think in balance this dialogue has to continue. we do have an obligation for not only the police department the members of the police force but also the members of the public who may be, you know, victims of crime or those that may be in a situation as a suspect where there has to be a decision made very quickly on what type of reaction to give them. the other point i'd like to make is i do think i have confidence in the department, i have confidence in the people in san francisco to be able to work this issue out and i think that going forward on the c.i.t.'s and mental heth issue at the same time is consistent.g

forward on both fronts at the same time, to be reasonable and consistent. commissioner dejesus: i have to say i do not know if anyone is listening, but i think dr. sang basically said there was no decreased risk to officers. there was no decrease interest officers. i do not know if we are with the listening here, but i am concerned by this resolution and disappointed in the commission willingness to support this resolution. it is a soft way to authorize tasers. i think it is a disservice to officers who will think they are

using a less than lethal weapon when they may take someone's life unknowingly i think it is -- unknowingly. i think it is a disservice to the communities that will be disproportionately affected. i do not support the resolution. i think we need to recognize this resolution as a soft pitch for tasers. [applause] commissioner chan: i have been thinking and what about this and what it would take for me to support this. public comment and sing the department and other presentations, there are a couple of things i would like to add in a friendly amendment. one is a want to respect the occ recommendation that tactics be improved. it will be hard to argue that tactics should not be improved given recent incidents. it does seem clear we need to improve our tactics. i would add to this that when we

come back we also make recommendations regarding improving tactical training. i see the chief nodding. thank you for that. i would add that. i would also add that when we come back, i will work hard along with the commissioner to do good research. our research should be based on independent studies. any recommendations we make have to be evaluating safety and effectiveness and have to be independent, meaning not funded by a weapon or to a company. -- weapon or tool company. i am not saying you cannot do cit and have an intermediate device. i am concerned when you have an intermediate devices and cit barely introduced that one will be used faster than the other.

our proposal needs to be implementation of a pilot after the cit unit has been trained and is running. that is a reasonable time line. we come back in 90 days and it takes up to a year. i think it is a reasonable time line. that is my last amendment. cit -- the pilot proposal can only be implemented after cit is up and running. commissioner hammer: i appreciate your proposed amendments. i think the first to make a lot of sense. the third one i am concerned about, not because i do not think the officers in a pilot program ought not to be trained. just the opposite. i think we are going to have the opportunity as to put together a proposal to have a lot of requirements for the pilot program -- how many years the officers are going to be in it,

a clean disciplinary record, a judgment from his or her superiors, and most importantly having already received the 40 hours of training that more than 900 of our officers have done. however, i would be opposed to making it contingent upon another program that is very, very important and is obviously just starting. we voted on it two weeks ago. both of these things are going to progress at whatever track they do. i am uncomfortable having one contingent upon the other. i think we can accomplish what we need and want by having whatever our proposal be, if there is one, if we decide we ought to do this -- we can

address those concerns by making requirements that officers involved meet those very important mental health and crisis intervention training and deescalation training, and make sure the people involved in the pilot program have the skills. i think it is important, but i think it can be addressed at the time we come back to the commission in 90 or more days. president mazzucco: i would like to thank everybody for coming tonight. i would like to think the presenters on both sides. -- to thank the presenters on both sides. i think we do owe it to the community and our officers to send the chief out with this proposal to start looking at an intermediary device. i can tell you right now i was

appalled by the video shown by the aclu attorney with the miss uses and abuses of tasers. you heard from john burris that we have a very, very low record of police misconduct in comparison to major cities. but i am also equally appalled and upset as i sit here and we review officer-involved shootings and see individuals where officers had to take their life. you know deep in your heart if there was a taser, that person would be alive today. that is a video that runs in my mind after each of these shootings. that is important. even dr. sang -- he was a great witness, although he was honest about his numbers. we are left with very little of an option here. it is either a farm or another

device. we know police use firearms. we owe it to officers and the public to give them another option. we heard from a lot of lawyers. when is the last time one of those lawyers has ever made an arrest? when is the last time a lawyer has been on the street and had to fight for somebody? when is the one -- when is the last time lawyers had to worry about going home to their children? we heard from the officers tonight. we owe it to them and their families to give them another option. it is irresponsible not to vote to give this chief an opportunity to let them go home. i appreciate what the plaintiff's lawyers had to say. you heard from the officers on the street. they have asked for it. it may be the wrong thing. we have to know. we do not know until we start the investigation. we have to have faith and confidence in our officers. we have a very good police

department. a program that is put in place with a lot of restrictions and protections for the public are what we need. with that in mind, i will ask that lt. -- we will have a commissioner commissioner hammer: -- we will have a commissioner hammer read it to you, and then we will have a vote. commissioner hammer: with friendly amendments'. to authorize the chief of police, in conjunction with the office of citizen complaints and to members of the police commission -- and two members of the police commission, to develop a proposal for modifications of the use of force and equipment, and for a

