(♪) (♪) (♪)

>> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the june 1, 2020, meeting of the rules committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, the chair of the committee. with me on the video conference is rules committee vice-chair, supervisor catherine stefani and member supervisor gordon mar. we might have other supervisors joining us today and as they come online i'll introduce them. our clerk today is victor young and i'd like to also thank sfgov-tv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: the city employees and the public, and the board of supervisors and the committee rooms are closed. the members will participate in the meeting remotely.

this precaution is taken to the state-wide sta stay-at-home ord. members will participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda both on channel 26 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment period and are available via phone, by calling 1-(415)-655-0001. again, 1-(415)-655-0001. and access code 921413607. again, access code, 921413607. then press pound, and pound

again. when connected you will hear the meeting discussion but you'll be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star, 9, to be added to the speaker line. the best practices are to call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively you may submit public comment in either of the ways -- email to myself. if you submit public comment via email it will be forwarded to the supervisors and it will be included as part of the official file. finally items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda at meeting of june 9th, unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, mr. clerk. can you please read item number 3 out of order and i recognize

supervisor haney who just joined us. >> clerk: yes, item three is amending the business and tax regulation code anded administrative code to temporary suspend the vacance tax to december 31, 2021. >> supervisor ronen: i see that we have supervisor peskin's office. lee, would you like to make any comments? >> supervisor peskin: thank you for taking this legislation out of order. on march seventh, 70% of san francisco voters adopted the storefront vacancy tax which would impose a tax on vacant storefronts in san francisco throughout the campaign for that proposition, we expressed a ceiling that we could reduce that tax, that we could suspend that tax, based on circumstances as they arise. i don't think that even on march

7 that we understood that circumstances would change so quickly and, indeed, they did. and the world is a very different place for the retail economy right now. we have heard from small business owners and other backers of this legislation that they prefer to extend the implementation date of that proposition by one year. and that's what the legislation before you this morning would do. so thank you for your consideration for this, of this, and i'm happy to answer any questions. and i appreciate your consideration. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, and i don't have any questions and i want to just appreciate you and your office for bringing this forward. we could never have anticipated that the economy would be turned upside down overnight and i appreciate that you are understanding the implications on small businesses and making this change. so i just really want to thank you for this ordinance and if i could be lifted a listed as a c,

that would be great. any questions or remarks before we open up for public comment? go ahead, supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: i want to thank supervisor peskin for putting this forward and to be added as a co-sponsor, if not already. i think that i indicated that but i wanted to make sure. >> supervisor ronen: supervisor mar, any comments or questions? you're on mute. >> superviosr mar: sorry about that. yeah, i would like to be added as a co-sponsor and i thank supervisor peskin for all of his work on this issue. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. supervisor haney, any comments? no. okay. we will now open this up for public comment. any member who would like to speak on this item you have two minutes. mr. clerk, are there any speakers on this item? >> clerk: madam clerk, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the

queue. be aware if you're in the queue with hands raised that we're taking public comment for item number 3. if you'd like to raise your hand to speak, press star, 9, at this time for item number 3. while we're waiting, while they're checking, please note that if you are currently waiting to speak to item 1 and 2 and your hand is raised you can press star, 9, to lower your hand at this time also. are there any speakers for this item? >> yes, let me queue the first caller.

>> caller: hello, i'm sorry. i intended to make a comment on the later item of commission appointments. >> okay, if you press star, 9 9, to lower your hand and wait for the item to be called. >> i intended to speak as well on the commission appointment, i thought that was number three. that's not correct? >> no, we are taking public comment for item number 3 right now, with the police commission appointments are items 1 and 2. >> caller: okay, i will raise my hand then.

>> caller: hi, this is sonya drouse. i have postponing charging the vacancy tax because it makes absolutely no sense. the reason for the vacancy tax, not only are they still here, they're actually ramped up times 9,000. you know, the situation that we're facing before is that you have a small business, they want to stay in the neighborhood, and the landlord wants them out for one reason or another. and they think they can get more rent. and the problem is that landlords really face no downside to keeping retail storefronts empty, right? and so if the landlord says that i think that i can get more rent later and the tenant says, no, i don't think that you can. you know, the landlord tries it, there's no downside. now we have a situation where small businesses are begging landlords to let them stay and

even accept rent cuts because business is bad. and so why would we take this leverage away from the small businesses? we want the small businesses to say, look, landlord, i understand that i'm supposed to pay you $7,000 this month, and i can only afford $4,000. and we want the landlord to say, you know what, better that person stay because if i kick them out i'm going to have this tax. instead, you guys are like, oh, let's delay the incident of the tax. like it just doesn't make sense. i mean, if anybody is going to vote for it, please walk me through a scenario where taking the tax away helps a small business that is trying to negotiate with their landlords and trying to convince the landlord to let them stay in the place and not kick them out and then create a vacancy.

>> supervisor ronen: are there any other speakers on item number 3? >> caller: hi, this is janice. >> clerk: go ahead. >> caller: hi, this is janice lee and i'm calling in support of nang nancy tung for commissi. >> supervisor ronen: that's the wrong item, janice. >> clerk: i'd like to make an announcement with anybody with their hands raised that we're currently taking public comment for item number 3, which is the business and tax regulations code and the administrative code regarding the temporary suspension of vacancy tax. if your hand is raised incorrectly at this time, you can press star, 9, to lower your hand. any other callers? >> yes. there's still some callers.

>> caller: hi, my name is jeff prenner and i echo what the earlier speaker said. it doesn't really make sense to say, hey, let's add an extra year, because, again, like i think we all have a shared pain with covid-19 and things like that, and i think that if we want to preserve businesses, like, landlords (indiscernible) and totally appreciate that they're going to take a financial hit. but this is really the moment, and i think that if you extend the tax out for a year, that's like, hey, it's really (indiscernible) for the leverage. and i don't know a year and opposed to a month or two. i think that if you're all committed to keeping the existing small businesses here this is an effective way to make sure that landlords and small business incentives are aligned during this really difficult time for everyone.

thanks for your consideration. >> caller: hi, this is matilda nobi, i'm an owner of a small commercial space in the excells your district. and i understand why everyone is wary of waiving or holding off on this vacancy tax for a year. but i think that they're thinking of commercial buildings in high-rent areas. in the excelsior district on the corridor it's extremely difficult to find a tenant. my tenants have been in the buildings for a very long time and they're paying under $2 a square foot for rent, which is is fine. because i'd rather have a good tenant there for a long time. however, i did have a vacancy once for one year and that was with hiring a realtor to actually market the property. it took me one year to find a

viable tenant. so i just wanted to make sure that as we're looking at these taxes that we're taking into account the financial realities of all of the neighborhoods of san francisco and not just union street or the mission or downtown. that's it. i'm done. >> caller: hello, i'm a life-long resident of san francisco. i would like to also echo the previous comments that i think that it is the muting of the vacance taxes does not -- does not provide any leverage for tenants to request that they make a deal with landlords while the current crisis is ongoing. i do also appreciate the previous comment that it should take into account the different

rent rates in different regions of the city. i think that perhaps a stipulation that perhaps takes into account the rent being asked or being charged should it be taken into account as far as the amount of tax being levied on a storefront that is vacant. i have no further comment. thank you. >> caller: (indiscernible) the leverage for tenants -- >> clerk: hello, caller? >> caller: (indiscernible) while the current crisis is ongoing. and i do appreciate the previous comments that it should take into account the different rent rates in different regions of the city.

