>> commissioner: thank you, chief. >> commissioner turman: commissioner melara. >> commissioner: i just wanted to make sure that as we're contemplating all of these different pieces that are not -- we have not come to an agreement on, i would like for us to ask the chief to give his input because he and his department is the one that's going implement these changes. we're only providing guidance on the policy but not on the implementation piece. and so i would want to hear from the chief on all of these or the department to ensure we're not putting something on the table that is not going to work. >> commissioner turman: that's why i gave it to you commander walsh. thank you. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner: can i have the language back, please. i do agree with commissioner

hirsch i think assault is vague and over broad. the aclu gave us a great letter on the assault and touch. this say -- is an is a weapon that could be lethal and we nude to be clear and i think assaultive is vague and ambiguous. it doesn't carry the water. i agree with commissioner hirsch in making changes to when they can use that to when it's causing immediate physical injury or threatening when there's reasonable believe the subject has intent and capability of carrying out the threat. i think that's very clear. >> in 5.01 this is immediate use of force. the courts have held it's an

incredible use of force. we understand it can cause deadly consequences but it's still intermediate use of force. when you read 5.01 the use of force policy under 4d, it defines what assaultive is. and this language and the department's offering mirrors which was vetted by the same stakeholders. it's important to be consistent and not change the terminology of definitions. that is confusing for the end user. >> i want to respond because we have use of force. this djo will be trained in conjunction with use of force but we can have a higher level when it comes to this particular weapon. we're set new policy and making it clear when the weapon can be used. i think assaultive doesn't apply here. >> commissioner turman: commissioner hirsch. >> commissioner: i hear what you're saying, chief, and i

understand and to me the real issue will not be the language but how officers are trained and how they use that training. i understand you have to come up with a consistent training but when i read this language, the definition of assaultive i can't understand it or make it work. verbally displaying an intention to assault. an assault is an attempt to commit battery. it's an unsuccessful battery. you don't display an intent to commit a successful battery and if he or she is brought up on disciplinary charges. they're going to point to language we won't be able to interpret and i'm trying to make it so the language is clear and the training should be consistent with the training we're doing under 5.01.

>> commissioner turman: the language is verbatim from 5.01. >> commissioner: i just read it. >> commissioner turman: we need to move on from this but i'm going to throw my two cents in. i'm not comfortable or clear on the verbal language either. and if i don't want someone using a taser because of a terrible -- verbal altercation. there needs to be more than that. i'm going with commissioner hirsch on this as well. all right. >> commissioner: if i may -- >> commissioner turman: then push the button if you want to speak. >> commissioner: as far as the consistency i'd like to ask our city attorney are 5.01 consistent with case laws, correct? >> no, it's not. you've asked for a higher standard than what the legal parameters were and what you adopted as a commission.

>> commissioner turman: so we have a higher standard and hirsch pushed it up further which i don't think say bad thing. okay. commissioners, could i get a straw understanding of what commissioners feel on what commissioner hirsch has put forward. >> commissioner turman: i'm going to ask you to read it. i'm going to ask you to read it

so if he public here's -- hears it one more time. >> commissioner: i just got these yet. an officer may activate the ecd when a subject is one, armed with a weapon other than a firearm such as an edged weapon or a blunt object and the subject is causing immediate physical injury to a person or threatening to cause when there's a reasonable believe the subject has the intent and capability of carrying out the threat. two, causing incredible physical injury to a person or threatening to cause injury when there's a reasonable belief the subject has the intent and capability of carrying out the threat. number three, reverts back to the original draft language we have in front of us, violently resisting an officer's tempt to

lawfully detain or arrest the subject, period. that's the end. >> commissioner turman: so that would be three bullets. >> commissioner: right. >> commissioner turman: okay. thank you for putting that on the overhead. i'm going to move to commissioner -- before i move to commissioner hirsch i'm going to ask the commissioner to step to the microphone. ms. addwan, not quite a commissioner yet, could you, please, explain the esh use around number two as well as the position of the stakeholder group. >> it feeds off where we were and the definition of the term assaulted.

