piece because it's another set of -- it's more data. but what it will do for us, i believe, is i think it will make more sense of the data because, like i said, we don't have benchmarks to 96a. often times you compare to the general population and that is really not -- that benchmark doesn't help this conversation at all. there's other benchmarks to look at. so what we do know is that the people who do this type of research, they are not new to this either and we think it will help give us better data or analyze the data better and we can take it from there. in terms of why is it still happening? this issue is complex. and this issue is not new, you're right. policing has a history in this country. ewith all know what that history is, and these issues are very difficult issues to turn around.

the thing that when you're in this business, as i have been for 30 years, trying to do the right thing, when you're out there doing the work, often time officers get defensive about this because they feel like everybody thinks we're out there doing wrong, and that's not the case. most of our officers are doing right. this is a bigger issue than individual officer. some of these things that drive violence in communities, that drive gun violence in communities, go way beyond policing. we accept that as we deal with that. what we want to do as much as we can to make sure that bias and implicit bias doesn't drive this. officers get called to a call. the caller see what is they see and we have to go, and as we have seen on many news stories recently, some of the calls are driven by things that are biassed. and then we have to get there and make a professional determination of what we have

and an objective determination, and that is what the training i think will help. i don't think there's an answer in talking to people that have ph.d.'s in this subject, they tell me that there is no perfect answer. there's a process, there's training, and then you have progress. but i don't think you're going to see -- i don't want to set that expectation that we're going to eliminate all the things that factor into this disparities and wealth, disparities in education, disparities in everything. the criminal justice system is full of disparities, full of them, and they go way beyond policing. i am not making an excuse. that's definitely not what i am trying to do. all i'm trying to say is we're doing the right things in my mind to get moving on this issue. >> and i do commend the efforts that are being made. i guess my concern is that if we have internal systems that are supposed to be monitoring and flagging this, why didn't our

internal system flag the fact that people of color are more force is being used against them? why wasn't this flagged earlier if we have an internal system that does this? >> i think the reporting itself is -- like i said, this is not the first discussion that we have had before this commission on this subject. the question always is, how are we fixing it and how are we making it better and what are we doing about it? that process is a long one, i submit. it's a long process. we are better than we were years ago, by far. and it is a long process. that is all that i can say to that. i think this department has been aware of these disparities and these disproportionalities particularly since we have been reporting this data because it's right there for the world to see. i wish i had an easy answer for you, commissioner, but i don't. but what i do have is that we're doing some things to make it

better. >> i appreciate that. i want to turn to the training aspect which was slide six. there were five different categories of training and even the training that i do see, only two of them discuss implicit bias. and there's one eight-hour training where implicit bias is part of that training. the second portion within an eight-hour managing implicit bias and i think that training is aimed more towards dealing with biases as it pertains to the san francisco police department, right? it is not even a bias training that helps police officers deal with bias with respect to their interactions with the community. so i guess my concern is why with respect to the training there isn't more bias training for officers and how to deal with the community. i know that you mentioned the critical response training that was just implemented, and i am wondering where is that training in this list of training that's

on slide six? >> that slide is not all inclusive. we have a -- as you know, we have a lot more training. specifically, if it's a bias training, we just actually approved additional implicit bias training in the department of human resources and d.h.r. is going to help us put that on. so that is been approved. we just have to get the actual training cycle started. that will enhance the amount of training that we're doing. but it's being done. i think that's the important part. i don't know if there is a magic number of hours that we need to do in implicit bias. it just needs to be ongoing, and that is what i have been told by people experts in the subject matter because any training is -- needs to be refreshed. we don't need to just do it and forget about it just like our tactical training. we have to have ongoing training

and refresh what we have learned. and that is the plan moving forward. >> this critical response training that you mentioned, is that going to be implemented with new cadets or is that a mandatory training for officers who are already on the force? >> we are doing officers already on the force and they will be incorporated into our recruit training as well. right now it's starting with the officers that are already in the field. it's advance officers training. >> an hour, two hours? >> do you know how many hours? deputy chief moses is in charge of that. >> that is why they brought you here today. >> good evening. we actually have two versions. so every officer and sergeant in the department is going to be going through a 10-hour block as part of advanced officer training. and then we are also supplementing that course with a 20-hour course that has more expanded scenarios, and that is