>> clerk: hello, caller? >> caller: hi, how are you? i am a resident of san francisco and i think that we should delay the vacancy tax because businesses are struggling. and it's very difficult to rent places right now during this pandemic. and commercial spaces, landlords should not be penalized during this time. thank you. i'm done. >> clerk: madam chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. we'll now close public comment. and i would like to make a motion to move this item as a committee report with positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote on that motion? >> clerk: madam chair, i do not recall that there was a request for a committee report on this item. >> supervisor ronen: oh, i'm sorry about that.

and it wasn't agendaized in that way? >> clerk: i do not believe so. >> supervisor ronen: in that case i make a motion to this send this forward as a positive recommendation to the full board. can we take a roll call on that motion? >> clerk: yes on that motion, supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: aye. >> clerk: stefani, aye. supervisor mar? >> superviosr mar: aye. >> clerk: mar, aye. chair ronen? >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> commissioner ransom-scott: ronen, aye. the motion passeses. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. can you please call item number 1 and 2 together. >> clerk: item number 1 is the motion approving and rejecting the mayor's nomination for the appointment of geoffrey gordon-creed to the police commission for a four-year term ending april 30, 2024. and item number 2 is a motion approving or rejecting the mayor's nomination for the appointment of nancy tung for the police commission for a

four-year term, ending april 30, 2024. member are people to do public comment should call 1-(415)-655-0001. access code, 921413607. then press, pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star, 9, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may b begin your comments. >> thank you so much. we are here today to hear from and to take public comment on two mayoral nominations to police commission. the timing of the board's decision could not be more important. i have been thinking about these appointments and they have been weighing on me heavily.

and i will say that my thinking has changed over the past few days as the country -- the world and the city are erupting over our broken policing system in the united states. i prepared some remarks that i'm going to read in a minute but something just happened to me this morning that i also want to share. now that we're sharing workplaces with our significant others, i was in my bathroom while my husband was in our bedroom conducting his staff meeting this morning. my husband is the manager of the immigration unit at the public defender's office in san francisco. and he manages a team of about 25 lawyers, interns, investigators, paralegals, social workers. and they started off their meeting just expressing their

feelings over what is going on in this country and about the killing of george floyd. and i was listening to them. some of them -- first of all, the anguish and despair was palpable. some of them were expressing their feelings over having a hard time discussing the issue with their family members. some of them are talking about feeling guilty because they don't know how to help and do something about this system. and meanwhile they're involved in a class-action lawsuit where they're filing 400 petitions to get people released from immigration detention in california before a fe federal judge so working non-stop and haven't been able to join the protests on the streets. and i thought to myself, wow, these kind of conversations are happening all over the country

and world in workplaces because the bottom line is that our policing in the united states of america has to fundamentally, and systematically change. our system of mass incarceration and our broken criminal justice system can no longer continue to operate as is. we need a radical, radical change. and once again a police officer has killed a black man. this time communities throughout the country and even the world, including right here in san francisco, are erupting in despair and frustration. george floyd in minneapolis and brianna taylor in louisville, are the latest victims of police brutality against people of color, and especially black people. this brutality happens every single day in the united states. and it's been happening for over a century. people are tired, angry and

demanding that we do something. and we have to listen to them. the history of policing in the u.s. tracks back to the slave patrols, which were formed to retreat people who escaped vicious enslavement and to suppress popular revolt. that recent legacy is vividly present in our country's police forces today and it has to be stopped. the rage and fury that we see on the streets carries a clear message -- people are quite literally screaming for major system of change in the way that this country polices its communities. the board of supervisor has a profound responsibility and the opportunity right now to act locally in a meaningful way. our power is to determine [broken audio] to ensure that those who do have the ability to

lead and fight for police reform. we can make a difference, if we have a strong movement and have bold leadership and we can get it done. but we need everyone, and that includes a police commission that is rooted in the long-term fight for major systemic change. the police commission is charged with setting policy for the police department, investigating misconduct, and imposing discipline and hearing appeals. four years ago in response to a series of fatal officer-involved shoots and the disclosure of horribly racist and homophobic texts within the sfpd, the department of justice conducted a review of police practices that resulted in 272 reform recommendations that cover anti-bias measures, changes in allowable police use of force and how the sfpd interacts with community members. making the changes recommended in the report will make

meaningful change in our department. it is outrageous that four years in, only 40 -- 40 of the recommendations -- of the recommended 272 recommendations have been completed. that's a little less than 15%. and at this rate it will take us another 23 years to complete these reforms. this country and especially the communities -- our communities of color -- they don't have a minute to wait for these reforms to be implemented, let alone 23 years. we need every person on the commission to be working with life-or-death urgency and with full commitment to getting those changes in place in written and in enforceable policies and in everyday operations. my colleagues and i will be asking many questions today, many of these questions are complex. and i anticipate nuanced responses. but also for each of the two

nominees, i have a series of yes-or-no questions for which i'm expecting straightforward, yes-or-no answers. geoffrey gordon-creed and nancy tung, i welcome you both here today. i'm glad that we were all able to speak on the phone recently. you are both accomplished and experienced attorneys and i really appreciate your willingness to serve in this time-consuming and volunteer capacity. and i have to admit that when i spoke with you recently before this country and world erupted in protests over the recent police killings, i was thinking about these appointments in a slightly different way. today i feel that it is my responsibility to listen to the people crying for change. we need experienced police reformers on the police commission. we need individuals who have a clear track record of working with and in the community, who are ready to turn our police department around and address

the deep racism within the force and within its policies. we've had many letters and emails arrive, including one from former police commission angela chan, and i expect that we will hear today and over the week from many constituents on different sides of this issue. i am grateful to every member of the community who cares and who have taken the time to weigh in. my goal here today is to create a record based upon which the full board can make these important decisions. and with that, i will turn it over to any of my colleagues who wish to make opening remarks. after that, we will start with questions for nominee nancy tung and then after asking questions to nominee nancy tung, we'll ask questions to geoffrey gordon-creed. and then we'll turn it over to public comments. do any of my colleagues wish to

make any opening statements? supervisor mar, would you like to make an opening statement? >> superviosr mar: yeah, sure. thank you so much, chair ronen. i wanted to really thank nancy tung and geoffrey gordon-creed for your willingness to serve in this very, very important role on the police commission at this incredibly challenging moment right now. and just wanted to add, you know, added to some of the points that chair ronen made in her opening remark. you know, obviously, the police killing of george floyd in minneapolis has inspired an uprising across the nation. and the majority of these direct actions have been peaceful and powerful protests calling for justice and solidarity. and this is really a long overdue reckoning with the way that our systems of

law-and-order too often have racist oppression. and george floyd is just one of the lives lost to racism. here in san francisco we're not immune to this and i want to say the names of mario wood and alex nietto, and jessica williams and louise gongora and those are the most recent ones. i would like to say as a chinese-american that we have a district that is predominantly asian-american, our oppression are deeply intertwined at a time that we're seeing a dramatic spike in anti-asian race system and we must stand together to oppose racism in all of its forms. we have experienced chinese exclusion and we have experienced our own forms of pain and suffering and we have experienced the long-standing lack of cultural and linguistic

representation within sfpd for the chinese community. we need to use these experiences to empathize with different but related experiences of injustice and exclusion felt by black and brown san franciscoians and vice versa. and we must stand for justice, knowing that one without the other is not possible and knowing that we're all safer when we are more connected. in some ways this moment is unprecedented with the global pandemic and social unrest and civil disobedience meeting at one in this moment. but in many ways this is not new and the history of racism is long and deep. if we work to heal, we must address the root causes of this pain and suffering. we must restore order to keep our city safe. but where cities of law and order are unjust, we must work together to change them and to have imagine a future that is safer for all of us. colleagues because this very, very challenging moment is still

playing itself out and sparking protests but also deep reflection about justice and public safety, i feel that it's best for us to move both nominations to police commission forward to the full board without recommendation today. and i will be making this moti motion. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, supervisor mar. any other colleagues who would wish to speak? supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: yes, chair ronen, thank you very much. i was going to reserve my comments until after i heard from the nominees and also after i heard from public comment. and, you know, i think that it's interesting to open the meeting with a motion to already reject the nominations when the board

without recommendation, when we have yet to hear the questions that you plan on asking, chair ronen. and we have yet to hear from the public. we have yet to hear from the candidates themselves. and i do also want to acknowledge the extremely excruciating time that we are in. obviously some pain we cannot understand, and we try i think our best to get to this the situation in the best way that we know how. and i have to say that one of the first things i did on the board of supervisors was to put forward legislation requiring all commissioners, all elected officials, to undergo implicit bias training so that we may all recognize what bias we bring to all of our decisions.