for all intent and purpose some had aaron issue how the department is defining assaultive. they had an issue with how the department is currently defining assaultive and would prefer it either moved or changed. the department going back again to a discussion that you just had the department is using the definition as-is in 5.01. you'll see it there be the department -- this is in 5.01. >> thank you. >> commissioner turman: thank you. commissioner hirsch. >> commissioner: yes. >> commissioner turman: back to two. issue number two. >> commissioner: i would just strike the language. i can't understand it which means i can't apply it which means i can't approve it. that is my recommendation unless somebody can rewrite it it

doesn't make sense. i don't get it right now. >> commissioner turman: so, commissioner hirsch, aggressive or combative, assaulting or battering the officer. would you leave that in? >> commissioner: why do we need a definition of assaultive. >> commissioner turman: i'm trying to make sure i understand your point clearly. do you understand that part yes or no. >> commissioner: if we're defining assaultive i'd leave it in. >> commissioner: i agree with that. we don't need it because we understand when it's going to be used. >> commissioner turman: all right. other commissioners on this point? let's start with the chief. >> commissioner: if i understand, are you saying take this language out altogether? >> commissioner: i'm saying we don't have assaultive because we have definitions when an officer

can use a taser. if someone is causing physical injury and can do it or threatening. >> commissioner turman: do you see it other than in the section the commissioner just rewrote? >> commissioner: i don't think so and i think leaving it in makes it confusing. >> commissioner: if i may -- >> commissioner turman: of course you may. >> commissioner: i can't impress upon the commission enough the department is asking this policy be incorporated to the existing use of force policy and assaultive is defined clearly -- we've trained 1300 officers on the definition of assaultive. to throw it away and say it's confusing, to me it confuses the whole issue. i think what we're asking is that we are consistent in what

assaultive means because it goes beyond the use of this device. immediate fort -- force is immediate force if we're going to redefine it and ask officers to make split-second decisions am i talking about 5.01 or the taser policy? i can't impress enough how much that is capable of causing more confusion. now you have two different definitions for the same level of force. >> commissioner turman: okay. let's not repeat things because we have a lot of to get through, commissioner ong hing. >> commissioner: i know you want to move along, mr. president. we're talking about the taser policy tonight. >> commissioner turman: correct. >> commissioner: for that

purpose, what has been proposed provides clarity for the use of tasers. the issue with respect to the policy maybe is for another day but today we're eliminating the term assaultive means it's not used for tasers. >> commissioner turman: i agree. i don't mean to put anybody on the spot but how are we training around verbally assaultive? all right. director henderson. >> commissioner: i was going to say it's permissive for us to do it and my recommendation obviously is to remove the language as well. i think it's better just for our own clarity and as we just voted for a definition of the term. it's inconsistent if we leave this in there. >> commissioner turman: director

dejesus. >> commissioner: we just spoke to what i was going to say. >> commissioner turman: back to commissioner melara. >> commissioner: thank you. i don't get paid to be a director. so the issue here again, please think about who's implementing the policy. we are not implementing the policy. we're not training the force. the fact there could be an extra definition in the policy only makes it more clear rather than less. my concern is we're stripping this policy and it's the department that's going to use the policy. >> commissioner turman: commissioner hirsch. >> commissioner: i'm not asking for a new definition. i'm striking it completely so whenever's in 5.01, whatever

training you're doing is the training you'll do. i'm sure the instructors will come up with a way to train for both weapons. i'm not trying to confuse officers. i'm trying to make it simple. >> commissioner turman: commissioner mazzucco. >> commissioner: chief, what is your definition of assaultive? commissioner hirsch is not quite sure what it is. >> commissioner turman: thank you. chief, can you give us your definition. i need to move on here. you asked him a question. let him answer it because i have another agenda item to get to. what jur -- your definition of assault? >> commissioner: for the policy, i'll answer the question -- professional or combative or attempting to assault another person or displays an intention

