pledge of allegiance? >>[pleage of allegiance] >> president of this i like to call role. we did please do >>[rollcall] >> clerk: you have of work it also would assert his great repeat >> chief suhr:

>> good evening everyone and welcome to the 20th 20 please commission. sgt. please call the first line item >> clerk: item 1 public comment public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear in tonight's agenda that within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speaker shall address the remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners were department or oc personnel. under police commission rules of order during public comment either police or occ personnel were commissioners are required to sponsor you questions presented by the public but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and occ personnel should refrain however from entering debates were discussion with speakers during public comment. please limit your comments to 3 min. >> president loftus: good evening and welcome. >> testifier: members of the please commission. in 2009-2010 when i first started attending meetings of the please

commission, those meetings involve excessive discussion about ike crisis intervention training. some numbers of this commission tried to convince the sfpd that these skills would be valuable tools for officers on the job. the discussion devolved into all the justifications they were many, whether carmen could not afford to provide the training. i finally i find it truly unconscionable following numerous deaths since that time that we are now having the same inane conversation. if the officers of the san francisco police department has rooted by the police officers association don't want something to happen it won't happen. there's absolutely nothing this commission has the power to change when the department doesn't want it. i think it's about time we, the people, asked the question,[latin] cool

watch the watchmen? at lease we need to accept that. this commission has the power to change a damn thing. this police department, and you can see it in the news 2-3 times a week, will decide what's going to happen. the last time i was here i put up an article in the choir about the chief. and how the police officers association was going after him because i didn't want to see the change. basically, we have people with guns running our streets who are not under control. there are certainly not under your control. you have not got the ability to make them do a damn thing. i've said it before and i'll say it again. people need to realize this is nothing but political theater where people can come and vent their spleen and talk then you can have

endless. meaningless conversations, which mean nothing. you can sit and smile, that a president, but it's the truth. it's the same thing i said about the office of citizen complaints. when have you ever done anything to ask anybody whether they're going to the office of citizen complaints get a damn thing to help them? you would not dare because it never does. the only reason most people go is because the law says, you have to go through them before you can go to courts. you are meaningless. you have no power. these people have the guns, and they will do what they want to do. we've seen it through-how many other embarrassing things that happen in this city, and it just goes away into the night and nothing occurs. >> clerk: next speaker.

>> testifier: good evening and welcome >> testifier: hello my name is sylvia johnson. i find there's been lies about [inaudible]i don't think this is in doubt as what's been said that the police department you know, doesn't want to follow the rules and being programmed by another, you know, coordinator, which is all in process and damaging a lot of people here that i don't think the process needs to be damaged [inaudible]

the gains. [inaudible] and no computer. i mean, i got me a computer now but i have to get [inaudible] because of the money. that's been going on. it's all a big blindfold to what they can damage the world. it's already going around the world with these rent controls and everything with the [inaudible] win the war. many times with. i think that the school over there has been telling stories [inaudible] the

police department, i'm telling you, i've already been spoken to, the schools about this and the editors over there. barry spoke and told, and you changed staffing over there. because this has got [inaudible] because of a disadvantage [inaudible]. we've already been told as were trying to [inaudible] was going for that. this has been totally obnoxious and the [inaudible] this has got to change. i thought even trying to go down to the construction area and there's i can't even find because i've

got [inaudible] i'm going to do that tomorrow. the clerk thank you. next speaker. good evening. >> testifier: 2 weeks ago almost then was killed by san francisco police in the mission district. as i'm sure you know. this probable birder came after months even years of promises and efforts to get street officers to follow mandated de-escalation law enforcement practices and this killing can indeed, be seen as a divine response countless attempts to prevent such some for senseless killings. many lives have been perpetrated by department personnel about the lethal instrument of torture that goes under the commercial name, kaser. what is clear from numerous studies and reports that whenever kaser's are introduced into a police department the number of officer shootings increases.

not only are teasers and instrument of repression and unconstitutional stifling of free speech, but whenever kaser's are brought into a police department the accountability of police practices goes down to zero. there is no accountability of the use of kaser's, no consequences for their random misuse, and abuse. the court issue facing this police commission, that of accountability. this recent article, which i'm going to submit for the record, which i like you to introduce into the record, appeared in the the court issue facing this police commission, that of accountability. this recent article, which i'm going to submit for the record, which i like you to introduce into the record, appeared in the march 19, 2016 issue of the baltimore sun. it documents countless instances of the rights of citizens being violated with no consequences to the officers torturing innocent civilians with kaser's. i wish-don't allow this department to ever

get kaser's in their hands. we will keep working to make sure that doesn't happen. >> clerk: thank you next speaker. good evening and welcome >> testifier: since you've decided to give chief suhr his performance review behind closed tours i thought that i would give you my performance review of his. chief suhr gets an f. not only has been a scandal against racist and homophobic taxing, but we see san francisco chronicle reports shows that san francisco police search blacks and latino drivers at higher rates after traffic stops than whites. police shot and killed a homeless man less than 30 seconds after confronting him. many witnesses said he wasn't a threat to anyone than the san francisco police department released only selected witness

statements, bolstering the case of the police, and not presenting the full story. g suhr lied about the barrio woods case, buying the story that mary a woods has his arm up and [inaudible] to the officers he defended the officers long before the evidence was injured and he's been called out on this many many times. i want to know, what part of this don't you get? that chief suhr talks about policy changes, but the existing policies aren't enforced good what good is it making you policies? all the rules are being ignored anyway. the police break laws and act with impunity and chief suhr ever investigates. in fact, he covers up for them he enables them to break the rules. there

were rules in place when the shooting of mariel woods and louise gund gora were killed. at least these policies prohibited this kind of use of force, the police violated him. chief suhr, gets a f. no positive performance review for chief suhr. >> clerk: thank you. next he can or good evening welcome >> testifier: [inaudible]. i'm sure that all of you remember when chief left the department. she was given the option to indefinite leave of absence for medical reasons. that was really wrong doing. so, there's always an alternative to public shame. chief suhr could go on indefinite leave of absence for medical reasons. we don't care. we just want to chief out. even

within the rank and file the officer smelled of questioning the authority and questioning his leadership. so, the discontent is on both sides, on the community side and on the police side. 3 weeks ago the chief said and he sounded very promising, we decided crisis intervention were going to be patient and [inaudible] could maybe 2 shots will be fired and then we can approach the threats and see if the threat has been circumvented were limited. instead, we see 6 ports in these bodies. so, obviously, the promising option to wait is not being listened to at the street level by the police. we also see for the past

several years no matter how much cip training happens there's a progressive increase of violent deaths. of people with mental issues at street level. the lease [inaudible] and every grace over the past 2 years, no amount of training is going to change the organization of the police. so, it starts from the top. firing the chief is not the solution to everything, of course, but it would be symbolic sign of the times to reform from top to bottom. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next he >> testifier: my name is tom- good evening commissioners. chief suhr. sgt. joe shaw. good evening. i put it time so number one i want to disagree slightly with the start. i've

been tonight agenda you can do things. you have the power to over the police force. you just need to use that power and exercise are widely. i think item number 4 is about the [inaudible]. it is. not produce the drug that i'm going to-i will point out to folks who are pointed to these incidents recently of shootings that have not been handled properly at least that's occurrence the public, that those benefited people otto with those incidences when we have benefited if they were bad scams is that all these folks with her phone cameras giving different points of view and contradictory points of view set by officers. even that she sometimes an ideology that was an error and is apologized for it every week it anywhere by: officers murderers and anywhere by calling people liars. secondly, i want to say unusual tasters, if you're going to give people a lethal weapon, there should be no problem with giving them a less than lethal weapon. i know it can be lethal

when you misuse but guns are we to when used properly and are allowed to use guns. you plenty time to get lousy cups like lindberg and i could want with a long list. so is it now about time to put on the bad scams? you plenty time to get rid of the losers in the apartment. i think it's time now. next thing i want to say, i am reading part of the corruption issue is based on the fact that a lot of the senior officers went to catholic schools and jesuit high schools. that limited. the catholics out to catholic school and the teacher about ethics. that's one of her things you learn in a jesuit institution is at that. which takes me to my next point. when she began the new sheriff, jeff hennessy one of the first things she did was inst. ethics training program for her deputies. i note simplistic and i the only 6 months but how about a week of that in officer training school as well? finally, 2 weeks ago when i was here for

the last eating prior to the last meeting, the sgt. at the door was checking my possession steve i have any signs could they currently were told by somebody that they were allowed to people in wet signs. you should only want to i don't need science to get my point of view across. i use my voice. i like to know under what law mind what rule of order people are not allowed to bring science into these meetings drama accurate much the clerk thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker >> testifier: cleaving. just back from new york. i have a right around from wow. wow. that places off the hook. we're going from shootings. were going to rates. there were rolling. these are good friend of mine steve is a copy of i the opportunity to talk to commissioner brent. the

problems they got there right now with corruption is beyond reproach. yorty know what i'm talking about, greg. let's get back to san francisco. i totally disagree with you on tasters. me tell you something yes people of god by tasters. yes, they have. unequivocally. nationwide. but, what i say to you is like a history lesson. after we dropped the atomic bomb on hiroshima, the secretary of defense went to pres. truman. he said, sir, i've got blood on my hands. the president said, no gimme a handkerchief. the blood is on my hands. it's on your hands. the tasters. yes, it's going to be unfortunate incident with someone is going to have a bad heart and is going to die. yes, unfortunately but i'll tell you something, you give me that teaser first. the designer was that happened with that 40. i know it's going to happen. we really need-the body camps if

we had the body gives right now we already approved those. you already get. those officers that night with a homeless guy, those body cams it would be a lot of questions answered right now. were they to close? in my opinion, yes. the 21 foot rule. what i got that close to them, i was talking to today to my good friend of mine, and he was honest. we screwed up. i said why didn't you make a perimeter? if he was coming towards you, keep backing up. keep backing up. give him space give him space to the could not understand english. so what i was saying to him, he didn't know if you are, drop the knife dropped the knife. he did not understand that. he had no idea what they were saying. bank. here comes the 40. end of subject. hey, you people have a great great colleague dr. fuehrer weeks. bye-bye. >> clerk: thanks. next are