proposal for a pilot program for the use of conducted energy devices with specific proposed policies, practices, and guidelines for their use, and to investigate and evaluate other less than lethal weapons. further, to require the chief of police -- i'm sorry. officer kingley's amendment. to develop this with members of the community and to set forth proposed costs and funding for all of the above with implementation of the proposed plan. commissioner chan's amendment. also to direct the chief of police with the office of citizen complaint to review and make recommendations on changes to the san francisco police

department tactical training and learning as a force. and for the chief of police, occ, and two commissioners to report back on their findings to the commission within 90 days. that is the motion. president mazzucco: do i have a second? vice president marshall: i have a question. what this pilot program index -- program mean? commissioner hammer: the proposal is to come up with a smaller deployment, a pilot program, where for a limited time, and deployment would happen. the commission would audit and review how that went, if it should further deploy or if it has gone wrong. that is a pilot program.

commissioner chan: i thought the amendment we read earlier did not have that in there. commissioner hammer: the dgos as they exist to do not contain those words. if the department recommends a record, it would have to be contained in that. commissioner chan: even for a pilot program? commissioner hammer: yes. they are not provided for within the dgo. the director of occ is nodding. commissioner chan: i do not understand this. >> that was also in the study of the police department that was done by perf when the recommendation was made regarding conducted energy devices that there would have to

be a provision in the force dgo regarding ceds if it were to be used, because they are not provided for. commissioner chan: i thought the proposed -- i thought at the beginning of this meeting -- commissioner hammer: it is a different motion. i think that to the extent we were to approve the pilot program, you would have to have dgos. we would have to set out in dgos how officers were to use them. otherwise, there is nothing controlling their use. commissioner chan: huddling know that the pilot becomes automatically a thing? commissioner hammer: it is a

pilot program that would be provided in the dgo. to be clear, what the motion is -- at the end of the time proposed, no further deployment would happen unless the commission votes on it after reviewing it and decides whether it goes through. the commission would have to vote to pass the pilot program for anything else to be deployed after that. commissioner chan: i thought you were coming back to talk about what weapon you were going to use. commissioner hammer: this commission has to vote in 90 days whether or not to deploy any other weapon based on the recommendation. president mazzucco: we have a motion and a second. vice president marshall: i will second. >> the roll call vote on the motion. president mazzucco: aye. vice president marshall: aye. commissioner dejesus: no.

commissioner hammer: aye. commissioner chan: very hard decision. i did not calculate this whole dgo discussion. i understand it is researching all less lethal devices and coming back in 90 days. but i do not -- i am concerned about the changes to the dgo. commissioner hammer: if you're to go out and research a device and go out, and to improve that device, dgo would have to be changed. no matter what we bring back to the table, there would be and altering to the dgo. the policy would not change until we came back to the commission with our plan of attack. it is a matter of semantics. it will have to be changed if we come up with some other type of less lethal use of force. even if you were to approve it

yourself, we would have to change the dgo to conform to the device. that would not be done until after the fact. commissioner kingsley: but then it gets changed back if after six months of the pilot program it does not work? chief godown: correct. commissioner kingsley: if at the end of the six month pilot we were to decide this does not work, the dgo would revert to the original language. commissioner chan: i did not hear that. commissioner hammer: that is definitely the intent of the motion. commissioner kingsley: it would have to be. chief godown: the officers need something to rely upon, whether it goes with the program are moved back from it. there would need the use of these guidelines. if it helps to clarify, i do not know procedurally if the intent

of the motion is clear -- if at the end of the pilot program, the commission would have to vote whether to extend it, altered, or expand it. without another vote after the pilot program, nothing happened after that. if the commission were to decide the pilot was a failure and cancel the program, the dgo would revert. that is the clear intent of this motion. commissioner chan: come back to me, please. commissioner kingsley: aye. commissioner slaughter: aye. commissioner chan: we are back to me. this is very hard. through changing of dgos, it would come back. if you do not accept the cit recommendation, can there be something in there to make it clear we would like cit implemented? i am worried about a pilot

program getting started before cit. president mazzucco: let me try to clarify my intention. if in 90 days we were to come back, how long would it take the department to fire those weapons? chief godown: the ceds? that is something i have to look into. i need to actually research stuff. i am committed to the program. the department is committed. that has nothing to do with the dgo. if we do a pilot program and six months down the road the commission says no more ceds, it does not matter what the dgo says. i cannot use them anymore. commissioner chan: if you have a pilot program of them running and cit takes longer, and it is not up and running, but the