to assault the officer or another person. that is the definition we train to. that's the definition we've trained 1,350 officers to, that very definition. when you go to this level of force, immediate force and responsive the use of devices or technique to ultimately maintain control of the situation. what i'm saying is this is -- this device falls into a category. intermediate force or less force. officers are trained to understand what level of force we're talking about proportionality. it's not just a taser policy. we're talking about the

portionality which is the fundamental of what we're about. you want the force to be appropriate to the force against. to redefine this or ignore the definition we're training to totally undermines the portionality. >> commissioner turman: okay. commissioner marshal. >> commissioner: this is one thing i don't want. i don't want one policy saying one thing and another policy saying another thing. this still is a use of force. we should be able to reconcile all of that and i don't want us to get down the road and have to redo both of them. i hear what you're saying and what you're saying but we should be able to reconcile both problems. >> commissioner turman: okay. any other new comments by commissioners?

all right. can i get a straw poll just a feeling of the commissioners who would leave the definition assaultive in the policy. if you could just leave your hand if you would leave it in. all right. ms. adwan, i believe we're on three. >> so in the policy you'll be on page five. in your notes you'll be on page two. it's the type of activation of the taser. it's not a projectile that's

been fired, an ecd. and the stakeholders would like it prohibited altogether. the department would like the option to use that mode but not in pain compliance. >> commissioner turman: why do the stakeholders want it stricken altogether. >> it's considered a pain device. >> commissioner: it's a torture device. >> and the dpa does have an alternative suggestion where the use is limited to completing [indiscernible] when deadly force would be permissive. >> commissioner turman: commissioners, item number

three. drive [indiscernible] >> commissioner: the dry stun mode doesn't incapacitate it it's just to inflict pain. i think amnesty international has deemed it a form of torture. a torture weapon and the united nations. >> commissioner turman: i'm not going to have any call-outs from the audience. madame, i'm finding disruptive. that is your first warning. >> the studies also show it doesn't incapacitate people but makes them angrier and can escalate the situation i don't

know why we have to allow a dry stun mode but if we are we might want to consider on point number two deleting officers can also use drive stun mode on a subject described intersection three -- it look like one or two and shall not use them as pain compliance technique. >> commissioner turman: i'm sorry. >> commissioner: 5.01 for pain compliance techniques and this is a pain compliant use of the taser. >> commissioner turman: i'd like to address the commission on that issue concern

>> commissioner: i'd like to explain what dry stun. in drive stun mode it's pressed against the subject and causes localized pain. there's studies the council of canadian academia and canadian academy of health science factors to consider is painful and transitory and localized pain not an incapacitating effect and without incapacitating muscle contract without significant lasting injury and has markedly different physiological affects. less than intermediate force. i want to explain for those that may be confused on what pain compliance is, pain compliance

as used in the san francisco police department is constant nerve stimulation. they are intended to generate the sense of pain without tissue damage causing the subject to comply with the officer's direction. when successful, constant nerve stimulation limits the need for other forms of physical control that may have the potential for injury. this is taught for new recruits and officers to continue training. the information located in the basic coarse -- course of the manual and officers can use pain compliance to localize pain to gain compliance to passively or actively resisting. in ddo5.1, the phrase or term in compliance is found on page 14 in two different example. the draft and policy we're considering has had the use of

stunt drive listed as a prohibited action. that's been vetted through this process. find that intersection 3j6. [please stand by]

>> -- who may not respond to pain due to mind-body disconnect. it was also affirmed in the courts, as well, located in our brief, but the -- the courts have indicated that individuals where the stun was used -- the tune gu stun guns were used, it increases an individual's pain resistance. in that case, the individual suffered injuries and ultimately died, so i would ask on the dpa's position that the tazer not be used as a pain compliance device.