>> testifier: x week i talked about transparency asking please try to achieve a state of complete truth voluntary information even as embarrassed that i want to note that's difficult and the reason it's difficult is the events that creates and is not unique to san francisco police department. these are talk about police misconduct people think your paint old, with a blog russian that simply not the case to you to talk about just like if there's a problem you'll end up enabling it. so to talk you briefly about the best way i ever heard to talk about this in a way something the top cop of the united states said in a conference i was at almost 20 years ago. atty. gen. janet reno who did more for policing in this country than anyone and are from my point of view. she was in her room mostly police chiefs, police units very defensive video worried about racial profiling. they do more here from out sharpton. big janet reno stood up and said, look directly this i agree with. the vast majority of

police officers are good people who want to do the right thing and do the right thing nearly all the time. so by definition were taught by the small subset. write them in the factor we need to talk what that small subset don't ignore the rest are good. but if you do not deal with a small subset you're not only making a more difficult for those good cops creating the community oppression that in fact is out there is widespread she said i think wisely. talk about 3 categories. as a symbol diagnosis problem. you talk about some people who end up in the police department for the best screening the just bad people. they know they're doing something wrong and they do it anyways. those people, she said i agree you have to terminate them. they don't belong in law enforcement. we don't have all the information but we do know there's a bad convicted officers racist texas officers the department tries to terminate. number 2, of officers who they generally don't know how to do the right thing. what we need to do with

them whatever she said i agree, they need to talk to if they don't know they need to be taught. they need better training they need their policies you can always improve on policies and training this commission is focused on a the 3rd category is, but insignificant. category of officers who maybe they've been in their common a while. they're cynical. there tied. they're not bad people but sometimes they don't do the right thing. for lots of different reasons. that group she said needs to be motivated. what tools do you have to motivate those officers? you have accountability. of 2 types. the disciplinary accountability. you consult with progressive it to be minor but you actually have to hold onto the policies of training so they won't be motivated at supervisory accountability. to use your early interventions is enough to send a message to those officers that we care number one, hundred doing and how you treat the public. this

department this commission has a avoided that's that. it's a three-legged stool. if you don't address the accountability issue but more clearly you still the stool topple over >> president loftus: any further general public comment? >> testifier: this is the very first frame of marry you words being recorded off but-phone.

showing no threat none whatsoever and yet, you see all these officers aiming for his head. what the hell for? the only gun you see aiming lower is the beanbag gun. anything else is aiming right straight for his head. now, i'm going to jump forward before he gets executed. otto is from the

crowd. thanks. >> testifier: you can see marital woods is no threat, none whatsoever. this is where they shot his head the first shot is not in his body but his head. you can see that was a pilot shot right towards the head because his body is immediately moving forward. before you know, he's on the ground. now, each one of these frames is just a fraction of a 2nd. actually, 29 frames per 2nd. so, you are seeing every single frame and now she's freaking out. probably right about now, the barrage of 22, plus let's went into marry a

woods had were into his body. essentially, what that did was create a cover up of him being shot in the head. so take that to note. chief suhr is a liar i'm sick and tired of the cover ups. >> president loftus: net speaker next speaker. good evening and welcome >> testifier: what i'm going to say is not personal to any of you commissioners. word choice picks. the people of this country do not trust their elected representatives. so, when the same representatives appoint individuals like yourself, we having less trust. we are in have to be skeptical. just yesterday, we learned of the punishment of the cop handed down in new york for killing the man in the darkened

stairwell. 5 years suspended sentence and 800 hours community work. you see our disbelief and need for skepticism. on the weekend i watched the confirmation hearings of susie and thomas. i was very impressed with the words and the objectives, but will substance rise above rhetoric? as police commissioners for our city, you have a pivotal moment in your life and your work for not just raining in an out-of-control sfpd, but for much deeper reengineering of the total system of police use of force in our community. susie mentioned-i'm sorry-susie mentioned this work reengineering in the confirmation. all of you must take that extremely seriously. firing one police chief will not

change the sfpd. though greg suhr must be fired or resigned for the residents of san francisco must know that they control who works for them. we still have racist, sexist, homophobic cops in our police department who would sooner use their guns and their batons. officers above them who would cover up any crimes to abide by the blue code of silence. you must step up to a much larger reengineering of the sfpd. if i were you, i would dig deeper and embrace this long-term commission of your obligations to the citizens of the san francisco. and can somebody give joe a note which? >> president loftus: thank you. any further public comment? hearing none, public comment is now closed it please go to item >> clerk: item to report to the commission and discussion to a report. this item is to allow the chief of police to report on recent police department activities make announcements update on traffic

stop data reporting. >> president loftus: good evening, chief. >> chief suhr: ultimate update on 2 cases. under we have a presentation on traffic stop data by commissioner to jesus that will be made but very quickly, we are still very aggressively working to locate the 2 missing 2-year-old ariana fits. we have entered into a full partnership with the fbi who is just been terrific to work with and we actually executed a search warrant with them today. we do have a focus of this investigation, that i can't discuss right now, but the investigation is ongoing and we are leaving no stone unturned or resourced spare. there was also a case reported an arrest in the central that actually resulted in a chase across rooftops. it involves a

burglary where the suspect was in the residence actually held the victim at gunpoint for period of time before fleeing. responding sfpd officers encountered and counted the suspect in the don't get the suspect pointed a handgun at the officer. they were them to drop the gun he did not comply lead on foot and no shots were fired. the officers pursued the suspect onto the street and onto a building of the 1300 block of pacific went back to the rooftop. they chased the suspect rooftop to rooftop. towards specific and hide. that suspect discarded the gun. on the live roof it was later recovered on the mc it was not a real gun. turned out to be a replica. the suspect jumped from the roof about 3-4 stories and attempt to evade capture by jumping into a tree. he was unsuccessful and fell onto the roof of a parked audi car. sf

fire department responded immediately and he was transported to general for his injuries which turned out to be very likely, just a broken collarbone. the department recovered numerous items of stolen property. and he was charged with 3 counts of first-degree burglary along with $300,000 in one's san mateo county and very for towing or else was hurt. so, they get a very very good job and i believe that supervisor >> s peskin recommended officers involved for their performance of their duties. so, very good results that nobody was more seriously hurt. at that, i'd like to ask lieut. tara and capt. jack hart to come up and do our reports on our stop data that was it was a recent article in one of the city's newspapers did lieut.

tara answered provided the raw data to the author of that report and some information was left out and lieut. parra is chemistry to the complete dataset those given up and all information as well as provided an exclamation as to the disparity that was discovered. >> president loftus: if there you are here those copies of the report the powerpoint on the table for folks following along. we can make it available online as well. chief, what you get is that the one thing i want to add to your report is also sgt. tony florez, was given an award yesterday by the board of supervisors along with assistant dist. atty. ronnie sing the partnership on human trafficking case. people vs. teacher. it was really just an example remarkable partnership between the das office and police on one the cases that are just such honorable victims from was just wonderful to see,

so can i- >> i don't have the particular i have come yesterday honestly, the partnership was unbelievable. the work of scu actually lieut. and capt. billy argued. >> president loftus: you got a specific shot up from the sgt. butler supported the case and what difference it made it really appeared a great team effort. >> they get a great job. you can't take anything away also from assistant dist. atty. singh who put it all in either credit back to scu who, in turn, would have none of it and give it right back to the da. so it was a really good team effort to get the basic net against predator off the street. >> president loftus: is nice to see that is working because were hearing a lot about when it breaks up so it's great the board of all supervisors elevated. >> i do have to say the relationship between the assistant district attorney and the officers putting in the case is solid.

>> president loftus: great. okay lieut. >> >> testifier: so, i managed arun-good lieut. for san francisco i work with crime analysis unit. i'm sorry. i'll start over my name is erin para lieut. with san francisco police department could i work a crime analysis unit. we prepared this report on traffic stops for the commission with an emphasis on searches based on race. so, this is the data we collected. it's from 2013-2015. it's a total of 3 earned 17,000, over 3 earned 17,000 stops for those years. first year, kevin stopped 2013 is about 85,000 were over 85,000 2014 we had over 119,000

and total traffic stops in 2015 is about 111,000. i just want to make. in asterix about 85,000 for the 2013. this was an incomplete dataset. this is also given out to the media good we disclose that. we were transferring our data a company traffic company was changing their way of collecting data to be more accurate. so that some problems with that and because of that we did not have a complete dataset. this next slide, this is the protocol in requirement for data collection is so, that's the database we use to collect all this information so we compile this information. so, every time an officer makes a traffic stop there required to document. in

our database. so these are the following stops the required this. so, if you look at the powerpoint, you can see the very first one, incorporates everything so vehicles. the stopping of vehicles. it doesn't just is not just vehicle. a 3 bicyclist that it could be up there that anybody could as violating a traffic violation. the other violation you have to be included in this would be municipal code violations, penal code violations, has reduced code violations and suspicious vehicles that were soft or high risk stops. the chemical or nonmoving violation. dui checkpoint and things like that. traffic collisions good as officer response was seen hard to get that information that hinder maybe dana will be citing anybody. summary is broken down

to be on the lookout apb's. warrants. amber alerts. things of that nature. we have if we stopped someone for any of those reasons, we have to complete this e5 85 data. one interesting thing revamping this right now. the way that we collect data, it doesn't distinguish between a motor vehicle stop, bicycle stop, where pedestrians are. when we run this we don't have any way of telling whether or not this person being stopped was a pedestrian or bicyclist or motorist. but we have a new system were putting in place that can capture more data get but arson was going on with some of the members we have in this report and were adding field that will hopefully be with to explain what was going on and give better to dataset force you to talk about that they'll battle it up crime data warehouse? is another platform because we there's the phone you can issue a citation on the

phone. i want a short orientated to which system operator talk about drama >> is called the east citation program. it will be- >> president loftus: okay. >> it is going to be able to eclectic and that's what sculpted with that will have more ways to collect and >> president loftus: you might not know this. this might not be your job to notice. when will the east citation data >> that i don't know. >> president loftus: otto >> the focus is on body camisole technology can only handle so much too soon as we get the body cameras going the very next project will be e citations. odyssey were hoping to get body cameras on all officers by the end of the calendar year. so director -believes we can get that you citation up in 2017 which would be well in advance of getting into compliance on the bot supervisor >> cohen ordinance will

provide more data than is required by either of those pieces of legislation to >> president loftus: think. sorry to interrupt >> were still collecting from the old system which is not as accurate. this is what were working towards. you see the references. these are his is my references reducing regarding searches. regarding searches. it'll be the manual the department order regarding otto regarding arrests [inaudible]. that to some of our footnotes on that. now, switching to the next slide, here this is the total traffic stops by race from 2013-2015. as i said, over 317,000 stops. you can see that the numbers are broken up so this is 3 years. so, whites are stopped

30% of the time. we have a number right about that. 120. 18% of time are asians. that would be a category that doesn't necessarily fit the fix race categories. african-americans, 15% and 13% for hispanic. >> president loftus: circuit we got over this a few times. does this control for the-there was a driving was the federal code of white, his panic, did you pull out-does this reflect a more accurate >> writes. so the 4 white asian and white other end are hispanic as an ethnicity but director merritt reports out on it because we know that's a category that everybody wants reported out on. >> president loftus: so there is a separate group that you put

because and the census hispanic are also classified as white. >> writers white hispanic, black hispanic, hispanic is not a race. it's an ethnicity but because it's something everybody is interested in report out on that. that definition. >> president loftus: this data separate that out. i know that was a time >> otherwise hispanic to be included in white. so we break out hispanics from white. >> thank you. >> so this next slide, this the reason for the subject that the reason to pull someone over. these are them. moving violation is the first. that would be someone runs a red light or something like that that 60% of the time over the three-year period. that's what people are getting pulled over for. the next one would be mechanical or nonmoving violation. the 31% of the time and these are the ones, traffic, collision, municipal

peace police code violation or penal code violation, dui checksum apb, warrants, and the assistant of motorists are all about 1% or less. i'm going to induce a capt. in the 2nd but this is he's the authority on searches. these are subject matter expert. this data talks about traffic stops in connection to searches. it kind of breaks down the numbers and what they are. so, as you can see from this slide, 96% of the time there is no search on a vehicle. of the three-year period, there was 304,000 times was no search. 4% of the time, there was a search for the three-year period. over 1200

