also, i want to thank the residents from park view down to those down. it is months of almost years of inconveniences with traffic detours and construction noise. i hope this is an improvement to what was here previously. i want to thank our financial partners apartment city bank and wells fargo as well as the mayor's office of housing and community development. our contracting team that including matt, mike, jim and matt. our team of fred, michael. our landscape architect tour team justin and gary. civil engineer mark hail. i want to thank faith and

phillip at city hall for keeping the wheels greased and our bridge team. stacy and damian. i want to thank everybody. i hope you enjoyed the event. now if you are here to take a a look at the units. we will do the formal ribbon-cutting ceremony right here. [applause.] >> let's do this. five, four, three, two, one. (applause)

>> ladies and gentlemen, the chair has called the meeting to order. please turn off your electronic devices as they tend to interfere with the equipment in the room. please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> call roll. [roll call taken]

commissioner, you have a quorum. also present is chief william scott of the san francisco police department and director tall henderson from the department of police accountability. >> thank you, good evening, everybody. this is the may 8, 2019 meeting of the san francisco police commission. we have a long agenda tonight and i have to get better at controlling the agenda. i'm not satisfied with the way i do it. we are packed tonight so i'm going to limit public comment to two minutes and with that, we are ready for -- we'll get there. >> line item 1, adoption of minutes. action, meeting of april 3rd,

april 10th, april 17, 2019. >> motion to adopt the minutes. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? that motion carries. before the motion on the minutes. ok. so, we don't have a vote. any public comment on adoption of the minutes of april 3rd apr '10 -- 17. in favor, opposed, motion carries. next item. >> line item two, consent calendar. action, request of the chief of police to accept a $10 cash gift from miss belinda chin for the socks for hsoc program.

>> we need public comment. >> public comment on this, please. seeing non, public comment is closed, all in favor. opposed? motion carries unanimously. i now want to take item five out of order. and i'll ask that you please read item 5. >> line item 5. discussion and possible action on the release of certain police officer records pursuant to senate bill 14.21, apply to the police commission, police department and department of police accountability. commission will discuss two policy documents. version a and version b, and decide which version to adopt. discussion and possible action. >> ok. thank you. i've had a request from commissioner mazzucco that this matter be continued to another meeting, they would like somebody present to make a brief statement to the commission and the public just as i think we

have somebody from commissioner elias, you have asked somebody be present. >> yes and they are here along with others who have cleared their schedules to be here. what i'm going to ask, maybe bifurcate it, and allow the people who want to speak because they were not put on notice you took it off calendar. and when i requested it be on calendar it was a month ago. >> i just got a request a couple hours to continue it. i'll let commissioner mazzucco address it as well. >> apologize it, two versions. the only exist that exists from my understanding is given notice to the officers that the information is being released, and today was the figures i heard that there was going to be folks coming to talk about not giving notice. so apparently there's members of the community and members of this commission who do not want

to give the courtesy to the officers of five days' notice that this information is going to be disclosed publicly through the press, and before we do that, i think we should have a complete hearing on this. i know it's a side issue but we need to look at whether, what impact this has on the officers, they have families, they have, these are emotional situations and some the officers have never told their families. these happened a long time ago. we need them both prepared mentally and physically in case there is physical safety concerns, prepare their family, so we are asking for that five-day courtesy and my version of 14.21 that we want to put forward and i think it's the right thing to do. i think we should do the hearing all in one place, i would ask the police department to have somebody from the behavioral sciences unit here to explain the impact of the incidents on officers and their families, and here to talk about the threat assessments necessary, take place, because a lot of the

officer are collateral to this. >> i don't want to get into a full in-depth -- this discussion really is now only about continuing, i want to know from you, what is the harm if we allow the people here to make their statements and we'll have a second round where the department can have somebody. i frankly don't want to spend hours and hours on this one issue. i think it's a very small issue when it comes down to 1421, and i have some bigger concerns about our compliance with 1421, i think are much more important that i would like to have addressed besides notice of the officer. >> and i also think -- >> wait wait, no, do it properly by this. what is the issue if we allow people to go? >> here is my thoughts on this. there are folks that apparently are against giving the police officers five-day notice. maybe they will change their mind after they hear the presentation of the police department, of the behavioral sciences unit, of the professionals as to why they think it's necessary.