>> president turman: thank you. >> i could agree with that. >> president turman: thank you. so is there a reason -- >> no, she can't. >> oh . >> president turman: i said you or him. okay. >> just a quick question for director henderson. i heard there was sort of a compromise situation that the dpa was offering. >> president turman: i was hoping i'd hear. >> oh . >> i just read. >> it was the inconsistency -- actually, if i could just have samara speak to it, 'cause she knows where it was, otherwise, i could argue it. >> i would just like to add to director henderson's comments,

if you like on page six under prohibited use, the department specifically says that tazers are -- and if you look at number six, they're prohibited as a pain compliance technique. so i want to point out that there is this internal conflict because on the one hand, officers told that they cannot use it as a pain compliance technique, yet our discussion right now is how to use it as a pain compliance technique, which is our position is it should be banned as a pain complains technique. it should be blocked to step the circuit. >> wait. isn't there an objection from the bar association. >> yeah. it can't be used for pain compliance, but i forgot, she did point out a conflict -- >> so there's no compromise position that you know of. >> my department didn't offer a compromise, only that it be used to complete the circuit. >> president turman: okay. thank you. chief?

>> yes, sir. commissioner, so just to be clear, the policy that this draft policy already addresses the incompliance and is prohibited. so the drive stun mode as is in the policy before us, can be used to complete a circuit as miss marian stated, but also, it has other uses. pain compliance, that is a concern. that's already prohibited. >> okay. >> but if an officer needs to use a drive stunyes.

>> president turman: okay. all right. commissioner dejesus. >> i mean, if you look at j-6, it's prohibited solely as a pain compliance, but then, you say on number two, you say, drive stun mode is intended to supplement the probe mode to complete the incapacitation

circuit, but it doesn't incapacitate. >> so let's say you use a tazer. one dart makes contact, the other dart doesn't. in order for the tazer to be used effectively, both darts need to make contact. that's what causes the muscle contraction. what this is saying you can use the drive stun mode to complete the circuit. >> it doesn't incapacitate. >> in that case, it does, because you've completed the circuit. if i use the tazer, and drive stun here, you will have muscle contraction, and that's what causes the incapacitation. >> president turman: okay. commissioners, any other comments? okay. just to get a general sense and a feeling for where people

stand, can i see a show of hands of commissioners who would prohibit the drive stun mode? i'm just not sure yet, so i don't know. okay. all right. we've done number four. commission -- miss adelon. >> next up is special consideration page six of your policy -- towards the bottom of page three in your notes. the working group stakeholders of the working group wanted some language change in that opening paragraph. the bar association would like -- requested the use of ecd's on the subject of uses in

this system only in the case of when deadly force is authorized. or threat of great bodily harm or death. the department, however, believes that using ecd on subjects listed in this section only in cases when deadly force is authorized is contrary to what the department is trying to accomplish. deadly force is a higher level of force and usually requires of use of a firearm. the department wants to avoid escalating situations using force, and the third point in your notes, they reference mr. michael leonicio, wanted to interchange the use of deadly force, when an ecd can only be utilized in those situations. for example, when a person is threatening suicide, an ecd

could cause death or serious injury to that person. >> can i clarify section five? i thought there was also comments in section five that we got letters from saying protection -- we're just special considerations, right? >> yes. >> so i thought we got letters from a d, if the subject appears to be a child, which under the law is 14 years old, the letters request that we stay under the age of 18. is that also part of this discussion or is that going to be separate? >> not according to the process outlined for the paths of your

discussion. that was actually taken up in the working group, consensus was met. i think it was president turman that was chairing that meeting, we decided that. >> and that also would be true for that special consideration i, number g, g where it talks about when the officer has credible information that the person suffers from serious mental condition, schizophrenia is not include index that. >> no, because in the working group, we covered it line by line. >> we're covering issues left open after the serious working group. that's all we're doing. >> okay. i wasn't part of this working group. you've had it months. >> you could go. >> i could not go. you can't have more than three commissioners. >> president turman: i was barely the only one there. >> i wasn't assigned that. any way, it doesn't matter.