and i am very well aware of what bias or what implicit bias, explicit bias, what lens i see things through. i'm very well aware that i need to challenge myself on an everyday basis to understand people that -- that may not agree with me or that may have absolutely diametrically opposed views than i have. and it's my responsibility as an elected official to try to put all of that aside and really to understand and come from a place of -- a.m. goini'm going to sayf love and understanding. and not of a place of fear and anger. and really trying to get on a page where we could collectively

move forward. and i am challenging myself to really understand my implicit bias, to be open-minded, to hear from everyone and to hear with a clean slate. and given the background under which we are all in right now, which is a very challenging time. so i am not prepared to put forward any motions whether or not that is rejecting or approving at this point in time. i am open to hearing from everybody. and i think that we can all benefit from trying to do that as well. i will make remarks once i've collected my thoughts. and i've heard from everybody. and, you know, i always try to

say that when i'm making decisions, especially difficult ones, chair ronen, as you know that you and i have discussed this, that i -- it's this feeling of seeking to be -- seeking to understand rather than to be understood. i'm really putting myself in a place, you know, seeking to be -- seeking to understand, rather than to be understood. seeking to love, rather than to be loved, like those principles upon which i operate in public service to really challenge myself to think outside of the

box. and the principles. i don't know that i can make that decision upfront. i want to hear more from nancy tung and i want to hear more from geoffrey gordon-creed. i have met with both of them. and i want to hear the questions that they answer. i want to hear what the public has to say and i want to stay open-minded. and i want to react without being defensive. i want to react like i said seeking to understand rather than to be understood. and i really want as to honor our job here which is to really examine whether or not these two individuals that our mayor has recommended to be on the police commission can do what we need them to do, which you are right, chair ronen, is to help to reform our police department,

continue to reform our police department in a way that would never allow what happened in minneapolis to happen in san francisco ever again. and in a way that would contribute to san francisco taking the lead, the continued lead, on police reform and doing what we need to do for this country. and like i said, i remain open to listening to everybody and i honor my commitment in doing so. and with that i will conclude my opening remarks that i had not planned on saying and i look forward to hearing from the candidates and from the public. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor haney, do you have opening remarks? >> supervisor haney: yes, thank you, chair ronen, and for

the members of the committee to be here. i'm not a member of this committee but i thought that it was important to be with you all and to speak on this critical decision that we're going to make as a board. i want to really welcome and thank mr. gordon-creed and miss tung for their willingness to step up and to serve. i also come to this open-minded and interested in listening and learning. we are as has been said living in unprecedented times. not in decades, maybe ever, have we seen people rise up all across the country in dozens of cities, including here in san francisco in the way that they are right now. and they are angry. they are frustrated. they're scared. they're fed up. and they are demanding justice. they're demanding justice for george floyd, they're demanding justice for brianna taylor and they're demanding justice and accountability for thousands of other victims of police

violence. they're also demanding that our institutions and specifically the police value black lives and stop killing black people. they're demanding real actionable change to our laws, our policies, our structures and our systems of accountability. as elected officials, what this has taught me and what i have reflected on in the past few days is that they don't want us to keep doing what we've been doing and they don't want more of the same. and they don't want to continue to hear empty words. they are calling for and demanding a new level of urgency and action. all of us should be held to account for that, including every member of this board of supervisors. all of us should be responsive to that with whatever power and influence that we have. one of the most important ways that the board of supervisors demonstrates and fulfills our own accountability and responsibility and mandate as it relates to police reform is in who we put forward to the police

commission. a body that was created in order to ensure that there is citizen oversights over our police department and to ensure accountability and reform. san francisco, sadly, has our own awful, ugly deadly history of racism and discriminatory police violence against black people, chinese people, latino people, and lgbt people and including excessive force and racially biased policing. our own police department has been the focus of numerous scandals and investigation as it relates to racist policing. as we all know that there have been far too many unarmed black and latino residents who have been killed by police here in san francisco. these deaths have passed without prosecution, often without any discipline at all. this is not a minneapolis, louisville, oakland or los angeles problem, it is an american problem. it is a san francisco problem. supervisor ronen spoke about the department of justice review

which took six months in 2016, that found numerous indicators of implicit bias against minority groups. we found a department with deficiencies in every operational area assessed, the use of force, bias, community policing, accountability and recruitment, hiring and promotion practice. they referred to the racist behavior as, quote "open and flagrant." just this year literally less than three months ago the state department of justice slammed the san francisco police department for its slow progress in reform. the letter stated, reports of anti-black bias within the department and the persistent disproportionate use of force against african american and latino individuals. as supervisor ronen said the sfpd has completed merely 40 of the 240 reforms which is just 15%. according to the d.o.j., the failure to implement a greater

number of the recommendations is delaying the sfpd's fulfillment of its community to get the work done. if we think this is not directly related to what is happening in the streets right now, what is happening across the country, then we have our heads in the sand. people are exhausted. they are furious at this slow movement. and the empty words that are not followed through with action. the bureaucratic inertia and the excuses that have led to so little progress. i know that the lack of progress is not the fault of these nominees but you're asking to serve on this important body during this unprecedented time of great urgency and need. the police commission was created and exists i in large pt to ensure that our police department is accountable to the law and our residents. the authority of the commission is not to determine safety policy but it's that policy to be set for the department specifically to move forward these police reforms on use of bias and ensures discipline and accountability for misconduct.

the decision that the rules committee will make today is directly connected to police responsibility, misconduct, fairness, racial bias and relationships with the community. the exact concerns that have brought our country to a near standstill at this very moment. so with that, i want to just outline quickly a few key qawchgzqualifications that i hot we'll see with anyone who moves forward to serve on the commission. and i hope to hear some of these issues addressed in your statements and answers this morning. first, i would hope and expect that whoever is appointed to serve on the police commission be a demonstrated expert in police reform and accountability. i would expect this person to be able to demonstrate a track record, not just in words, but in a deep involvement and expertise and advocacy and understanding related to police reform and accountability. someone who has perhaps written articles or done research on the topic. someone who has perhaps been a part of these working groups on reform. someone who has held a leadership position in an organization or institution that

works on police reform. and this to me feels very basic and foundational. we should be putting someone on this body in this moment with a real track record, knowledge, and expertise as it relates to the specific topic of policing. there's a large community of leaders here in san francisco and across the state who have been working tirelessly, including on addressing anti-black racism and black violence specifically. which is what is motivating so much of the righteous anger across country. whoever we put forward on this commission should be able to explain and demonstrate their involvement with and the leadership in that work to ensure that our police departments value black lives. next, i'll look for commissioners who have worked directly with the police commission, people who have testified at it and engaged with it and given comment on these issues of such importance to the body. the department of justice reforms were put out four years ago. police commissioners have a key role in determining their implementation and i want to know your direct involvement with these reforms.

