking that be made. the first one appears on page 7 subsection h under strangulation. the dgo has the address of the photo lab as 850 bryant and given the moving that has happened, the photo lab, we're asking to strike the address and just leave photo lab because we don't know whether or not it's going to be moved and on page 11, subsection 1, it references domestic violence referral card and that's no longer the name of
the card and it should read special victims referral card. those are the four changes that i'm asking be made to the dgo and it's my understanding that at several minutes before our meeting started, we received a letter from the district attorney office with respect to more changes and the district attorney has been a part of this working group for the past several years and has chimed in on the working group and has requested some of the changes that they outline in their letter. so, my understanding is that the changes that they're requesting for the most part has been incorporated in the -- in the dd manual and accompanies the dgo
and so the it's unfair to make those changes in the dgo at this late hour and especially since they're part of the manual so those are the four changes that i'm asking being made and we move this thing through. thank you, very much. it's so diligent with the details. with that said -- you guys are going to have to tighten it up a little bit. i like to see finished products to us and we're posting things to the public and i like everything to be as close to
perfect as possible. so, colleagues, are there any other questions? if not, ok -- commissioner hamasaki and commissioner carter overstone. >> yes, so, i didn't have a chance to look at the the corrections that were sent over later. i happen to be familiar with this group for many years. is there any -- i'm sorry, commissioner elias, you seem -- is there objections to any of these corrections or should we just incorporate them since we can just ask that they be incorporated. are there constructions there
you don't want corrected? >> most of them seem good but i haven't -- i haven't really gone through it. i think we have our subject matter expert on the line which is inspector flores so, you kno- >> so, what i would say is that this has been the collaborative process. i don't want to, you know, make haste for two-year process over a few minutes of either -- what we can do is just, there are a couple that are -- there are a couple that are themes like mandatory but also those that are areas that would be helpful. like referrals to the asian
>> vice president elias: this have been in the making for years. so it's just -- >> there was changes that were made after the working group closed with everybody. and so i think these are additions that are being made and i think i see director henderson nodding his head. remember a few meetings ago where the issue was raised that the district attorney wasn't actually noted of the changes.
there was one other group that was involved and also complained that they were not informed of the changes. so like, you know, we've all talked about it's challenging. we really want to take into consideration all of the stake holders and things disappear and the department, they come to us and sometimes we don't catch the things because we weren't in the working group because we don't know what changed in the department in between the process. i mean, we can spend i feel like it might take a little longer than we'd like to take tonight to make the edits on the fly. that'd be my suggestion. i don't know. i think we get it right after two and a half -- i forget the exact number of years. >> president cohen: five is the exact number of years.
and i'm sorry, commissioner hamasaki, i'm going to have to shut you down. this is moving forward. we're voting on this and we are moving this out today. so does anyone else have any comments. i can see preston. >> commissioner, i have not seen the letter that you're referring to so i have seen the changes that are being requested and i strongly recommend is if you're going to accept any of the changes, that we remove this particular d.g. o. from the agenda tonight and a notification is required to the p.o.a and since i have not seen those changes, if it is the commission's desire to include those, we need to pull it from the agenda tonight and
move it to a different date. >> commissioner hamasaki: does that also include the changes that were just made about five minutes ago or is this only the district attorney's changes? >> it's the changes regarding commissioner elias's point about reasonable cause versus probable cause. right before the commission, i had a chance to speak to the p.o.a. representative about that. the other change commissioner elias is recommending is just typos really. and so if we're referring to the change versus probable, versus reasonable, we can go forward with that. the other changes in the letter, i have not seen the letter that you're referring to. so i have no idea with those changes. >> commissioner hamasaki: right. and obviously, i understand that commissioner elias and the police union stay clear of these changes, but it does seem problematic after five years to
not consider one of the other stakeholders. >> just for point of clarification for mr. hamasaki. the e-mail to the commission came in at 5:18 a.m. i mean, that is really last minute. >> commissioner hamasaki: yeah. >> the meeting is supposed to start, the e-mail comes in. this is not a death penalty case. so i just wonder. i mean, they had notice. i just wonder why they did it that late. >> commissioner hamasaki: and what i would add -- >> to drop everything because, you know, because of who they are. >> commissioner hamasaki: that's -- well, i think that's part of doing our job and i would actually ask you to pause and not say it's not a death penalty issue.