--12,000 stops resulted in searches. then, we can get into alternate over to capt. >> thank you. good evening am capt. jack hart from the pleasing bureau. i'm definitely numbers guy but on the search and seizure debt. the last 45 cost of the teaching constitutional, search and seizure, evidence doing overview sessions for all the exams. specifically, teaching search and seizure the main insert. >> president loftus: capt. hart, you're also a jurist doctorate is that correct >>. i do. i'm also mature. >> president loftus: i want to share your opinion about what you're saying under full expense but i can't promise we'll hold it against you >> the main i think thrust of the article spoke about traffic stops and specifically searches were done on that slide as you can see in a pie chart lieut. paris had mentioned 96% of the time we do not conduct a search. for percent of them

resulted in traffic stops that could result in some kind of search. switches turn to the next slide, we can see exactly what types of searches were being done. so, 3% out of that 4%. 10,777 times out of the 12,556 were searches were done either required by policy, lawful under the constitution, recommended amount mandated and topicality to do such searches. those include probation and parole searches. exigent circumstance if those apply. searches with a search warrant which is a good reason. also, searches incident to a custodial rest. commensurate with the 2009 decision of arizona vs. dance. vehicle protective sweeps it for doing what you do or first-ever person we can do a protective sweep of the vehicle to look for weapons and on top of that inventories of vehicles ever been a go-ahead and tow the car we do a protective search but for evidence but to safeguard property. that was done at 3%

out of that 4%. so, you can take a look at those number sound underneath that. really, the part that article was really take a look at it on the next slide. that is, the 1% or less than 1% of searches. this is one half of 1% in all of the traffic stops are searches that are based on consent where the officer for whatever reason, had none of those other justifications and for some reason decided to ask the person can i please have permission to search the car. out of these 1007 on 79 searches summoned positive results meaning that evidence like firearms were discovered and at other times nothing was located. as you take a look at, this is the chart that gives us the most concerned. that is because out of those 1779 919 of those were over 50% of the one half of 1% were african-american police

described as black. so that gives us some pause and concerned. so what we are doing in the principal policing unit, as well as work with crime analysis unit is trying to figure out, why. first, is going to the data. first we need to look at it it off in the summers are compared to the census to 6 words 6% of african americans of the overall population. but that number 6% does not possibly be the same number people that have drivers licenses, own cars, drive to the city. some people decide not to drive. this does not include people from outside of san francisco. when you're measuring these statistics it's for people with emotion against san francisco's back 7 systems, but we don't stop people from san francisco. sometimes that out-of-state license plate about people, ò shaner stopped. also, the number 919 from we do not know based on this number if those are individual people or with lisa percent person multiple times. for instance if a certain known damon merck

driving from one gain area to another officers may recognize that person stop a person wants to determine if they could catch them dirty, as is often said. even if the numbers are way completely right in this number, stop until we work so those numbers to get the real and true numbers, even though those numbers are not right, we also want to look at what the three-dimensional work to what numbers described as just a 2 dimensional issue. were also want to look at, what with crime trends going on in these neighborhoods at the same time can with the suspect if they were suspect descriptions that were commensurate with this and that's why there was an increase of stops people that matched that description who also had a mechanical violation of their vehicles. but, if it is implicit bias, the motor blew it out. i think the chief has made it completely clear. it

hard with implicit bias to say because it's implicit we don't really know the subject of true motivation that person without officer. so, regardless, in abundance of caution we doing implicit bias training. we have done in the past. is currently in his current aoc cbt cycle is called by space police in good california post to our mandated course that started in january of 2015 but were not stop there. the cops office has recommended that part of collaborative review and were doing it, and that is bringing in fair and impartial police officer and 2 san francisco in july we doing in executive session golf command staff unpardonable of members of the community. were having a 25 member trying to train or so can train the entire department into a mentor level session with attendance so were going for there were going to root it out and continue to educate the hearts and minds of our cops. we need to move beyond statistics and numbers. this is the accent numbers are excellent

but as i mentioned last time that the police commission we must move beyond lawful policing and effective policing to rightful policing. this is tom type this is tracing years work from you. this is color one from the hazardous 21st century test for some policing and it says we must engage the community and build trust and legitimacy to the community and these numbers do not tell you whether the police officer in this traffic stop treated the individual with dignity empathy and respect. give them voice. listen to them my spring and justify the reason. and perhaps left them in a better position than the officer found appeared that is not here as we are not going to rest on what is merely lawful. and what of 42,000 vehicle coalitions that justify these numbers were not stopping there. we only should these are right stops the community trusts the wonder stuff is done for the right reason and for the right purposes. so, moving forward the summers during the

mining of the data but as lieut. parra mentioned, were going to see citation programs. were improving the way that we capture these statistics so again to go transparency trust and legitimacy. >> president loftus: thank you. commissioner melara >> commissioner melara:: thank you for what you're training to do. i'm still a little concerned about the place where people live. because i'm concerned, when we compare apples and oranges, and we can't have it in the police-when i look at the newspaper and it says that only 6% of the population is african-american, but this number for latinos and african-americans happens to be very high when we stopped and we apprehend people we are a destination city. we need to

gather the data as to where people come from. because, without that, we will continue to have this problem. it looks like we are arresting people from san francisco. at least the newspaper is reporting it that way. bernie, i mean, the burglary that happened in pacific heights, were in his one over the weekend, the man was from outside the city. so, i really want to know, who is coming into san francisco to commit crimes and have traffic stops, whatever it happens to be because i don't want us to look like we're doing it to our population. so, i would want you to add that information in your data-gathering. as to where these people live, where they're coming from, i mean this is the 6 i heard it while that-and i don't have data-but crime in the side of the

majority of youth crime in the city was committed by kids from outside the city. so, we need to gather that day. that would be very important for me because i hate to see thisapples and o we are not comparing apples and apples. >> we were just speaking about that today. we capture the data of the district of occurrence and the police district but perhaps we in addition need to collect zip code data because we get that from anybody we issue a citation to, if it starts with a 941 or something else other than that. >> and some identification around whether you are arresting or stopping duplicates. i mean, you know, the same person being arrested or stopped twice in a period of time because can be gathering data on the same person. on the occurrences maybe. >> so we actually met with

james bell of the burns institute and his big encouragement of us is you just have to keep digging because the data, and i have to congratulate lieutenant para, to do -- he came up with all this raw data, he did a lot of analysis and he's a police officer. the author of the article is an analyst and did his story on the 1700 consent searches but discounted the 317,000 in the aggregate, so i think that was important but what's also important is we're trying to work actually with the dmv because we want to match this up against licensed drivers, at least licensed drivers in the city, because that's a number we -- seems to not be available from the dmv, so i think when these citations come we will have more accurate

data, we will have more realtime data, we'll be able to tell how many stops are replicated by the same person but we will continue to dig, continue to scrape the strainer to get to whatever -- and as captain heart said, when you get to consent searches and you find this disparity we're putting the fix in or we're at least erring on the side of caution that we're going to train to it as if it is what it looks like but even try to dig more to find out is that what it is or can it be explained or is it more pronounced in certain districts, which is another thing we talked about at the burns institute. because city-wide everybody knows that each district is particular to itself both by demographics and by the cultures of those districts. so -- and we're training our recruits to that right now by having them visit those places around the city, more cultural

competency from the leaders of those communities. we'll continue to dig, continue to impress upon the lieutenant to continue producing reports and getting -- the bad news on this report was 2013 data isn't as good as 2015 data but the good news is 2016 is going to be better than that and 2017 should be better still. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> thank you very much. captain heart, thank you. i know you do an excellent job teaching search and seizure, when i was in the united states attorney's office you were very well respected for the court appearances you made. you are a very good lawyer. i'm very proud of some of our office remembers, we'll have another captain speaking tonight who's actually a doctor so we have some very well trained and educated officers. with reference to the data, i agree with commissioner melara, at one point there was a concern with drug arrests in

the city and what wie found when we dug deep on the data, a significant number of the drug arrests were folks that were not from san francisco, they had come in off bart or drove across the bridge and were for various reasons were trafficking narcotics in the city. so i think it's very important that we dig down and get that statistic, it's very important. >> commissioner dejesus. >> i understand that we have a lot of raw data and i know it's very hard to retrieve. the auditor when he was doing audits on the police department said we skip raw data but we don't have it in a fashion we can readily read it. when we were doing whether there was the bias in policing and things like that, that was hard to retrieve. so that's been an issue for a while now. and i believe the obama's 21st century policing talks about different areas to track, you

can pull it out and it's easier to track. it's a good first start but there's issues with this. when you go back to look at all the arrests, we need to have the 317,290 arrests --. >> arrests? >> excuse me, total stops. 317,290 stops, i misspoke there. it would be interesting if we could see the race, the age and the address for all stops. because you have down 58 percent of whites in this total --. >> 38 percent. >> but we don't know if that's for assistance to motorists or traffic collisions or dui's, we don't know where it falls. i'm more interested in knowing who's been stopping for moving violations or suspicious stops, that can be very important when

you are looking for bias. i would be interested it know on the high risk stops how many are minorities, how many are mexican or latinos or african americans and if it shows they all are or many of them are, that's an area that needs to be examined. we may look at an issue and say that's not accurate or is not accurate and we need to do more work there. i was wondering on the consent searches, how many of them were -- let me start all over again. i know when i've gone on ride-alongs in the mission and i know that many times there's

a higher conservation, especially when there's a shooting, there's a higher concentration of officers in the mission and we go in and people are stopped for broken taillights, things hanging from their mirrors, a broken wing, and i'm wondering how many of those stops from these technical violations resulted in either a mandatory search or a consent search. those are the things i'd like to know too because i know the more concentration of police in an area that makes them more easy or makes it more available for more contact with the citizens. and we don't have that in nob hill, we don't have a high concentration of police. because of that i would like to know how many of those are consensual, how many are mandatory and how many people are being stopped in those areas. this is a good start but as you said it's just the one stat you are able to pull out is reviewing and for what reason we don't know, but you

certainly do need to follow-up on that. we certainly do need to gather the rest of the information for all these stops and we can look at it and pull it out and see. >> we can certainly do that and we will continue the data dig, but i do want to make a comment on high risk stops. high risk stops are usually determined by the nature of the vehicle itself, not the people necessarily in the vehicle. so if an officer is making a high risk stop, that's because somebody has put out a plate and/or a vehicle description and attached high risk to it. so whoever happens to be in that car, that's not the officer exercising autonomy when they make that high risk stop, they are told, hey, there's a robbery, armed vehicle, there's a robbery vehicle, homicide vehicle, something like that. so the officers are exercising caution in making those stops, not subjectively but objectively. >> so i get that. but we nreed to know that. if there's

a mandatory doj stop and what that race is and who's there we need to know that. but the way i saw the code it was suspicious vehicle and -- maybe i'm reading it there -- suspicious vehicle and high risk stop. maybe those should be broken out into different categories but i read a suspicious vehicle as more of a terry stop, and a high risk stop as doj we need to look at it, when we say a high risk stop per the doj, kind of a required stop, whether it's implicit bias or not implicit bias. we have a lot of this information, we need to start categorizing it and we need to have reports so we can see where it falls, race, age, address and the type of stop. >> commissioner marshall -- dr. marshall. >> thank you for the report. a couple things come to mind.

