>> one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and

justice for all. >> please turn off any self funds or pagers you may have. they tend to interfere with the equipment in the room. president marshall: present. vice president mazzucco: present. commissioner dejesus: present. >> you have a quorum. also seated at the day's tonight is the chief of police and the director of the occ. president marshall: this is a regular meeting of the san francisco police commission for october 20, 2010.

i would say i want to be informed of the score, but i cannot really say that during a meeting. please call item one. >> item 1 is the approval of the consent calendar. this is a quarterly report by the police department and the office of citizen complaints regarding policy proposals, and also the office of citizen complaints third quarter statistical report. president marshall: are the questions on any items contained therein? commissioner kingsley: i had a couple of questions on the report by the director of the office of citizen complaints, please. there is an item on page 5, i believe. there is an indication of 7% of cases having been -- the

complaints have been sustained. i guess the question is what would you attribute that number two? if you could elaborate, help us understand a little bit more about that number. >> commissioner, the 7% number haps to do -- has to do with the number of sustained allegations in the third quarter overall for the nine month period. it is a partially a%. the historic average over 20 years, about 16 years of taking -- of keeping track of state allegations, is around 9%. commissioner kingsley: for cities that are comparable to ours, that have similar

programs, are other statistics comparable? >> i have attempted to get that information and have not been successful in receiving that from other jurisdictions. that is in terms of what they're sustained rate is. commissioner kingsley: thank you. the only other question is i noted that 44% of the cases were on neglect of duty for failure to collect traffic stop data. i was confused about that in connection with occ and what that meant. >> of what that means is that when the complaint is filed with the occ, the occ conduct a full investigation. and often the allegations arise as a complaint from an individual who is dissatisfied

with a traffic citation they may have received, or some other type of traffic stop. we call that an added an addition -- and added allegation -- an added allegation. we look at whether the officer has collected that data. >> it is peripheral data that is collected after somebody who has been stopped files a complaint? >> i am probably not explain it clearly. this is a requirement of officers. it is to determine whether or not there is a disproportionate number of stops against people of color. it falls into the investigation of racial profiling. so it is data collection that is required of officers when they make traffic stops. they need to indicate the race

of the individual and other factors as well. have i answered your question? commissioner kingsley: maybe we can talk separately on this. i do not want to take up commission time if everybody else is understanding this. i had understood it. it made sense that this was traffic stop data that would be required of a police officer on the data they picked up when they stop somebody. the confusion is how does it fit in with complaints that citizens would make when they are stopped. >> the way it fits in is when an investigator investigate a complaint, the investigator investigates the entirety of the action that occurred with the officer. so the investigator not only investigates whether or not it was a valid stop, but also

whether the things an officer is required to do pursuant to department bulletins, whether those things have been done as well. we would call those added allegations. if an officer failed to collect traffic stop data, that is not information to provide to the complainant. the complaint does not know one way or the other. we do advise the chief and the officer in the forms of a report. commissioner kingsley: very good. thank you very much. commissioner chan: i want to thank you for a well-written and thorough report. a lot of time was spent on it. i saw several times in the report the top four recommendations to enhance police response to mental health crisis calls. these are synched and clear recommendations. i want to let you know that at our retreat, commissioner mazzucco and i will volunteered

to take on the mental health reforms that are needed. >> think you very much. these are recommendations that the officers have made over the years. they have become more refined as time goes on. a lot of them arise from complaints that we have received and investigations we have made, and policy recommendations we have made as a result of the investigation of those complaints. commissioner chan: i can tell they are very well thought out. we look forward to working with the department to implement these recommendations. president marshall: commissioners, anything further? if not, can i get a motion for approval of the consent calendar? >> so moved. president marshall: public comment on the approval of action items -- go ahead. >> i am the director of san