there's numerous domestic violence victims that have been killed including in san francisco because of problems including a prior of mine who was still because of the actions or inactions and failures of san francisco police. the problems with investigating domestic violence have been a long standing issue in this city. >> commissioner byrne: i read the changes. with all do respect, commissioner, and, again, the d.e.a.'s office can not think they can send something in at 5:18 before and expect us to do their bidding. so they need to respect us as an institution and send it in earlier. >> commissioner hamasaki: i know that. i've been on the commission for almost four years.
i welcome you to the commission and i appreciate you being here, but this is how things have been done for nearly four years. we pause, we slow things down. we do them right. we don't do them irrationally. >> commissioner byrne: i understand. >> commissioner hamasaki: so i appreciate it, but this matters. this is a very important d.g.o. because it puts the lives of individuals -- you know, this is personal for me because i've worked on it for so long but, you know, if you want to rush through, rush through. my vote will be 'no' but, you know, i have to do what i believe is right for the people that are victims of domestic violence in this city. >> vice president elias: why don't we do this, i don't want to do this but it may be more prudent to put this over until next week with your permission, president cohen, because there are the additional changes and
perhaps, commissioner hamasaki, since you're the one following it, you can be a little more hands on during this next week to make sure it all gets done and it gets ready for us next week during the commission. >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm fine with that. >> vice president elias: but the officers have been waiting for this dvmentd g.o., the d.b. inspectors, they really need this guidance and it's been a long time in the making. >> commissioner hamasaki: commissioner elias. >> president cohen: i want to stop here in this discussion here and i want to hear from beverly upton. is she on the line? can we find her? i'd like to get her perspective. >> secretary: she is, commissioner. let me. if you're on the line we should
be able to hear you. >> we're unable to complete your call. to speak to a customer service representative. >> secretary: hmm. i see you're on here, commissioner, but unmuting her does not -- >> i can't chat. >> secretary: ms. upton, can you hear us? ms. upton, can you hear me? commissioner, i'm unable to contact her.
>> vice president elias: is there someone from the district attorney's office on the line in public comment that was going to read this? >> secretary: let's see. i don't see anybody, commissioner. somebody has raised their hand. let me see if this is -- >> hi. yes. this is [ indiscernible ] . this is my first time. i'm with the district attorney's office. i'm the managing attorney of the unit. i've been out sick with a really bad cold and i am the one that sent in the letter is it commissioner elias. so i didn't know how to access chat or anything. so i apologize i couldn't
figure this out earlier, but i'm -- our office isn't asking to delay the adoption. the changes were just. i actually am very grateful and thankful at this comprehensive and extensive update that have been made by people like beverly upton. my former manager and domestic violence -- i've been exchanging e-mails with chief deputy david lizar and inspector tony norse and john keenen and i taught together at the police academy. i am honored to be here. i think this is an amazing revision of the d.g.o.6.09.
if you see my letter, there's just a few structure errors, but otherwise, it is really well-done and i've been recently part of the working groups, but it had already closed. so i certainly didn't want the commission to think that this was some last-minute thing or that i want to delay this in any way. the only two things that i would highlight would be adding under section 6.09.03 under definition and i may be reading it wrong, it may be acts against a handwriting and intimate partner. the other is under 6.09.04 procedures. there's a beautiful section b under presence of children that
indicates the tone and demeanor of the child and i would ask that that be added to the victim interview and the suspect interview because knowing the tone and demeanor of the victims and having interaction with the first responders is crucial to victim statements later on at trial when the victim is absent. there's already reflected in the manual accompanying the general order, you're correct that it is in there. i only highlighted it and i was also really grateful finally in the section r in the procedures, court protective orders that the criminal protective order includes a rather recent in the last several years addition to the code section 136.2i 1 under criminal protective order, but they may also be issued up to 10 years post conviction. i only would suggest and again it's just a suggestion, not a request in any way to add the
penal code section 136.2 outlining certain circumstances where the sentencing including the term of probation. so i stand ready to work with chief lizar. i exchanged e-mails and provided recommendations months ago in september to strengthen the investigations by first responders including all the procedures that are detailed in this revised d.g.o. which, again, as i have reviewed is wonderful and i stand ready to train and instruct that the police station's alongside inspector floers. so i just hope that made it clear. i apologize that i sent it last-minute. i have been out ill for the better part of a week, so i'm new to this and, again, i apologize to the commission. thank you. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. >> president cohen: all right.