going to be available to sergeants and officers as well. >> the critical response training, is there a bias component of it or is it more reactionary and how to deal with stressful situations? >> it is primarily how to deal with stressful situations, but it also has a use of force c.i.t. component to it. and i should also put out and point out that we did give a block of that to all the new captains, lieutenants, and sergeants in the promotional courses as well. >> the other question that i had with respect to oversight, this is slide nine, you indicate that there are internal processes that the department is taking as well as external. and the external ones that are listed, these working with people -- well, the external components are police commission t department of accountability, and the d.a.'s office. we've been working with them in the past, correct? >> yes. we have. we have but those -- number one,

i think the relationships have been enhanced. and i think we forgot to add that d.p.a. is also been working with us on the critical incident review board. it was in their recommendation as well. but my opinion i think those working relationships are definitely -- have been enhanced. they inform a lot of our policies and that role has been expanded as far as working with the policies and the district attorney's office with -- when i first came here, that was a policy or the m.o.u. has been worked on for over two years. but the working relationship between the two agencies has continued to improve. so the relationships have been there. but i think they're better. the d.o.j. assessment pointed some of them out.

as a matter of fact, particularly, in terms of o.i.s.s, they pointed out that notification protocols, the collaboration at the scene, all these things needed improvement. they have been vastly improved. so i think we're in a much better place. >> i guess my concern is that since we have been working with these individuals in the past and this has been an ongoing problem and there is still no real solution that perhaps we should look at other people to work with as well. for example, san francisco bar association has a racial justice committee that addresses these kind of issues and has been very informative with respect to some of the data and how it is collected. and viewpoints that is beneficial in terms of bringing everyone in and getting their ideas and with the external agencies that we have been relying on. >> these slides aren't all

inclusive. i want to emphasize that and in the interest of time, we had to cutdown information, but i an i degree with you. the department agrees with that, and we do have other external partners, not just the ones that we mentioned. public defender, prior to his passing, met with -- we met monthly. and for a number of reasons. when there were issues that came up, he gave input and opinion on what he said and we took some of those opinions and we turned them into actionable items. the district attorney the same thing. and i talked about the i.e.b. relationship. we have members of the s.f. bar and many of the working groups. julie was mentioned on the strategic plan working group and yolanda, and we work with them as well and met with them and members of the commission along with me. ewith're open to all -- we're open to all that. i hope we didn't lead the commission to believe those are

the only folks we're working because we're wide open on this subject and welcome anybody that wants to be a part of this process. >> the other thing that i would like to do to follow up on commissioner taylor's questioning with respect to the 911 calls and how i guess i want to reiterate -- what i would like to see is perhaps a breakdown because even if it's 42% of the 911 calls are relating to people of color, there are several steps that happen between receiving a 911 call and the officer actually using force on this individual. there is a whole series of events that happen, so i don't think that it is -- i don't think it behooves us to equate because we receive more calls and 911 calls regarding people of color has some correlation to the use of force against people of color because in addition to the pointing of the firearm, all the other categories with respect to the use of force are significantly higher when it comes to people of color.

and the only one that isn't and isn't is the category of physical contact. in that category it's white males who actually exceed any other race. >> yes, ma'am. noted that and i want to be clear, the point there was not to equate lesson -- to lessen this topic. the point is depending on what we use as a benchmark, the narrative of those statistics changes. when you benchmark use of force to the population, which is often done, and 4% of this population or less than 4% and 44% and 42% get use of force, and it really paints a different picture. when you benchmark it against who the public is calling on, it paints another picture. the point there is not to diminish one or the other, but the point is this is why we're working with people that know what they are doing on this because benchmarks matter.