do all cities, jurisdictions collect data differently? i would assume that they do or is this a -- is there a uniform way of collecting this data i guess is my --. >> you mean other police departments, how they do it? >> yeah, los angeles, sacramento, chicago. >> well, there will be. i don't know about the other ones. i can't speak to them. >> it would be interesting to see just how san francisco compares to other cities. and i know when this has come up in the past it was difficult because -- even if i ask for that, it would be the same because not everybody collects it. i would hope we get the uniform way of doing it,

especially is there a -- i understand commissioner dejesus, you can only collect on the field that you enter into it in the first place. >> correct. >> is there a model somewhere that you like in some city because especially as we're going through the whole best practice thing and trying to come up with, is there a model you have seen that you like that you think hits on just about all the things we're talking about here? >> the e citation doesn't exist anywhere so we will be the first agency to do e citations and having realtime data. since that program is in the development we can make it do what we want it to do. >> rather than make up the

categories i was wondering if there is someone who has a model, you may come back next time and it doesn't have what somebody else wants to see. is there a certain city that --. >> for instance, on a citation, so right now this is 3 years worth of data, right? so if we're writing 120,000 citations a year and also our warnings will also go into the e citation program, those citations have what's on all citations. so there will be a zip code, those fields, every field on those documents will be searchable and batchable. if you wanted to know how many stops were made in a certain zip code you could search for that. >> i guess what i'm saying it's got to be a work in progress. nobody has yet come up with this is the way to do it. even if it has, it sounds like it, even if it has it seems other things you want to

pursue have come up. that's what i was asking. at this point i was looking at you may be going all over the country trying to find the best way to do this. >> i think you made the best point. numbers may never get us 100 percent of it but when we engage the community we know now the new standard wasn't whether the stop was lawful but does the subject believe p the stop was legitimate, that they were esteemed and treated with respect. it's easy to say how many traffic stops do an officer make, it's harder to say what is your engagement and your willingness and your drive. but we are training to that higher ideal. we're not talking about what's lawful in terms of evidence, we're talking about is it the right thing, upholding and defending everyone's constitutional rights. >> i can tell you, dr. joe, there was a state bill passed, ab 953 that requires all

departments to provide information on arrests. the department has to provide that next year. everyone is working toward shared metd tricks. the conversation is everyone is aware we need better information and the department is attempting to follow those rules but also make sure we have data specific for san francisco. >> one other thing, on the consent searches, i'm just wondering, i'm looking at the number of black consent searches. i'm wondering if that number is affected by the fact that they could have said no. i don't know if a lot of them understand you don't necessarily have to consent to the search which might have brought those numbers down if

they just consented anyway. >> or if they ask consent and they said no and we strictly adhere to that, that data would not be captured. >> i can tell you some of the times when you work the saturation things and there's a spike in violence and you make a stop on someone you know, they will actually say, they will say, i don't have anything in my car, search me. and that would be a consent search. >> that may be an education piece, i talk to folks all the time and they don't know if they have to consent, don't have to consent, i was just looking at that number and seeing how that may factor into it. >> one of the greatest frustrations i have had on my service on the commission has been dealing with race data. i want to thank you for your presentation and i want to thank you in particular for the portion where you said, we are concerned by this data and it gives us pause and we want to do something different and we want to find out what's going on here. because over the

years there have been so many damning reports that suggest this report is doing policing based on bias as a conclusion and i think that, for a number of reasons which because i spent a lot of time asking these questions over the years, have to do with antiquated systems and failure of systems, that is an aspect of it but i have not often heard what i heard from you, we're concerned and we're going to keep looking at this. because i don't believe it's apples to oranges on these consent searches. it's very clearly one race, african americans in particular are getting searched and agreeing to search for any number of reasons and i think that that is troubling to you all and i think that's right. it certainly was troubling to me in part because the next piece is why is that, right, and i appreciate what you were saying. good police work is not the enemy here. good police work is not the enemy,

but bias is. so how do we root out that bias, i think it's because he referred to attorney general reno, who is like a personal hero of mine, john crew pointed out earlier in order to not castigate everybody we have to know what the problems are. like with opd and the dashboard and you can identify early on there's a problem there you can take some effort to intervene. and i just want to say, we spent some time talking about procedural justice last time, but in this effort i know the chief and many members of the department we've been studying implicit bias and it's this buzz word that gets kicked around. but the researchers and the academics are very clear it's not the new way to call someone a racist. we all have this implicit bias and if you will indulge me, i want to read a section from professor

everheart, this is a stereotype we all carry that social psychologists have tracked back for 60 years. the stereotype of black americans as being criminal has been documented for 60 years. researchers have demonstrates its effects on numerous outcome variables including people's memory for who was holding a deadly razor in a subway scene, the speed at which people decide to shoot someone holding a weapon, and the probability that they will shoot at all. not only is the association between blacks and crime strong, ie, consistent and frequent, it also appears to be automatic. so this awares we have that for 60 years we're all carrying this poison in our brains and we're not even aware of it, there is this idea when you say implicit bias, i want to back up and say you can get training on it but you can't eliminate something you are not aware of.

these are biases we all carry. so seeing the humanity in a police officer having a bias that we also have, how can we help that officer do a very difficult job and some of the ways that we can do that is bias appears more frequently when you are tired, when you've got back to back calls for service, when you are not -- it's an automatic response. so for us as policy makers here it's not just a throw away we've got to get rid of implicit bias, some of it has to be what are the policies and procedures we do, if we identify that we're all affected by this bias, what policy changes can we make in supporting officers to get rid of the bias they have. this data is obviously very troubling and what i'd like to do, deputy chief chaplain comes to the commission once a month to report on all of our reforms. this is one particular item i would like to ask we get updates on every month, the progress of where

the data is taking you and i want to assure you that worse things have already been said. so the only place we can do to is identifying where the issue is and supporting us in giving the officers the tools that they need. so that would be my request that we continue to track this. commissioner dejesus. >> right. so you know you're going to laugh at this, but at the end of the ticker, when you get a receipt at the store, they can go in and say what they thought of the stop. you can get that information. i also think we should have someone dedicated in terms of gathering this information and preparing more detailed reports here in front of the commission and making them available on the web site and my other thing was follow-up. we need to make sure we follow-up so i do agree with commissioner loftus that

we should stay on top of this. i know you have a lot, this new law coming up reporting, you are going to be working on it anyway so it would be just a matter of reporting it to us as well. thank you. >> anything further, colleagues? okay, thank you, captain. thank you, lieutenant. see you again. all right. (applause). >> chief? >> that concludes my report. >> any further questions for the chief? chief, just one last question. do we have, i know routinely you would give us the year to date homicides and information or any upticks in property caipl -- crime or violent crime. >> we have 13 homicides year to date for the first quarter. with regard to other crime, property crime, violent crime is down 17 percent for the first quarter. property crime is down 13 percent including auto burglaries being down 12

percent. overall part 1 crimes down 13 percent. >> great, chief, and do you know how many homicides we were year to date for first quarter of last year? >> 16. >> okay. great. thank you, chief. sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 2b, occ director's report. this item is to allow the director to report on recent occ activities and make announcements. >> good evening president loftus, chief suhr, members of the public. today i attend the the board of supervisors budget and finance committee budget hearings where they provided departments an opportunity to provide updates and that was from fire department and police department and the occ so chief suhr was there as well. i provided this commission a

hard copy of the powerpoint presentation i gave to the committee today. it does reflect information that i have previously reported to this commission. this was my first opportunity to present to the budget and finance committee the occ's budget proposal, but that budget proposal is still being considered by the mayor and the mayor will provide the board of supervisors with his proposed budget by june 1st. and then the next budget and finance committee public hearing for public safety departments, that is the police department or occ, the next dates are june 9th and it's needed june 17th and you do have a copy of the powerpoint in your packet and copies out on the table and that concludes my report. and i'd also like to say that senior investigator

edward mcmahan is seated with the public if anyone would like to speak with him. >> thank you, director hicks. any questions for director hicks? >> commission reports, update on use of force policy development, commissioners reports. >> yes, colleagues, as we discussed last week, where we left off was we completed our stake holder engagement and it's up on our web site, all the feedback from the various stake holders on the use of force policies. we were wait to go hear from the department of justice department of justice, we all agreed it was good to get their input. they needed a little bit more time to review the significant amount of stake holder engagement that we have here in san francisco, which we are very fortunate to have so there's a lot of materials to look over. they indicated to

me they hope to be able to get us written feedback in early may and i indicated that i think it would be very important that the feedback is in writing so we can put it up on our web site and share it with all the stake holders. so that is really only two weeks away, i can't believe that but it's true. and so we have the materials that we have and my proposal is going to be this: we are dark always the fourth wednesday of the month, but the first wednesday will be may 4th. my plan is to angendize it for a discussion of where we are now. commissioner dejesus has made a number of good points in particular the way the body camera policy development happened. changes were made at the end, the working group can have their recommendations but each commissioner might have strong feelings. i know that various folks have strong feelings, are asking all of us

to weigh in. i think that conversation should start now and we can have the discussion and if we end up needing to have a couple options, to dr. joe's point, this might not be just a 1 or 2, it might be we have 3 or 4 options. we have time in may to do that. sergeant kilshon and i were talking about we can talk about this every week, at least come to consensus on what the options are, doj will weigh in, what we can bring to the public for the two meetings will be some options and we can get the public's feedback and then take it back and vote. as opposed to all the feedback us making last-minute changes, it gives us a chance to let the public be aware of all the options. >> it's pretty lengthy, would you take a piece at a time or a section at a time?

>> the stake holders, as you can see, there's a lot of agreement on a sit amount. i think comes down to maybe 10 or 12 issues. we can see how it goes but my idea would be for the first discussion to march through it big issue by big issue, not -- i know we painstaking went through the body worn camera word by word but that would not be my intent. my suggestion is that each of us have read ought materials and come with suggestions of exactly what we're looking for in the policy. i think it comes down to a few key issues but we as commissioners might catch a few key things we want to address. so that would be my proposal on that. any other questions? no. the other thing i would let you guys know is yesterday i was reappointed to the police commission for another term and.