i'd like to hear from beverly upton. >> secretary: i have one more person that called in. hello, caller. is this beverly upton? >> yes. hi. hi commissioners. hello friends. beverly upton from the san francisco domestic violence consortium. i think we are seeing that after a year, we have new and fresh eyes looking at this and i want to thank the commission for unanimously approving this d.g.o. back on january 13th, 2021, but as you can see, there are fresh eyes and fresh leadership looking at this. i agree actually with all of you. of course, i want to see a path, but i agree with commissioner hamasaki and those who are willing to take another week and take a look at some of
these suggestions. you know, i have a tremendous amount of respect for the newer head of the d.b. unit, but she's been doing this for a long time. i think it's well worth taking under consideration. we've all worked so hard. i have a list, of course, of people to thank tonight, you all know who you are, but it seems to me that there are some things and i'll just say when i hear, you know, more community participation, more resources to be called. if one of the shelters is full, perhaps we should be looking at other resources. that all seems like, you know, good additions to this d.g.o. and we've waited this long, maybe another week will get us closer to something that will serve the city of san francisco
and its survivors for many years to come. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. let's take public comment. >> i'm sorry, president cohen. i just had a couple more -- a couple other typos that might make sense. i don't know if it makes sense to put them on the record now. they're nonsub substantiative updates whether we decide to vote on it or not. >> president cohen: you're welcome to put it on the record. what i'm thinking about doing is um, taking the nonsubstantiative suggestive changes, putting it in the document, continuing for one week, but with that amended document that we amend tonight making that public for people to review. does that make sense? so you are more than welcome to read it on the record.
you probably have to reread it again as we because we will have to vote to accept them. >> okay. no reason. i defer to you on what makes most sense process wise. >> president cohen: i think you should read them, get them on the record so we can take public comment so we can hear what the public has to say to the amendments that you're putting forward to the thoughts that byrne has also put forward to the thoughts that elias has put forward. >> commissioner: great. understood. thank you. so the acronym s.v.u. is used for the first time on page six, but it's actually defined on pages seven and twelve. so the definition should be stricken on seven and twelve and it should be defined for the first time on page six. the acronym g. bvmentd i. which i assume is bodily injury is never defined. so it should be defined there
on page seven. on page 19, it should be avmentd sfpd member it should be 'an' sfpd member. and then on page eight, this is around the mistake that commissioners byrne and elias pointed out about the incorrect legal standard. so on page eight we have sub section j-1 and it says that, you know, an arrest can be made whenever reasonable cause exists, and it doesn't specify, but the implication i think is that it can be a warrantless arrest, but then if you go down still on page eight to subsection three, it says, it specifies a second set of circumstances and then at the end there, it says members may
make a warrantless arrest. so including the fact that the arrest can be warrantless under subsection three but not including it under subsection one when i don't think that was the intent of the drafters. so my recommendation would be to strike under subsection three then strike the language saying that the arrest can be pointless. i think that's already implied because of the probable cause standard. and then on page -- i'll just call this out. i'm not sure if it's a typo. but on page twelve, there's this new section o for treatment slash documented surgeries. it seems like it should just be item number ten from the prior
section. again, that's totally not subs substantiative. it seems like this may have been an oversight and it should be item number ten from the prior section. i might just note i might just note one other. >> director: president cohen, while the commissioner is looking, i think -- and this is not the first time we've had this process. a lot of this would be
troubleshoot. had we been given this for review, we would have caught many if not all of these issues especially these types of things. the department takes these documents and changes the language. we do not get a chance to review and update it. i think that's really part of why we're having this conversation again as we have every time we go through the d.g.o. process. so i'm just raising this as a flag for an opportunity to institutionalize a process for us to get to some of these documents and do all of this work so we don't have to do this every time we have a major or significant d.g.o. and that said, we also have not received the letter that i think people were referencing from the district attorney's office. i also don't know if beverly upton and all of the other
groups that partsz pated in this as well received this letter before what needs to happen. sorry. i just wanted to say that. >> president cohen: thank you. >> commissioner: yeah. i apologize for the timing of this. it's well known it's received as a draft. i would have loved to sent these in earlier. the last thing i'll say and this is at the risk of bordering on substantiative and if thinks it's not a major issue, but on page eight, section k1a members shall confiscate any firearm or weapon discovered at a domestic violence scene, to me, the term 'at the scene'' is somewhat vague. does it mean that the weapon had to be used in a course of