and also if there were efforts that a nominee supported that would have undermined or taken away the power from the commission that is especially relevant as well. and third, it's essential that those who serve on this body understand the ways in which our laws have been inadequate, all but ensuring a lack of accountability. we know that in the past when there have been what seemed to many to be obvious misconduct, even criminal misconduct or murder, families were told that the charges or discipline could not be brought because the law did not support it. for the families of alex and others this is what they have heard time and time again. and so many folks and advocates went to sacramento and they fought to change these laws. and late last year the governor signed into law ab-392, referred to as the clark law. and ab-392 will change the standard for deadly use of force from reasonable to only when it is necessary. this change in law was one of the most important pieces of legislation as it relates to

deadly use of force in decades. this board of supervisors and a resolution that i authored supported ab-392 in a unanimous vote, making our city one of the first to back this law. prior and current police commissioners were also heavily involved. i would ask that people to serve on the commission support this law changed before it passed and understand why it's so important to ensure accountability. even mow i would hope that you took some active steps to help to make this law change a reality. lastly, i would expect that the person have a vision for how they are going to implement the department of justice reforms. less than 20% of the reforms have been implemented in the last four years. it seems to be as clear an indication as we can get of the lack of seriousness and the urgency in our own city around police reform. at a time when our police department based on the objective analysis of outside agencies continues to demonstrate slow progress on reforms and intended to address

bias, how are you going to ensure that these reforms are implemented faster and more effectively? what is your plan as a commissioner to make that happen? what is the timeline? how are you going to make sure that things really change? as it relates to police-community relations and police racism and violence within departments we are far behind where we need to be, where we should be, and the result of that is life-or-death for so many people. what we're seeing right now on the streets is righteous anger at the lack of progress in reform and as supervisors and as a nominee to the police commission, the residents of our city cannot accept business as usual as just good enough. i hope to hear this morning about how you are uniquely positioned and uniquely qualified to meet the demands and the urgency of this moment. >> supervisor ronen: thank you you, supervisor haney. and we're joined by supervisor preston. do you have any opening comments, mr. preston? >> supervisor preston: i do,

thank you, chair ronen, and the >> supervisor preston: i do, thank you, chair ronen, and the committee members. and like supervisor haney, i'm not a member of the rules committee, but i did want to join this hearing today because of the incredible importance generally of the police commission and also especially in this moment. i want to thank both the nominees for putting themselves forward, for being here and for their willingness to serve on this important commission. i don't want to repeat many of the things that have been said because i realize that there are many public commenters and that you have likely hearings ahead of you. i wanted to associate myself 100% with the remarks just made by supervisor haney with which i agree entirely. and i also emphasize the moment that we are in and the

incredible importance in my opinion of the police commission at this time. with the curfews that are now in effect that we have a situation where the police are granted really extraordinary powers, expanded powers, to detain and arrest people for what would otherwise be considered a peaceful or legal conduct, and i think that in that moment where the san francisco police department is being given more positions and all of the concerns that supervisor haney just raised become that much more important, particularly the history of racist policing that san francisco is certainly not immune from and is part of our history and our present here in san francisco. we are seeing across the nation

an incredibly increase in police violence toward protesters in attacks on media. really the worst imaginable situation where police are improperly and illegally cracking down on folks exercising their basic rights. and as supervisor haney put it, their righteous anger in this moment. this is a moment in which the san francisco police department will need to show restraint. and we as supervisors, and i trust the mayor as well, will be looking at that -- at what demonstrations of effective policing, of exercising restraint, and not trampling on the rights of people in the city and county of san francisco. but the police commission will play -- does and will play an

absolutely essential role in being our oversight body, in being independent. i will be looking very carefully in the discussion today at many of the things that supervisor haney mentioned, in particular the independence of the candidate. the relationship with the police officers association in particular, which i believe has been at the heart of many of the systemic problems that our police department experiences with incredible and devastating consequences for communities of color in san francisco. we also will be looking for the willingness to hold police officers accountable, to commit to real reform and measurable reform. and also the position on arming police. i will say that as a strong

opponent of pro po proposition e tasers, i think that particularly now when -- with all of the needs for reform of the department, that the idea of increasing the police officers' weaponry essentially with adding tasers, is something that i have been opposed to and i'm very curious to hear the candidates' positions on those issues. so i think that in this moment that it was really concerning that the police commission for a long time was not meeting during our covid state of emergency. and it took leadership to reach out to supervisors so that we

could get those -- do the motion to get those police commission meeting again and a huge credit to those police commissioners for speaking up in that way, for having the independence and for recognizing their crucial role that has only become more crucial in recent days. so i want to thank you for supervisor ronen for the opportunity to say a few words and i'm looking forward to the discussion of these important appointments. thank you. >> supervisor ronen, you are currently muted. >> supervisor ronen: i'm sorry. sorry about that. nancy tung, thank you again for being here with us today. and for your willingness to serve in this capacity. i was wondering before we get into questions if you wanted to

make any opening remarks? >> i do have a prepared statement, chair ronen, and thank you very much. i'll read that at this time. >> supervisor ronen: perfect. >> good morning, chair ronen, supervisor stefani, supervisor mar, supervisor preston and supervisor haney. thank you for being together in this moment. one week ago george floyd was murdered by police officers in minneapolis. one individual has been charged, and i believe that others will be charged in due time. but george floyd is still dead. when i first saw the video on social media it was horrifying to watch, especially as he called out for his mother with his last breath. i was disgusted and angry at the way that the four officers treated george floyd and then crushed the life out of him. in san francisco, we are not immune from racism, bias and misconduct in our police department. nor are we immune from

officer-involved shootings that undermine trust in black and brown communities. officers must know that they're not above the law and they will be held accountable. and as a prosecutor i have investigated and prosecutors police officers' misconduct. i am one of the handful of prosecutors in san francisco who has tried and convicted police officers who were then subsequently terminated by their agencies. this is some of the most important work that i've done because bad cops inherently undermine public trust. and that mistrust of police has been sown across this nation and we must embrace reform. in 2016, the obama department of justice analyzed the sfpd and recommended 272 reforms as chair ronen said. four years later we have only implemented a small fraction of these critical reforms. as a police commissioner, in addition to listening to the community and addressing what's happening in real-time, i will be a champion to fully implement these reforms. it is beyond time.

we also have to rely on the police to respond to violent and dangerous situations, to treat victims and survivors of crime with compassion. and to protect us. here too the police are falling short. immigrant communities, particularly the chinese community, are denied public safety when police do not respond in a timely manner, cannot communicate because of language barriers, or a lack of cultural competency. my father was on the receiving end of this when he was a victim of an armed robbery and again when a neighbor threatened his life. and now in the age of trump blaming a pandemic on chinese people, the community is facing xenophobia and hate crimes. and many community leaders, with policing issues, we all want safe communities and we all want to be able to talk to a police officer without fear. and we want a department that is responsive to public safety without bias. there is a deep historical mistrust of law enforcement that

can only be overcome through community policing, engagement and support. san francisco has been my home for last two decades. i moved here to begin my career as a prosecutor and has spent the time since in public service. my professional experience working with law enforcement as a prosecutor and prosecuting cases against law enforcement officers makes me uniquely qualified to serve on police commission. and additionally my experience working in the community on public safety issues through groups like moms for action against gun violence in america adds to my perspective. i have a personal investment in representing the concerns of the cheantchinese and the growing is with language access. i know that you are tasked on this committee with evaluating whether i can be an independent and fair voice on the police commission. i offer you this as an example of my independence. in 2010, an sfpd criminalist tampered with the drug results

of hundreds of cases to fuel her own drug addiction. in turns when the d.a.'s -- sorry -- at the time i was a narcotics prosecutor to enforce the sfpd to turn over the records related to the misconduct. when the d.a.'s office hesitated to turn over those records i was the only d.a. who publicly refused to prosecute those tainted cases. it was an incredibly difficult time and i didn't know what would happen to my career. but a decade later i'm proud that i did the right thing and did not leave the lives of hundreds of people hanging in the balance. as a police commissioner, i will always put integrity and fairness and independence first. thank you very much for your time and i am happy to answer the committee's questions. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, miss tung. how long have you been a prosecutor, how many years? >> i am in my 20th year as a prosecutor. >> supervisor ronen: that's amazing, congratulation. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen: i wanted to talk to you a little bit more about the cases that you have said that you have prosecuted of

law enforcement. how many cases were those? -- have you prosecuted? >> so there were several investigations involving misconduct, fraud, misuse of police authority. there was also an alleged rape case. the two that went to trial were a case against a police officer named richard sores and it was a domestic violence case for off-duty conduct. and it was a very difficult case. because as you may know that domestic violence survivors tend to have hesitation to testify against their former partners. and in this particular case, she did testify at a preliminary hearing that -- which she later recanted. it was testimony that nothing

happened, that she tripped and she fell. so it was through a very long process and after the relationship ended that i was able to talk to her and to engage with her in a way that she felt that she could open up and cooperate with the prosecution of this person who was on the -- who was still on the police force. and in the end i was able to get evidence from her that he had violated the restraining order, ordered by the court, over a period of a year and a half, almost every single day. so it was on those charges that we were ultimately able to convict this person and for which he lost his job. i considered this case to be one of most difficult, but one of the most important that i had.

