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 not duties, it's just general oversight. >> president turman: general over sight. how many commissioners would be in favor of that? okay. all right. >> last point for the policy. .7 is also on page nine, superior officer's responsibility. >> i can't hear you, can you talk into the mic? >> yes. the .7, superior officer's responsibility is page nine of your policy, page four of your notes. so this one, i think has

actually already been addressed. the dpa wanted language that ensured that they are immediately notified. you will see in your policy that the department has put in pages in serious bodily injury requiring admittance to a medical facility, the superior shall notify the department of police accountablity, admittance to medical facility wasn't discussed at the working group. >> president turman: why is that? so what does that mean? >> the dpa has a slight issue with that, the constraint of the notification, i believe -- am i saying that right? so as it reads -- >> president turman: i'll call you when i want you. >> the dpa will be notified when a suspect has been taken to a medical facility. >> president turman: they want it broader as to when there's serious bodily injury, they'll

be notified immediately. >> yes. >> president turman: see? i went to law school, and i graduated, and i can actually figure it out. >> yes, you can. >> president turman: can you tell me what's wrong with her request. >> the department wrote the language in response to her concerns, and i thought we had reached conken suspesensus on . the language, when a superior officer's notified of an ecd deployment of serious bodily injury -- >> point of clarification. wait a second. you said medical facility. >> president turman: let him finish. >> all right. >> president turman: and then, we're going to go to commissioner dejesus. you're saying -- so you're saying that that's the same as what she's requesting? >> i'm trying to -- what was the request that the g-- if i

could. >> president turman: that whenever there's serious bodily injury, that the dpa be notified, not that if there's serious bodily injury and they go to a medical facility. drop the medical facility part. >> yeah. >> president turman: commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: well, i was asking if there was clarification -- >> president turman: he said he'd drop it. >> okay. that's fine. >> commissioner mazzucco? >> commissioner mazzucco: that's fine. >> president turman: all right. let's move onto the -- the appendix. much talked about -- yeah.

>> okay. first point on the appendix, page -- this is -- it's the first page of the appendix, and the first point is related to the number of police commission members to sit on the review board, so the appendix is the accountablity portion. the department will create a review board. the first point as it currently stands, one member of the commission is requested. the stakeholders would like a second member. that second member -- so two commissioners, essentially, on the review board. the reason being is that the department is still working with the city attorney on allowing a member of the public to sit in on the review board until the stakeholders believe that until that is done,

they -- they prefer two commissioners. >> president turman: the stakeholders want two commissioners until it's worked out with the city attorney to get a member of the public onto the board. >> yeah. >> president turman: okay. and the department says no? >> no. the department didn't say no. that's the commission's call. the department said that we are working to incorporate these civilians. >> president turman: okay. all right. commissioners, do you have comments on that? >> nope. >> nope. >> president turman: how do folks feel, just give me a show of hands about two commissioners until we can get a member of the public on the review board? >> i'm the only one. okay. there's three of us here.

[ inaudible ] >> president turman: okay. >> i'm sorry. why did you land on two commissioners? >> president turman: yeah. we'll put two commissioners on until a member of the public. >> okay. i actually jumped ahead. i'm sorry. we just covered .2, so if i can take you back to .1 of the policy. >> i thought you skipped number one. >> i did. i'm sorry. it is the third paragraph regarding reviewing ecd activations that occur during an officer involved shooting. the dpa and coalition on

homeless is requesting additional language to that paragraph, to the last sentence of that first paragraph to read, shootings and discharges and will include an analysis of the effective ecd activation. the reason being is given dga 8.11, the fired discharge review board, cases in which a member discharges a firearm, ecd is not a firearm, so it wouldn't show up in that review board. the department believes that additional language would be redundant, especially given that the shootings are reviewed under the fdrb. >> what we're talking about this, can we put it up there so keep can see at home what we're

talking about? >> president turman: all right. so, yeah, put it up on the overhead, yeah, so we can follow it. >> yeah.

>> from where you are. >> maybe at home they can see it on tv. >> so the request of the last sentence, that green, it would go discharges, cases in which -- sorry, will include an analysis of the effective ecd activation. >> president turman: an analysis -- the language is -- would include an analysis of the effective ecd activation. >> so the paragraph would read the incident will be reviewed pursuant to dgo 8.11, investigation of officer involved shootings and discharges and will include an analysis of the effective ecd activation. >> so -- but the comment -- the comment basically says dgo 8.11 and 3.10, the firearm discharge

review board only says about shooting, and they said why doesn't it include an analysis of why the tazer was used, as well. if it's going to have both a gun as a tazer, right? >> right, except -- >> go on. >> my understanding of the department's position, and chief scott, please correct me if i am wrong, is you have the fire discharge review board if an officer fires a gun, and you have this review board for ecd activation. sfl rig >> right. i see that, but this process says, the investigation will include an analysis of the tazer activation. >> president turman: yeah. that's -- that part they're trying to add, though, right? >> yeah. that's consistent for this review board, so i guess i'm not following what the problem is. >> so -- >> president turman: go ahead. >> so let me start with this part.