i'm not a big fan of doing things piecemeal and one sided, best all in one time and one place, a lot of time on a collateral issue, i don't know why we can't give people five days notice. >> the problem is, and i respect that and that's why i would grant the department the ability to come forward with people to talk, but we have already invited folks, they are here and this was a last-minute notice. a couple hours ago. and i would rather, i think, just have the people make their statement, we'll have -- you have somebody here from the -- >> i do have someone here from the aclu a co-sponsor of the actual bill, the law. additionally, community members have read the 1421 proposal and it isn't just a notice. there are other issues that they have and i believe that's why they are here to speak on that. so i think that it's much bigger than just a little notification, and i agree with you,

commissioner mazzucco that it is important to have somebody from the department come and speak and let us know their viewpoint and the reasons they have. all i'm asking, we can do that at a later time and follow up and then if these people want to come back for the second meeting, they then have the opportunity. but they have cleared their schedules tonight, we, when i asked it to be on calendar you were here and i indicated i would be having somebody that had authored the bill come to speak on this matter and that was more than a month ago. >> how about this? calendared properly -- it's not calendared properly. >> commissioner dejesus. >> look, i just got it a couple days ago, i'm looking and the first thing i saw was notice and i say something we do need to discuss. so, you know, so i can go either way, but i do believe the people here maybe should be able to make a statement, and i do think it's a problem the way we set this up. if we had community members at -- if we had collaborated

with the community and had some representatives at the time we were putting this process together this might have come out and been flushed out more with the community rather than have the first time here tonight having the community read it and have to address it. so -- >> commissioner taylor. >> yes, so, i mean -- whether or not we bifurcate, it's my personal preference to hear everything all at one time to digest it all together. that's my personal preference. if community members are here and they can't return for when we have it on next, i understand that. that's a particular circumstance. but it does strike me that if community members speak tonight i don't want it to be the next meeting, that the same community members speak about the same thing just because they want to speak twice because i think there is a certain amount of unfairness in that. and so -- some process, whatever the process is, obviously i would like to hear it all at one time and have all the information before me before i

make a decision. but whatever we deciding it should be kind of fair to all involved and you know, if community members are going to speak tonight they should speak tonight and whomever commissioner mazzucco wants to speak the next time should be able to speak. >> i don't think -- hang on, hang on. i don't think that i or the commission has the authority to shut people down at another meeting and prohibit public comment. so, i also would rather have this all done at one time, but that's not the way it's unfolding, and i'm going to do my best to accommodate everybody's interest. >> i think president hirsch and commission commissioner elias, on calendar, we are not going to vote tonight on the ultimate policy, so i think the department will have a chance at a later date, whether it's next session to present and then we can vote at that point. but i don't see any harm, and i

think it's -- i think it's disrespectful for the people who have shown up to put something on calendar, they cleared this time out of their schedule and say oh, come back another time because we just realized we wanted to have other people present as well. so, i think the proper thing to do here is to allow the people that are here to speak and address tonight. thank you. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> i learned about it for the first time, it's not properly calendared, it does not say presentation. it's discussion between the commissioners regarding version a and version b, nowhere in here does it say any presentation from anybody regarding version a or version b outside of the police commission. so, it's one, it's not properly calendared, it's not fair to the commissioners involved in this, it's not fair to those who oppose it. so, i understand and i apologize to those who came here tonight. it's not properly calendared, not ready for discussion, we should do it all in one fell swoop so we can have a meeting instead of people walking out of

here saying here is what we thought the legislative intent was. the whole issue is, common courtesy and the decency of giving police officers and their families notice what's about to go out in the press. and so i stand that we should not do it tonight, it's not properly calendared, do it all together in one night. >> thank you, commissioner brookter. >> i want to be cognizant of members from the community that have come to speak. i think that's only fair, just given that it's the fact that it is on the agenda, whether properly agendaized or not. but i think the commissioner hamasaki's point, not necessarily a vote that's going to take place tonight. i'm completely ok with it. >> commissioner elias. >> i do believe it was properly calendared. when i put it on the agenda or made the motion, commissioner hirsch was present, all of us were present and i had indicated who i was intending to bring to have the discussion because i think it is a discussion that

must be had. additionally, i did ask president hirsch whether, you know, how we would put on the agenda the attorney from the aclu coming to speak with us and i was told she would be given five minutes to present on this issue. so, in my opinion, it is proper and we need to respect the public's time. we as very busy individuals understand that. >> what i would like to do. i apologize to the attorney from the aclu. i would like the subject matter experts to all appear on the same day and talk to us at the same time. but the public, i'm going to allow the public to speak because they have come and they are here and it was no fault of their own that this was a last minute change. so, i'm going to let the public speak to the point. one other thing i would like to say. i think there are more significant issues involving 1421 compliance than whether notice goes to the officer a few days in advance.

