because you use a bunch of things now, i need to pull all we need to look at other devices. as part of this pilot program. we're authorizing the chief to start looking at the use of c.e.d.'s or tasers along with working with the o.c.c., along

with working with the two commissioners, along with working with community groups to see if in fact that is the tool that we're going to have to -- that we're going to use. i think it's abundantly clear. we need something. there's something in the middle between they stop using their baton and pepper spray and when they revert to the firearm. we're leaving all the options for the chief if he does go out. we've heard about flats, cattle prods, we've heard -- about flashlights, cattle prods, we've heard about a lot of things. if it comes become to tasers, that's where we're at with it. but it also has to deal with the implementation of the program. that's why we want commissioners to work with the chief. his proposal will include the ground rules. it's not my turn to talk yet but what we heard in the audience was concern. i'll get to that later but it's

about putting together a proposal for the use of tasers and/or other devices. i'll turn it over to the commissioner. >> there's so many things here, some of the things were covered before. but we have to talk about a budget. last time i heard, we had officers retiring, we have a 10% deficit that may be imposed on us that we'd have to lay off 145 officers, we have officers eligible for retirement next year. the way the budget is set, it's very tight. we don't have any classes to bring officers in. we need to talk about what the pyrity is for the department. is it getting weapons at all costs, even if we lose officers or to keep our officer spact and perhaps this is not the time, we don't have the money for it. the other thing if you are going to do this proposal about what it costs, when the former chief was here, it was my

understanding that taser international was offering them for serious discount or free. the first cigarette pack free and we buy the rest. i think we need to be transparent and onboard. if that's it, if we have taser international trying to entice us with the first 2,000 tasers for free and we pay the car trinls and calibration and training and you know we do just increase their bottom line, we need to know that. we need to put that forward. just don't say, don't worry about the money, i want to know where the money is coming from, how much it's going to cost and i want to know if they're giving it to us for free and what the consequences going forward in terms of our budget. that's really significant. i think after our march vote, they significantly changed their warnings. i think it's incumbent upon us as a citizen review board not only for the department but for ethe citizens of san francisco to know what kind of liable we're opening the city up to. i think you should get an opinion from the city attorney

and you look at that language that says do the research on your own, don't shoot here, don't shoot there, and if you do shoot there, what are you going to fall back on? not only do you expose the city to liability because the city is self-insured, but there's also potential liability to the individual officer. i think we need to know what we're opening our people up for. i keep hear, they want it, they should have it. i think tasers is on the decline. you saw their money, their bottom line has been impacted. some cities have turned them in, others have not purchased them. we've done well without them. this is a community department that prides itself on community involvement and community policing and on peacekeeping. they've done a good job with where they are now and there isn't any reason to bring in a device that we do have some study, i think the maryland study showed they didn't intend to look at that, but they

showed disproportionate impact of minority communities being tazed and there's another study here that i have not completed reading yet but it goes the same way, that minority communities are disproportionately impacted meaning they're being used more in minority communities. that's the community we're trying to establish trust with, we're coming up with pal and basketball and coming up with ways to trust us to solve crime and we bring in a taser and just start indiscriminately in these communities, what are we doing with all the trust we've been trying to build? i also think this is really inconsistent with what we just voted on two weeks ago. you know, it's either, we're going to have a program where we're going to put our money where our mouth is, and we're really going to put the other half of the officers who haven't been trained at least get the basic training and really implement the c.i.t. training which is a specialty training and it's free. that's the other thing. it's free.

all we need is the leadership and mind and will to do that and we can start implementing that program. i did understand last night, chief that you said that you wanted six to nine months to look at this. now i'm hearing it's 30 days. we're going to come back in 30 days. i don't see how you can meaningfully meet with these groups and talk about the different types of weapons or other alternative weapons that are out there and the guidelines to use it in 30 days. i don't -- and the money for all the different ones and the proposal. i don't see that happening. so i don't want to be disingenuous, either you're going to meet with the community and put the time in to meet the community, not just your advisory board but the community here tonight, all the different groups represented here tonight to meet with them and discuss it with them i don't see you doing that in 30 days. i find that disconcerting that you'd say you're going to do that in 30 days. cost is one of the things. the efficacy of the weapon is

something that's really important. i think it contradicts the memphis program which hopefully would be emgraced -- embraced. i see it going by the wayside if all the traping goes to tasers. this is a sanctuary city. the idea that you want to -- if we're going to but $2 million or $3 million to arizona, given our, don't we have i don't think it will continue given the politics of san francisco and given the fact that this is a sanctuary city. i know this is an important issue and it's come here before but we're here to do what's best for the department and the citizens of san francisco especially for politicians who are no longer here.