pilot is up and running in whatever district and someone is mentally ill -- a worry about that. commissioner hammer: my clear intent in the motion is that no officer is provided -- i think commissioner slaughter has in mind that no officer in this program, has not received the training in this program. this is somebody without a discipline record. but also recommend the motion we pass -- i would encourage the department to deploy it within six months. 90 days from now, with monthly reporting to the commission -- what we passed unanimously is that this be deployed within 5.5 months. commissioner chan: so if we come back in 90 days and cit is not

doing well, that is something we can bring up. president mazzucco: that would play huge in my vote. i think that is the first party. commissioner chan: ok. one more, if i can ask the chief. and what to make sure to recognize the concerns of the community. if we come back in 90 days and do not have folks trained yet, do not have dispatched trained yet, would you still move forward with recommending a pilot program? chief godown: my commitment to you is the cit program. i have said that from day one. i am not going to slow down on that program and speed up the ced program.

that is my commitment to you. we might come back and say 90 days is not enough and ask for more time. hypothetically, that could happen. we will work diligently on the cit program. i will not slow up on the process thinking i am trying to implement ced. commissioner chan: the keeper that. if we come back in 90 days and there are problems with cit, would you consider that in your recommendations? chief godown: i promise. but we are not good to be ready to roll out in 90 days. we are not ready to roll out a pilot program. you have my commitment. we will sit down if we get to that point and there is a hiccup and we need to invest more time and effort. this is not a race for me to

implement a less lethal weapon in this department before cit is up and running. commissioner chan: with that, because the room was open to broadening the question to fall less lethal weapons, because you are open to expanding the -- extending the time line to 90 days and getting community input, and because the chief said he would consider whether or not cit would be up and running, i will go ahead and vote yes. >> the motion carries 6-1. president mazzucco: ok. six hours. vice president marshall: it only took six hours. president mazzucco: we have one quick thing we have to go into closed session about.

can we just go into -- moved into the closed session? >> i cannot hear you. i am sorry. president mazzucco: we are going to take a five minute . we are back on, ladies and gentleman. we are going to closed session.

we have matters regarding our personal selection process. if you can call the appropriate line item? >> line item 9, public comment before a closed session, public employee appointment, including comment on whether to hold item 11 in closed session. president mazzucco: hearing none. president mazzucco: we are back in session. >> item 12 is about to elect whether to disclose any of our all? vice president marshall: move nondisclosure. president mazzucco: at this point, given the long evening, a

vote to eliminate the remainder of the agenda. any objections? all in favor? pull the last item. >> adjournment. vice president marshall: second, third, fourth, and fifth. president mazzucco: think to everybody. -- thank you,j3ñi everybody.

there are so many ways that the internet provides real access to real people and resources and that's what we're try to go accomplish. >> i was interested in technology like video production. it's interesting, you get to create your own work and it reflects what you feel about saying things so it gives perspective on issues. >> we work really hard to develop very in depth content, but if they don't have a venue, they do not have a way to show us, then this work is only staying here inside and nobody knows the brilliance and the amazing work that the students are doing. >> the term has changed over time from a very basic who has a computer and who doesn't have

a computer to now who has access to the internet, especially high speed internet, as well as the skills and the knowledge to use those tools effectively. . >> the city is charged with coming up with digital inclusion. the department of telecommunications put together a 15 member san francisco tech connect task force. we want the digital inclusion program to make sure we address the needs of underserved vulnerable communities, not communities that are already very tech savvy. we are here to provide a, b and c to the seniors. a stands for access. b stands for basic skills and c stands for content. and unless we have all three, the monolingual chinese seniors are never going to be able to use the computer or the internet. >> a lot of the barrier is knowledge. people don't know that these

computers are available to them, plus they don't know what is useful. >> there are so many businesses in the bay area that are constantly retiring their computer equipment that's perfectly good for home use. computers and internet access are helping everybody in the community and people who don't have it can come to us to help with that. one of the biggest problems we see isn't whether people can get computers through programs like ours, but whether they can understand why they need a computer. really the biggest issue we are facing today is helping people understand the value of having a computer. >> immediately they would say can i afford a computer? i don't speak any english. how do i use it. then they will start to learn how to do email or how to go back to chinese newspaper to read all the chinese newspaper. >> a lot of the barrier still is around lack of knowledge or confusion or intimidation and not having people in their peer network who use computers in

their lives. >> the important thing i learned from caminos was to improve myself personally. when i first came to caminos, i didn't know anything about computers. the second thing is i have become -- i have made some great achievements as an individual in my family and in things of the world. >> it's a real issue of self-empowerment where new immigrant families are able to communicate with their families at home, able to receive news and information in their own home language, really become more and more connected with the world as well as connected even inside their local communities. >> if we value the diversity of our city and we value our diverse neighborhoods in the city, we need to ensure that they remain economically viable. equiping them and equiping residents in those areas with jobs that will enable them to stay in san francisco i