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 so i 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