>> last night, chief, some said you were brave to go to the democratic club but you spoke rather openly. i want to follow up on what one of the speakers said to you so we can clarify. when you mentioned six to nine months out, it sounded like you wanted to reach out to the community before you came back a proposal for six oto nine months. is that what you said? i want to hear what your intention is. >> i can go out in 30 days and look at the weaponry that's out there and come back to the commission and make a decision as to what i think is best for the department. then go out and start putting that plan together, the use of force policy and everything, that's what will take the time to do that in the public input to go out and look at the process, that's where that

comes into play. >> are you envisioning in terms of your mind a couple of steps and a couple of votes by this commission first whether or not to allow you to come together with commissioners to look at what the best weapons system to propose for a pilot deployment? that's the fist step. if we did a go-hi -- ahead in 30 days, you would work with stake holders and other commissioners to come up with what i think is the nub here, which is the details. the specifics of when should the weapons be used. when i watch the videos tonight, anyone who is a human being should be horrified and must be by this by a girl getting tazed i, by these horrific scenes, by people dying. in my mind, there's a real need for our officers to have a different weapon. if that upsets people, i'm sorry. that comes from my experience as a police officer, having worked in law enforcement as a san franciscoian. sernlt mcclosity kentucky -- is he still here? i went out to where that attack

happened. as we give equal weight to the folks who have been brutalized by cops, also give equal wait to the sergeant who doesn't get paid to get beat up or stomped or thrown through windows, and if a woman cop was out there who is all of 120 pounds would be thrown around like a rag doll. there are evil people who are intent on hurting people and sometimes cops stand in the way so we don't get hurt. sometimes they go out just to hurt cops. having been out to that scene if someone had another weapon to immobilize that guy a cop wouldn't have been in a hospital, another cop wouldn't have had a few weeks off worse and it could have been worse. what concerns folks so much, they see all these horrible uses of the taser, abuses and when i see those cops, i think some should have been fired and some should have been

criminally prosecuted, those rr assaults. if you taze a girl in the back, that's a crime, i don't care if you wear a uniform or not. i'm horrified by those scenes, i think everybody should be. but the question is, in limited circumstances, which is not a gun or something else but where an officer's safety is threatened, not her life or his life, but their safety. they shouldn't have to go fist to fist with someone who wants to hurt them really, really badly. i don't know if taser is the right weapon. i have serious concerns about the taser. i don't want to give money to arizona. but i'm intent on voting to give our officers another weapon on a pilot program to see how it works. if it works well and we get it right and we don't have abuses then we did it right. if we did it wrong, we need to tweak it and refine it until it's right. that's my intention. >> commissioner, can i answer the question you proposed to me? the gentleman who showed the video of the mistreatment and the taser i was appalled watching those officers use

those tasers on the chief of police running out and tazing a young lady running in the park like everybody else is. i'm not any happier with what i saw on tv but then again the police can misuse their weapon, they can misuse use their baton, there's a litany of other weaponry that officers have on a daily basis they can misuse. my only confusion in what you're asking me, i'm asking to look at the tasers as well as other less lethal options and i'll come back in 30 queers and i'll tell you what i'm going to try to implement to bring back for approval. i'm confused that if you go out for approval to go out, i have to come back in 30 days -- >> i'm picking up what you mentioned in the community so everyone is clear about what you were saying. i think the difficult work, and that's why if this passes, two commissioners are going to have their hands full, it's really spelling out the specific

demrines for when these weapons are right. they're not to a pass i resister or things people are afraid of. that's where it's most important that people have input, together with officers an members of the commission to really flesh out those details. what is the real proposal? when would these be used? as dr. marshall said, he's still confused -- >> i want to know what we're going to vote on. >> so i'm doing -- two other comments and then i'll suggest what i suggest as our resolution tine. i'm asking about your proposal. if we were to vote tonight to authorize you to investigate tasers and other less lethal means together with commissioners and in 30 days we voted would you envision coming back in 30 days with proposed guidelines or would that be six months? >> i'd come back in 30 days or 60 days and say i've looked at other weapons, i've decided to go out and look at the -- continue to look at the c.e.d.