for example, we don't have a written protocol yet, and i think the department and the d.p.a. and the commission all need a single protocol that we follow, and i've asked the assistant city attorney to please work with our staff to develop a written protocol that we can follow. number two, the police commission has an independent legal obligation to respond to these requests. and it makes sense to coordinate with the department but i don't think we should hold up our production in response to a request because the department is still working its way through their documents. they have more files than we do, and i want to make sure that we honestly and accurately respond to requests and out in a timely fashion. we don't have sufficient staffing and that's a real problem. we don't have the people right now to do this in a timely fashion. we are going to do our best with the staff but as people know, the commission does not have the ability to go out and hire

staff. don't have a budget, we are working with the department who made a request as part of their budget to include additional personnel to be able to respond in part to 1421 requests. that's it for now. i'm going to let the public comment on this. i would like to do it right now, actually. any procedural problem with that, counsel? having the public comment on this item? >> absolutely not. >> ok. open it up for comment on item 5 of the agenda. any public comment? >> 1421. >> no, we are not going to have the presentation tonight. i'm going to wait until the department's people are ready as well. >> good evening.

these police records belong to the public. we are 128 days into the year and i'm troubled to hear that there's no written protocol without no transparency, there can be no accountability. there are folks who are locked up in the county jail right now who have trials that are pending and these records should be released. we are talking about what is the impact on the officers, what is the impact on these folks' lives who have jail time that is pending and looking over their head as we speak. the issue with regard to a common courtesy to clients is to release these records. the reason these records are a priority, or should be, law enforcement reviews and redacts police reports all the time. if someone is charged with a case today, in three days they redact the records. this is the law, it should be

discovered to the public and what we are concerned about here is officer rights, what about clients, individual constitutional rights. as a member of the public defenders office, you know, we are reasonable, we ask for the 2315 active officers on january 2nd. we tried to work with the city and d.p.a. and the police department and narrowed down to just 29 cases with active cases that are pending trial with 90 officers. the -- this says 28 seconds. >> it's the warning. >> ok. the district attorney's office released the records. sheriff's department has released some records. police department, the records they released are for retired officers, officers no longer on the force. we need to get our priorities straight here instead of releasing retired officers and these other things, prioritize based off of cases that are active right now. you know. this is a joke. we are 128 days into the year and no plan? really? >> well, i want to clarify something. it's not that there's no plan,

there's no written protocol. the commission and the department are going through records right now but i want them to have a written protocol so that everybody follows the same path and gets the documents out. there is a staffing issue all around. anybody else from the public want to talk on this subject? >> you can speak. >> yes. >> you are a member of the public, but i would ask you not to make your formal presentation until we have the other department people here. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, good evening. kathleen dutyomn, aclu, a member of the public and resident. i am deeply concerned to learn that the -- that the san francisco police department still is working on a written protocol for disclosure of these records. i also understand that the department of police

accountability in san francisco so far has not released any records at least to the a kr clu request. deeply troubled by that. the law has been passed since january of 2019. incredibly important to public transparency and to repair trust between communities of color that have far too long born the brunt of systemic police violence. and i don't believe that trust is going to be able to be repaired until these records start being produced, even on a rolling basis. i am aware in my work that i'm doing at the aclu, we had sent out requests to 400 agencies across the state after january, that many other agencies are responding, police departments are responding even on a rolling bases and accountability groups are responding. it's critical to promote

transparency and it is disappointing, for the records of police accountability. and 1421 passage, as somebody who watched 1421 pass and was aware of how important it was that transparency is the first step in accountability, and until there is transparency, there can't be any accountability. and i am concerned that we don't at this point have records that are necessary to rebuild that trust. >> thank you. any other members of the public want to address this issue? >> actually think probably having it all at once is good, although it seems the procedure was a bit odd. i agree with both of the previous speakers.