francisco open government. having been elected to two terms on a neighborhood board in honolulu, i interacted with the police for their very frequently. i believe if i understand it correctly the answer to your question maybe if i am a police officer and i stop someone and subsequently set them for a traffic violation or arrest them, there is a clear connection between my stopping them and my reason for stopping them. however, if i simply stop a person and subsequently let them go on their way, there becomes some question as to whether or not i stopped them for a legitimate purpose or for some other illegitimate purpose. i believe police officers are required to collect a certain amount of data to show there is justification for the stop, even though there was no subsequent action on their part which would have been the normal proof of justification. you know, the director is certainly willing -- able to

correct me if i am incorrect in that. but that was the way they explained it to us in the honolulu police department. if i stop someone, i have to have a reason. and if i stop someone and do not subsequently set them for whatever purpose -- cite them for whatever purpose, but protection for myself and the city is to collect this data so that if somebody comes back later and looks at me as an individual officer or the department and say, "you are stopping people because of the racial profile," or some other thing, they know here are the people i stopped and here is their background and ethnic makeup. in honolulu, unfortunately, we did find some places where they collected the data and it was pretty clear the person had stopped people for reasons that were inappropriate, and in some cases not allowed. president marshall: further

public comment on this item? >> good evening, ladies and gentleman. -- gentlemen. we have had two officers commit suicide in the last three months. these are the rank and file. you know what i am talking about, and i should address to directly. the chief did not show up when an officer killed himself. we have had three in the last 18 months. mr. desk phone -- mr. gascone, show your rank. president marshall: any further public comment? i had a motion and i do not know if i had a second. any objections? without objection, so ordered. thank you. lieutenant, we will move to item no. 2.

>> members of the public may address the police commission for a time. determined by the chair not to exceed three minutes on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission which do not appear on the agenda. president marshall: general public comment, please. >> reinhardt, director of san francisco open government. --ray hart, director of san francisco open government. i want to acknowledge that the agenda is good. all the members on which the matter of public -- all the matters on which members of the public may wish to comment on are arranged in front of the closed session and there will be no reason to deny their free- speech rights and their ability under the sunshine ordinance to participate in the session. i would like to comment on something that occurred last week. during one of my comments, i paused.

after a couple seconds, the presiding officer said, "we are not going to comment." i know that, because it says under police commission rules of order that during public comment commissioners are not to enter into debate with the speakers. however, i would remind you of the week prior, where i had some comments on the occ director's report. it was the statistical reports through [unintelligible] following my comments, the officer said, "we do not usually respond to this, but i want to do exactly that." he allowed the occ director to make some comments that refuted what i was trying to express. i had to wait until the pauling week in general public comment to show the statistics and how i came up with them, and to

clarify the fact that i believed what i had originally said was true, that in 2010 the cases that were resolved -- there was one sustained. there were a number of others, 53 -- 52 there were actually sustained that were filed in 2009, and we came to the same statistics -- 8.1%, which was the same the director had said for the 2010 year. but we are still stuck with the fact that less than one-third of 1% were actually sustained of complaints filed in 2010 and dissolved in 2010. what i am trying to say generally is that it seems convenient to say, "there are the rules. we do not respond." however, if you're going to respond to someone -- i am not going to say you can't. the sunshine report says members

of the commission have every right to do so. what i am saying is what i said at the time. if i am going to get up and make public comment and someone else is going to be allowed to speak and in some degree refute that comment, i should be given an extra chance to say i respectfully disagree, rather than what i had to do in this case, which is white an entire week and talk to a completely different audience as far as any members of the public who might have been here. i think that when it is not done in that way, what you do is you throw doubts as to whether or not the statistics are honest. if you get up and present statistics and someone raises a question and you simply say, "that is not true," it says that somebody raised the question and we simply removed it. president marshall: further general public comments? seeing none, thank you. please call item 3.