benchmark cans skew a narrative. benchmarks can skew a narrative if they're not properly discussed and we really understand what the benchmarks mean. that was the point of that. it wasn't to diminish or say we don't have issues that we have to work on. it's about the benchmarking. >> i would suggest to look that -- i would suggest that we look to oakland with respect to that because dr. ebberhardt did work with them and indicated the data they received and they had to silo it in terms of demographics and calls of service to understand is numbers and i believe our 96a report does not do that very well. it also doesn't track the multiple uses of force with respect to one incident. >> an it does do that piece. but you are right on the other piece. it doesn't -- it doesn't make adjustments for other factors like crime and violent crime and those type of things.

so that is what the team did do with oakland. >> thank you. >> commissioner dejesus. >> just a couple of questions. i did talk to you a little bit offline, but talking about here, statistics are only as good as the information collected. so it helps everybody to get it. i want to talk about the word "other" and a suspect by race or ethnicity and says others. why does sfpd have a high percentage of others? 23.1%. and page seven of the smaller report. the executive report. so why is that so high? and can you tell us do the officers -- are they required to ask person's ethnicity or race? and if not, how do they gather that information? >> that -- the other -- if you

look at the 2016-2017, 2018 report, 2016 you don't see american indian. you see in it 2017, 2018. and you also see -- you also see unknown, other and unknown in some of the reports. sometimes we don't know. sometimes people declare they are either don't declare a race or so sometimes there is no answer. officers under this 853 racial profiling act are now required to log perceived. it is what the officer perceives. but this data is i think a little bit more -- a lot more definitive in terms of 96a. >> i guess the question is, are you allowed to ask them their race or your perception and if

you don't know your perception, that is where you are checking unknown or other? >> i think commander wallace probably can answer that better, but on the field interviews and all that, race is a factor. with the new law, it kind of confuses the issue to be honest with you because we are supposed to use perceived and we changed a lot of our training to be compliant with the law, so it clouds that issue a little bit. >> so when you say perceived, just so people understand, it mean what is an officer is viewing at that time and he makes a determination of what that race is. >> correct. >> you cannot ask a person? >> not under 853, no. >> so the state law if we are doing a traffic stop and i was to have individuals on board, i could not ask the race or ethnicity of anybody in the vehicle. it would be based on my perception. i think there is a significant amount of actually demographics that they slice very thin on their demographics.

we used to use the national and the f.b.i. used to be black, white, etc., and i think it was seven categories. i don't have the exact number, there are numerous categories for the state, and that is something we can supply to the commission so you can see that, but that is all perception. use of force, with the exception of basically an officer taking on somebody in that person escaping, you're generally going to have what that demographic is. maybe in a demonstration where officers online and trying to hold a crowd back, you might not be able to single out everybody's individual ethnicity, but use of force is pretty steady and obviously because you are reporting it and generally the person is in custody, so those are pretty accurate. that is all local. that's not subject to the state stops. >> okay. and then i have another question. and i forgot to bring this one up. page 11 and you talk about types of force by call types, fourth quarter, 2018, and page 11 on

the executive report. and if this were pointing a firearm and part one property crimes and 153 of pointing the gun. i was wondering what kind of property crime where you need to point a gun? and i don't mean to be facetious. i don't understand that. it says person with a gun, person with a knife, suspicious person, and i just -- >> well, burglaries, those are still considered property crimes. those are pretty high level crimes. even on some of the car break-ins, they are still felony crimes, but depending on -- these situations are very situational. that is where the officers and that is where the training comes in. that is where the tactics come in. if you have time and distance, you can afford to do other things. that's what -- that's why we emphasize the training so much. >> i would be interested to know

-- i understand hot and burglaries and if they are car break-ins or vandalism -- you have vandalism as separate here. i am curious from the most serious to the lesser amounts and that is a lot, 153. >> an it really depend on the situation. car break-ins are felonies and we have had a number of those that have ended in violence, including murder. it's nothing to take lightly. the main thing is we want to keep everybody safe, officers and people that we have to come in contact with. but that's where the use of force evaluation comes into play because if it's deemed excessive or unnecessary or unreasonable or not reasonable force, that's where the accountability piece comes in. >> does your data include where you can look in and see exactly is it 5% hot prowls or 2% car break-ins or the type of property crimes? is there just everything is put under property?