because in this case the officer testified on the stand. (please stand by) nor did i -- i have to say that i felt a certain amount of disgust when i saw the p.o.a. parade officer after officer

after officer to support this person and his character. because his character, i think, was true. and it was evident. >> thank you. i'm sorry. this is going to be a really long hearing. >> ok. sure. >> but thank you for answering the question. i understand that lather, while the officer was on duty, he might have misused his position. but the original charges filed against him were for off duty contact. >> that is correct. >> and we're -- my understanding is that charging decisions are made by a person in the prosecutor's office, not the lawyer that necessarily charges the case. in other words, did you make the charging decision in that case? >> i didn't make the charging decision. the case for the initial

charges. i did make a decision to pursue additional evidence leads that led to the charges that he was ultimately convicted on. and that was a case i took to the grand jury in order to make sure that we had a sound case that we could bring in at the same time, that the other charges were pending. >> ok. thank you. and then the second case, could you talk about that? i know that there was a sheriff's deputy, well he was on duty. >> that is correct. this is the sheriff's deputy that was on duty at san francisco general hospital and the victim in this case was a marginally-housed person who was seeking is medical treatment in the emergency department at san francisco general hospital. he was there in the very early morning for an appointment that occurred at 9:00 in the morning with his orthopedic surgeon.

it was a preop because he was going to have his knee replaced. he was an older gentleman but also had this chronic condition that required his knee to be replaced. he walked with the aid of a cane, did not move very quickly, and in appearance, he did appear to be unhoused as well. so he had a long history of being abusive to hospital staff, to being abusive to police officers and paramedics. he did have a history of alcoholism because -- >> if we could just go a little bit faster. i don't need all of the -- >> ok. so, essentially the hospital staff asked the sheriff's deputy to remove him from the waiting room, although he was not causing a disturbance. in fact, he was sleeping at the time. and he was -- the victim was ultimately arrested after the

fact and then a report was generated and taken to the d.a.'s office for charging. the reviewing d.a. said there's video at the hospital. so, where's the video? and discharged the case until the video could be brought and after review of the video, it was pretty clear that this unhoused person, who was very physically vulnerable, did not instigate any type of assault against the police officer or -- i'm sorry, againsts the sheriff's deputy. and so he was charged with assault under color of law. and a jury did convict him of that. >> and i understand that con v*ifx was-conviction was overturned by the court of appeals, is that true? >> i was returned. it was returned to the d.a.'s office based on an instructional error by the judge. so, the case was returned to

the special prosecutions unit after i'd left. so there were decisions that were made regarding the case that i did not agree with. and it should handle going forward after the appeal so i was not involved with decisions after that. >> ok. have you met with any groups regarding their views on the sfpd? like any organizations that work on racial justice and have concerns over sfpd? >> yeah. i recently met with the democratic club and we had a long discussion about policing and use of force with their political directors. >> any other -- >> i have talked to individual

community leaders. so, yeah. i don't -- i don't know that i should say their names because they're individuals and i don't know how much they want their names broadcast. >> yeah, yeah. no. i'm not asking about individual names, i'm asking about the groups that work on police reform and racial justice, you know, all over the country, but specifically in san francisco. and you haven't met other than rosepac democratic club, any of those groups? >> not specifically. in several of your public statements you focused on equal of life crimes and you don't feel like they're being prosecuted enough and aggressively enough.

and just wondering how you reconcile that with the fact that these quality of life crimes are most often committed by people who are poor, people of color, people with mental health issues and people who are unsheltered. i'm just wondering how you reconcile those two and what policies specifically you would promote to the police commission to address the fact that those -- that more aggressive prosecution would fall on those vulnerable groups? >> so, i -- i think there are -- there are many different layers to the issues around quality of life crimes. certainly poverty is one of them. housing is another. drug addiction and a mental illness are among them, too. so one of the things that i think is challenging for the

communities that bear the brunt of these issues is that they're also very vulnerable communities themselves. so, i will say, for example, the tenderloin community, which is full of immigrants with young families and has the highest concentration of children in the city. second highest concentration of elders in the city. many people who are low-income and also will never gentrify in the way that other neighborhoods have because there's permanent low-income housing there. and so the issues are difficult -- they're one of balance, i think. and certainly when we're talking about, for example, people who have issues with substances, narcotics, that the police department has the ability, and i think that taking them -- taking people into a place where they are not

vulnerable while they're under the influence, such as sobering centers, which we do for people who are under the influence of alcohol. but these are programs that we can implement with the san francisco police department to get them into safe spaces and also give some relief to the community as well. >> ok. the board of supervisors voted unanimously last year to close juvenile hall by the end of 2021. and i know you've been very vocal that you did not support that legislation. and i wanted to ask you, because i had watched several of your debates during the d.a.'s race and you had said that your reason for not supporting the legislation, which by the way is primarily use of color, black and brown

use that are in juvenile hall is because they would be sent out of town. did you actually read the legislation? >> yes, i did look at it. and we -- you and i have had this conversation also and so to -- to give a fuller explanation, it's not that i think that juvenile hall is the best fit for children who come in to the criminal justice system or in the juvenile justice system. because what we're looking at is really how do we rehabilitate young people who have gone off in a different path. how do we get them to a place where they are supported and nurtured but also they are safe. so i think that my disagreement with the juvenile hall legislation is that, it's one more of process than it is of

philosophy. i think that certainly like a jail-like facility is not optimal for use, that we should be giving them alternatives where we can in the least restrictive setting. at the same time, sometimes a judge will order that the least restrictive setting is detention. >> so, the reason i asked whether or not you had read the legislation is because the legislation itself requires alternative detention facilities to be created that are approved by the juvenile justice court. when you said several times -- i heard you several times say on the campaign trail that juveniles will be sent out of town, it just wasn't true. the legislation itself doesn't allow for that. and so i -- i feel like that

wasn't, you know, a responsible critique of the legislation if you had read it. do you have any response to that? >> yeah. well, i think that we may need to disagree on this point. i think that the -- i would have prefered to see that the facility be put in place without a deadline because things happen in the course of our lives that we can't anticipate, such as the coronavirus and so, in terms of ability to move forward on that facility before the deadline can be significantly hampered. >> ok. thank you. i'm so sorry to interrupt you. it's just this is going to be a really long hearing. >> no. no. i appreciate it. >> and there are people waiting to speak. so, if you could keep your answers short and pointed that would be so helpful. thank you. i really appreciate it.

there have been instances where the police officers association has sued the city for policies that are set by the commission. arguing that certain policy decisions should be considered as labor issues. what is your position on that? >> well, i think that the police officer's association will sue whoever they want to. i think that it does have a detrimental effect in materials of moving forward the ball with respect to revisions and so to the extent that we can discuss and find common ground with the unions, i think that is in the interest of moving the ball forward as well. except for those issues where it is clear that the union is taking a position that is

antithetical to reform, in which case then, you know, the commission should stand on the issues and police union can do what they want. >> ok. several week ago, the p.o.a. made news that [inaudible] that featured the thin blue line logo that has been associated with white supremacist hate groups. what would have been the appropriate response or what should be the appropriate response from the police commission about that? >> i think the police commission should have immediately denounced that. i think that there is no place for that type of intimidation in public public service and a person of authority, there is no place at all for that. in our city or any city in america. >> appreciate that. thank you so much for that.