domestic violence? does it mean that the weapon had to be in plain view or does it mean that officers have to confiscate a weapon anywhere in the domicile. what exactly the officer's responsibility is there, but again, that's an easy charge determined at the scene as defined elsewhere and is actually quite clear so that's the last thing i'll raise. >> or if it's a victim weapon. >> president cohen, if i may. >> president cohen: yes. you may. >> i would just like to also add that the department also has not had an opportunity to review the district attorney's letter. we certainly would be interested in seeing what the proposals are and having the subject matter conversation
with experts to see how that affects the operating procedures for our officers and investigators. >> president cohen: understood. any other thoughts? let me just say this, ms. papas. i understand that you're sick and relatively new to your role in the district attorney's office, but as the subject matter expert, i mean surely you could assume that sending over an e-mail at 5:18 for a meeting that starts at 5:30 is not enough time and perhaps we need to start to send parameters over looking at starting sergeant youngblood and other commissioners on the process. this was introduced as public comment and it's almost like we're taking this public comment weighing heavier than some of the other public
comments that we have heard and so that concerns me. this is really derailing the process. and the one argument that i heard that is compelling to me comes from ms. preston and that she had not seen the letter. the department hasn't seen the letter. of the commissioners haven't seen the letter. the department of d.p.a. haven't seen the letter. this is really concerning. and it's been frustrating and incredibly disrespectful for this public process because that means the public hasn't seen the letter. so there are a lot of moving parts here. and so the argument that ms. preston is making about waive filing a grievance is relevant to this discussion and we do need to discuss this through the ground work and the parameters around domestic violence, the d.g.o. for
domestic violence and so i'm going to set this to be heard next week and if anyone has anything else on their mind, on their heart, they need to get it out now because we are moving forward. it's important for the victims that we have this policy in place so we can begin to educate and train officers on how to handle these kinds of cases. so this is incredibly disappointing and frustrating for me and it's also really frustrating to learn that the department of police accountability is always locked out and not getting access to the information. and i really want for the department, the police department do a better job of releasing information, releasing data not only to commissioners when they ask for it, but also to the d.p.a. so that a thoughtful analysis can take place. i think that the department has
demonstrated an ineptitude in producing documents that are not riddled with grammatical errors or typo errors. so we need to start to put some checks and balances in place to ensure that things are presented in the public and that are discussed in this commission and if that means having one or two layers of people reading it, are that includes the department of police accountability, that includes possibly adding the city attorney to it then that's what we need to do because this level of work is sloppy and really the public deserves a lot better. with that said, we've already taken public comment. is that correct, sergeant youngblood? >> secretary: we have a couple of other comments. >> president cohen: let's get those on the record so we can
keep moving forward. >> secretary: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, friends. it's beverly again. i think i've made my public comment. i appreciate everybody's consideration around this. i realize that it does -- it's messy. but thank you. that's my public comment. i'll save everything up for next week. thank you. >> secretary: thank you, ms. upton. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, good evening. are you able to hear me? >> secretary: yes. >> caller: great. good evening, this is fon jade core. i'm a tried chair with the family violence council of san francisco and i also served on the working group in my capacity as a domestic violence attorney with bay area legal aid. i echo everything our community members, the district attorney's office and ms. upton
has already shared. i only want to add the community organizations that have served on the domestic violence working group that participated in the drafting and the development of the d.g.o. played a critical role. we hope that the commission might require the sfpd include the d.b. organization and the implementation and the training phase in the domestic violence d.g.o. the communicate organizations are at the table for training just as a reminder, the domestic violence we've all worked together with the community organization that the survivors and our san
francisco community and so we do hope the commission will consider that request. thank you very much. >> secretary: thank you, caller. and president cohen, that ends public comment. >> president cohen: thank you. so we need to do one more step before we move on. i'm going to pivot to the attorney that are on. there are some nonsubstantiative changes that we need to incorporate. shall we just read them into the record? >> yes. so you have a couple of different options. you can put the whole thing over until next week, obviously. the second option would be to read into the record and adopt
those changes that are nonsubstantiative or you've already received agreement from the p.o.a.. it sounds like most of commissioner carter oberstone comments were nonsubstantiative as well and then we would need some additional time to analyze the rest of the changes to see if we would need to meet and confer over those whether it would trigger meet and confer obligations or effects bargaining and then we would proceed from there. very similar to commissioner elias. i was unable to read that letter right before. there were a number of things that happened right before commission that took my attention as well. so i apologize for that so i don't really have a specific answer as to the remainder of the items that are contained in that letter.