it's the first time i'm seeing this. it was in the letters. you're telling me it's excludedture are it's not excluded, it's already reached consensus on. >> i assure you, the minutes on that meeting is 60 plus pages. it wasn't excluded, it was discussed. >> so i guess i'm looking at the bar association. they were a part of this group. >> yes. >> i assume they're putting it in their draft here, so i'm assuming they didn't agree to this. when you're saying a consensus, was there a vote. >> president turman: yes. there was a majority. we cannot hold this up because of every term. >> i'm wonder, there was a high consensus meeting. how do you reach a consensus? >> i went around, i asked every single stakeholder group, and the department was hardly the

driving force here. i conducted the consensus part myself. i'm not revisiting issues already reached consensus. >> okay. i just want to put on the record, the bar association and the mental health association, i'm not sure about dpa, but everybody is asking that this be in there. >> and it's on the record. >> but they raise a pretty good point. >> president turman: okay. >> wait. >> president turman: commissioner ong hing? >> commissioner ong hing: mr. president, tell me if this isn't the proper place to raise this issue, 'cause i'm looking for where it's proper to raise the issue inserting language regarding the protection of high-risk populations and minors and vulnerable groups. is that at a different

juncture? >> president turman: no. no. go ahead. >> in here. it is here. this is the section. it's already in here. >> commissioner ong hing: so there's language in here that protects high-risk populations? >> yeah. if you look in here, it's elderly, frail, child, alzheimer's. i don't even know if they have alzheimers, but no schizophrenia. >> commissioner ong hing: yeah. well, i was to make sure that officers are aware of the possible heightened risks of adverse factors on certain subjects, and those include women who are obviously pregnant, children, elderly, those suffering from serious medical and psychiatric conditions. if those are -- >> it's right here. >> president turman: obviously pregnant, appears elderly, is visibly frail, appears to be a

child, physically in control of a vehicle in motion, bicycles, scooters, etcetera. >> and then, schizophrenia is what we see most on the street, but it's not included in here. >> president turman: what's not included? >> well, i mean, i already just said this. we include heart condition. i mean, how is someone going to know that they have a heart condition or alzheimer's disease, but what we do see in the streets is schizophrenia and mental illness. >> president turman: how are you going to know that anymore. >> well, sometimes if they're screaming and cell. >> president turman: all right. i'll entertain. so do you want to include schizophrenia. >> yeah, because that's what we're seeing the most. >> president turman: do you want to include schizophrenia. >> yeah. >> president turman: anybody else? >> i wouldn't use one diagnosis. we're talking about people who clearly have mental or emotional problems. >> president turman: umm... >> why do you have an example

here alzheimer's? it says e.g., heart condition, alzheimer's. >> that's an example. >> well, but the thing is, you're saying, look at the sentence that says where the officer has credible information, which means that an officer will need to find it either from a caretaker, an advocate, somebody outside him or herself because the officer is not an expert on mental health conditions or heart conditions. so credible -- that's why the credible information is there. if the officer doesn't need to make the determination, someone will need to make it for him or her. >> i appreciate that, but if someone is screaming that's spiders on them, pulling all their clothes off, all their hair out, there's obvious psychiatric distress going on, that's a good indicator.

but. >> you cannot define every single condition that anyone may have. >> president turman: she wants better examples. >> better examples. i'll go with that. >> well, i see that -- sorry. this does segue into item five, and so i don't want to be premature, but for example, i'm looking at the dpa letter, and the dpa letter requests that the use of ecd's on the subjects listed in the section only in cases of great bodily harm, so that's what we want to make sure. and i don't think the language is clear enough. >> that's what we were talking about, yeah. >> yeah. >> president turman: didn't we just do that with commissioner -- >> this is the same one. this is all five, special consideration. >> president turman: all right. so commissioner ong hing, you're on the floor. so what are you suggesting?