>> lar? >> they did that yesterday. i wanted to thank incredible number of community advocates and partners over the last 4 years who came out to speak about our collaborative work. i think it's as important as everybody that we talk about and lift up what has been working and not forget that, in a moment of crisis, that it's also a moment of opportunity for us to keep working together and i think i was just very grateful for the tremendous amount of community support for what we're doing and so i wanted to thank everyone for that. colleagues, any other reports? >> we don't have to miss a beat. good. >> commissioner melara. >> yeah, i just wanted to let you know that last week, the reason i was not here last week, i was attending the international conference on family justice. the conference is on family justice centers around the country, which san francisco does not have. it is

where the legal community, legal law enforcement and wrap around services for domestic violence and child abuse comes together. one of the things i was reminded was that in light of everything that is going on and issues that are happening around the country, no one is getting outraged about the number of women that continue to get killed on a daily basis by the men who abuse them. and i got the data and it just shocked me because we're talking about thousands of women who are getting killed every single year in this country and we don't do -- we don't really say much about it. and so, you know, the whole conference really touched on trauma, the trauma around children and children will carry this trauma and potentially become the abuser at a later time. and we talked about trauma and how we could

train more people to be more trauma informed. so, anyway, that was my -- i feel very tired from the conference, actually, it was extremely intense. >> thank you, commissioner. dr. joe. >> so i just did a radio show two weeks ago on domestic violence, it was so heavy and the lights were lit up and i learned a lot, like you learned, things that shocked me. i think i'm going to do it again so if you would like to be part of it, thank you for tackling it. >> commissioner mez mez. >> nothing is pfr but the progress we've made when you compare what we have

accomplished to the president obama's 21st century policing report, when we are still ahead of the curve and people are looking at what we're doing but we have a lot of work ahead of us. it was great to engage with supervisors. a lot of times we sit here as supervisors and we can't say much, we are constrained by the agenda, we are constrained by the rules. it was a good opportunity for us to explain what we've done. it was a good chance to explain to one supervisor that we have over 500 cit trained officers now. many supervisors were really not aware of but now they are aware of and i appreciated their input. it was great feedback because they are at the forefront of each of their districts. it was a learning experience sitting down with the likes of amos brown and sitting down with him from 3rd baptist church. speaking with him about this traffic stop data, it was a great learning experience. there's more for us to do and more for us to learn about so thank you and

congratulations commissioner loftus. >> commissioner dejesus. >> i attended those hearings and some of the things those supervisors recommended we have officers who are practicing deescalation. i think last year 10 of them were honored for using the skill set they have of resolving situations without violence. they say the public doesn't know about it. it is working, you know, in other areas and we still have a long way to go but it's working and we do have officers practicing that and we need to, you know, the other thing they talked about is officers in terms of discipline have been terminated and they want the public to noi -- know that has happened. somehow we need to get out to the public what we

are doing. that might be something we want to angendize later down the road and see how we can get the news out. >> dr. marshall. >> welcome back and you never left. the last thing we needed at this city tal juncture was to lose our president and former president. so i'm glad and breathing. keep on meeting and keep on moving. great. >> all right, sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 2d, commission announcements. >> okay, colleagues, we do have a meeting scheduled in the central community meeting on may 18th so we're going to be here at city hall on the 4th and 11th like normal, but we're going to angendize discussions around these policies. so if everybody can come prepared to discuss those issues and where they are coming down so we can try to sort it into a couple of

options. the 18th we're in the central and so -- and we're dark on the 25th. so we will be back again on june 1st to have a subsequent discussion, see if at that point we've landed on a couple of options. we do hope, like i said, that during the month of may we will hear back from doj and be able to incorporate recommendations at our discretion, then let's hold june 8th and june 15th for community meetings on the draft use of force policy. let's give that another shot for those dates so sergeant kilshaw if you can identify some locations for us for those two dates. then colleagues i will ask, given the urgency on this matter and certainly we wanted to wait to hear from doj, but i would ask we have 5 wednesdays in june and i would ask if everybody can normally with a fiflt wednesday we would not

have a commission meeting but i would implore you to hold your calendars for that wednesday the 29th to give us time potentially if everything goes the way it should, we could potentially be voting as early as june 29th. i know that that would be very, a great moment of progress. so anything scheduling wise other that i missed, sergeant? >> that was it. >> i was secretary of the commission for like two minutes. thank you for allowing me that. >> you did good. >> thank you. okay, colleagues, anything else that folks want to add? we srtly certainly have a number of items pending. >> elections. >> we do need to have elections. let's schedule elections for the, i guess that would be the 11 th then because on the 18th we're in 17 --

central. for everyone watching our rules of order require us to have an election. thank you for keeping us on track. anything further, colleagues, on this matter? then let's have public comments on items 2a through 2d welcome back. >> members of the commission, ray, san francisco. i'd like to talk about this traffic stop data reporting. one thing, i don't know, maybe you just missed it, of the traffic stops 28 percent are either african american or latino. of the searches, there -- they are over 71 percent. how obtuse would someone have to be to not see that as a problem? i myself kind of take it as a good thing because i have a much less chance as a caucasian of getting searched simply because i am not hispanic and i

am not african american. you can sit and talk and nibble at the edges about, oh, we don't know whether this is small percentage or that small percentage or whatever, but the bottom line is 2 1/2 times more often african americans and hispanics are searched when they are stopped for a traffic violation which on the alternative means 70 percent of the people who aren't hispanic or black don't get searched. the interesting thing is i've been coming to these things for years and you've been having these discussions over and over and over and over again and you sit around and do reports and you think somehow that activity equals achievement or accomplishment and it doesn't.

you kill a lot of trees, you send each other reports and i'll be honest with you, you don't pay attention to the public when they talk to you, you do other things. just to be, i don't know, what is it just to be blatantly rude to them, to let them know how little you think of what anybody in the public has to say? it certainly appears that way. but the lot um line is 70 percent of the people who get stopped and get searched are african american or hispanic. that answers a big problem. the other thing is basically, these commission meetings are like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. you do nothing but pass around reports, the department general orders get reviewed, i've seen the listing, some of those have been under review for 8 years, 6 years, 5 years. and it doesn't really do, it doesn't

make any damn difference how many reports you do, which i feel happy you probably don't read them anyway, but the bottom line is if nothing ever comes of those reports then you are all about as worthless as tits on a hog. >> you know what? you don't get to call us individual names, sir. city attorney, is he able to say that 200. i'd like to get an opinion because i want to follow the sunshine rules. i would like to get an opinion from the city attorney on this matter. is he able to call us tits on a hog or something like that? >> worthless ass, i didn't call you that, worthless ass. >> the public is able to comment. if you feel any of the remarks coming from the public are discriminatory, then we have the mayor's policy on discriminatory remarks on public comment and we have a couple options available to

you. you can take a break and you can let them know the. >> your time is up, sir, your time is up, sir. your time is up, sir. your time is up, sir. >> can't intimidate me. >> your time is up, sir. >> then ask me to not stand up for myself. >> you are very well aware of the rules and there are time limits. thank you so much for your comment. i would like to make clear to members of the public any commissioners who are here, any staft of the city who are here, that we do not endorse any comments in particular any comments that would be sdripl discriminatory to any particular group, if you felt those comments are discriminatory to you, please know they are not shared by the commission. any further comments on items 2a through 2d mr. crew, thank you and welcome. >> thank you. first, i was going to say congratulations for your reappointments but maybe i should say my

condolences or some combination thereof. had i known janet reepb know was your hero i would have quoting her for years. i endorse basically everything you said about the role of implicit bias, i appreciate attorney heart his comments about concern, but i think we need to focus and we can't begin to address this issue in the brief 2 1/2 minutes here, i'm very thankful that you put it on the ayen today again, but let me try to focus, the issue if you aren't even capturing the data, that was not only reported in the chronicle but you have seen time after time after time the occ has seen cases for not collecting the data and there's been no discipline. you have a whole unit that a large percentage of the data, according to the chronicle, weren't be collected. to send a message that this is important to the department there needs to be accountability.

secondly unfortunately this is not a new issue. it first came up in 1999, i don't know how many police chiefs ago was fred lao, he found disparities that were horrible then that are much worse then. the city hired an expert to come in in 2007 to study this and she made a number of recommendations and warned you if you don't get on top of this issue, take it seriously, you are risking the department of justice department to come in and intervene. the chronicle did a data-driven story of what happened when you do not consent. you have seen not only in the chronicle but in the litigation that comes before you that there are large numbers of those sorts of false arrests with huge racial disparities on them. finally we need to focus on the data that you have now. the key isn't the 300,000 stops, it's

not the traffic division. the traffic division is doing traffic enforcement. the problem is the pretext, it's a small subset, it's those searches we're talking of, evidence-based add consent, that's the issue. you should focus on that. it's a distraction to pretend it's the traffic division. it's what captain heart talked about, they're looking to see if you have anything in the car. you have had mothers talking about what happens to their sons when they are innocently sitting in their car. the data (inaudible).

>> got to follow the same rules, three rules for everyone. feel free to submit any written comments. next speaker. >> my name (inaudible) and i have written some notes on this already where we all made equal and professional back talking is not in our jurisdiction. african americans and any kind of different looking person, we are all made equal and this is what i was talking about in

my letters that i wrote, and any combination of our attitudes and psychologically, depending on what we're saying is going to affect our race and who we are around. i had wrote things about how the equipment (inaudible) area should be so we are made equally and dependable so we can understand where our equipment that we do on our ways of trying to do wrong things is not going to be included in our history. we

should already know that in the things that we -- does an editor in the police academy, we need to learn a lot of these disabilities so we can correct it and know what to say to make it to where they understand exactly where they stand psychological. i think a lot of people, you know, follow what's real upset because the detail, the detail to where we stand in our academies that we get the job done successfully way of being as editor possess

exactly everything back in the 80's and how our family made a lot of things that happen with the world would understand why the landlords exceptions in the police academy stand. >> thank you. next speaker. welcome back. >> (inaudible) foundation again. in 2004 my (inaudible) was at the base of the restructuring of the police commission that was passed as prop h by a very substantial margin in spite of enormous amount of money that the poa had put forth to defeat prop h and at the time the demographic of the police commission then reflected three

people elected, appointed by the board of supervisors and four by the mayor. and it was very clear that those demographic were giving us, the people, some negotiating power because three people were defending pretty much the interests of the people while four were defending corporate interests in this city. so this way the people always had a swing vote and thus thanks to the swing vote were able to defeat the taser issue four times already. now we're facing the fifth. candidly i want to say i do not see that demographic any more. that's why i've been coming much less. and i hope to be able to restore my faith in your commission soon with all the very grave decisions that are ahead of us. thank

you. (applause). >> next speaker. >> good evening, tom sellers. first of all congratulations on being reappointed, president loftus. since you joined the commission, since president loftus and commissioner melara have joined the commission there have been notable changes, there has been some improvements, there has been movement of things that have been sitting still and nothing has been done for years and years prior to your joining. thank you, mayor, for reappointing them and thank goodness you are back on the commission. no. 2, congratulations chief. if crime is down 13 percent in the first quarter, excellent, that's job 1. i commend the department for doing that. thirdly my head almost came off my body when i heard captain heart, who was excellent, and captain para, talked about training officers to not only do law enforcement

but to be right? i've never, ever gotten the sense, and i have interacted with many of the officers in this department, unfortunately, i've never gotten the sense that they were interested in doing right as a body. individual officers, sergeant kilshaw and others, have always tried to do right, but the department, i'm shocked they are trained that way and somehow that training sort of falls out near the end. i think that's all i have to say unfortunately. again, congratulations. the next item is going to be the body-worpb worn cameras and i heard in your report they were hoping to get the cameras on before the end of the year. that would be 45 months after you got going on it. i know it's government and i know government is slow but 45 months, really? that seems a little slow. i hope the use of force policy doesn't take 45 months to get implemented. thank you so much.