and you know, when officers sign up to be police officers they know they are public servants and public figures and if there's, they know requirement for the records to come forward so, this is absurd that we are not considering and caring about the police officers when people are in jail, people are rotting in jail because we are not moving forward with these things. so, the police are public servants who have put themselves in that position. the public is in jail without defense or, you know, transparency, so they can move forward with their cases. and since january, this is absurd. so, i am glad that we are wanting to go deeper into all of the aspects of 1421, but this is just another reason for the department to delay production of records discloseable under 1421 and give the officers an opportunity to object to their disclosure. it's absurd. the laws are there, the police need on the level of protection

they need and this is to make transparency. if you want the public to trust, you need to be way more transparent. this is very disturbing to all of us, and we are tired of people rotting in jail and police officers being protected and not, they are not suffering. there are people suffering because there is not transparency, thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public want to comment on this issue? just so it's clear, when this matter is recalendared at a future date, there will be public comment at that time as well. ok. public comment is closed. commissioner, vice president taylor. >> i have a comment and a question. i wanted to clarify in case there was any confusion. i would prefer for this all to happen in one meeting, of course. i was not intending to limit public comment. public can comment at every commission meeting, can and should. i think it's more helpful for me to have it all at one time so i can consider it all at one time.

and so i just wanted to make that clear in case it wasn't. and also a question for commissioners mazzucco and elias. and so i, in just reading the draft of 1421 with the different options, i don't think that it kind of calls for procedure for officers to be able to object to the disclosure. are we just talking about notice? >> just talking about notice. >> i just wanted to -- >> very simple. >> i want to make it clear to the public and the aclu and the public defenders office. we want the records out there now as soon as possible. our only concern is, the issues you just heard, giving notice to the officers, not for them to object, so they can prepare accordingly, whether it's their safety or their emotional security. we are not -- we are talking about incidents that are very serious in their lives so you as attorneys should both realize and recognize that even they have due process. so it's all we are asking for is

five days so they can prepare accordingly. thank you for coming tonight. >> ok. we will recalendar that matter. next item. >> line item 3, reports to the commission. discussion. 3a, chief's report. weekly crime trends. providing overview of offenses occurring in san francisco. incidents, chief report limited to a brief description of the significant incidents. whether to calendar for a future commission meeting. major event, provide summary of planned activities and events occurring since the previous meeting. this will include a brief overview of any unplanned events or activities occurring in san francisco, having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities, the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. community engagement highlights. youth summer programs.

summary of the 2019 youth summer programs coordinated by the community engagement division. electronic controlled weapons. update on m.o.u. between s.f.p.d. and modifying different numbers. presentation with the behavioral science unit. >> good evening, chief. a full plate. >> brief on the crime trend summary and the meat of the presentation. i'll start with violent crime. we are down 14% violent crime, that includes homicide, rapes, aggravate the assaults and human trafficking. specifically homicides we have 13 for the year, compared to 15 this time last year, so we are down 13%. down. there was one homicide last week, talk in brief detail about that. eight of the 13 homicides have been cleared, seven by arrest,

one by exceptional, and two suspects in custody and waiting decision from the district attorney's office. looking at gun violence, down 27% over this time last year. our property crime is down 14%, and that's led by 17% reduction year to date and car break-ins. also of note for property crimes, we are down 16% for the year in burglary and this is following a year 2018 where we were up i believe 12% at year's end, so, very pleased with that progress. significant incidents for the week, i said earlier we did have one home team last week, occurred on the 100 block of bartlett street. officers responded to a shot fired, shots fired at the locations and they discovered a victim with multiple gunshot

wounds. the suspect who was seen riding away on a bicycle fled the location and has not been identified. we do have evidence that we are following up on but at this time we don't have a suspect identified nor in custody. victim is a 28-year-old male and if anybody in the public knows anything about this, again, it happened on may one at 4:12 in the afternoon, 100 block of bartlett. please call our tip line if you have any information. major events this week, we have a bike to workday, may 9 at various locations through the say. i would like to say that anybody that plans to cycle to work, please follow the rules of the road. we have had a significant uptick in traffic collisions involving injuries and fatalities this year.