>> commissioner ong hing: i'm suggesting that we make it clear that those things that are listed under item -- on the next page, on page 6, that they only -- that -- that deadly force not be used against those persons that are listed there. not deadly force. >> not deadly force. >> commissioner ong hing: great bodily harm. >> president turman: i don't -- so -- [ inaudible ] >> well, the dpa has it in their .5 example. we can let them maybe address it. >> president turman: i don't want them to address the issue. >> okay. >> president turman: i want a stand from commissioner ong hing what he's asking. >> okay. >> president turman: so

prohibited use, so where are you in this special consideration? >> commissioner ong hing: to limit tazer use against high-risk populations to circumstances when deadly force would be permitted. that's the recommendation of the dpa. >> president turman: so to use that broad category rather than the individual specifically we have here. is that what you're saying? >> commissioner ong hing: well, i think those are the list of high-risk populations. >> president turman: okay. so what's the difference? >> commissioner ong hing: so if you look at the green portion of our -- >> president turman: the green portion. >> commissioner ong hing: page six. >> president turman: i don't have a green portion on page six. i have a yellow. >> commissioner ong hing: page six, i, the second sentence after officers shall be aware of the possible heightened risk, after the word

"subjects," you delete the rest of that. officers shall not -- >> president turman: i -- okay. special considerations, right, and then, there's one, and then, you're reading -- >> commissioner ong hing: right. after the word "subjects," in the first sentence. >> president turman: officers shall be aware of the possible high risk of the adverse...certain subjects, okay. >> commissioner ong hing: to leave the rest of it, and then, the sentence that's inserted -- and i'm trying to follow their -- their recommendation. does mr. henderson have his language there? >> i do. but i'm not sure which color this is. >> commissioner ong hing: i want to adopt the dpa's recommendation in this area. >> president turman: miss

mayor marin. >> thank you for letting me know what i need to do. >> i'm looking at page six that officers shall be aware of a heightened risk of the use of ecd on certain subjects, we recommended that all of the following language be struck, and that then the next statement be except where deadly force would be permitted, an officer shall be use a ced and then would be, semi colon, and then, sections a through h, which are the high-risk population, such as if a subject is obviously pregnant, etcetera. >> president turman: so from there, what would be the department's position on that? do you want your stuff or -- >> commissioner ong hing: yes, and i'll -- >> so using this -- to elevate this to deadly force, basically

all of the individuals are people that fit the categories and under i -- i mean, under the section, basically, it takes away an option. so for instance, if a person is let's say elderly or frail, and the conditions are such that a ced can be used to resolve the situation, now, what we're seeing is you're going to have to use potentially some other force up until you get to deadly force. it takes away an option that can be used possibly so we don't have to get to deadly force. and i think -- i understand what the concerns are but now we're putting officers in a position to take away an option that although there's a higher risk, it's not deadly force. it's intermediate force, so you take away an intermediate force option and force officers now -- they can't resolve the situation to potentially go up to a deadly force.

for example, if a person is being deadly violent, and that is a common scenario, now, they don't have the option to use ecd's. they're going to have to have an appropriate level of force to deal with this situation or individual or it gets to a point of deadly force. i would like the commission to consider what we're trying to do is give the officers less lethal options, understanding what the risks are. it's a high-risk population, but it is a less lethal option. why would we take that away? >> president turman: all right. commissioner ong hing, the dpa made the point, right? >> commissioner ong hing: well, they do have a response. so we are not -- what -- what i'm -- what i am recommending and what i understand the dpa's recommendation is is that we don't use tazers against people

on this list. we make sure that it's clear that you don't use tazers against anyone on this list because of the potential harm to them, right? that's why we have this list here. we don't want tazers used if there's a reasonable knowledge that somebody's on this list. we downtown want them using it. and only when you have the need for deadly force do you pull it. but if -- she may be right. if you're in that circumstance, you may pull a gun, but this is a way of making sure that the tazer is not used against these -- these populations if it's reasonably known that the population -- that somebody falls into one of these populations. it's not -- it's not removing -- it's not removing the use of a less lethal force, it's -- it's making sure that it's not used against a vulnerable population. >> president turman: commissioner dejesus?