proposal or come back with another proposal. i think what needs to be said here, the officers sitting in this room here i trust. the responsibility for the implementation and the training and the use of force policy and all these things rest on my shoulders. it would be easy for me just to say, i don't want to deal with tasers and walk away from it. but the responsibility is if the taze service used by one of my officers i'm going to be held responsible. there isn't a commissioner on this board that isn't going to look at me and say, i told you so. there's a lot of pressure to make sure that the use of force policy to is consistent and i'm willing to take on that task and go out and do all of that and obviously with the officers and community input that my concern is if i go out and come become and say, commission my choice is to go out and put together the taser, put together the policy and come back and present it to you that i don't want to -- i don't have to come back for a second vote in 30 days. if we're trying to kind of soften this vote by making me come back for a second vote

again, that's where i have concerns. >> the last thing i want to say, two weeks ago we did something historic for san francisco in adopting the memphis model that didn't happen because the department announced it one day. it's because some commissioners especially commissioner chan and others went out and did the hard work with the department, side-by-side, fulfilling our role of civilian oversight. you could have thrown road politics and didn't. people in the community are impressed by that and rightly so. that's what people are asking, it's a conversation, look for the best results. it doesn't have to be either/or, us against them. in that case you did a tremendous job, i want to thank you for that.

in my mind there are three different parts that are all crucial. the first was c.i.t. and i'm glad we broke that off and talked about it first but it's not unrelated to the others. all three parts of my mind are realed -- in my mind are related. fers the c.i.t., we have a lot of work done to inch. that. about deploying officers. the second is, i think we need to take a serious look, i think you agree but i don't want to put words in your mouth about how we use tactics in san francisco and have a fresh look at our use of force, training and tactics to make sure we're doing the best in the country. >> i would look at the way that use of force is applied and the tactics on this department and whether we was discussing c.e.d.'s or the memphis model. one other thing i want to say in closing, and i know it's getting late, is the fact that, when i agreed to the c.i.t. model, we worked to put that plan together and the brdvowed on that, i was comfortable in knowing that i would be tasked with putting that model together plus pg able to look

at less lethal options at the same time. we can balance more than one plate. so i had no issues when i went into this with you saying let's put together a group, let's start to have meetings, let's get captain goldberg in place, that i would come back here a couple of weeks later and come to the board in reference to the c.e.d.'s and i could balance both of these projects at the same time. we're capable of ding that. >> so the first piece of c.i.t. in my view, the second is to have a fresh look at tactical response and training to make sure we're doing the best, because the goal is that we don't use force except when it's absolutely necessary. and c.i.t. has proven to dramatically reduce use of force. >> why don't you put your motion in. put your motion in so we get clarification. >> i need clarification. i don't understand. what are you doing in 30 days? you're going to decide on your own there's tasers and then go to the community? >> do you want to -- >> i was just going to make a

suggestion about your motion before you make it, commissioner hammer, which is, i hear concerns about the 30-day and what's going to happen first and what's going to happen second. i'm willing, if the motion passes, to be as involved as the department needs and community needs. 30 days may not be enough time to do it. so if you want to suggest a different time, whether it be 60 days or 90 days, to permit the department, commissioners who are involved, to figure out, hey, is there a less lethal weapon we would want to propose and then come out and then take the further step of developing the use of force guidelines, one thing after another, but i'm hearing a lot of concern and understandably so about the 30 days. if there's strong support on the commission to do it in that amount of time i'm willing to do that work but i'm also just

want to suggest that you might want to -- >> you read my mind. so i was going to ask, since you and commissioners chan are going to be the ones who are going to, on our behalf, work with the chief to come up with a prose pollal, can what a reasonable time would be. my motion would be to offer as the police chief in conjunction with the o.c.c. and two members of the police commission to develop a proposal for modifications of d.g.o.'s 501 use of force and equipment to include a proposed pilot program and commissioner mizuko, allow me based on tonight's discussion, i'm adding this part, with specific proposed policies and guidelines on their use for conducting energy devices and to investigate eric valuate all

other less than lethal devices. and require the chief of police, the o.c.c. and two commissioners report back to the commission with their findings within a time that you think is reasonable. that's my motion. >> what about the cost? >> that's part of -- >> hold on for a second. s that proposal. when you make a proposal, you look at everything starting from the cost to the time frame of implementation and the manner of implementation. i think we're getting too lawyeristic. i like your language but -- >> i'll finish. in my mind cost is absolutely one of the factors, which means whatever this is going to cost, looking at the officers here now, we have a limited budget. we're going to have to dede-side as a city, if we're spending money, we're not going to spend it on something else. there are many things we wanted but i'm not going through them. >> commissioner? >> i just still like the clarity of what -- when -- what is the time frame you put on and what's going to happen in

