into our own hands, note? we want to know what is being done to pursue this person who took my brother's life. and if we can have some answers to death, i think that would bring -- it would calm down some of the illnesses if we can see justice taking place. president mazzucco: thank you very much. we do not normally respond to these, but the chief wanted to respond to you and tell me as much as he can. they keep for coming. -- i thank you for coming. >> i want you to come in the hallway, because i want to talk to you, and we do have information related to the investigation. i am not privy to discussing it

in public, but i am with homicide, and i can tell you that things are being done, and i can tell you that leads are being made, and the investigation is going through. those words are coming from me. i can tell you that we are working on it. we did not drop the investigation. we are working on it. i will tell everyone in this room that i have a blackberry that goes off at 2:00 in the morning. members of the ssgs -- fpd -- sfpd respond to these, and sometimes they get confrontational with me when i tell them they have to go home, when they do not want to. i can tell you that the death of your brother has been investigated, and i can tell you that we have leads, but i want to tell you in private, if that is permissible. >> yes. [applause]

president mazzucco: thank you. >> thank you very much for taking the time that has been taken so far. for taking so much of the evening addressing the issue of police interactions with people with mental health issues or disabilities. it is utterly important. i want to respond to just a couple of things. a lot of what i wanted to say has already been said by my partner, so i do not want to repeat or words -- her words, but first of, i want to commend the commissioner dejesus for standing up, because although it does not appear to be a popular position on this commission, as he stated, in almost every article i have read, as well, and almost every discussion of

police interaction with mentally ill people, note it has been used as stomping ground for the sale of issuing police officers with taylor's -- tasers. i just read another one. this was not in san francisco but in seattle, a person shot by police on arms. un -- armed -- unarmed, and, of course, the taser issue was brought up again. thank you. i think these issues have to be addressed in tandem, whatever the auxiliary issues may be. and the other thing i want to respond to is the officer wrote -- is the officer, and you have to forgive me, her name is escaping me right now, but the officer who gave the report on the training for the sfpd. the issue has been raised about

the cost. i am confused, too. i think $8,000 per month was the number that registered in my year. i just want to say that, frankly, one unnecessary debt is too much of the cost. i do not want to hear, and i do not think a lot of the public want to hear, that it is too expensive to give the training necessary to not use excessive force against the mentally ill or the disabled, or anyone. there is plenty of money allocated to the san francisco police department. i think just about every organization on the planet wants more money to do what they want to do, but the money goes to thesfpd, and there is more than enough money to train officers on how to deal with the mentally ill and disabled public. [applause]

>> i am a community organizer from district 6. i also want to commend commissioner dejesus for being a strong advocate for mentally disabled people and not using tasers against them. i also want to say that it is imperative that police officers get this mental health training, and i do not know if it is 40 hours, 24 hours, when is going to happen, and also, having accountability and transparency in these shooting cases so we can do our research and find out what really happens. that is a problem right now. i marched on monday in the martin luther king march on city hall, and it also got into an argument with my daughters dad. -- my daughter;s dadm -- dad,

and he said he was going to the rally, but he was not going to march out of concern for her safety. marching is a peaceful way to deal with these things. he said what this is about in the first place is police brutality. we have to keep our daughters say. i agreed with him at -- we have to keep our daughter safe. i agreed with him at the rally. when people are being shot in the back for having a pocket knife that they are wielding, as you can, they need to stand up, and people in the tenderloin and people all over the city are living in fear of using their right to civil disobedience and public discourse. they are living in fear of police officers retaliating.

president mazzucco: thank you very much. [applause] good evening, clyde. >> as you know, there was a man in a wheelchair that was released on bail for assaulting a police officer. the d.a. is bringing charges. apparently, the d.a. has a different point of view. also, we do not get all of the facts. about four months ago, chief gascon had a conference. the gentleman had called his psychiatrist and said, "i am going to die by cop. i am going to die by cop."

