seeing none public comment is closed. jeremy. >> i have one comment. >> sure. >> i think you should wait until the next commissioner is here, so we don't have a problem down the road with whether this is legitimate or illegitimate even though it's proper protocol. it's not ethical. if certain members of this commission feel that petra dejesus should be here and based on that i think you should wait for a proper time. this isn't something that needs to happen today anyway to have proper protocol and record on board you should have mr. dejesus her for her one opinion, her one opinion on this nomination whether she's for

it, against it or for someone else and i think that is proper. no one can have any doubts afterwards that we had a horse and pony show here that anything was rigged like a kangaroo court there would be no court. that's all i have to say as a citizen and resident of the city and county of san francisco for 44 years. i thank you. >> jeremy. >> i would like to renew my objection that was made to the presidential nomination and vote for the vice presidential vote and no prejudice against any commissioner nominated for each respect seat but i concur with the last speaker that with certain coming both from your body and from the putting such a move of haste when not

necessary falls in the realm of unethical, and in regards to the commentary by commissioner truman i apologize if i over stepped by suggesting explicitly that it would be commissioner dejesus who would be present in the seventh seat. however, the same objection applies for whoever it might be even if it's a new commissioner sitting in that seat. i think they should have the opportunity to consider and speak on this matter that will have direct relevance to their job and the public which their job is set to serve. i do not see why there should be any reason to rush this through especially given the apparent coordination of opinion on this body. i fail to believe that there will be a much different

result if adequate consultation and adequate disclosure were to happen, so as the last speaker happen i think this is absolutely a dog and pony show act and it's not good because it talks to the character of this body and holds necessary office in terms of the people's needs and i would finally add they believe this entire process should be revisited to have more public input, actionable public input into the selection and election of members of this body. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? hearing none public comment is closed. >> i have a comment. my comments were not necessarily geared toward any particular

speakers' comments but i will make some now that there is nothing that i have done while sitting up here as a commissioner can be called unethical by any means and i resent the comment and the implication that i acted in any way in an unethical manner. second of all these elections are slaitded to take place annually so there is no haste as you or anyone else would suggest. third of all i sit here night after night because i care very much about what the city and county of san francisco's people believe and think about the police department. i have taken nothing for granted in listening. i have taken nothing for granted in making the nominations except what the

rules require and allow and as far as for actionable comment comment as to the makeup of this body that process is done by the nominations process of these commissioners by the mayor and then approval of the board of supervisors. that is the appropriate vehicle. as the rule stands now for your public comment as to who sits here, but the authority vested into the officers and the running of this commission is vested in those rules and it gives -- grants that authority to us to make those decisions. if you wish to change those rules i have no gripe with it, but to make public comment in front of television cameras and to the public of san francisco and to imply that i have done anything that is a violation of anyone's

rights, rules or responsibility is inappropriate under any circumstances. i was considering withdrawing my nomination and saying perhaps we should wait on the vice presidential nomination until i was called unethical and i will not bend to someone's will by just simply because they call me and my actions by something that they are not. >> we have a vote please. >> there is a nomination by president mazzucco to nominate julius truman as vice president and seconded by commissioner king king. a vote now president mazzucco. >> aye. >> commissioner loftus. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> for the same reasons i gave as to why i couldn't vote yes even though i sincerely and appreciate president mazzucco's service i'm going to vote no

because we need to wait for a seventh commissioner. >> vice president marshall. >> aye. >> commissioner king ly. >> aye. >> commissioner truman. >> aye. >> motion passes 5-1. >>i want to thank you for your confidence and additional years as president. i want to be clear this is the last year as president. i don't think the public understands just the work that goes into being a commissioner and the wednesday nights. i want to thank my commissioners for the work on wednesday nights, the monthly community meetings, the emails that we get regarding incidents, the press conferences or town and other things and attending the medal of valor ceremonies and

attending other ceremonies and the president's job is a full time job and i want to thank you for your confidence and like commissioner truman i love this city and it means a lot to be on the commission but i want to thank dr. marshall for training me and being my wingman for years. he's a great man and a leader and i want to be here this commission we're all one vote. my vote is one vote. commissioner truman is one vote and the thing that i take the pride in the presidency that i had here this is a collegiate commission. it's a commission where people aren't asking are you a board pick or a mayoral pick? we are extremely different with different backgrounds but we generally come to consensus what is best for the city and the police department. that's what makes me proud to be on the commission. dr. marshall.