>> thank you. any public comment on items 2a and 2d, welcome. >> hi, i'll be pretty quick. so with the traffic stops there were a few comparisons to the population of san francisco. so there's just another way of looking at the data if you look at number of african americans who were stopped and searched versus the percentage of whites that are stopped and then searched, african americans are ate times more likely to have a consent search. >> my view, the bayview, i've seen it happen over and over and over again, racial profiling just constantly goes on and on and on. too many

times i've seen a car with 4 and 5 blacks and you can see the car is not doing anything weird. and an officer always comes along and pulls them over. and i know darned well their violating their constitutional rights and doing a search, well, we're going to find something on them because if there's 5 blacks they're up to something or they have something on them that we can give them a ticket and throw them in jail. over and over and over again i've seen this. then i've seen a black and a white cop play good cop, bad cop. there will be a couple blacks sitting on a bench, minding their own business. and the black and white cop go over there and they play their little game and violate their constitutional rights and my look at that black cop is he's

a sell-out helping the system. this shit needs to change big time. big time. and i'm sick of it, i'm sick of seeing it. i view it too often and i don't like it. i don't like what i see. the city needs to make some serious damn changes. >> is there any further public comment on items 2a through 2d ma'am, come up. >> thank you for being here and giving me the opportunity to say something. back in 1980 i had a car and i had no idea that there was any kind of warrant or anything on there. i was stopped by the police, a female police, and she handcuffed me and she took me to jail because she said there was a warpbtd out for my arrest. i'm, like, what? i don't know what you're talking about. i was flabbergasted.

anyway, i was embarrassed, i was unbleefblly -- it was a mistake. it was a computer mistake. they had the wrong vehicle. and i had to be bailed out by my friend, i was handcuffed to a bench and my arms had to go in the back for a long time until my friend came up with money to bail me out. and i will never forget this. i was younger and naive, i did not fight back, i did get off and everything was taken care of, but it was very humiliating and i'll never forget that. so i just wanted to comment on that so people know it's not right and she would not listen to me. i said, you must have the wrong vehicle and it was a mistake from competers. back then there wasn't as much computer stuff going on, but i will never forget being arrested for something i never did. that's all i have to say, thank you. >> thank you, thank you. is there any further public comment on items 2a through 2d >> item 3, discussion and possible action to adopt a

resolution requiring a department to give annual reports to the commission on the status of backlog of sexual assault kits and an audit around communicating with survivors of an assault. >> colleagues, i will invite up who is going to present tonight. you all have a draft resolution regarding reporting to the commission about the department's collection and analysis of sexual assault evidence. for my colleagues who have been on the commission even longer than i have, this is an issue that many commissions have addressed. it's an issue that has been addressed by the board of supervisors in terms of identifying backlog, in terms of putting timelines. the state legislature has written some laws around this and we have had a significant number while i've been on the commission of audits of both the property room and the crime lab to identify where there is a backlog, to identify what policy decisions might have led to the backlog, and i know the department did make the

decision to proactively decide to test all of the kits as a result of some of the lessons that were learned from instances where an inspector decided not to test the kit and it went to the property room so it wasn't even counted as the backlog so there was a challenge in identifying whether there was capacity even at the crime lab to test the kits because there were all these kits that never made it over to the crime lab. so as we have grown i think across the nation with our awareness of backlogs and where they came from, we have learned a number of lessons along the way. this resolution is a reflection of some learning around the importance of reporting the status of where that kit is through the process, what is learned and then, really importantly, what communications are given to the survivor about what happened in that instance around whether there was a successful match, whether it was uploaded and what happened. so it's an issue that the

commission has cared about for a long time, i want to thank the department and occ that this resolution came from really a collaboration of all of us to identify how we can make sure that we avoid backlogs in the future and morover to the point we're talking about with the race data, where there are problems we can identify where they are and make decisions in realtime as opposed to hearing another terrible story of an incident where a kit wasn't tested or a victim or survivor wasn't called. this data is not designed to be a report that lives on a shelf but it's designed to be something that can be useful to the department. sam or marion from occ, good evening, commissioners, chief suhr, director hicks, members of the public. i just want to make a few comments to give you some background about why the language is what it is in the resolution about dna reporting.

the first thing i wanted to do is similar to what commissioners talked about in terms of domestic violence. tts shocking the level of sexual assaults. it is absolutely shocking. and it is the most underreported crime. almost 66 percent of sexual assaults, they are just not reported. and the department of justice department of justice as well as cops they just done two tremendous reports in december and january about gender bias in police departments and working with community-based organizations and those reports are, they are great because they give us a lot more skills and things to work with but also it's crushing how systemic the problem is. so to have this kind of resolution, it's really a terrific thing. so that's part of why the dna testing is so important. it's not only for the instant, the particular cases but now because there is this data base across the nation and in california when there is the forensic evidence is collected when it's actually analyzed, when it's then uploaded, when there's matches made, most

times, most times, often, we have situations where serial rapists are identified across the country. 1 example, in detroit, they found 11,000 assault kits that had not been tested and within a short period of time they identified 469 serial rapists across the country in 39 states. it's dramatic evidence and it's great this commission and the department wants to do something about making sure there's accountability around that. so i just want to spend a moment about what the dna bill of rights is about just so you have a little bit of history. back in 2003 because of sexual offenders, service providers, district attorneys and organizations, there was legislation passioned and it was a way to provide sexual assault victims information. so there were some really basic things about victims could be notified as to when, after there's been forensic testing,

when that information is analyzed victims are permitted to know about that, they are permitted to know was there a suspect or asail ant found. police departments would notify if they weren't going to test or destroy the evidence victims would have the right to get that information. fast forward to 2014, there's been some amendments to the code, penal code section 680, that's the part of the law that provides those rights. district attorneys and others came together and said let's put some deadlines in place. within 5 days when a victim provides the testing, within 5 days have it sent to the laboratory and within 120 days, let's have it uploaded, let's

have it analyzed. then there's an opportunity to do these matches. so part of the resolution, the purpose was to institute those deadlines so that's one thing, then also to then be able to track and also then be able to report to the commission and to the report the cases the department is using, the analysis that they're doing, are they complying with these deadlines, are they providing notification to the victims. the resolution is a way to give more transparency, look through and be able to see there's compliance with these kinds of deadlines and make sure the victims are being notified. so that's kind of a thumbnail print of what the resolution is about. happy to provide answers and both captains from the forensic unit and svu are here also. >> i am captain beatty, newly

appointed to the special victims unit. >> anything either of you want to add regarding our consideration of the utility of this resolution for your work? >> yes, just as a precautionary, we're committed to meet the spirit of 680 but i got to remind the commission that sometimes we should do so not at the sacrifice of the quality of the work of the dna as you know there are specific control protocols and validation procedures needed to make sure that we can upload that data into codis and it's interesting the first half of this whole meeting was about bias and all of these controls are to ensure that there is no scientific bias in the work that is being done is done properly and to the specifications. chief suhr is committed to making sure that this happens. i'm glad to announce that we're

in the process of hiring 6 new criminalists to help us with the dna in the future. we go back and we look in 2006 we had 10 criminalists, 2016 we had 10 my fuss -- minus 3 that are on leave so you can see with all the other competing pieces that are going, with this new law we're still committed to going forward but with these new people and with the immreltation and hopefully the request for robotic this will really reduce some of the backlog or the time frame and will still ensure the quality that we need to perform this important work. >> yeah, captain, i think you make a really excellent point. you don't want to sacrifice the quality of the work. part of the reason dna is so powerful, it's very probative, it gives you a lot of information and the fact that it's done in a

scientifickally and forensickally sound manner is what allows it to go to court. certainly don't want to suggest that there is an idea here, we're talking about bias too, too much time pressure can make you subject to your own biases and there's even cognitive biases. this really is just to identify where issues might be happening. it's not a gotcha resolution, it's a resolution to make sure that we all have the information to support you all in doing this work and i know the chief has devoted, i think you've quadrupled the staff, that's a total guess on my part, not forensickally validated at all, but there are a lot more analysts and criminalists than there were when we started. >> since 2010, yes. >> but also part of that is they have to be validated on each tool, they have to pass certain certifications and you have to validate them on the various tools. it's a very lengthy and exhaustive process to get them up to speed so we

appreciate that. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> just like any other profession, there's continuing professionaled case, certifications and they have to do their own testing just to make sure they are doing these procedures. >> right, absolutely. and i know that there was collaboration between the department and the occ and certainly the idea that this is something that we all think reflects the greater goal, which is the transparency, where are the kits and if there are issues with some of the reporting an opportunity to figure out if there are more resources needed or a policy fix would be in line. chief, did you want to jump in. >> there's two other people in the room, captain connelly, the former director, jonathan sanchez, civil ian director manager who are responsible for clearing that backlog and got us to where we are now on this

resolution so they should be acknowledged as well. >> captain connelly and john sanchez, the one thing i know about the folks who work in the crime lab, when the crime lab is on the police agenda they all watch. i'd like to thank all you. one of the first things i did was go out to hunter's point and visit because that's a place that has been through a lot. you had to transform, there was really tough morale and the resources that the department has brought and the continuing -- that's part of the issue here, right, there's continual stories that there's a backlog and nothing is happening, the idea is let's get on the same page about what our expectation is, we can evaluate whether it's working and make sure the survivor of sexual assaults, to commissioner melara's point, this is one of the most horrific things this can happen to a human being. anything we can do to make that right and hold that person accountable

that's what we're here to do and sometimes the challenges in handling this evidence, but you have gone leaps and bounds in expanding your capacity. we need to make sure the public knows exactly why we are where we are. colleagues, i don't know if you have questions specific to the resolution. >> i do. >> commissioner melara. >> mine are, it's very simple, it has nothing to do -- because this is a resolution from the commission and it is our commitment to do this, i would like the first whereas to be the san francisco police commission, not the department, san francisco police commission is committed to this. then --. >> could i suggesting that we vote because we don't let anybody off the hook? perfect, perfect. >> we are both committed to this and then the last

sentence, this resolution, that should be a resolve. on the second page should be a resolve and then i'm not really sure but other departments, the secretary signs these resolutions. >> yeah, that will happen once we vote on it. so your last edit is therefore be it resolved. >> therefore be it resolved that this resolution shall take effect. thank you, commissioner melara. commissioner mazzucco. >> i want to thank the police department. when this issue first came up the crime lab was understaffed, there were some issues with some of the personnel in the crime lab that commissioner loftus referred to and i want to thank captain connelly and (inaudible) when the chief first came on board that was one of the biggest issues he inherited was a problematic crime lab. we reached the point where we sent kits out for testing, kits that

are outside the statute the limitations but the victims needed to know. the chief made it a point that everything was sent out on an expedition basis, even if we had to send them out privately. i want to thank captain baily, great investigator, i think crime lab's in good hands. but the most important part is this is the part we have to do with the community and we have to show the community that not one of these rape kits will ever go untested again. >> commissioner dejesus. >> this is a really important resolution and i hear the hesitation in your voice about making this. i suggest a follow-up so we know it is

actually working, what commissioner loftus is making, maybe we need to change this or tweak this. >> it's in there. >> regarding the resolution itself. maybe i missed it. >> that's a good point. if we pass the resolution we would be back on the agenda to see that first quarter of data, that would be the third quarter of this year. i don't even know, are we in the second quarter? next quarter so we can see again where it's at and where you might be having challenges or need increased capacity to get to these data sets or areas similar like the safe streets for all the vision zero resolutions. some of the data points became less relevant and new ones were added, we can make sure we're fluid and it's actually serving the intended purpose. commissioner melara.