>> commissioner dejesus: no, i'm not on there. >> president turman: okay. commissioner marshall? >> commissioner marshall: again, i understand the concern about this weapon being used on certain populations, but the inverse, the reverse of that is that a gun could be used on these folks. that's -- in my mind, what you're saying is we really don't want to use a tazer here, but if it gets to the deadly force part, a weapon could be used against them, which -- which is why we didn't -- we put this thing in here in the first place is we're trying to get to other options. so it's a little bit strange to say yeah, you can use a gun on them if necessary, but you couldn't use -- >> no, you can use a tazer there, too, when there's threat of bodily harm. when deadly force is needed. >> okay. >> you can use a tazer, too.

>> president turman: commissioners, i want a straw poll. how many folks are in favor of substituting the language suggested by the dpa's letter? okay. okay. >> that also encompassed my example, just a point of clarification. >> president turman: you said you wanted a better example. i didn't hear any examples. we can get back to that, if you'd like. >> okay. >> i thought i had said schizophrenia. >> president turman: well, go ahead. >> i had -- i had suggested(d), if the subject appears to be a child under the age of 18, and (g). >> president turman: take them one at a time. if subject appears to be a

child. >> it's in there, and subject appears to be under the age of 18, semi colon. >> president turman: my position is it's easier to know if someone appears to be a child than whether or not they appear to be under 18. >> i guess the reason i say that is studies show that african american males, young males -- >> president turman: i would agree with that. >> they appear to look older than they are. >> president turman: i thought you were going to say the other thing. >> and under the law, a child is up to 14 years old, and it's excluding our 15 to 18 year olds, and some 15, 16, 17, they appear to be older. >> president turman: yeah, i understand, but appears to be under 18 is too difficult a definition. >> all right. that's fine. and then g, we already had this discussion. for another example, i said why don't we put schizophrenia. that was a suggestion. >> president turman: does the department have an issue with

adding schizophrenia. >> as an example? >> president turman: yeah, as an example. >> as an example. >> the department doesn't have an issue. >> president turman: adding schizophrenia. you got it, note takers? cool. all right. that was number five. >> so we're on item six on page six of your policy and page four. item six, we just highlighted where the stakeholders are suggesting where it comes in. this is primarily led by the dpa and miss marian who makes the case for identifying an ecd coordinator in the policy, similar to other policies where a coordinator or a point person is identified. the dpa also suggests including

language outlining the description and duties and responsibilities of that coordinator. i'll sum up instead of reading your notes, that the department has requested that that coordinator will -- that person, that point person will exist, they would rather not necessarily have it in the policy that is an administrative and a managieril issue, that's your argument for .6. >> okay. >> president turman: commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: yeah. this is an item i'm very much against primarily because i do believe it's an operational matter. the chief reports to us, and we should request from the chief the information that this commission wants in all of these areas, but to say that he has to appoint a coordinator for this particular function is

to begin to meddle in the operations of the department. >> president turman: okay. chief, just to clarify, you have said that -- you've said that this is a role you plan on creating, is that correct? >> yes. let me say that with some conditions. as we roll this out, commissioner, i think this recommendation was modelled from oakland -- the oakland police department. a much bigger department. in terms of the management of this implementation, we may not need what oakland needs, so. >> president turman: you plan on creating. >> we plan on, but i don't know if it's going to be in this form. >> president turman: it doesn't have to be in this form. you plan on creating something along the lines. >> definitely along the lines. >> president turman: can you work on that and share that with the dpa? >> absolutely. >> president turman: okay. commissioner dejesus.