>> president cohen: okay. that's not that helpful. tell me exactly how you advise us to move forward. >> you can adopt tonight. those items that are nonsubstantiate and that you received p.o.a. agreement on. and for the remaining items that need to be analyzed, whether that would trigger meet and confer or effects bargaining. >> president cohen: thank you. all right. are you ready to adopt the nonsubstantiative changes tonight? i see a yes from byrnes. i see a yes from cindy. >> commissioner hamasaki: i think -- can i get a point of clarification which is i think we would be doing it meaning that the d.g.l. as a whole, we can't adopt parts of a d.g.l., but it wouldn't be something
that we could send out to the department that they could act on which is why i think probably the better course of action would be to put it over, put it into the document, all of the changes that have come out today, you know, as normal posted on the agenda for next week and then we adopt it in the final version next week. >> commissioner byrne: the problem is that meet and confer may not make it next week and wouldn't it be better to amend the d.g.o. until we get the new one which is obviously what the district attorney's office wants us to do that way the training starts and the real good is dealt with and then we can amend the d.g.o. once everything else is sorted. but, you know, there's a lot of
good in that domestic violence thing and we're going to hold it up and i'm skeptical that it will all be done in a week if it triggers a meet and confer with the p.o.a. >> commissioner hamasaki: so i think that's the question we'll have answered probably within a day or two whether or not it does. i don't think, you know, it just, look, you know. you've heard from the community groups that have worked on this for years. you've heard from the people that have been involved. this is a very serious undertaking for the people that have put a lot of time and the community victims advocates and survivors advocates. i'm asking for a week, let's not overcomplicate this. >> vice president elias: if i may, president cohen, can we have inspector floers speak. he's the subject matter expert and the person that's been training the officers on this and i really would love to hear his thoughts.
you know, the fact that this has been written directives for a year is unacceptable and it's caused this problem because i think the advocates and the district attorney are right in a sense that it's been a year. the law changes and this is where we are. to address director henderson's comments, this is being addressed in 3.01 which is ready and will be added to the agenda shortly by the commission so we can end this practice of d.g.o.s going to written directives and staying in this black hole and then popping up without any warning. so, you know, again, we've taken steps to try to address the situation, so hopefully we won't have this in the future, but, again, president cohen, i'm going to ask if we can have inspector flores speak on this. >> president cohen: inspector flores. >> thank you so much commissioner and all the commissioners. a lot of you folks know i've
been with the police department for 38 years and i still currently live and work in this town and i really enjoy it and i've worked with several of the folks on other d.g.o.s and this one particular d.g.o. manual has been worked on for four years literally four years now and everybody has been at the table from the very start of this process. so it kind of frustrates me sometimes on the comments that i hear especially from the community or department of police accountability because i work side by side with families regarding this issue and this d.g.o. and manually we took out a lot of stuff and we put in a lot of stuff and my commitment and i know the police department's commitment regarding domestic violence and investigation of domestic
violence is very serious and so it's hard to see when we get so close to the finish line that we are now and again, i was just aware of this memo which i wish again that it was brought to us sooner then we could have addressed it and, again, i want to let you folks know is that we don't stop, we continue training. we've been training regarding this, i currently myself and john keen currently train the officers. we've been doing this for the last couple of years regarding d.b. and how the officers can do a better job and we know we can do a better job and i want us to do a better job. i want the victims to be safe in san francisco and hold those persons accountable for their actions and i do understand especially when we're talking about referrals and working
with the community at the very end, we know that some of those agencies because of the pandemic change. so some things as we were waiting for this process, things continue to change, but i hope by the next calling of this is that we can move forward, but i'm going to let you folks know that i'm going to continue training the best of my ability to the members of the san francisco police department of what it is so they can make these cases better because as we know that was brought up regarding probable cause. we believe constantly that we need probable cause, but to get a case file, you need to have beyond a reasonable doubt and that's a big threshold and i like to hold the officers and have officers and members do that. so when we're presenting these cases to the district attorney's office that they can say, yes, this case is a chargeable case and that person is going to be held accountable