we want to make sure that everybody stays safe if you plan to participate in that. today was the national day of action by uber drivers. we saw some activity here in the civic center area earlier today between the hours of 12 and 3:00 p.m. no incidents -- no disruptions and no violence, and that was intended to be a one-day event. so, things should be back to normal from this point forward. cinco de mayo after action, there were no major incidents related to cinco de mayo. we were deployed very adequately and had no problems over the weekend related to that. community engagement, i want to give an update on the youth programs. we are really happy with the direction that our youth programs are going. for the past several years, we have had summer employment through our youth programs. this year is no exception. the mayor's office has taken the lead on this and coordinating for all city departments. happy to announce we have 730

youth that will participate in our programs this year and engage in summer employment. that's a really good thing, really good program. a good way to engage, good way for the young people of our city to get both work experience and life experience through the summer programs. some of the highlights, future grads, 50 youth, this is the eighth year of this program and these youth will be placed in tech internships with some of our local tech firms and some of the youth will also have opportunities with the architectural foundation of san francisco. another 30 interest in law enforcement and they will working work in various areas of the san francisco police department like the permit section, department center, academy, healthy streets operations center, recruitment, and crime scene investigation. so, they usually really get a kick out of that and good experience and good opportunity for us to engage with this

population. our youth community police academy is also going this summer, that will be an eight-week course, approximately 40 youth that will go through this course and it will be happening along with project pool. and it will be every thursday for eight weeks. we are leaving ten spots open for availability for any youth to apply from direct placement for opportunity for all, through the mayor's office on that. our community safety initiative, c.s.i., we expect 50 to 75 youth to participate in that. 4 or 5 through the summer and it's a really good opportunity for youth. particularly to engage with the community. cheryl davis from the human rights commission has done an outstanding job and working with the department on this endeavor. and one thing we have seen from the program, the attitudes and the perceptions of the youth

that have been involved actually improved about their perceptions of the police after they have engaged in this program. so it's a very positive endeavor. and, also some academic research tied to this with stanford university and their spark program. the last two i would like to highlight is the summer wilderness program, hiking trips through the summer, beginner to advance trips, and open to all san francisco youth. we plan to have about 220 engaged in that, and also our youth career academy through operation genesis, about 50 youths will participate and they will be given opportunities to learn about different career paths and justice, medical field, health, fitness, and the dietary fields. also full speed with the summer programming, including cadet

program, summer fishing program, flag football, football and cheer starts in august and pal. those are the highlights and proud of what our men and women are doing in terms of community engagement with the very young population of san francisco and that is a very needed, very needed programming. commissioner dejesus and i sat with the youth commission and we hope to continue for summers to come. but over 700 this summer, we are really pleased with that. >> before i move on, any questions on the -- i'll go to the t.e.w. update and our m.o.u. update. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. chief, you mentioned the uptick in traffic collisions and some reporting on this recently that

we are at record levels of pedestrian and bicycle collisions and fatalities. what -- the department's side, is there anything that you have identified as the cause of this uptick and what is the department doing in response to address it? >> well, i don't know if record level is -- it's record -- we had -- we are higher than this time last year, we were doing good the last two years. at record lows the last two years for fatalities. we have seen an uptick in pedestrian violations of where we are experiencing many collisions involving injuries and deaths this year, pedestrian-related. so, a couple of things that we have been doing, you might have seen coverage on the local news earlier this week on some traffic safety operations that our traffic company has led. we have also had each of our district stations asked to dial

in on this as well and focus. the traffic safety operations will include pedestrian operations, bicycle operations and mainly motor vehicle violation enforcement. we expect -- and three things with traffic. enforcement, there's education and engineering, and we are working on all three with the help of m.p.a. with the enforcement operations typically when we identify high collision corridor across the city we deploy there with our motorcycle officers and again, we want to enhance that across the board with patrol and our district stations also participating in being more involved in that process, so we hope to see some better outcomes there. a big part of this is education, not everybody stopped tore violation will get a citation. the officers do have some discretion there, so some are

warned. but the bottom line is we want to make sure that we -- people know that we are out there. they tend to drive better when they know we are out there and we want to make sure we turn this around, because we have started very high this year compared to the last two years. >> thank you. so update on electronic controlled weapons, or e.c.w. i mispronounced it a second ago. update on where we are. there were a number of tasks that were in front of us after the policy went through the commission, and i'll categorize the work and give status where we are in each of these areas. and one of the tasks was to develop the infrastructure for when the devices are implemented we need an infrastructure, which includes docking stations similar to the process that we