commissioner kingsley. >> i was going to say i am glad to turn this over to you. first of all i want to say about president mazzucco -- i mean i'm glad you're going to do it one more time. i know you had talk to your wife about this. >> i maybe in trouble when i get home. >>i know. but thanks for doing it one more time. as for me i have been president and vice president three times so i think it's time for me to commissioner truman to take it over and run with it. last year we were in the same position so i am glad to yield to you this time around. i think it will be watching two of you sit next to each other in the commission for the next year and i want to thank all of the commissioners for the many times i have been asked to serve and the capacity

of one of the two offices. thank you very much. i enjoyed that. >> thank you. kingsley. >> thank you for doing this and you bring emotional intelgz as well as intellectual intelligence to the job and commitment and long hours and hard work and all of the extras beyond what is very apparent on the dais each week, and thank you very much for that and agreeing to do it for another year. vice president marshall you've been on the commission longer than anybody, and you have as you indicated served as president for many years and vice president, and thank you for the tremendous leadership that you've brought to the

commission and so glad that you are continuing on the commission, and understand why you feel that it's time to devote extra time to the other things in your life, the important boys and girls activities. you certainly have your hands full there, and you've done so such a terrific job over the on the years as the soul voice of not being a lawyer and as a psychologist and working with children in the bay view primarily is invaluable to this commission, and thank you very much sir. >> commissioner loftus. >> yeah, i just want -- my colleagues have thanked president mazzucco for taking

this on for another year and his service and i want to echo those comments but as we lose vice president marshall from leadership on the police commission -- >> [inaudible] >> changing chairs. i know you want to avoid public accolades but unfortunately that isn't possible tonight. i wanted to thank you for your service on the commission over the years and particularly as the newest member of the commission i have gained from your experience. you have been here since the beginning. your instinct is always right and fair and just and i have learned a lot and want to continue to learn from serving with you, so thank you for serving as vice president for the last year and thank you for teaching me. i hope that you continue to teach me as long as i'm on the commission with you. commissioner truman thank you for stepping up to leadership. obviously we all

saw that you didn't come here tonight fully planning leaving here as the vice president of the commission and you know what a tremendous honor it is to have that spot and how you earned it on the commission. i am proud to call you a colleague again. you come to all of these issues with concern for justice for everyone and fundamental fairness and i am grateful to the time to serve with you and be part of a commission that you and president mazzucco are leading this next year so thank you. >> i would just like to say dr. marshall thank you for all your years of service, both to this commission and to me personally. you are a tremendous gentleman xu have served the people and county of san francisco in a fabulous

way. i have to say that tonight when i saw this item on the agenda i am always disappointed this is the only item whichever makes us the slightly bit divisive and i thought we could avoid and i thought a nomination just to continue would certainly put an end and do so quickly because you have done a fabulous job, and i understand what angela -- commissioner chan's concern. i don't necessarily agree but we have always on this commission had many items in which we did not always agree but we always treated each other with a sort of respect, and i don't believe that we necessarily are acting in an under handed matter because we want to obey the

rules and we decided not to make an exception. i can appreciate someone else's view but i ask that mine be appreciated too and last but not least i am going -- as i have taken on the position of vice president to serve i'm going to do my best for this commission to work hard as i have done the last year working hard on both tazers and the scheduling issues and other opportunities that i've had to meet with both the department and the occ to do a better job of supervising those two agencies for the city and county of san francisco. >> well thank you before we move to the next item i want to thank my wife. as i said this say full time job and she is the one who has allowed me to do this. she's the one -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, she's the one that puts me going up to the different

events and hearings and my concerns so i couldn't do this without her support. i am pretty fortunate. i will be married 30 years next month and i am pretty lucky and i want to thank her. all right. please call next line item. >> line item five discussion regarding revised department general order 5.05 response and pursit driving. this is will asked for adoption at the police commission on wednesday may 29, 2013. >> before commissioner -- before the report get started with her capable assistant, the sergeant. i want to congratulate president mazzucco and vice president and we're looking forward to working with you both going forward. so this was a collaborative effort with mean meetings -- there she