>> let me give you an example. if i am going into a warehouse or a house that i have to clear because there is a caller that says there is people inside the house. i am going to have my gun out and search that house. so that contributes -- >> that is not of the 153. what i am trying to get at is do you have a picture of where they are falling in terms of the level of the crime? >> it's not in this report. we can drill down on that information. we can drill down on that. >> that would be great. it's kind of nebulous. but i do understand hot prowl. let's see. and then back on -- staying on there, you have mental health seven -- here. the very bottom of the same chart. traffic-related 13. those are -- are those like violent traffic? under felony once? >> where are you?

>> the same chart. i'm sorry, i just went down to the second to the last one. traffic-related crimes and types of calls and pointing a firearm is 13 for traffic related. i could say the same thing, you can drill down on that. >> yes, ma'am. we can drill down on that. i don't know from looking at the raw data what the circumstances are. we can drill down on it. >> then i was looking at page 12 where it says total arrests central station is the number one for 2017 and number two for quarter four. were they always number one or did they jump or move into number one position? >> it fluctuates from quarter to quarter. it does and i have looked at the three years since we have been doing these reports and it's safe to say that the busier stations and the stations with more violence are usually at the top of the list there. that's pretty consistent, but it

kind of varies from number one and number two. the busier stations are usually at the top of the list in terms of that. >> all right. that is all that i have. thank you. >> thank you. director henderson. >> thank you. i was going to say i think this is encouraging that we're having the conversation based on the report to talk about some of the solutions which are really complicated and difficult to try and implement on the fly. but in my comment and my question that was more speaking to the process and the report itself. just coming from the perspective of having to re-evaluate when i came in all of the periodic reports that get submitted both to the commission and to the public. some of the things that i found helpful especially from the d.o.j. have been the federal government's overview in terms of how to issue and disseminate reports and outlining some of the analysis which i think would be more helpful. and similar to some of the

things that i think we are hearing from the commission and those are some of the standards that i have shared with the chief as well in order to try and be more helpful as we're evaluating right now what these types of reports are going to look like in the future for what that's worth. but i think it gives us a much better approach or at least a quantifiable approach in terms of trying to understand the data in a way that is comprehensive for the commission and the public as well. that was it. more of a comment than anything else. i have shared those outlines with the chief and we have had conversations about it. >> thank you. commissioner hamisaki. >> thank you, commissioner hirsch. >> thank you. good evening, chief. a couple of follow-up questions i think that there are still a few more questions out there. i know you have been sitting through a few. at the beginning of the presentation you talked about a

28% decrease in use of force over the past three to five years. so two years. >> 16, 17, and 18 data. three years. >> is that benchmarked to anything? on the last question you were talking about benchmarking. is that benchmark to detentions or stops or calls or is it just overall? >> that's overall. there are when you -- in the entire report there are -- there is data about detentions. there's data about traffic stops. there's data about self-initiated intentions that have reported crimes. so that is an overall number. >> a right. i guess what i was trying to

understand is what weight to give to that number meaning i know that just about every meeting you come and our numbers are down, year over year, over the past, i don't know, five years, there's been a significant drop in crime and calls. so is the use of force -- is it decreasing -- do you understand where i am getting at? is it increaseses in the interactions or the interactions a dropping and possibly staying the same. >> actually -- that is a great question. the calls for service are actually going up. over from 16 to 18. >> right. in terms of encounters, traffic stop, arrests and all that, the numbers have actually been -- it fluctuates from quarter to quarter, but they have been fairly consistent. it is not a big difference in those numbers.