and the victim is safe. that really is my two cents in this whole matter. we've all worked on this very hard and a lot of shots out to the d.b. community and also several attorneys and several people who've been at this table for a long time. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you very much, mr. flores. i thought maybe you might have some comments on regarding training. >> i'm ready to go. any training that you want me to do, i will do. i've never hesitated in that and i'm already set. i have my vision and, again, i will talk it over with the bosses, but i'm ready to pull that trigger at any time as far as what the training -- maybe i
should use a different word. i'm ready to do this for these individuals as far as training and we anticipated this moving forward. in the bayview the pilot program for allowing the assessment that's been going on for two years. so we're already ahead of the ball as far as a lot of the training that's going on. we can always tweak it and make it better. >> president cohen: okay. colleagues, any other questions? assistant chief moser or acting chief. i'm sorry. i'm messing up your title. anything that you guys want to
share know that you guys are part of this conversation as well. >> no. i think from my perspective, you know it's important that our subject matter experts are reviewing all the documents and they have the opportunity to weigh in and they've been working on this for a long time as is everybody that's put in their time. so anything that would be any substantiative changes, we want to make sure that our folks have enough to do and make sure that we understand them. it makes sense for the order, for the victims, for our officers that we can train too and that we're all on the same page. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. lizar, anything from you? you can say no. >> yeah. it's been said i want to thank you for the conversation i think we all can agree this is really important. so we definitely have to move forward quickly and get it
right. so thank you. >> president cohen: perfect. so what i'd like to do is a couple of things here. i think we can pass a nonsubstantiative version now and amend it next period which would be next week. i think it's already gone through a lot of review and the discussions of the changes that we've made are nonsubstantiative. commissioner hamasaki, i understand your perspective, i think it's just a style difference. you like to amend -- you like to look at a document all at one time. i think we need to show there's momentum and moving forward and that this d.g.o. is not going to die and that we need to take a vote on nonsubstantiative changes and then come back and vote on this item up or down next week. the letter that the district attorney had sprung on us or the assistant district attorney has now been circulated. if anyone needs a copy, please let sergeant youngblood know. he will be sharing that with
the public. i want to also say we shouldn't let preference be the enemy of good and we should vote on these nonsubstantiative amendments that were discussed and read into the record today. is there anything else? thank you. sergeant youngblood, in terms of procedure, i believe you'd already gone to public comment. >> secretary: yes, ma'am. >> president cohen: and commissioner yee needs a copy. director henderson needs a copy sent to him. ms. papis, i hope you're listening because your distribution work needs to be expanded. >> vice president elias: it's on the website as well. >> president cohen: ms. preston, i think you've got the letter now as well. >> i do, but once again, it's
not sufficient time to compare the amendments and the impact if a notification to the p.o.a. >> president cohen: yes. i understand that. the amendments we're discussing today are nonsubstantiative. they aren't going to change anything. they're grammatical. >> okay. >> vice president elias: with that, president cohen, what i'd like to do is make a motion to amend to include the four changes i outlined as well as the changes outlined by commissioner carter oberstone and have it passed with those amendments. >> president cohen: all right. thank you very much, commissioners. is there a second? >> commissioner yee: second. >> president cohen: thank you, commissioner yee for the second. >> president cohen: the vote on the amended changes.
>> commissioner hamasaki: president cohen. i want to be clear that this will be on again next week to incorporate the following changes. okay. >> president cohen: correct. >> commissioner hamasaki: it would impact my vote so thank you. >> president cohen: no problem. >> secretary: on the motion to -- yes, ma'am. >> president cohen: please call the vote. >> secretary: on the amendment to adopt the nonsubstantiative changes, [roll call] you have six yeses. >> president cohen: thank you very much. i'd also like to make a motion that we bring this back next
week. i guess i don't need to make a motion. we need to just declare it on the record. >> commissioner hamasaki: you're the one who decides on the agenda next week. >> president cohen: it will be back next week everyone. we'll continue this. i would advise you all to make this a priority. make your notes. be prepared to bring them for next wednesday because we're dealing with this item. all right. next item. >> secretary: line item eleven, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 13 below closed session including public comment on item 12 vote whether to hold item 13 in closed session. if you'd like to make public comment regarding line items 11, 12, and 13, please press star three now. and president cohen, there is no public comment. >> president cohen: great. thank you. next item. >> secretary: line item twelve. vote on whether to hold item 13 in closed session. san francisco administrative
code section 67.10. action. >> vice president elias: do we need a motion? i'll make a motion. >> commissioner: second. >> president cohen: call the roll. sorry. we need to take public comment. >> secretary: i'm sorry we did. public comment was taken. it was the previous line item. >> president cohen: all right. >> secretary: on the motion to go into closed session, [roll call]