with a 24-inch knife, one swing -- if they and had a taser, maybe that man would not be dead. people, we have got to strike a balance here. just because you are mentally ill does not mean they cannot kill a police officers. thank you. president mazzucco: any more public comment? all right, we are moving to line item number one. please call it. secretary falvey: timelines for selecting nominees for chief of police or to take other action related to selecting others for chief of police. some portion of this item may be heard in close section -- session. this closed session option is

provided so that if the commission's discussion on this item involves an individual employee or applicant, the commission may conduct that portion in closed session. president mazzucco: thank you, lt. falvey. we are talking about starting our selection for the next chief of police in the city and county of san francisco. before we head into discussion, i just want to refresh, we did this process 19 months ago when we selected chief gascon, and myself, commissioner marshall, and commissioner dejesus, along with our other commissioners, we had 32 community meetings and went out to 32 different groups. what are you looking for in a police chief? what do you think makes a good

city police chief? it was an opportunity to go out to the community and hear what they were looking for. and part of that process, we went to every district station, and we went to the airport. we met with officers. we said, "what are you looking for? what are you looking for in the ideal police chief?" and we had a group working with us. we get assistance from the leading bodies with reference to training and enhancing training for police officers. the city has paid them a lot of money. so we spent seven months coming up with what we felt as a commission would be the profile for the next police chief. so there is so much invested in that, and i just passed out to the commissioners a document that was created by the search committee, the commission, in

conjunction with the group that we hired, essentially asking, what are we looking for in a police chief, and there was community policing and engagement. respect for the rank and file of the members, an inspirational leader, not subject to politics, stands up to political leaders, a change agent, a crime fighter, an innovator, somebody with new ideas, a communicator inside and outside of the department, media savvy, respects and embraces diversity, understands the need for career and professional development, and understands immigration issues. so these were the criteria that we had reached as a commission last time we reviewed this calm and there -- when we reviewed this, and there was a profile.

we received over 100 applications. with the assistance of a search firm, we interviewed 25 candidates, and with the 25 candidates, pursuant to proposition h, we gave them names to the mayor. we were all pretty much on the same page with the names that we voted on, so our goal here is, given the parameters that we have to deal with, i think we need to move expeditiously but cautiously. we need to look at each and every candidate. we need to announce that the process is beginning tonight. we need to have some level of confidentiality in this process so that individuals can apply for the job without putting their current position at risk. for example, if they are police chief in another jurisdiction, it would not be good for them to apply for a job

so we need to come up with a process that recognizes the parameters that mayor lee will be our mayor for the next 11 months and mayor lee would make the selection for chief. ultimately our goal would be to have a chief that is so strong that our next mayor would say gosh, i shouldn't have to do anything. i should keep the next chief. but who know what is the mex mayor is going -- next mayor is going to want? i don't see that there is going to be a lot of outside interest because over the program terse so i would like to especially open it up for discussion. it is very important to have community input and we had it and we will continue to get it from our commission meetings. dr. marshall who deeply invested in this last time. dr. marshall? vice president marshall: i just want to jnd score the political

realities because it may be that whoever is selected, let me tell you the truth. we may be doing this again. you know, in a year. because one of the things we wanted to do, we couldn't do when we did get going was give the chief a contract so that he doesn't necessarily serve it through -- you know, we have a contract, we could pick somebody and whenever we pick them, we got to do the whole thing a year. look around. these are important. someone who would apply is faced with that. i just want to be sure everybody understands what we're going into here. it's, you know, it is very different than we were before. the person i would say was at least a little more secure, whoever it is that got the job.