i'm going to ask you a series of yes or no questions and i appreciate that you just answer them yes or no. and then i'm going to turn it over to my colleagues, if there is anymore questions for you. have you ever been a leader of any organization focused on police reform or police accountability? >> no. >> have you -- >> i'll take that back. yes to the extent -- yes. do you want a further explanation? stop crime s.f. and that is a organization that really is about holding all parts of criminal justice system accountable from judges to d.a. to police to the public defenders office and is a very robust community group as well. >> ok. have you written any articles, research papers or op-eds on police reform or police accountability? >> yes, i have. i wrote an op-ed in the

chronicle that criticized the sheriff's department for the way -- manner which they were investigating sheriff's deputy misconduct. >> ok. and any about the police, the police department? >> no. >> ok. have you been a member o*r a leader of any organization that explicitly works to end violence against black people in the united states? >> yes. i am a member of [inaudible] action for gun sense in america. it is an anti-violence sensible gun reform organization that supports violence intervention programs in the state of california and all across the country. >> ok. have you ever appeared either for testimony or public comment in front of the police commission? >> i have not. thank you. >> have you ever testified in court or in front of a policy body of an expert or worked as a consult -- consultant because of your knowledge in police reform or police

accountability? >> i have not. >> do you believe that the officers who killed mario wood should have been prosecuted? >> i do not. >> do you believe the officers who killed mario woods should have been fired? >> no. >> do you believe the officers who killed jessica williams should have been prosecuted? >> no. >> do you believe the officers who killed jessica williams should have been fired? >> no. >> do you support equipping sfpd officers with tasers? >> no. >> sorry. just on that one four months ago you were very vocal on saying yes. what changed? >> i have done some further thinking on it and i think even before the murder of george

floyd, my position had softened on tasers. and i think it is because of subsequent or robust conversations that i've had with people in the community and, you know, my thought on tasers is that it i would support considering some type of intermediate use of force short of a firearm because my feeling on fire arms is that they are very dangerous and deadly weapons. >> ok. ok. thank you. >> so -- >> sorry. >> i will -- i understand. but i think this is an important point. >> ok. go ahead. >> the community trust element of what i would have required in order to consider anything else for san francisco is completely out the door now.

there is so much strife and so much distrust in the police department from communities of color and i could not -- i could not support tasers and i don't see that the dp can build sufficient trust in the community, even within the next four years for the length of this term for me where i would feel comfortable equipping them with tasers. >> just a follow-up on that question and then back to the yes or nos. have you ever attend or watched a forum after a police shooting like the one for ms. lopez, alex vietro, mario wood, jessica williams, any of those forums? >> i've seen portions of them, but not attended in person, no. >> it's hard for me to hear that because there's not been

trust in the community for a very, very long time. and that was the case four months ago, just like it is now. the floyd killing has not changed much. that distrust that has existed for a long time. so, it just -- i think that is important to note. did you vote yes on proposition h in june 2018 that would have removed the police commission's role to [inaudible]. >> i'm sorry, supervisor. i think you're asking me if i voted yes on prop h and i did. yes. >> you voted yes on prop-h. ok. did you support proposition 47, which reduced provocation of most nonviolent crimes from felony to misdemeanor? >> i did not. >> ok. did you do knowing actively support 8329, matt hani talked about it earlier, that tightened the rules upon which

police officers could use deadly force, eliminating the use of lethal force when necessary in defense of human life? >> i did not. >> you did not support that? >> i did not do anything affirmatively to support it. >> did you support it? >> i supported it in its final form, yes. >> ok. did you -- well, i know the answer a. did you [inaudible] by 2021, no. we talked about that. do you support the end of cash fail which so unfairly affects indigenous desen dance and people of color? >> in part, yes. >> "in part," can you elaborate? >> so, the algorhythm with which replaces the bail system, in itself, has some flaws in terms of taking data points from people who -- from decisions that have essentially

are from people who have their own implicit bias. so, there's bias built into those algorhythms. my proposal was that we retain some element of cash bail as a check on the judiciary -- as an immediate check so that when we -- when a judge decides that, you know, this person should be detained, there's a sliding scale on the ability to pay for the person instead of allowing that power to rest with just a single judge who he or himself or herself or theirselfs may have implicit bias. >> have you ever received funding or contribution or funding from the p.o.a.? >> i received $500 for the p.o.a. for my d.a. campaign and i -- >> ok. go ahead. >> i made a contribution in like amount for from my

personal funds because my campaign is closed. i made a $500 contribution to the rafiki coalition instead of giving the money back to the p.o.a. >> ok. have you ever defended a police officer or sfpd in a lawsuit or criminal action? defended? >> no. >> no. ok. have you ever prosecuted an sfpd- officer for criminal actions committed while on duty? >> not the sfpd, but the sheriff's deputy as we discussed. >> so, no. ok. will you commit to voting for shared leadership on the police commission because of a 4-3 split between mayoral appointments and board of supervisor appointments, the president and vice president always are memorial appointments and i'm wondering if you would commit to voting for shared leadership between board of supervise source and mayoral appointments for president and vice president. >> yes. i think that's important. >> ok. thank you so much. do any of my colleagues have

additional questions? sorry. i can't see you guys. so please just speak up if you have additional questions. >> hey, thank you, chair ronen. i did have a few quick questions. thank you so much, again, nancy, for being here and answering the questions. you know, we've heard a lot -- we received a lot of communications from some members from the chinese community for the chinese community to have representation and voice on a police commission and i absolutely agree with that and i've also heard some -- received some communications that were sort of questioning your ability to be a strong representative of the chinese community on the police commission. so, one thing that i heard is

just around the importance of language and having a chinese community representive on the police commission that is able to communicate to the chinese-speaking community directly. so, yeah. how is your chinese fluent si -- fluency and would you be able to communicate directly to the chinese community as a police commissioner. >> i'm not fluid in cantonese or mandarine. my level of cultural heritage is very high and going to a situation where there is an incident or time or place where it's imperative that a commissioner is present in the community and is able to communicate that i would bring a translator with me.

>> great. thank you. and i would agree that it's very problematic that the chinese community doesn't have representation on the police commission. we've language chan and victor wang and bill haney but all of these individuals have been long-standing community leaders and leaders in organizations in the chinese community. and the relationships as well into the role of police commissioner. with your -- have you been a

leader in any chinese community organizations in your past work? >> so, i -- my entire body of work as a professional has been as a prosecutor. and so taking that government role, i'm limited in the way i can do laurie -- lawyerly things outside of that. there is very strong chinese leadership within those nonprofit worlds, the legal nonprofit worlds in san francisco. i have been a board member for several years in the national asian pacific islander prosecutors association. i have been a long-standing member of aaba as well. and i think that there needs to be space for new leadership as well.

i've seen a lot in terms of how people are treated in the criminal justice system when they don't speak the language. how they are fearful of police. how even the most things that we take for granted as english-speaking people become an ordeal for people who don't or who are unfamiliar with the culture, who have to rely on, you know, somebody else to help them through the system. and so to that extent, i feel very connected and tied to the chinese community and the greater immigrant community when we talk about being able to access the police department, being able to access public safety tools and victim services because i think that is part of being inclusive of our very diverse communities within san francisco. >> great. thank you so much for that.

i'll leave it at that because i know we have a lot of [inaudible] comment and also we have mr. gordon creed to consider, too. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> supervisor stefani? >> yes. thank you, chair ronen, and thank you for your comments. like i said, in the beginning in my opening statements, i think that this is an extremely important position that we're considering, especially in light of where we find ourselves today. and i know, of course, your involvement with an organization that i am deeply involved with and care deeply about, which is moms demand action for gun sense in america. and i wanted -- because you were asked some questions around that. and with being a merry christmas of moms demand action for gun sense in america, as long as you've been active in our san francisco chapter that i actually built, i know that

we believe about gun violence, we truly want to fight gun violence. we have to fight systemic racism. it's what we talk about in our trainings all the time. we have trains toing disrupt implicit bias and micro aggressions. it is snag we're focused on and i know you understand that, too. [please stand by]