the calls for service have gone up. prior to 2015, we didn't have -- 2015, yeah, we didn't have the pointing of firearms included in the use of force. these numbers really effect 16 with the 96a reporting and is a more consistent set of data. >> okay. and then the pointing of firearms which as you said is a bulk of the uses of force that are being recorded, just i guess i think it was commissioner elias and i when we were visiting one of the stations, i believe one of the officers expressed some frustrations how they were being recorded because there's certain situations and commander ewing was referring to this, where it's necessary or

even mandatory per your training where you have to -- you should have your firearm out, is that accurate? >> it's -- everything is situational. let me answer this the right way because really nothing is automatic. if that makes sense. >> okay. >> you can have a felony arrest and depending on the circumstances, you may not pull your gun out. if you don't know what you are going into like the example that the commander gave, you are likely going to have your gun out and it would be appropriate to do that. and there are situation where is you should have it out and you don't and somebody gets hurt and you or somebody else, so everything is situational depending on the circumstances in front of you. the training is general guidelines and officers usually follow those guidelines, but i don't want to give the impression that any of this is automatic. >> so what it was -- how it was brought up to us specifically

was in what is referred to as a felony stop. and i don't know the exact procedure, but it was explained that one officer having either his firearm -- >> generally, yes. if you have, let's say a carjack, and the person is believed to be armed. that's a high risk felony stop and you're going to have your gun out on that situation. now, there could be something that i am not thinking of where they might not be the case, but generally you will have your gun out. where the training and particularly the critical incident and critical mindset training comes into play and really good, sound tactics, often times when it is that type of situation, officers will respond to back each other up. and so if you have that situation carjacking and you

have officers that back you up and everybody in that situation need to have a gun out? with the present of mind to pay attention that. that is where the training comes in to help us and the adrenaline is flowing and to coordinate with a number of uses of firearm discharge and all relating to one incident and so with the statistics working together are complicated at times. so i had a thought and an idea to go through this thinking of

commissioner elias and i often do and the wise questioning, we did the training before we were the experienced veterans that we are now. and for people that don't know, force options training is a simulator where you're showing on the screen situations where you may have to use and different types of force and pepper spray, baton, and firearm and there is a scenario that plays out and i believe commissioner elias was blown up by a bomber. i always chose the right option according to a trainer. is there a simulation that is done to test for and concern and perhaps officers or some

officers may have implicit bias against people of color, black and hispanic. is there a simulation that sets up scenarios like that where you're tested against different races? i think it would be. is it something we have used? >> there are. a lot of that type of that simulation is done in research. stanford has done some and done in it research. we have been contacted by some of the institutions for that type of scenario and we don't have an agreement on that type of research yet, but it is out there, to answer your question. yes, it is out there and yeah. sometimes even with the tactical training where you have critical thinking scenario, it doesn't address implicit bias, but

shoot, don't shoot with firearms qualifications and it does help somewhat to address that issue. the research is out there and that type of training is out there. i think it is an emerging area of law enforcement with good possibilities there. [please stand by]

>> so those are things to tell the officers that you have to sort of look at the whole picture. so those are things that you've done. i'm glad to see the numbers are down, but i do think we need some explanation, and i do know the officers work really hard on the street, they're very diligent about this, but i think with the advent of body worn cameras, it's a process. we have to be patient, but we're moving forward, i think that's the positive. >> i just want to make an observation. i've sat through about two years of these 96-a reports,

and for the most part, they're pretty much the same. overall use is down, but the disparity in the racial numbers is the same. you've heard some really excellent numbers from commissioners here. my belief is that the department has the exact same questions that we do, and that you don't honestly have the capablity to answer commissioner elias' question. it's a pufundamental question, but it's the most important question. there are issues that go to quality of life.