>> item 3 is reports to the commission -- the chiefs report, the occ director's report, and the commission reports. >> year to date, we continue to be at a 9% reduction. but the numbers are 2952 cases this year to date. that is a reduction of 262 violent crimes and other minor crimes. for the last weeks, we had an increase in violent crime of 7%. that was a difference of 520 crimes to the prior four weeks. there were a total of 37 additional crimes. property crimes were down 16%. that is 2721 for a reduction of

426. our total crimes reduction is a pro% reduction -- is a 12% reduction. a total reduction of 389 crimes. i will be travelling tomorrow. i have the annual -- the biannual meeting for major city chiefs of police conference. that is also the same time that i will be meeting with our semiannual meeting for perf. i am a member of the board and there will be the town hall meeting held once a year. there will be the national association of chief of police meeting. i will be tied up in meetings for approximately five days,

starting friday, and will be back here wednesday night. concerning a few other items, as i mentioned to you we have been selected to be part of a system to do with leadership. we're participating in two different groups. one of those groups is going to be working in the development of business models for future police organization. that is a three-year program. we are one of the few that was selected for that. the other one is also funded by the bureau of justice assistance, and it has to do with the development of leaders in the future. we are working now with the university of san francisco. we believe there will be a partner on this issue. we will resolve leadership training for police officers that will begin at the entry level, and it will continue training for each rank. there will be also additional

training that will be rank specific. sergeants would get training, and captains and above. an exciting opportunity for us. we're going to be partaking in this with the new orleans police department and the manchester police department in the u.k. the justice department is basically funding mess with the intention of creating model blueprints for police leaders around the country. i think it is a tremendous opportunity for the san francisco police to permit to be at the cutting edge in the development of personnel training. that is a year and a half program. at the end of the process of those two particular projects real been selected, i think we're going to have an incredibly -- an incredible opportunity to move forward with training at the san francisco police department. it is very exciting.

president marshall: if i may, can i sidebar? the meeting with the international plan -- the international chief of police? i've never been to an international meeting, but having been to several national ones, it was really great being in the room with other chiefs of police to get sort of a national perspective on things. if you could when you come back just give us what you have seen in trends. i know it was great for me to be here and talk to different chiefs of police and their perspectives with regard to crime and crime statistics. i would appreciate any flavor you can bring back about the bigger picture. >> absolutely. it would be a pleasure. now that you brought this up, in january, i think most members were here when i went to a selection process and i talked about being part of the kennedy

school of executive sessions. that was a three year program. the paper -- i worked with one of the researchers, and it will be published later this year. it has to do with the affordability of policing anythings we are going to have to look for as we develop a business model that would quite frankly not break the bank. there will be a presentation in january at the harbor of my paper as well as others, or the paper work with another person on. if any of the commissioners are interested in traveling, i can get you the dates. it would be wonderful if you are able to come. i think that will be a wonderful opportunity for you not only to see the project i have been engaged in, but that several other people. i think if you are interested. president marshall: everybody is writing it down. i think you may have a quorum

there. >> you are welcome. go out there. [laughter] you're permitted to have a quorum anywhere in the world. >> will be warmer? >> it will be a little cold. it will be intellectually stimulating. commissioner chan: thank you for the presentation. president marshall: she does not get the inside track just because. >> it would be a pleasure if any of you could join us. i will give you the dates. i will have assistant chief sawyer get you the dates later today. president marshall: thank you. commissioner dejesus: this leadership training -- is it putting together the model program, or will be institute leadership training for the year and a half you're talking about? >> it will be both. what we are going to be doing is we -- frankly, i am going to look at this with the

commission. we are going to put working groups together and we are going to work with university of san francisco to develop curriculum. the goal is that our people will start going through the training. absolutely. it will be both. it will be the development of curriculum but also the implementation. and the advantage of us is we are going to be able to try another thing. we are going to be able to have sort of a head start. the other goals here that i personally discussed with the university of san francisco i think is we want to make our training regional. even in our piece, we will be making that available to other police agencies in the bay area and have them also be a partner in this. the reason for the selection of the university is because i was hoping to elevate the