>> the last one should be the further resolved that and i'd like to provide a motion that we accept this resolution as written with my edit, the san francisco police commission and the san francisco police department, et cetera, et cetera, then the last sentence. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> okay, so we're going to take public comment. so captains and tamera or miss mayor public comment on this matter. welcome back. >> for once i'm very happy about this resolution but also want to bring up that just as the reported sexual reports are, they are even more underreported when the sexual assault is perpetrated by a

member of law enforcement. (inaudible) she was sexually assaulted behind a church at night in the back of a patrol car. she was a young woman, mexican-american with an african american boyfriend. and three weeks after doing the intake she asked me to keep it confidential forever because her family and the boyfriend's family were petrified that there would be retaliation against them. so i had to keep confidentiality. what i would like to bring up is that special attention will be brought during the preselection of the police

academy that, it's a crime that is not only sexual in nature but foremost of power and cultural and any candidate would present that kind of psychological profile would be automatickally deleted. >> san francisco open government. i have to ask you a question common sense. since this issue came up, the non-tested rape kits, how many of the sexual assault vic tips decided why bother to report it at all, they weren't even going to test the kit? i dare one of you to tell me they decided based on that not to report the assault. they won't test the kit, what am i going to do?

man, nothing. second thing is how many of those people who were sexually assaulted reported it and were asked to submit to the invasive and humiliating procedures necessary to take the testing kit and complete it and simply said, they don't even test it, i'm not going to go through that when the police department won't even test it. you sit here and self-congratulate yourself that now in 2016 you are finally getting to the point where you say, gee, nobody in the department should be allowed to sike a unilateral decision not to test a rape kit which is a piece of evidence. to me that's mishandling evidence. dairl dereliction of duty.

who was responsible for all those rape kits building up in the room and nothing being done. you are all congratulating yourself, finally you got around to doing something but you want to avoid the fact that for years nothing was done and it took an outside source to point out that these things go on and yet nobody comes forward and says, gee, how did this happen and who in the command staff is going to take responsibility for letting it happen? i was in the military for years and bottom line, we always knew if you were the commanding officer of anything, you were responsible for any wrong doing. you were accountable. the bottom line is i have heard nobody being held accountable. you hear, oh, well, we had problems in the lab, somebody snorting cocaine and all this other stuff as if that's some sort of excuse for those kits building up. are you trying to tell me

and the public that none of your officers, none of your officers in the ranks or none of the officers in the command staff knew those rape kit were sitting back there? they knew they were there and they made a conscious choice not to process them and the fact you are finally getting around to it really doesn't answer the fact you are having to get around to it. and i know you don't like my similes. >> next speaker? any further public comment on this matter? welcome back. >> better late than never. i don't know why they need 17 weeks to upload the data, it seems like a long time, 120 days is 17 weeks by my calculation. they get 5 days to do the test. >> very complicated. >> well, i'd love to hear the people presentiearlng er why they need 17 weeks. private

sector you'd be fired if you wanted more than 17 days. >> 120. next speaker. >> hi, i just want to say 1975 i was raped and there was nowhere to turn. there was no place, there was nothing that i could do. luckily i was very in shape and i was able to cross my legs like this and i was unable to have any penetration. but it happened in north beach and i went to doctorand i talked to people but there was nothing in the police force, 1975. i just want you to know i hope something is done, i hope something moves forward and i hope you do something for people like me who had no place to go, no one to talk to, there wasn't anything. at least now they are hearing people out. i just want you to know i was a victim of it and luckily i was strong enough to fight back. my name is joy. >> any further public comment on this matter? hearing none public comment is now closed.

any further discussion, colleagues, before we vote? no, okay, sergeant, please call the roll. >> on the motion to accept the resolution with the amendment from commissioner melara, commissioner loftus, how do you vote? aye. commissioner marshall, how do you vote? aye. commissioner dejesus, aye. commissioner mazzucco, aye. commissioner melara, aye. the motion passes. >> great. this is wonderful. okay, thank you, sam or marian, thank you, dc sinez, thank you staff at the crime lab for all coming together. hopefully this will be useful to all of us as we continue to make progress. but thank you so much. occ, the police department, great partnership here. this is the design really we talk a lot about what the role of the commission is,

the design of it is to yiddish identify the issues. dr. marshall. >> i just want to say, tamera, you do great work. you have really done, i've been here and seeing, you really bring a lot of -- you are welcome to it say the same thing but i just want to say that you do great work and keep it up. >> okay, so we have, we're in the milds -- middle of a long agenda. i'm going to give us a 5 minute personal break so we will come back at 10 to 8:00, 7.50. thank you, everyone.

. >> commissioner loftus has called the meeting back to order. we are back from a break. sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 4, department of human resources to give status of body worn camera discussions. >> i'd like to invite martin grant up who is, you can introduce your job, i know you are still designated by the department of human resources to work on this matter for us. colleagues, we invited mr. grant here to give us an update. as we all know the commission voted on the body worn camera policy on december

2nd and we independent kaitdd it would need to go through the meet and confer policy, given we are now april 20th, there are a lot of folks asking questions about where the cameras are so we want to make sure everyone understands where the cameras are and that we have the opportunity to ask you questions. >> commissioners, and through the president of the chair, i am martin gran, i've been in the city, 18 years, 11 years with the city attorney's office as a deputy city attorney on the labor team, a number of negotiation tables and meet and confer tables and then for the last 8 years with the department of human resources as employee relations director in which that role i was in charge of all of the, our team that negotiated all the labor contracts in the city except for the mta, and again also doing numerous meet and confers

at the board of supervisors, departments, et cetera. i haven't had the pleasure of representing the department in a meet and confer so i look forward to the process. we indeed received the policy, the draft policy from the commission, the policy that was approved subject to meet and confer. we had two meet and confer sessions to date and we have three additional dates on calendar. let me start by briefly explain what the meet and confer process is under the state law and under the charter as we will be becoming familiar as a group with this process. state law and the city charter both require that the city provide labor associations, labor unions, the opportunity to negotiate over policies within the scope of employment. the process has to

include a chance for the parties to exchange information, for the parties to give their opinions as to policies within the scope of employment, and for the association to make proposals and the city to make counter proposals on areas within the scope of representation. the goal is to endeavor to reach an agreement on the policies and if the negotiations are successful we believe that there's an avenue to come to the commission with a final product which will meet the needs of the commission first and foremost and the union, the poa, in particular, as well. we will come back in closed session and present that to you. as the process goes along we will be coming to you in closed session to get direction and to make sure that you are fully informed of the negotiations. those details will happen in

closed session as opposed to open session. >> mr. gran, maybe you could explain why that is and why that's the practice. >> sure. well it's recognized in the government code as an exception to the brown act and the idea is much like you would with discussions around, say, a vendor contract, let's say you were making a big purchase such as body worn cameras, you wouldn't necessarily want to have an open discussion or a discussion in open session about the details, be it the cost, be it the terms, be it the evaluation, et cetera. my experience with the city attorney's office is these negotiations take place in terms of advising, seeking advice and direction from legislative body or department that those conversations happen in closed session. so we have, as i said, 3 dates

on calendar: april 26, may 5 and may 19. i suspect we'll be coming back to the commission in closed session to report on progress before the end of those three dates. the poa has raised a number of issues which will require the negotiation team to come back and seek direction from the commission. we do understand the urgency of this endeavor. we understand the importance of the body worn cameras to a number of use of force policies. we understand the importance of the relationship between officers and the department between the union and the department and we're looking for collaboration from the union, frankly, to find common ground and be able to implement this program as soon as possible. that said, the state law does allow the unions to present all their proposals and provide time for the discussion of them. so even though we would like this to happen by now it hasn't and it won't until we

have had an opportunity to hear all of the union's proposals and to respond to them. so that's the overview. as you know, we do have a closed session this evening, i'll be happy to provide some of the details that you might be seeking as a body in that closed session but i'm here to report that the process is up and running and a we are in it and we're in it in good faith and we believe the union is as well. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> thank you. is there any loan why we need to have 3 more sessions? can we accomplish this in two more sessions? the union was at the table at the initial drafting of the resolution along with the other community groups and the union and all the pay groups, this is something we really need to move quickly on. it's something that the department needs and that the public wants for the public trust, so why is there three, is that specified in the code or is that just something we've agreed to or can we reduce this to two? i

think, i respect your work but, you know, we need this yesterday. and so why do we have to have three more negotiations? all of us know who have been in the business world or the legal world that generally things sort out within the first hour or so and everything after that is a waste of time. so what can wae do to expedite this because i think it's important for the public, it's important for the officers and it's extremely important for this commission. >> thank you, commissioner. the number of dates we picked was a good faith attempt to find the right number of dates that wouldn't build in useless dates or dates that the parties would fill up just because they are there, but given the number of items that the association brought forward that's probably the minimum we could expect. it couldn't happen in two, i don't think. >> mr. gran, obviously we have

had these conversations. colleagues, as president of the commission i have shared wtd department of human resources what a priority it is for this commission, just to echo what commissioner mazzucco has said, and i think while we are here publicly talking about this i am very frustrated that we don't have cameras on our officers yet. i do, though, want to say that the reality is we did this policy differently to front load stake holder engagement. often times a policy doesn't come to us until the very end for adoption and we did this one differently, but made it clear that there were still rules that would have to happen on the back end. and so i just want to recognize that while those, all of the laws need to be followed and we do have to bargain in good fate, there is an absolute imperative on behalf of the public and behalf i think of many officers who very much want these body cameras to be placed on them. so mr. gran

it's certainly your position and doing everything you need to do and certainly we are not where we want to be and we're going to discuss it, what the next steps are, but i just want to assure members of the public that it is the commission's direction to the department of human resources that they move as quickly as legally possible to get this done and get us to a place where we can hang these cameras. colleagues, do you have any questions, general questions about the process for mr. gran dr. marshall. >> the only thing i would say, it's good that you are here to explain this process, the legalities around it, but everybody knows what's been -- people generally know, they know about meet and confer but they really don't know about meet and confer so i'm glad to hear you explain it. i don't think it's going to please anybody but at least everybody will know how this thing works.