>> commissioner dejesus: so i've had some experience on this commission. when we did one of our other policies, we left it up to all of the sergeants to decide, and i think it was the early intervention system, and that thing has fallen apart. that thing needs to be restructured, there's nobody that's really in charge, and every sergeant has had a different interpretation. i think we need a buck stops here kind of person. we need to flag that there's a person -- we don't say what they have to do -- well, maybe some things, but a person has to be in charge of this, somebody has to be following it, somebody has to be on top of it. it's just one sentence that i can see, a coordinator role and responsibilities including the ecw training, issuing monitoring or maintaining the equipment, the data collection and analysis, reviewing all deployments and providing subject matter expertise for the review board. i think it's really basic information. you're going to do it any way. there's no harm in putting it here. we're not telling you how you have to put it in there and who

may have to report to you. you might not be the chief next year. they might dismantle this next year. the buck stops somebody, that's good practice. that's not asking for a lot. i don't even know why this is an issue. >> president turman: i'm sorry, chief. >> no. i hope that's not a prediction, commissioner. >> commissioner dejesus: no. no. i mean if we leave it up to just the chief, i don't need that department head, he's gone, i'll take care of that. you know, i don't know what could happen. >> i understand, but the buck does stop here. i may not be the chief next year, but i am the chief now, and the buck stops here. with you fully plan to work with the department of police accountablity. i was to stress to the commission what worked in oakland may not work in san francisco. i think we need operational control to create a system that

works for this department, and we will have some type of coordinator. i don't know as this just rolled out, we're having discussions on this. we're taking this one step at a time, but the buck does stop here, and the commission holds me accountable to whatever the department says we're going to do, and i take that responsibility very seriously. >> commissioner dejesus: no brainer for me. >> president turman: commissioner hirsch? >> commissioner hirsch: first of all, chief, i do hope you're here next year and beyond. >> i do, too. >> commissioner hirsch: one of the reasons that i was convinced that i would vote ultimately for tazers is i spent a lot of time in oakland. i spent time with leonicio in person and i talked to him on the phone, and i became convinced that somebody has to have the expertise and oversight. it sounds like you're in agreement with that, so i don't understand where there's a

conflict if we put somebody in who takes ownership of the whole program. we know you're at the top. you're at the top of everything the department does, but you're an extremely busy human being, and i think the commission and the public is entitled to know who's taking ownership for one of these really controversial weapons that we're introducing. [ inaudible ] >> president turman: okay. commissioner ong hing? >> commissioner ong hing: yeah. as you know, i was opposed to the vote in november , but one of the things that was impressive that seemed to make a difference to a number of you was the fact that -- that leonicio had run a very successful program in oakland, and if we're going to have tazers, we need somebody like that. and one of the bright spots that i've noticed while i've been on the commission are -- is the reporting of the cit

team, and there seems to be a person in the charge of that who makes sure all parts of the training have been put together for all persons and the team, so we need somebody like that, and that should be embodied in the g.o. >> president turman: commissioner marshall? >> commissioner marshall: well, i'll just say this, as a ceo myself, i trust you will come up with a process to make this thing successful. i have no doubt about that that you will put something in place, and you've studied the oakland model. it's successful. i'm completely confident you will do that. >> president turman: cit model -- tic policy have a coordinator position embodied in it? >> no, commissioner, not in this degree. we have, you know, a commander that oversees it. >> president turman: perthe policy? >> i don't know perthe policy. i don't want to misstate.

>> president turman: my staff's telling me that it is. >> and it runs really well. >> president turman: all right. chief, i'm just going to go on. you can just interrupt when you find that. let's take a little straw poll, if you will. how many -- how many commissioners would adopt the dpa's recommendation to have this at least the coordinator position embodied within the policy along with -- along with -- i'm not sure. are they asking for a specific list and duties within the policy? >> commissioner dejesus: it's nodu