use for body worn cameras, data portals, batteries, that type of thing and we have to develop the infrastructure and prepare the infrastructure, so we have assigned a team led by commissioner pete walsh to address the issues and go through the planning stage and identify the needs, and that has been done with the infrastructure. i'll name some, captain denise flaherty from training, lieutenant mike nevin and assisted by officer woods and then sergeant menor and krudo, who have helped with the e.c.w. review board. that team has been working pretty much since the policy went through the commission on infrastructure, updating the use of force forms, beginning the

draft on the e.c.w. review board to go through the working group. establish the criteria, going through the working group, establish a review process on e.c.w. reviews in terms of use of force and then establishing the training. so, i'll give some brief highlights where we were on each one of those. infrastructure, we have established what's needed in terms of docks, batteries, docking ports at the stations in order to support the e.c.w. with the infrastructure. we have not extended any funding on any of this yet. and the funding is still on reserve by the board of supervisors, but we have established what the needs and

the costs are. as far as the use of force forms, when we implement e.c.w., they will need to be updated. we have created new forms with the proper boxes for e.c.w. at the time when it's reviewed, we will be ready to roll the forms out so we can account for the usage of e.c.w. and that will be part of the review process that will go to the review board when we finalize what that board will do. we have adopted some basic guidelines for e.c.d. review boards -- or e.c.w., i'm sorry, and that will have to go through the work group process. it will preliminarily, a board meet once per quarter, and findings as fo policy training,

tactics, supervision, trends and/or other issues based on the review of the board. subcommittee of the e.c.w. review board, called the review committee, responsible for the review of unit level investigated incidents. also the plan is that the subcommittee will convene more frequently, perhaps monthly, and report actions and recommendations for the quarter to the e.c.w. review board. in terms of the discharge,s we have preliminarily identified two types of discharge. one being when there is no serious bodily injury or death, and the other being when there is discharge of an e.c.w. that is accompanying with serious bodily injury or death. and the purpose for doing that is to prioritize -- >> you are going a little too fast for me, i'm jumping around here. >> i'll slow down.

when you talk about e.c.w. review board, a review board and then a sub committee or two committees? >> laying out what the plan is, commissioner. to give a status. i'll slow down and stop me if you -- >> monthly committee and quarterly board. >> quarterly board, will feed into the quarterly board are monthly committee reports. so the board can deliver it and discuss the issues quarterly on what the monthly committee identifies. so basically the infrastructure for the board. and again, all this is in the planning phase, but this is the status update on where we are with this. >> you left off on two types of discharge, serious bodily injury -- g.b.i. or death. >> the overarching issue there is, we want to be able to identify and prioritize, particularly those incidents that may result in bodily injury and/or death so the board can

categorize between just discharge that results in no injury and no death from the ones that are more serious. so, we plan to differentiate those by type. >> let the chief finish his report and then we'll take questions. he's going pretty slow. >> now he is. yeah. >> the last part of the process is the review process and the plan is have all e.c.w. discharge incidents subject to review through the e.c.w. review board and the subcommittee which i just described. through the process, chief of police will receive recommendations on administrative investigations, policy tactics, training, equipment, trends, and any other matters that are identified by the board. it is expected that the serious incidents review board, which members of this commission will be a part of, that work group

will eventually replace the e.c.w. review board. that is a work in process as well. as to training, two members of the san francisco police department will attend the master instructor school for e.c.w.s. the vendor will conduct a trainer, training for ten s.f.p.d. trainers and another session down the line will be held with ten additional trainers after the initial training. observers will be invited to observe the training. as public a process as possible given the interest in the subject. so, the cadre has developed training outlines in terms of basically how the training scenarios will go, that's still

a work in progress, but they are basically hashing out what the training that will actually go through the officers when you are trained on this will consist of, and that's still a work in process but are working on that, and working to actually finalize that training. and that is -- that is it. that's the summary of all the different issues that we were tasked with, again, we are very long far along in the process on each ever those issues, and in terms of the implementation, we still have to finalize the policy that's not yet gone through meeting to confer, and the funding has to be released by the board of supervisors before we can purchase or procure the devices for the weapons. >> ok, thank you. i'm going to ask you to complete your report and then questions and comments. >> ok. next thing is just information and update on the