-- and we know that gun violence prevention is also -- police gun violence prevention. so, anyway, i thank you for that. and i wanted to ask you, because you were asked a series of yes-and-no questions and what i said at the beginning of this meeting was that i wanted to have a thorough vetting of it. and i think you were asking questions that i was like, whoa, i'd like some explanation or i'd like to hear a little bit more. so without taking up too much time, i just want to ask you if there is anything that you wanted to add to that so that we could get a better picture of who you are and a better picture of what you might do on the police commission. because i think that sometimes by just saying yes to something that it allows people to

conclude what they want to conclude which, of course, is with explicit bias, and i really want to know whether or not there's something more that you want to say so that you can be properly vetted. >> so i would like to address the obama era reforms that have not been completed. i think that is number one should be the priority of the commission going forward. one of the most important things that has not been completed is the first thing on the list, which is the finding that the majority of deadly-use force incidents by sfpd involve persons of color. and it has recommendations, 1.1, that afpd must commit to understanding the use of deadly force, and specifically to partner with the research institution to evaluate the circumstances that give rise to deadly force, particularly those involving purposes of color. two, enhancing relationships in

those communities mostly impacted by officer involved shootings and monitor trends and culture service and community complaints to ensure appropriate police interaction occurs as a matter of police engagement. and number three, to provide ongoing training for officers throughout the department on how to assess and engage in encounters with the potential use of force with i goal of minimizing the level of force to safely resolve such incidents. the status of this number one item as of may 27th, 2020, was that it was in progress. that it was of low priority. and i think that this has got to be the number one thing that the police commission addresses, that these reforms are not just paper promises by the department, but they must actually deliver on them. and to the extent that they were supposed to finish all of these by the end of last month, which was yesterday, that they have not, they have not completed a substantial portion of them.

and they need to make it good on their promise to san franciscoians that they will complete these reforms and they should complete them as exditiously as possible. i would like to see at least half of them completed by the end of the year. and, certainly, there are time-consuming meetings that have to happen but people really need to work in order to deliver on these things. i mean, it's not merely a question of, you know, did you check it off your list but it's a question of credibility and building that trust within the community. >> thank you for that answer. and just a quick finish-up on that, because i agree that we have to implement those to build trust in the community and to build the police department that we know that we can in our city. what would you do to make sure that we do finish those reforms in a manner, like you said, that

is much quicker than where we're at now? >> well, i mean, i think that we should be reporting them. the commission should be reporting back to the public because, certainly, there are groups that report to the commission. so the chief makes a report to the commission. the director of the d.p.a. reports to the commission. and the commission should be reporting to the public on a regular basis on the status of the reforms and where they are in the process and to have hard concrete deadlines in order to return those d.g.o.s back to the commission and vote on them. so, you know, i know that people may drag things out, whether it's on the department side, the commission side, people involved in the working group or the union. but we really need to do this. i mean, it's a promise made to the people and the department needs to own up to it. >> thank you. i don't have any other additional questions. >> thank you, thank you, supervisor stefani.

>> supervisor ronen: thank you. supervisor haney, if you're still on, do you have any questions? i don't know if you're still on. i don't see you. okay, thank you, thank you so much, miss tung. >> thank you, chair ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. we are now going to ask questions to mr. gordon-creed. good morning, mr. creed, how are you? >> i'm well, thank you, chair, ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. do you have an opening statement to make? >> i do, i have a short opening statement and i want to be respectful of the time here. i really appreciate the opportunity to discuss my possible appointment to the police commission. and i really appreciate the time that all of the supervisors took to speak with me before coming here today so we could discuss issues relating to the police commission. as i'm sitting here today i

obviously feel the weight of this hearing a lot more heavily than i would otherwise after the senseless murder of george floyd in minneapolis. and i understand that there's been a tough role in choosing a new police commissioner. i consider it an honor to be nominated by the mayor to serve on the police commission. i think that i'm well qualified to be on a commission, and i think that my view of policing fits well with the views of the comment that we heard today. the fact of the matter is that as a civilian oversight body, the police commission is the bridge essentially that sits between the communities that are policed and the police department itself. it is the body that can build the trust between communities and the police department. it's the body that can set the policy for the police department

that are fair, that are unbiased, that are reasonable, that protect the communities that it polices. and if i'm appointed to the commission, that's what i'll work hard to do. well the me give you a quick summary of my background and qualifications for serving on the commission. i think that my interest and involvement in police -- well, let me preface it this way. i understand that policing goes back to the early 1990s. and i remember in 1991 several police officers in los angeles were videotaped viciously beating rodney king. i was in l.a. at the time when that riot started. and i remember being in san francisco when that occurred and watching those videotapes and thinking, my god, how can that happen, how can people do that. and then i remember when the officers were acquitted i thought, again, how could that possibly happen.

and i was just flabbergasted. to be honest, for me i think that it was a wake-up call for recognition of my own privilege and my status as a white man. the fact is that i was shocked by these events because the fact that they didn't happen to people like me. they happened to poor black men. they happened to communities and people in communities that are vulnerable. in 1992, i left private practice and i went to go work with the city's attorney office in san francisco as the city attorney. it was my job to represent various departments of the city. among those were the police department. and that was an eye-opening experience. in representing police officers, you get a really good window into the culture of policing and the culture of policing in san francisco. frankly, i will tell you that it was different back then. it has improved over the years.

it has not improved nearly to the extent that it needs to improve and some things have not changed. however, as a result of that work, i represented police officers in excessive force cases. i understood and i came to understand how important it was to have training, policies and procedures in place, that regulate -- strictly regulate police officers' use of force. because the fact of the matter is that the force and the power that the police officers have is absolute. when the officer is there in the community with a person that they're confronting, they have all of the power. it's really, really critical that that power be regulated and it be overseen by a civilian body to make sure that that force is applied properly. and that it's applied in a way that is unbiased, and it's applied in a way that the least force is used. when i worked in the city's

attorney's office it also made me realize how complex the work of policing is. the fact of the matter is that it's really hard to be a police officer. and the burden of being a police officer is high. the fact of the matter is that police are out there all the time interacting with the public. when they interact with the public they need to do so in a way that serves the public. that protects the public. that the focus should not be on protecting themselves and protecting their safety. it should be on protecting the safety of the folks that they are policing. policing is generally difficult. good policing is far more difficult and complex. so the role of the police commission in that particular job is to make sure that the policies that are regulating how the police are actually doing their job are based on data, that they're based on an

understanding of the historic bias and the historic racism that has existed in police departments. and all of that needs to be done, and this department needs to move forward as fast as it possibly can in putting place the reforms suggested by the department of justice. after i was at the city attorney's office i was in private practice. i've had my own law firm for 25 or so years. during the course of that private practice, i did a couple things. i represented many clients. but in addition to representing departments in the city, i continued to represent police officers in just a few excessive force cases. and i also represented during that time the police commission. i think that the office of complaints which has now changed its name. in that particular -- in those

matters, i represented a police commission that issued laws whether or not discipline matters could be brought against police officers. or whether the statutes of limitation had a run on bringing those particular charges against police officers. i represented the police commission, which had taken a position that the officer should be disciplined and the police officer, obviously, took an opposite position. the fact is that during the course of that work i came to understand the work of the police commission. i came to understand how the police commission worked, and i came to understand how complicated or difficult it is to be a police commissioner and the necessity that they work with community members and the police chief to make sure that policing policies and procedures were appropriate.