is, in the back and as the other folks certainly director hicks back and forth there was a meet and confer with the poa, and i think we're ready to proceed and ask the commission to adopt a new revised response and pursuit driving policy. chief. >> i would also like to thank our legal counsel and all sides that assisted in this. they were an excellent resource for us. >> that would be ms. katie porter. >> and occ and the poa as well. i would be remiss if i didn't mention them. this has been a long process. i think it's a good general order. the sergeant runs our emergency vehicle operations course and any terms in there you need explained -- there are not a lot of significant changes to the

general order other than there is a lot more supervisory requirements and we did make one adjustment under 3d. oftentimes when you're in a pursuit or you're trying to get somewhere the radio is very busy and you cannot always get on the radio to say that you're going code three so the dispatch can make a note of that, so it's only four lines. notification to dem, officer initiating emergency response shall notify them as soon as possible regarding the code three response and the officer's location. during a code three response they will accept all emergency traffic whether isolated to one or more separate events and oftentimes you will hear three or more code three responses and dem does an incredible job keeping

everything sorted out, so are there any questions about the general order that you need answered? because it is for discussion tonight. >> thank you so much for all the work that went into this. i know we're not voting on it tonight and just discussing it. this is a point of educating me. i have seen on ride belongs line ups where they will train on regular routine policy updates and training on general orders. i know that is a priority that the chief has. what i imagine and it's quite possible that the rest of the commissioners know this and i just don't this is an area if you could talk about the training that is going to follow us to make sure that our officers are aware of the changes and whatever the roll out process because i imagine these are real time decisions to be made by officers and the last thing roll it out -- am i supposed to do it now? can i

go lights and sirens? and it would help me understand the plan to train the officers. >> about six months ago the chief had me start a training protocol and i as well as three other instructors have been going out to the stations refreshing the officer's memory as to our current 505 -- >> excuse me. e bach. >> you have to explain. say the whole thing. >> emergency vehicles operation course and with that we go out and we refresh all of the officers to the current policy. with the new general order that is about to come out once it's adopted we will take that same protocol and go out to the stations, reeducate all of the supervisors who will then re-educate the new officers to the new standard. we are prepared to do a video which we

will send it out email so officers will have it first hand. we will answer questions through email as well as when we go to the stations. >> how significant -- that's helpful. thank you. it sounds like it's good and making sure that the officers are trained and will take a period of time. >> yes. the priority is the uniform patrol staff and we are affected by the general order and we have 10 stations and specialized units and we are prepared to go out immediately and start training. >> maybe it will help for the audience could you walk us through what happens when one of our marked units, black and white, pulls -- goes to pull somebody over and a pursuit begins. walk the audience is what is the process in the general order, all the checks and balances and let the audience knows exactly what happens and whether the pursuit is called off. give us an idea

-- we understand with the commission but give us an idea. >> absolutely. a officer pulls in behind a vehicle and puts on the lights and the sirens in an attempt to stop the violetar. if they flee they must decide if it's a violent felon and is there a need and what is the risk to the general public? as well as what is the speed, date and time? all of those things run through my mind as i am continuing a pursuit. as i am thinking of those things and saying code 33 which is i need the radio channel for emergency traffic. i give out my direction of travel, speed and traffic conditions. at the same time a supervisor starts to monitor and says "i am monitoring this pursuit." either the primary unit or the

supervisor hearing the pursuit going on based on the information this primary unit is broadcasting will then decide whether this pursuit needs to continue or whether this pursuit needs to be terminated. these things happen very quickly and you travel several blocks while you're trying to make this real time decision. >> thank you. i think that explains a lot. >> yeah, and given that scenario if you could just summarize the main aspects that are going to be different now on a high level -- or maybe that's -- is that simple enough to do? >> the changes really are more to the point where the officer who is in pursuit will still have to follow the same protocols. to that it has not changed. where we have made significant changes is if the suspect vehicle starts to drive