officer-involved shooting m.o.u. this has been a topic and a question that's been asked by several of the commissioners for the last two years since i've been in office here. the process started at the end of 2016 at the recommendation of, and much public interest about having an independent investigation of officer-involved shootings, and we are talking about the actual criminal investigation to determine whether the actual shooting, the officer-involved shooting met the criminal standard. so, after two years we, and the district attorney's office, along with the department of human resources and the meet and confer process have arrived at an agreement on m.o.u. it was signed and actually a couple weeks ago, last month, actually, and is effective may

4th. so, we have a finalized m.o.u. i see on the report about 6.20, 8.11 and 8.12, the actual m.o.u. basical basically talks about what everybody's responsibilities are. district attorney is the lead on the investigation. administrative investigation process will not change, and the m.o.u. clearly defines what everybody's responsibilities are. so, in principal, when it comes time to revise the d.g.o.s, the basic principles remain unchanged. duties of the m.o.u. will change. but the basic principles and parties will not change. so, that's where we are. i know that was a topic of interest that was mentioned, i

think by one of the commissioners a couple months ago as far as a status update. we are happy we have reached an agreement and gone through the process through the d.h.r. process with the p.o.a., and we have an agreement. that is it for the chief's report. >> for this portion of the report. we have a presentation recording behavioral science unit requested by commissioner taylor and after we take questions we'll do that portion. >> ok. all right. vice president taylor. >> i was just a little bit confused and probably looked up the way most people did when you talked about the two types of discharge without serious bodily injuries and with serious bodily injuries or death and to the extent it's been plotted out, can we talk more about that? one committee dealing with -- >> it's one committee. it's just like use of force, if you have a use of force that

results in even before this process, that results in serious bodily injury or death, it's a more robust investigation and more robust process in terms of the reviews, in terms of the investigation protocols and those type of things. this process is what we are intending to do is call that out. if it's a taser used, there's no injury, no incident, that will be reviewed but it's a different level of review when it involves serious bodily injury and/or death. so, that's why we want to tier it, have two tiers that we can separate those and put priority on the ones where you need to, more detail. >> when you say different level of review, do you have any sense now what that means in terms of how the review will be conducted, kind of the guardrails placed around incidents involving serious

bodily injury? >> it does not surplant the investigation. serious bodily injury as defined what it is, and as defined by the d.g.o., it's going to trigger a call out and immediate investigation as opposed to a use of force where there is a sprain, which is a different level. that's going to be investigated at the supervisory level. that has not changed. this board will not investigate the incident. this board will review the investigation for policy, training, tactics, concerns that can be addressed and with recommendations made for improvement or, and/or policy changes if any of those are noted. board does not do the actual investigation. >> the whole purpose is, when we went through this work group process, there was a lot of discussion and debate about the

need to really have an understanding of e.c.w., impact, how we are use being them, what we can do right, better, and lessons learned as we evolve in the process. so, that's really the job of this board. it's not to investigation, it's to actually take those investigations and go through them and make recommendations so we can always be on the forefront of being the best we can be in terms of the use of this. >> and will there be conclusions? just trying to get a better sense of what the board will ultimately do. will there be conclusions in terms of whether, you know, actions are in policy, out of policy, recommendations for discipline. >> knots from this board. use of force where serious bodily j ir or death occurs, that process will -- there will be a recommendation after that investigation whether it's the policy or not. this board will take that investigation and basically

dissect it, so basically an biopsy of the use of this weapon to try to determine if there are any issues that need to be addressed as far as policy training, tactics, that type of thing. a lot of that will be disclosed during the actual investigation itself. this board will then put a second set of eyes on it for recommendation. >> wondering as a commission how if at all what the board does could be helpful for us in assessing disciplinary actions, you know, the efficacy of the e.c.w., whether they are a good idea moving forward. i'm trying to get a better sense of the role of the board and how, and whether it would be something the commission could get information from. >> it's -- it's where in in the policy, the board is written in the actual d.g.o.,