like everybody else, we will talk in closed session and see -- particularly i don't know how you feel but perhaps this is not the time to do that. but i'm glad you are here it explain how this thing works. we'll probably be facing it again so i am glad you are here. >> thank you. >> specific question? general question? >> anything further on this matter? okay. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. gran sergeant, please call the next line item. >> we need public comment on that item. >> next item is public comment. >> okay, public comment on item no. 4. >> ray harris, san francisco open government. i have been chided about the fact i am not supposed to talk about what took you so long to do, just accept you are finally doing that and let that whitewash

everything else. these body cameras and the procedures you are talking about, i'd like to know whether or not these procedures are actually going to be enforced. what's going to happen to an officer who is involved in a skur mirb or some sort of incident when his body camera is turned off. what happens when he gets out of his car and the camera is turned off and the whole incident, the traffic stop, is not recorded? we know it happens, it's in the news all the time. the cameras are off in the police car, the cameras are offer on the police officer's body and it's only by some miracle that a person with a person with an i phone or some other means of recording it comes along and catches what actually happens. what's going to happen when officers make a report which they are supposed to do by i guess the end of their shift, and then subsequently the review of the body camera

footage shows that the report was inaccurate? and not one of the commissioners i'd like to notice can look me in the eye. they all sit and work on everything else, which is much more important. >> you should read the policy. are you asking the questions? they are already in the policy. >> (inaudible) occurring too. >> well i'm asking the questions so the public can think about it so they might have some idea what to look for when this policy is finally promulgating. then there's also the fact we have talked repeatedly about the department general orders which aren't enforced. officers don't follow them and apparently there are no repercussions at all, or it goes to the occ, the occ recommends discipline and nothing happens at all. what's the difference between that and the body camera? if i am an officer and itch the body camera on and i decide, oh, this looks like it's going to be a problem, click. what's

the penalty? and, more importantly, will you actually do anything at all to enforce it? because that's what i've seen in the last 8 years of coming to these meetings, a lot of talk and no action. and whenever action is taken, supposedly, it's always done behind closed doors where the public doesn't have any idea what you did and we have to take your word and that's the problem, really. the public has gotten to the point where they really don't believe you. they don't trust you. i know it because i've been told i'm not allowed to talk about certain things here when the person who told me that was a lawyer and knew what he was telling me was a lie. >> next speaker. welcome back. >> was a new family, it's a

family of james nate greer, killed in may 2014 by 17 cops, hayward police and the bay police. i'd like to look at the video because there was a video. fortunately there was a video otherwise nobody would have ever known how greer died. actually look at the 7 minutes of his beating death and not the end, the cop is telling, hey, why are you filming? the cop says, i'm not filming. yeah, i can see your camera beeping and then they turn it off. so we have 7 minutes of footage that the family had to see. given that the cops may turn the camera off and on at will and that likely there will, they will be able to see the

footage before they write their report, what is the use of the cameras? i'm confused about it unless i'm missing something here. it's like why guarantee that we have, a pretty enormous expenditure is going to be useful to you, to the cops and to us, the public, to know exactly the facts what happened. it's an open question, i know you cannot answer. >> thank you. any further public comment on this matter, item no. 4? >> commissioners, i know you are as frustrated as anybody about the delays. but they are not necessary and i would encourage you to actually ask some hard questions why you are doing it this way. when your predecessor did a collaborative review in the past there would be a series of meetings with the department, the department would meet and confer, it wouldn't go on for 3 or 4

months and the commission would make a final vote. i don't recall any instances where the commission enacted public input and the poa and it went back to them to have more input. why it changed i have no idea but it is the cause of the delay. the myers brown act sets out certain rules but there are a whole series of topics that are managerial and there is no mandate to meet and confer. there is harm if you set up a community-based process -- it's not your fault, i apologize, but it gets delayed for 3 or 4 months. you have the option whether or not to go in closed session. i said last week sometimes the solution is transparency. i think we already know what the poa's demands are. they made them publicly during this process and you made the call in the

public interest. i may disagree, but you made the call. why they are getting another bite of the apple is beyond me. remember, even if this is not a managerial prerogative, meet and confer doesn't mean meet and agree. does it take this long to find out what they want? they told you what they wanted before. your choice is based on community input this is in what's san francisco's interests. why would that change now? if they want to arbitrate, they can arbitrate. let them. i dare them. arbitration is based on what the standard of the field is. body cams are newly emerging technology but i can tell you based on what i've seen you are not an out lieer. just because they want to drag this out doesn't mean you should enable them. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening, i appreciate your frustration with the delays and the constant foot dragging and it is our position by the public and i appreciate your willingness to say how

frustrated you are. mr. gran seems like a nice person but when you have him in private session please light a fire under his butt and get him to explain to him he's going to explain to the poa that's how it's going to be and they don't have to like it. i understand they are a privileged member of the official city family and you have to kiss their butt real hard every day or else you will be out on your butt. too bad, weefr waited long enough, we are tired of waiting and you have all these murders or all these killings that are unjustified that are constantly undermining your credibility, the officers credibility, the public's trust new and the police force, the delay is harmful to you, to the police, to all people and it's only to make the poa feel like they've still got power over this issue when they don't. they have blown their authority on this issue and now they just have to take their medicine. thank you. >> any further public comment

on this matter? item no. 4. >> i knew there are things that i knew for resources, i do think that policy about shelters and things getting hot and i think that they don't need to be there. this has nothing to do with the police and i've been talking to social services about this in the introduction, they are just putting more on. i talked to

the supervisor daly about this and he said he's going to try and explain to them some of these, you know, different policies for health care issues, you know, for us people that do have, you know, we need to be probably mean back and (inaudible) for them to get their psychological torment or whatever they are trying to -- police work for feedback. everything in the world has gone to, they have no

succeeding and probably another tell me that they fired them from -- other psychological terms. enforced, they need to be enforced on a lot of these issues because they work together, they need to be recognized their own successes, health department to succeed and what these issues are, child usual ways have been taught and how they developed. this is where a lot of things in our life, that was not, you

know, different i don't even think candidates realize. >> thank you. is there any further public comment on item no. 4? welcome back. >> well, if you're really getting body cameras mock sure that they are filming in hd make sure they can't be turned off by the officer. make sure that it's wirelessly recording to a hard drive in the officer's police car and also it's automatically putting it up on the cloud so that it's in two places and making sure the officer has no access to the material on that hard drive in the car to where he can't do anything to it, period. zilch

>> thank you, any further public comment on this item. >> item 5, public comment on all matters pertaining to closed session including public comment on vote whether to hold all or part of item 4 and item 8 in closed session. >> all right, is there any public comment on this matter? >> commissioner, hey heart, san francisco open government. what you see here is a list of 24 orders of determination from the sunshine order, 6 of which are against this commission for violating the sunshine ordinance and those are just the ones i bothered to bring to the commission. going into closed session is simply a way to hide from the public. i am always amazed that you will go into closed session, be in there an hour or two hours and then come out and

disclose nothing. gee, what a perfect conversation, they went in there and didn't discuss one darned thing that was subject to disclosure. it's pro forma. it's at mattic. and it leads to the idea what you talked about in there could have included anything. maybe it wasn't something that was subject to the law that lets you go into closed session, but you just decided not to admit that was what you were doing because you are not allowed to do that. again, it's a matter of trust. when people don't trust you to begin it and you hold these things in closed session, it undermines the trust even further. and very frankly i trust 95 percent of the police officers in this city and i trust they do a difficult job in an excellent fashion. and i also trust that being open about all of these things would send a loud message to that 95

percent that you are not going to let the 5 percent who make them look bad, disparage their honor, undercut their authority, because every time something is held secret, the assumption is automatically going to be that it was to keep it from the public. and i know what you're going to do, you're going to go in there and have a meeting, and however long you are in there you are going to come out and say we're not going to disclose a thing and i find it hard to believe you are so disciplined that you will go in there for whatever length of time and never mention a single thing that wasn't covered under this disclosure announcement. and i don't even think you started out, i think you are smart enough to know that the public probably doesn't believe that most of what you talked about

back there couldn't be disclosed. >> next speaker. >> i just wanted to mention, cit has been mentioned in the closed session today that the public has a lot of questions about cit, do we really know when an officer has completed the full training and certification? you remember the mary guthrie who kill (inaudible) alone was certified. two of the cops who killed mario had cit training. one of the cops who killed gongola had cit and also i would like to see some general interest about how many of the officers in their precinct have cit when mike hoffman was

killed as the captain in the subsequent town hall meeting, how many of your officers are trained, have cit and in public meeting the captain told me, i don't know. in district, the miss district, it is not acceptable it me that a captain would not at least take a general interest in cit, we need for the top brass to take it seriously and to give us an update on the numbers. i understand that more than 500 officers are now trained. we need to find out exactly when they completed the training and hold those particular individuals accountable when they end up killing people. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further public comment? again, this is public comment on our matters pertaining to the closed session, including public comment on whether to

hold those items in closed session. any further public comment on that? welcome back. >> (inaudible) just the matter is good, always there are things that need action on. these sf, that means we're forget the state, forget the world. because i think they should, we're proving our self and bettering their self instead of f their self. that's not pd maybe someone is

fired and rude, would help them with their police schedule. >> thank you, any further public comment on this matter? welcome back. >> i started off earlier this evening to stay that the people of this country do not trust their elected representatives. so when these same representatives appoint individuals like yourself, we have even less trust. we are and have to be skeptical and i mean nothing personal here, i'm trying to be very objective, but this is how people think, okay? so when something like this comes up, when you have a closed session, it even makes things, makes us trust less. this gentleman over here, maybe not so gentle, but, you know, his points should be taken. anyway, i just want to

note one thing here and i think this is also included in here, no. 8, when there's something called the personal exception approval to disciplinary case no. alw dot dot dot dot dot, calendar due to member's resignation, off calendar due to member's resignation. we know nothing about this case. i mean as soon as i heard this it sort of reminds me of a catholic priest that either resigned or moved to a different location. so i mean it's very vague, it's not transparent, and it looks like you may go into a closed session and we will hear nothing and it makes us trust less and less. >> one thing i can assure you, i can briefly respond, there is a report quarterly but any items we do in discipline in

closed session without the names it says what the officer was found to have done and what the discipline is. it's called the veronase report. so you are able to see what discipline the commission dpepbs. any further public comment? hearing none public comment is closed. >> item 6 is an error and we're taking that matter off calendar and calling item 7. item 7 is vote on whether to hold item 8 is closed session, san francisco straidive code. >> colleagues, i have a motion to hold item 8 in closed session? motion passes. session? motion passes. ladies and gentlemen, we are in

[cell phone beeps] hey! so, same time next week? well, of course. announcer: put away a few bucks. feel like a million bucks. for free tips to help you save, go to ♪ feed the pig within our population there are people who simply do not have access to the internet, who do not have the means to access information the way that others have, and i think that it's really imperativ