that time frame? >> again, i think 30 days is too ambitious but i leave it up to the commission what time that would be. but that they would come back recommendations together with the chief on what weapon we should consider on a pilot program together with specific proposed guidelines and policies for the use of that weapon. >> where does the community fit in in this 30 days? >> in that longer period of time, i think commissioner slaughter is correct, 30 days is too tight. >> it was my idea for the 30 days, i think it is kind of tight to be involved with some other issues right now. my suggestion would be 60 days, just for them to return to us with what weapon they've decided or which weapons they're going to look at. i think 60 days should be sufficient. i know i'm schiff shift the onus on two commissioners to do extra work. i think we've been working on this for quite a while and i think that 60 days should be sufficient to come back and

say, come back in 60 days and say we haven't figured out what we're going to use yet, that would be acceptable but i think you need a 60-daytime frame where you come to us and say this is what we reached our tentive conclusion as part of the proposal. i think we have to sort of keep this on a short leash because it is a big issue. it's a life and death issue. i think that quite frankly we need to move sooner than later. commissioner kingsley, you're next. >> i would like to propose a friendly amendment to the proposed motion and that is after the language that says relying upon recommendations from the department of justice's office of community oriented policing services and perfs, essentially, to add the language in consultation with communities of color, mental health professionals, lgbt and

other key community segments of the community -- >> the friendly motion is accepted. >> i'm not finished yet. thank you, commissioner. >> stake holders i think is the word you want. >> some people like the condensed stake holders, other people like to see each category as well as a bucket category. so the continuation on the amendment is and to set forth proposed costs and funding for all of the above with the implementation of the proposed plan subject to the final approval, etc. >> can i accept your friendly amendment now? >> yes, you may. >> i would like to accept the friendly amendment of commissioner kingsley with my gratitude. >> who's next? you haven't had a chance to speak about your opinion yet. >> i'll say this. respectfully, president, i think we should have 90 days to

do that job. i think that on a very basic level whether we ought to investigate, because that's what we're talking about now, are we authorizing the chief, some subset of commissioners, the community, the o.c.c. to get together and look into the issue, that's -- but let me, just -- that's what this -- we're going on six hours, that's what we're talking about. the resolution is not, we're deploying it under these circumstances. the resolution is should we go out and investigate whether it's right for san francisco, right for this department, there is a point-counterpoint, dr. marshall an there's evidence in the reports that we've seen that decreases risks to officers, decreases injuries, decreases use of force complaints in other cities. we need the time and opportunity to do it. and when you look at mayor lee,

the sheriff, at least two of these reports that we rerued, people who took a very, very critical view of incidents in their respective communities, yet nevertheless came out and said, these less than lethal options have a good role in sound policing. i think when you see all of that together, i think it would be irresponsible of us not to look into the issue. that's why i'm going to support the motion and do the work, although i think it's more appropriate that we have at least 90 days to come back and figure out which of the less than lethal options, if any, would be -- i respect the arizona issue, the yause of force, oversight, all of them, let's see if there's something that's appropriate. >> i think we have to wrap this

up. we can keep going on and on. commissioner kingsley: i would like to briefly address some of the concerns i'm hearing from the public and especially in light of our amended motion. and i guess it's this. what seems very apparent this evening and i think that it's apparent we heard this, too, because we're moving the time frame on this, is that there needs to be a lot more dialogue on this topic with everybody. whether we approve this motion or not tonight, if we do approve it as a body, it doesn't in any way negate our deep appreciation for your concerns thon topic and our

desire to have you at the table working on it so that -- because i also heard a number of things that i think are misconceptions around how the department would apply regulations and rules and parameters around whatever less than lethal force instrument they would like to put forward. the other thing -- >> no public comments, sir, it's done. commissioner kingsley, would you proceed. commissioner kingsley: thank you.

i think the other thing that i'm responding to because it's a very challenging, balancing on the one hand the department, the folks that are, you know, working for all of us to keep all of us safe in their needs to feel like they're safe and doing their job as well and that they can keep other folks safe, other members of the and would like to explore that i think that's that's very serious from both the police department's perspective as well as the public so