commissioners, and the intent and the spirit behind it was really to make sure that we are being as thorough as possible. but the implementation of this new weapon, and i think extra measures of caution were taken to make sure we looked at every conceiveable thing to make sure we are doing it the right way and as much as possible it's a safe rollout and we use it appropriately and that there there are lessons or improvements to be made, that they be, they be dealt with right away, and handled right away. that was a purpose of the board. the board is actually written into the d.g.o. so, it's not meant to circumvent or replace the actual use of force review process. i mean, this is not a board that will remedies president clinton

or anything like that. it's really a review to dissect and do a biopsy on the actual case and the investigation. so -- >> commissioner dejesus. >> my notes were a little skimpy, hard to keep up with you. infrastructure for the devices how they are going to be the data portal, the batteries, how they are in the stations, i understand that. i'm a little confused. you said the team was working with the policy, went through the commission, adopting a draft to go through the working group and i got to ask you, i thought there was not an active working group for tassers but maybe i'm wrong. when you say the working group, you mean the command staff or working group we had before on tasers. >> from the starts, going through the process, working the policy, we worked with community

stakeholders, d.p.a., on the review board process. and that, before is finalized has to continue, written into our new d.p.a. agreement is that before we roll something like this out, that we will discuss it with not only d. p. a., but in this case a lot of input from members of the public on this. so, before we finalize this, of course with he want to make sure we are delivering on what we said we would do. >> working group like before, the bar association and other people were part of that group? >> that was the process of how this got in the policy in the first place through that group. >> when you say community input besides the d.p.a. >> we drafted the -- we drafted the plan, and before this getting finalized, of course we will have a discussion with

d.p.a. and whoever else that we need to have the discussion to finalize this. >> i don't want to leave it to whoever else, talk about the community input and the group, whether it's going to be the same type of working group we had before or not. i think we need to know that. you sit together and then the community comes and they are upset they are not inclusive. we as a commission should talk about that. >> i understand. i understand. so, the whole purpose of this is to continue the process that we started to even get to where we are now. so, that was a very long process with a lot of input. and a lot of direction. we took that direction and now we have a plan on paper and so we will -- >> take it back, that's good. we'll talk about that, and i'm sure the president -- we'll all talk about it, the same group or something similar. but the e.c.w. review board, what i hear you saying is pretty much a separate firearm discharge review board that the command staff, the department

puts together with the training department, with the components that normally sit, similar with the firearm discharge review board. you let d.p.a. and a commissioner sit there, but we have no -- we have not been asked questions, but cannot make a decision. i'm wondering, structured in a similar format? >> i'm going to go -- >> to go over tactics. >> back to the policy, commissioners, give me one second here. >> maybe next time we have a presentation, we can be given a copy of the d.g.o., so we can also can look at it. we don't have it available.

>> at the meeting, that would be nice. >> the major ones. >> chief, that's okay. d.g.o. we have to go back to, we'll go back to it. here is where i'm going with this. when we were doing the, the department of justice was here, there was a lot of panels on the department of justice, talking about the different ways octuplet cities had tasers and went about it, and a review board with the community present and i think the one in houston, the community not only sat on the, whenever there was a discharge of it, they sat in on the analysis, they listened to the investigation, and i think in houston they recommended discipline or what to go

forward. i'm just wondering, getting a little confused. internal command e.c.w. review board to look at the investigation, tactics, training or things that need to be corrected. i see similar to what the discharge review of the firearm discharge review board does. are you also talking about having a subcommittee that would have, or include civilians or community members on taser discharge. i'm trying to get, and since i don't have what you have, trying to get a better idea what we are talking about. >> yes, so, the ultimate goal is to institute the serious incident review board which will be what you just described. that's the ultimate goal. as we got through the taser d.g.o. and written into the, this policy was the stand alone review board for the taser,

controlled weapon. electronic controlled weapon. ultimately, yes. the serious incident review board, once we get to that point, will do exactly what you just described. we are not at the point where we have a civilian, have not worked in that yet. we have discussed that, and we have consulted with the city attorney on what the requirements to actually have that type of involvement, but we are not there yet. but this board is the first phase of what the longer process that will roll into the serious incident review board to do all the things you just described, but we are not there yet. >> and the last thing, you are talking about two members of the s.f.p.d. attending the master training and then trained and additional ten. you are talking, it's a very small compared to the force, 1200, 1300. is everybody getting a taser, is it going to be the whole force,