every -- >> y >> we are training for folks that are receiving -- like, what is that training -- what does that training look like? >> i'm glad you asked that. working with d.e.m., there has been some conversations on how d.e.m. can address this issue. actually, i think it was maybe

two months ago, the department and d.e.m. did a conversation on this topic for the human rights commission, and so moving forward, i think d.e.m. is planning to put some things in process. i mean, i couldn't tell you tonight as i sit here exactly what their training is, but to your point, i think it goes hand in hand with what they're trying to do, and director carole is on board with that, and they'll move the ball forward. >> commissioner elias: i think it's important to note that the police department, specifically you have taken steps to address what happens when these calls come in and what the police officers can do to deescalate the sort of biased calls that do come in. >> thank you. that also was a part of the presentation that we cut out because that'll come to the commission soon enough. >> thank you, chief. and do you have

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> d.p.a. director henderson, we're ready for your report. >> i'll read it into the record. [agenda item read]. >> good evening. so i'm -- i'm just going to speak briefly. in terms of our numbers and our stats for this week, we are at 162 cases that are open versus 140 this time last year. in terms of cases closed, we're at 147 versus 124 this time last year. open pending cases, we're 297

versus 254. cases sustained, we have 25 cases this year sustained versus 25 cases sustained last year. the number of cases tolled beyond 270 days are 24. of the cases, 17 of those cases are tolled last year. the 270-day is a trigger. the 3304 deadline is 364 days, but we report these numbers, and i report them just when we get past nine months, and they get special attention internally in my office, and people give weekly reports so we know and to avoid losing jurisdiction on any of our cases. for cases that are mediated, we are at five so far this year. we were at four last year.

we've been involved in a couple of things that are ongoing with the d.p.a. right now. our contract has finally been approved with slalom for our case management system. we're excited. that is a big deal for us in terms of our productivity and efficiency. i think it's going to improve a lot of our efficiencies. we had a strategic planning session last week with the consultant before they began reprioritizing some of the areas that we want them to focus on and work with us on both mediation and outreach were part of our big agendas. i think that's where we've seen a lot of the changes that are affecting our numbers in the past year and where i want to try and increase some of our efficiencies. we're still in our budget process with the mayor's office and city hall. there's not much for us to do until we hear back in that

process, like the other departments. i will say in terms of outreach, we had a couple of events that we participated in. march 21, my staff attended central district station community meeting. the 26th of march, my staff attended the tenderloin station community meeting. on the 27, my staff participated in the university of san francisco government policy career fair that they had, and speaking. our policy director attended on monday night with chief scott the discussion of addressing bias at the jewish community center. that was a big event specifically with dr. everhart out of stanford. her book is amazing, speaks to a lot of issues that we've been

discussing tonight. i'm excited that the chief and director were on the panel with her, and there may be an opportunity with that and with her to address a lot of the things that -- i mean, i know she's available, available, meaning, you pay her, and she will -- she'll work with us, but i think she brings a lot of credibility to the discussion of bias and it's encouraging, so this department here in san francisco not only is communicating with her and presenting, but has the potential to institutionalize something with her on some of these complicated issues that we're dealing with on the police commission. here in the audience with me tonight is my chief of staff, sarah hawkins, and one of my senior investigators, christina campani in case issues come up that need responses from the

department of police accountability. >> president hirsch: thank you. any questions for the director? okay. next item. >> clerk: line item 2-c. commissioner items and reports. commission items will be limited to a brief discussion of announcements. commission items, commission president's report, and commission's report. >> president hirsch: i'll just report that i've been working with hilton hines and the department to arrange with a may 1 meeting where we're going to have a presentation at the police commission which really goes to the work that's been done to date particularly by hilliard hines and the department working through the recommendations by the department of justice for the san francisco police department. i expect that to be between an hour and two-hour presentation

with question-and-answer. any -- commissioners -- yes, commissioner brookter? >> commissioner brookter: yes. thank you to the chief for bringing up the homicide in district ten this weekend. saturday, april 6, there's a public safety town hall meeting that will be taking place at willie brown middle school from 10:00 a.m. to noon. you'll be able to hear from supervisor walton and just what the overall safety plan is in district ten. actually after that from 12:00 until 4:00, there's a war against guns march taking place starting at the bayview district opera house. >> president hirsch: yes, commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: we went on this cesar chavez march and made our presence known.