i think it's really important for the commission to know as far as we know, nobody else is doing this -- this type of thing review board for ecd activation, so we are taking it -- that seriously, and hopefully that gives the public some confidence of how serious we're taking it. i don't think anybody else is doing that, but the issue is we already have an officer involved shooting process if an officer involved shooting occurs, everything is supposed to be reviewed, everything. so if a tazer or an ecd is discharged, and then, that later evolves into an officer involved shooting, that officer involved shooting review board also has to look at the circumstances around the tazer and any other force that's used. what this is saying that they asked by the dpa and some of the stakeholders is that the ecd review board also does a separate analysis of use of ecd. the department's position on that is that review somebody a part of the officer involved

shooting review but not to have a separate review board on the same incident to review just a carve out part of the officer involved shooting. it should be taken in the context of the entire investigation and considered all at one because it doesn't make any sense to do it twice and pull the tazer uses out. the -- i think make a compromise here would be that whatever comes from the firearm discharge review board as it relates to the tazer could go to that e cd review board for policy training and those things, but the department strongly urges the commission to consider keeping that process solid as one process and that's carving out tazers and creating a separate board in that same incident. i think that would not be an efficient way to do that, nor do i think it would add any value to the ois review.

>> president turman: so just to be clear, if there's a tazer activation, it's reviewed by this board, but if there's a tazer activation, which is also part of an officer involved shooting, then, the ois folks review that. is that what this is saying? >> yes. >> president turman: so there's not two reviews -- >> it's just the one, and those issues should be raised at that ois review board. and what i'm suggesting is that can be given to the -- the ecd review board for consideration -- policy consideration specific to the ecd issues, but just have one review, and that's the ois review. >> president turman: okay. commissioner hirsch? >> commissioner hirsch: i think i now get it, i didn't get it when i read the language. you're going to have the officer involved shooting board review both weapons --

incidents involving both of the weapons. >> yes, sir. >> commissioner hirsch: and so i just think we need to say that clearly somewhere so we know that the tazer use will also be investigated by that same board. >> president turman: well, if it's just a tazer used, it's this board. >> commissioner hirsch: no, it's both. i'm saying when interests ther and the tazer used, the tazer will also be reviewed by the ois. >> and may i add the chair of the ois board can bring in whatever subject matter expert they need to, so members of the ec board or whatever board the subject matter expert can be brought to the ois review to give that expertise or lend that expertise to the process. >> commissioner hirsch: so my question is, does the language support the concept? [ inaudible ] >> commissioner hirsch: well,

the dpa is saying we have to add their language in order for that to actually be spelled out in writing because it's not spelled out now, and if that's the case, i'm in favor of it. if it's already spelled out, that's all right. it's not ois, but your policy on tazers can say the ois -- >> i agree with the what dpa saying. in the ois there's nothing that says we're going to analyze tazers, as well, but i have a different issue. i'm just waiting to get called. >> president turman: okay. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: so i was here when the department of justice was talking to us, and houston, i believe it's the city of houston, they have a tazer review board. they have community members that sit there that analyze these tazer things, and i don't want to lose track if we're talking about putting a community member on this he have are board, we're talking about transparency, having some input in the community. whether it's just a tazer alone

or a tazer with a gun, i think the community would appreciate the policy analysis and review, and that was one of the other things we learned from the meeting, what can you do better? they had a lot of suggestions what you can do better. i don't think we need to exclude it because there is no community member on the ois, and i think if you want tazers to be especially in the community, and you want them to have input and some say and suggestion and analysis and understanding of what's going on. >> first to commissioner hirsch's question, under that paragraph, it says pursuant to dgo 8.11, investigation of officer involved shootings and discharges, so that -- that's the special order that pertains to the firearm discharge review board. so the language here just refers back to that policy. and i don't know if that's explicit enough to you. i understand your point.