towards a pedestrian or a crowd of pedestrians we could use our patrol car to move in front of the suspect's vehicle in order to protect their life. currently we don't have that ability so we would somehow move our vehicle or another patrol vehicle out in front in order to protect human life. that is the major change to our policy. we're always constaftly doing a balance and that's what we refer to as the balance test whether this pursuit needs to occur or not and the risk to the general public. we really wish to minimize any risk to the general public while we are doing our due diligence to try to apprehend this criminal. >> sergeant could you explain the situation that occurred that prompted this change. >> the reason for the major change is a gentleman came from

the east bay and ran over 14 pedestrians in our city and i believe he was actually looking for a police officer to run over but he found 14 citizens to run over and severely injure and the pursuit came to a stop with the suspect hitting a car in laurel village near california street. >> a non police car. >> a non police car. >> and our general at the time precluded the officers from using a vehicle to block the suspect's assault on pedestrians. >> [inaudible] >> if i may -- i know they have questions, but actually when i saw this i was hoping -- sometimes we get general orders and the proposed differences are out lineed in red so we and go directly to those and when i saw i remembered with the old one and different from the new one so next time that comes up

that was helpful. i wanted to mention that because you can hone in directly what is different instead of asking you to go through scenarios so i would ask for that. >> commissioner, just to let you know we have been through about 30 different drafts of this document and it's so completely restructured that if we did a red line version everything would be red lined and you couldn't have any meaningful way of telling the changes from that document. >> thanks. >> commissioner chan. >> so i'm glad you brought that up because it did take me to figure out the differences and i get there is a ton of work put into this and i can how lengthily and detailed and thoughtful that there was a lot of work put into this. i would like to thank the department, occ and all of the other parties in crafting this. i know it's a long time coming. i think i asked about this at least a dozen times so i am excited to

finally see it and i can see why it took so long. there is a delicate balance protecting pedestrians and protecting the officer and address any public safety concerns especially with the driver of the vehicle that might be wanted for something so i appreciate that. i think it's well done and i notice the way it's written and that word "balance" throughout and a consideration of the different factors that we just listed out and motorists and pedestrians and peace officers and protecting the public and i want to highlight something i think was helpful is the provision of contacting supervisors and keeping supervisors in the loop whenever possible and especially when it am cans to a vehicle pursuit there are many things to balance it's important to have someone with that level of seniority to supervisor and know what is going on with the exception of some rare circumstances it makes a lot of

sense to do that. >> supervisory control over a pursuit and code three response is state law. it's required that we have someone who is not actually involved in the pursuit, a cooler mind, possibly more experience monitoring and extra set of eyes if you will, to make sure that the public is safe and that we are meeting the public's interest. >> thank you for that clarification. that's helpful to know, and i want to ask two specific questions. on page five under the information to transfer during the pursuit number two. actually 2c is the specific section. it lists when radio traffic allows the pursuing officer shall transmit the following information if known and time permits. one traffic conditions and make and color of the vehicle

description of the persons and any weapons. i didn't see in terms of public safety and pedestrians and vehicles are around and i assume that is in the traffic conditions. >> that's correct. if i can draw your attention to 2b. 2b is the very first item the officer says as they pick up the microphone and begins to broadcast. therefore -- who am i? i will give my call sign and suspect violation. we're going for the violent felon or immediately need to apprehend, direction of travel and speed. with that first bit of information we probably all right started to move a block or so if not more. cars travel very quickly. you're broadcasting. things happen very quickly. the officer gives that information in the hopes that other units will it as well as a supervisor picking it up

and make good decisions whether this pursuit needs to occur or not, and again it's also the balance test. throughout this entire policy it's the balance, the need to apprehend versus the risk to the public. >> thank you. that answers my question for sure. the second question i had was on page eight, section e, coordination management and control of jurisdictional pursuit and below that is two sections, pursuits by other law enforcement agencies in the city and pursuits traveling outside of sfpd and outside agency comes in here or we go outside and i am wondering -- i assume that this is a case that all -- the balancing test and all these different requirements in here basically applies the same to when another law enforcement agency comes here and we support them, or when we go to another jurisdiction in pursuit. >> if we go to another jurisdiction it is still our policy