>> president hirsch: okay. next item. [agenda item read]. >> president hirsch: anything from the commissioners? yes, commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: so i think i talked with commissioner hamasaki, yes, and -- i was talking to jennifer fredenbach regarding the presentation on the hsoc -- >> healthy streets -- >> commissioner dejesus: yeah, healthy streets operations, and they'd like to do a similar presentation. they do have a presentation from u.c. berkeley researchers that they did provide to the board of supervisors, and so i was wondering if we could schedule a presentation here. >> president hirsch: okay. do we have a sense of how long it is and how many people are involved? >> commissioner dejesus: i do

not have that information. >> no. we can probably deal with that offline. >> president hirsch: okay. commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: yes. i was going to ask to schedule a 1421 update. i believe that we've get -- i think it just needs to come before the commission. there was one area of discrepancy, but i wanted to calendar it so we could figure out a date and perhaps get some of the people that worked on the lemgs lation for 1421 to come to the meeting and answer any questions that the commissioners may have. so i just wanted to get an idea of when we could schedule that. >> president hirsch: has the working group finished whatever the working group can do on that? >> commissioner elias: yes. we have one area that is -- not an area of dispute, but one section -- there's a difference in language, so the thought is that we bring it to the commission and the commission decides which language to use. >> president hirsch: all right. and is that ready to happen

asap? >> commissioner elias: i was thinking about the next commission, but i don't know if i can get someone in here to present in terms of legislative intent on 1421, so maybe the 17 of april? >> president hirsch: i think we can't do it on the 17. that's the meeting on the bayview, but that gives everyone time. if i could look at may 8. >> president hirsch: thank you. okay. next line item. >> clerk: at this time, we're going to call for public comment on items 2-a through

2-d. >> president hirsch: all right. we have a long closed agenda, and we have a long agenda so far, so i'm going to limit public comment to two minutes, and this is on the items that we've discussed so far. good evening. >> good evening. good evening, commissioners. jeremy miller. interstellar foundation. it's a big agenda tonight. i've been listening from another room. it's unfortunate, but i have to attend another meeting that's going concurrent to this. i thought i'd stop in, though, because i do want to acknowledge that there have been internal administrative structural attempts to discuss

disparities which tip most of the discussion tonight in the police reports. but i want to address two very important incident consistencies. one, as usual, the concept of stakeholder was brought up. when was the last time any of these stakeholders were shot by the san francisco police, beaten by the san francisco police? the fact of the matter is as a member of the rapidly declining less than 4% of san francisco that is a black man, who is disproportionately targeted by police activities, i have a valid interest as do all my brethren, as to all other people of the city and county of san francisco regardless of race, sexual orientation, etc., in the matter, despite not necessarily being considered a

stakeholder, so we can get rid of the stakeholder. second off, the healthy streets center and processes that are targeting homeless people represented a violation of human rights. this was pointed out and stipulated in september 2018, and i want to highlight the report of the special repertoire, specifically pushing for the right for human beings to live where they are without being molested -- >> president hirsch: thank you. any other public comment on the items we've addressed so far? good evening. >> i'm sorry. the explicit bias about the police shootings of people of color, and i was bringing up --

i wanted to bring up, one neighbor, he was talking about counting blacks and whites and hispanics, but hispanics are considered, and when you count them, you consider them as white. and they was talking about ten to 20 hours of training. most of the police officers that are out there, they're counselors themselves, so when they come to people, they're trying to solve the problem. and then, i'm thinking that the shootings and why they're targeting people of color because they're having counter transference themselves. they're not therapists, but then, they have the unconscious counter transference that they're having themselves outside of their control. so i'm thinking that some of this is contributing to the killing of people of color.

so -- and that's what i wanted to say. so when they do the training, think about those things that i just said about the counter transference and even though they're not therapists, the counter transference and the transference and the unconscious bias, also. so that'll be it. >> president hirsch: thank you. any other public comment? good evening. >> hello. i was curious about the choice for academic institutions to work with. how do you decide what academic institutions you're going to work with in order to do research? are the academics reflective of a broad demographic, african americans, latino, etc. or are the demographics white men?