>> commissioner hirsch: i guess the point is dgo 8.11 doesn't say anything about tazers, so i think the dpa is making a good point. let's have the language that makes it clear what we're doing. >> okay. hit >> commissioner hirsch: yes, sir. we're not talking about parallel -- >> right. >> president turman: commissioner melara. >> commissioner melara: and chief, if i may, i think your intent is to bring this into one review board. >> correct. >> commissioner melara: all of these are going to be brought under one roof. if we're going to define it here is one thing, but the reality is we're going to end up with one review board. >> president turman: okay.

so -- so commissioner hirsch, do you have language you want to suggest here or what? >> commissioner hirsch: i think i would buy the dpa's language, understanding that it really means. >> president turman: yeah. read the language to me. >> commissioner hirsch: there's a note here that says dpa suggests adding quote analysis of the tazer activation. >> and will. >> commissioner hirsch: and it'll be done over at the firearms review board. >> president turman: good for you? >> yes, that's good. it just makes it clear. it's clarity in the language. >> president turman: right. >> i think we already did that one. >> .3 is on page three of your

appendix, and two of your notes. this relates to the last bullet on -- under a. and again, it goes back to kind of clarification. the dpa requests that -- oh, excuse me. not that last bullet. requests an additional bullet be included to -- so it would be in e, you'll see now that it stops at d, and e would include written analysis to include recommendations regarding policies, training, equipment and tactics, as well as see provision sfpd believes that this is redundant as a requirement of written analysis particular tacks that's already included in numbers one, two, and three of this section. additionally, they add the purpose of the ecd review board is to continually review training, policies and procedures as stated in the paragraph four of the policy

section. >> i don't -- i don't -- do you see it's redundant in one, two -- i don't see a redundancy. so exactly where is it redundant. you say it's redundant. where is it? >> it's sfpd's claim. they suggest already included in numbers one, two, and three of the section, so under duties, if you go back to page

two, quarterly basis the review board told me they'd review every incident, review ecd data. number two, reasonableness of particular use of force. >> that's just -- >> number three -- >> number two is just the standard on the review. >> number three, ecd review board's written analysis. ecd activation shall include. it has been pointed out to me that there's a sentence that's been move this had couat could perhaps a little bit more clarifying, that all of the factors will not be present that was in fact in an older draft. so i guess the question really becomes whether you -- again, you want to reemphasize, restate additional language

in .e, and again, if we do -- not massively clear, written analysis to include recommendations regarding policies, training, equipment, ta tactics and position. >> so i know we've asked the chief to explain things, but the dpa mentions the department of justice, the recommendations for the discharge review board. this is a similar -- so you're just making a similar recommendation here that the doj has said we should include in our ois, right, reviews? and i understand you guys went to seattle. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> it spells out everything. >> commissioner turman: it's redone tant -- redundant.

is there an issue? >> it's just redone tant. redundant. i can't find it. >> commissioner turman: what's it matter. you're good. >> okay. i misunderstood you. >> commissioner turman: sorry, last one. >> secretary kilshaw: the last one is on page four. >> this one relates to the 96a report. the dpa requests reinstate

paragraph that was deleted. it stands on the 96a report citing in doing so it would be similar to the sheriff's department and lapds commission report. the department believes if you do appendix not all use of force which is what the code covers and once implemented would be included in the 96a report. so i think it summarizes up whether the summaries are to be included in 96a or not.

but again, chief, correct me if i'm wrong on that one. >> commissioner turman: again, the 96a issue we believe is the redundancy. and the purpose of board is to continually review the training and policy and procedures stated in paragraph four in the draft policy. the 96a appendix deals with a lot of what's in 96a effective july 1st for the state collection standard. we believe not only is it redundant, there's a change in through requires changings -- changes in reporting and better served in reporting change like we're doing with 96a and we'd

raernl have that not locked into the appendix. >> commissioner turman: common comments, emergency hirsch >> commissioner: we don't have a comment. >> commissioner turman: commissioner. >> commissioner: this i need clarification on. i see this provide summary. this is adjusting what type of information should be in the report and it says the report will address it's hard to read this thing -- will address something and recommendations make de-escalation is this saying the type of information that should be in the summary of the report provided to the chief

or this commission with specifics? is that something the sheriff's department does now. is that following -- okay. i need clarification on what we're asking here. >> it provides summaries to the 96a report, provides summaries on ecds. the review board -- the process of the review board will do a lot of that and we're tying this to 96a which we're in the process of retooling senate bill 953. we believe it's already been done but at the review board process. >> commissioner: what i'm hearing there's some requirements one with the state and one with the board of supervisors but also part is

what's going to be reported out and that's the part i don't see why we can't include some information of what type of summary should be reported out that includes -- tell me -- whoever put this in green need to reconsider this. this goes to decision making and de-escalation and use of force and supervision and an agreed upon template. irregardless of what statute is going to require to report i don't see what's wrong with providing that type of information in the summary. >> that's already in the draft policy. what we're suggesting here is we take that same information and apply that basically to the report which is being rec

reconfigured. >> commissioner: what's wrong with that? i dont see what the hurdle is? you're already going to give a summary. you're already going to do that. doesn't matter if you have cut and paste it into a 96a report but i think we should include some of this information to be more transparent the that's my two cents. >> commissioner: may i speak. >> commissioner turman: go ahead. >> commissioner: so i know that it appears duplicative this section we're asking be enow -- enumerated with the language of the 79 9