so it is under those challenges and realities and constraintsed that we have -- constraints that we have to be in this position one more time. >> commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: my observation is i don't propose we redo all the great work you guys did but i think it is important in this process we set up a few public forums in different areas of the city so people can come forward and speak out. we just did have a chief for 18 months. we all worked close with him. people in the community have something to say about it, things they think can be improved upon. i'm proposing a very limited public forum where people can be able to come speak about what they want. the second part i would like to hear, a forum for officer to see what they are looking for in terms of the direction of

partner. we talked about some mechanism in relative rapid order to let people weigh in how they feel about their city. >> thank you. commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: we need a candidate that will meet the criteria to serve the community as a whole. how we do that, i know we have some criteria from the last time and it was relatively just a short period. but i think if we're going to -- when we look at the criteria that we are going to agree on, it is incumbent upon us not to fit the criteria to a preordained individual but to be completely objective in our creation of and assessment to have criteria. that is something i really want

to stress. in other words, the process must be articulated or adhered to, transparent to the extent that it can be transparent, leadership, to determine the criteria rather than a particular or preordained individual. we need to point out that four members of this commission actually have not gone through this process. have not heard the community concerns. it is one thing to read it and another to hear it directly from the community. so i do agree with commissioner hammer, even though you want to be expedient, i think there is an opportunity and time for this body to go as a new body with four new commissioners to the community and target certain areas and to listen to them because i think there was really an eye opener and we went to the rank and file and command staffing. we were really thorough and we don't have to do it to that extent but i think the new commissioner should see the concerns from the rank and file and the command staff and move

forward so that we can get criteria and it may be the criteria that we already have. we may want to add that we have had a year and a half experience and it will be interesting hozz how the public evaluates that. -- to see how the public evaluates that. i disagree with commissioner hammer on that. it really is imperative that no member of this body speak to the press or the community as a voice for the whole commission until we get thoroughly engaged in the process and we decide the criteria as a body. once we have come to an agreement on the criteria then i think we need to move forward as a unified body to vet the candidates. i do have an idea. i want to throat that out -- throw that out there. we have a list and i think one of the things we can do rather than just open the process up

and start this in a really hurried and frenzied kind of way is to look at the list we already have and determine who who is the candidate from that list that we want to proffer from the mayor. it is still there. it is still fresh. i want to throw that out rather than opening the whole thing up. but if we do open it up, i just want to make sure that it is a fair process and that everyone who comes forward gets evaluated on his or her qualifications to run the department and fulfill the criteria that we set forth rather than the type of popularity or preordained individual. those are my thoughts. >> thank you, commissioner kingsley. >> i would like to support what commissioners hammer and dejesus said in terms of getting feed back from the public. i think we have community boards and regular monthly

meetings set up in the various stations for community board meetings and what we may want to do is just put that on the agenda on those meetings and have a rotation among commissioners to be at those meetings to be able to ask similar questions of all the public at the various meetings and report back to the commission as to you know, our finding. the feed back from the community. >> thank you commissioner slaughter. thank you, president mazzucco. i agree that we need to -- i guess i'm confused listening to commissioner hammer and commissioner dejesus. on one hand i hear people endorsing the process the commission went through a year and a half ago and not wanting to redo the work that has recently been done, but on the

other hand, wanting and meeting. i agree we need input from the public in figuring out the best way to get it in an efficient manner. commissioners mazzucco and hammer, i met with the mayor shortly before our meeting last week and he expressed tremendous confidence in the commission's ability to do this but he did suggests he wanted a thoughtful process. he wanted an expeditious process and i agree with that. i have got no answer, but i'm concerned about opening up -- on the one hand, i very much want to hear and agree and figure out a way to get public comment efficiently and quickly, but i get concerned when we talk about setting up a process that could take a number of months and maybe that is inevitable that it is going to have to take a number of months, but as commissioner marshall said, we're dealing with some stark realities.

we have only a certain number of months before we have a new mayor. i wouldn't like to have to spend three or four months doing this process and four or five months being right back at ground zero. i don't offer any unfortunately useful solutions but just my observations listening to the conversation so far. >> commissioner hammer, and just to clarify what i was suggesting isen an expeditious process. not what we did last time but a much more condensed one. i think we would proceed here at city hall. what i'm ening is those forums relatively rapidly, maybe not 10 of them but maybe three so people felt they could come and speak openly and talk about the police department. a condensed one but so that