there's just a lot of questions i have regarding that, and maybe you all could address that at a later meeting? >> president hirsch: actually, chief, can you answer that just right now how we pick the institutions we pick? >> so part of the decision is the level of expertise with the subject at-hand. for instance, the center for policing equities, before we partnered with them, we did our own research, and they worked with a number of like-sized cities across the country on this issue, and they actually have started a national database with the information that they're collecting. it's aanonymous, and basically on a national scale, it'll help to answer some of these questions on a national scale, as well. so we figured -- or we believe that they had the expertise, really, to accomplish what we needed in that regard.

california policy labs, likewise, same things. a number of meets with them, and in terms of the work that we wanted to get done at that time, we felt that they had the expertise to do it. stanford, although we just started this agreement with stanford, a lot of research that we're talking about came from their spark program. that's what drives the decision. also, the expertise, who they have working for them. i think we saw with one of the academics, when people moved on, we discussed it in the commission recently. people left, moved on, and quit and really delayed the process. we look at a number of factors, and most of these institutions have diversity in thought, diversity in opinion, diversity in gender and all of those issues, to answer that question. but really, it's about what do

they offer the department, and if there is a contractual, we have to go through that process. if there's an r.f.p. that's required by our contractual rules and policies, then that's something, as well. but a lot of these academic researchers, it's about finding the right institution and then getting with the attorneys to establish the data sharing agreements, and what's important to us is how is the data going to be used? who owns the research? you know, in some regards, data has to be identified. the academic institutions that are willing to meet our needs and our demands, and they have the expertise that we demand, that's how we decide. the doctor has a team of very

talented people in our opinion that work alongside her, so it's definitely a -- we're very fortunate to have them in our back yard. >> president hirsch: okay. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. next line item, please. [agenda item read]. >> good evening. >> good evening president hirsch, vice president taylor, members of the commission, chief scott, and director henderson. good evening. my name's bob moser. i'm deputy chief of administration. and i'm here to present the first of two bulletins that call for modification to the uniform and equipment. the first is a pride patch of

homeless youth in san francisco. the pride patch project is similar to the pink patch project that we did a number of months ago to support breast cancer. for the pride patch project, the department is partnering with the s.f. police officer's pride alliance, and the pride alliance has developed a patch for officers and members of the department to wear during the month of june to show support and the inclusiveness of the sfpd to the lgbtq communities. with me tonight are several members of pride alliance in the audience, and i would like to call up the president of pride alliance, sergeant nick buckley, and the treasurer, who are going to tell you a little bit more about the project, talk about the charitiable piece and actually show you the patches themselves. >> president hirsch: thank you. good evening to both of you. >> good evening. thank you very much for listening to us. i'm going to pass it over to

michael. he's the one that put this together. >> good evening, president hirsch, esteemed members of the police commission, chief scott, and director henderson. i'm the chairman of the san francisco lgbtq committee. with me is nick buckley, sergeant of the san francisco police officer's pride alliance. this evening, i would like to discuss with you the proposal of what we are deeming the pride patch project and to show you all the many benefits this project will have within our community. through this project we as a department will not only be increasing awareness and incluesivity within the lgbt community but within the

department. we hope that our efforts in wearing the pride patches during the month of june each year will encourage positive conversations with the communities about the purpose behind the patch and encourage other agencies throughout the nation to follow suit and partner with their own local charities that have exponential positive impacts within the lgbtq community. with our development of the pride patch project, we will be working with a local 501-c-3 organization, the larkin street youth services. during the month of june, we hope that officers, should they choose to do so, be permitted to wear patches on their uniforms or buy them as keep sakes. through this, we can strike up many positive conversations about provide services to

homeless youth. all of the proceeds of this project will be donated to the larkin street youth services so that they may continue their valiant mission of changing the lives of thousands of homeless youth throughout the city. what prompted this is let me just