people have a chance to speak out. >> thank you. commissioner marshall? vice president marshall: there is a couple of things in my mind. in my mind, we would build on what we have already done. if i would go out there, if we had already compiled a list, i wouldn't compile a whole new list. i would say is there something on here, i would certainly build on the work that we have already done, but i do think it is important, i don't want this thing to be open-ended. i think at some point we want this done in x number of time. if it is two months, fine. eight months, fine. i don't really care, but we have to set a time frame or else we will just blowing in the wind here. i think everything back from -- then we can see how much we can accomplish in, you know, we're going to have a timeline, which is what you usually do when we do these things. i think we have to figure out first when we would like to

have this done by and then we can build on all the other processes that it takes to get it. but i do think we should use the existing documents and work and profiles that we have, you know, that we have already accumulated in the prior search, because it wasn't that long ago. i wouldn't want to start all over again. >> thank you. commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: i disagree. i don't think we need to do it in five days or eight days. i think we can do it in 30 days. i think it is important for commissioners who have not gone through process to meet with the community and get some input. that's step number one. step number two, then i guess for criteria, we got to decide whether we're going to keep the list that we have only or keep the list and open up to applications. i think we really need to talk about how we want to do that. i think we should build on what

we already have and candidates we have already vetted that are already kind of available to us. vice president marshall: that's not what i was talking about when i said build on before. commissioner dejesus: see if we want to select from our list because if you're only talking a few months. if you're only talking a few months, we don't know who the next chief is going to be, i'm not really sure it is -- i don't know, open it up and try to doit in five days and interview somebody really quickly, i don't see that as really thoughtful. >> it is impossible for us to do in five days because over the notice requirements i see lieutenant riley about to have a heart attack. i think that is impossible. i think we need to hear from the community. i like commissioner hammer's idea and your idea but confused about your idea just going with the previous list. commissioner dejesus: when you

look it a, we can decide how we want it. i am just pointing out we have a list. >> we need to know who is interested in the job. commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i appreciate the idea that we had, the prior list. it seems like the use over the prior names that were vetted, while potentially useful doesn't eliminate the idea that the commissioners amongst us were not here to vet them. more over, we can figure out pretty quickly but we don't know if those candidates remain interested in a very different landscape now than it did a year and a half ago. so we would be -- i'm sure that whenever we put out the word that says please get your an -- applications in by such and such a date, everyone knows this job is open. we'll get the names of people that are interested and people that are interested with their

eyes wide open given the political realities that we face. i don't think anybody is suggesting we do in this in three days or five days. i like the idea, commissioner hammer of a targeted number of community meetings in a short period of time, in a few weeks or month period of time, set up a few meetings i think is critical that we get the input from the command staff and the rank and file and then proceed to accept applications and interview candidates. i don't necessarily think -- i don't think these things have to proceed -- we can set up a timetable that says we want the applications in on such and such a date and we can be having our meetings while we deal -- in fact, i feel pretty strongly we don't want to leave -- leave that decision for later. i hope we come out tonight with we want applications in by such and such a day and during that time frame we'll get out and do

the meetings that we do. president mazzucco; thank you. i would like to have an agenda by the time we leave tonight then we can move on the the next issue about the qualifications. we do need to have the time frame outlined tonight so there is clarity for the men and women of the police department and for the citizens of san francisco. >> if we could agree upon ourselfs the date by the application would be returned and and when this process could be completed. i'll throw out a date and somebody can suggest a different one. something like two movepts out or 2 1/2 months out, we work hard, i'll propose april 15. we can move rapidly to hear from the community, to hear from our officers. i would think that we would have applications due in two weeks or so.

i think that is enough. again, as commissioner slaughter said probably every police professional in the country knows this job is open. and then i think they are on parallel tracks that we begin listening to the community. all san franciscans know this is a big choice that will affect our lives. those who want to speak out should. by the time we do that, we'll have our list of candidates and begin our interviews. he put great faith in us that we will do this job well and i think we will. i think in partnership we should move expeditiously and i think it is a good aspiration. president mazzucco; commissioner chan? commissioner chan: i think we're on the same waive length. i sate february 4 as the date, a friday. and the date that you set up, a f