i think that with respect to my qualifications to serve on the commission, i would just note that as a trial lawyer and as an arbitrator and a mediator over the past 20 years, that i have -- i am quite comfortable, obviously, sitting and considering the disciplinary matters that the police commission has to hear. i'm used to hearing them and i'm used to making decisions and i'm used to evaluating witnesses. i think that experience as a mediator and arbitrator will serve me well. i have prior experiences in san diego. i think that the government is a force for good and i think that the government needs the people in government and the people who are willing to work hard, show up, and to do the right thing. i served as a commission on the ethics commission in san francisco from 1995-1998. i was the acting chair of that commission for the last part of

my service. as i said, i do believe in public service. i think that my legal qualifications and my experience with the police department and with the police commission qualify me to sit on the commission. i think that the commission needs people who can actually do the real work of the commission, to understand process and procedure, who understand the interaction between the police department, the rules that govern the police department, the state laws, and the labor laws that govern -- that affect the p.o.a. and how the p.o.a. has to interact with the commission and the department. and to be able to work through those issues in an expeditious and sort of functional manner. ultimately though i think

that -- well, one of the things that qualifies me to serve on the police commission and why i want to serve on the police commission is because i'm ultimately a believer in community and community building. i've been the board chair for the ymca in the richmond district in san francisco for almost 10 years. that's an organization that builds community in a place that is a very diverse community. we support our children and our families and our seniors in that community. and i have seen the fruits of that labor. i understand the benefit that comes from reaching across to talk to people in the community, to really listen to what they need and then to effect policies and programs that can really help them. so i suppose -- i think that i'll end it there. and i'm sure that you have specific questions that folks will want answered and i want to

make sure that whoever is waiting on the line to speak either in favor of me or against me has an opportunity to speak. i'm afraid -- you're on mute, i believe. >> supervisor ronen: sorry about that. yes. there are so many people waiting to speak and i feel bad about the length of this hearing, but we have to do our jobs here. and like i asked miss tung if you could keep your answers short and direct as possible, that would be appreciated. have you ever attended a police commission hearing? >> yes, i have -- several. so when i represented the police commission, obviously, i appeared in front of the police commission and attended hearings just so that i could -- you know, get some insight into what was happening and, obviously, during some of those commission hearings the issue -- some of it may have been in the executive

session but some were public issues related to police discipline hearing matters that came up. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and you've already talked about when you represented sfpd in the past. we heard that. what do you think about the o.c.c. is now called the department of police accountability. what are your opinions on how it's functioning now? is it doing a good job in its role? >> i think that it does the best it can. you know, the issue is -- well, doing the best that it can -- i think that it's better in the sense that it's allowed to bring matters directly itself. i think that it is perennially underfunded and understaffed. as are many commissions as well. so they could use more staff and they could use more support and, obviously, the investigative

burden of bringing matters through -- through that body is fairly high. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and the same question that i asked miss tung. how many community groups have you met regarding their views on sfpd? >> so, you know, until i was nominated to be on the commission it was not something that i focused much on, other than my general interest and background. i did meet with the democratic club. i have spoken since i was nominated for police commission, i have spoken to many, many individuals in the community on what the commission does, what they think that the commission should do. and i have a lot of discussion with folks about their views and their concerns. i found that very enlightening. and i obviously have spoken to almost all of the supervisors or

their staff about issues that they believe that are important. fundmentallyly, it's interesting, that one of the questions that i got during the conversations was, you know, would you make yourself available as a police commissioner to speak to people who were concerned about issues related to policing. and my answer was, well, of course, i would. why wouldn't i speak to them and why wouldn't i want to. and i think that i will do that. >> supervisor ronen: okay, thank you. and other the democratic club, have you engaged with community of color in any way on police reform? >> i have not. >> supervisor ronen: okay. every member of the sfpd is required to read the department of justice 21st century policing report issued in 2015. have you read it? >> i have. >> supervisor ronen: what do you think of some of the

recommendations in that report? >> i think that the most important recommendation in that report -- >> supervisor ronen: sorry, that's not yet implemented, i will say. sorry. the most important recommendation in the report that have not yet been implemented. >> so oil tak i'll take two. i think that the most important recommendation and finding was the finding and the recommendation related to institutional bias. and racial profiling and what's essentially racist -- some racist policing practices. i know that the department and the commission is working toward that issue with coming out with a bias policy. i think that the next most important issue is the use of force policy by the department.

when i started doing this work defending police officers, the focus was not on using the least amount of force possible. the focus was on essentially getting the person that you were trying to arrest under control and being reasonable in doing that. or that is not the way to go. and the fact of the matter is that police are there to protect and serve the public. they cannot be using force on the public unless it is absolutely necessary and so the use-of-force policy that is fair, that uses the least amount of force and values lives i think is the most critical, critical aspect of justice reform. >> supervisor ronen: okay, thank you. so you know that we have spent millions of dollars on a consultant to implement the

recommendations in the d.o.j.'s report and, sadly, we've only implemented 42 of 272 recommendations. i did read the recent "examiner" article where you were quoted as saying that you have great confidence in chief scott and that you think that he's pushing forward these reforms as fast as he can. and that concerned me because i don't think that this is moving nearly as fast as it should be. and so what is your plan for implementing the remaining recommendations with urgency? and can you explain your remark a bit more. >> thank you, and i disagree. i don't believe that the reforms are moving forward as fast as they need to move. i do believe that chief scott absolutely wants to implement those reforms. and is working hard to implement the reforms. i do not see chief scott at all

as a impediment to implementing the reforms. now administratively do i know what he's doing at his department? no, i don't. what would i do? i think that there's obviously moving these reforms forward, this is a department of justice collaborative process and that process needs to include collaboration with the community. it needs to hear the community and it needs to implement into the reforms what the community wants in a real functional way. that takes time. but it doesn't take forever. and also the working groups that are, you know, i'm assuming that the commission and the folks working on this are somewhat hampered by the clumsiness of the working group, you have to get the working group together and you have to come up with proposals and policies and oftentimes the p.o.a. will get involved and take the position that this is something that needs to go through the labor

negotiation process. and that has in the past slowed things. so i think that if i went in -- i mean, you know, i don't want to speak out of turn here because i haven't actually experienced being a police commissioner yet. but my goal would be to find out where the working groups are, find out which ones are functioning well and why they're functioning well. and find out which ones are not functioning well and try to make them function better. and then also to push for chief scott to move forward, to get language, and then, you know, to work and push through the p.o.a. as fast as you can and bring it to a vote. i agree with miss tung as well that, you know, the commission needs to drive hard on these issues. >> supervisor ronen: okay, thank you. last question, and, again, like miss tung if you could try to keep your answers short. i know that it's hard, no, no, i know how hard it is but there's so many people waiting. are you familiar with the 1996

report which is the report that was passed in 2016 ordinance requirement reporting by law enforcement. and specifically there's a section that requires reporting about how san francisco police department reports stops, searches and uses of force. any chance -- i don't know if you have -- (indiscernible) you would know about those reports? >> you know, i'm vaguely familiar with them. if you have a specific question about a particular policy i could probably answer it. >> supervisor ronen: okay. so what is -- so i'll ask you a specific finding from the report and your response to it and, again, try to keep it short. i know that it's hard.

what is your response to the report that shows that black males are three more likely to have guns pointed at them than any other racial group? >> my response is that it's just indicative of the racial bias that exists in policing. and that it's a systemic bias. and that it's something that we need to work really, really hard to overcome. >> supervisor ronen: okay, thank you. i appreciate that. the short response. so i'm going to ask you the same yes-and-no questions that i asked miss tung. have you ever been a leader of any organizations focused on police reform or police accountability? >> i have not. >> supervisor ronen: have you written any articles, research papers or op-eds on police reform or police accountability? >> i have not. >> supervisor ronen: have you been a leader or a part of any organization that explicitly works to end violence against black people in the united states?

>> no. >> supervisor ronen: have you ever appeared either for testimony or public comment in front of a police commission or other police bodies? you have said yes. >> yes. >> supervisor ronen: have you ever testified in court or in front of a policy body as an expert or worked as a consultant or appeared as an expert witness because of your knowledge on police reformo police accountability? >> no. >> supervisor ronen: do you believe that the officers who killed mare joe wood should have been pro prosecuted? >> i don't know if i have an opinion on that, honestly. i understand the facts of it and i'm not a prosecutor. and i guess that my opinion on that would be, again, reflective of the time of policing that we should be aiming for which is deescalation, time and distance. i think that it was tragic that mario wood was shot. >> supervisor ronen: do you believe that the officers who

killed mare joe wooed mario wooe been fired? >> i don't have enough information to have an opinion on that. >> supervisor ronen: okay. do you believe that the officers who killed jessica williams should have been prosecuted? >> so that's -- again, i -- my recollection is that jessica williams was the woman who was shot while she was driving. >> supervisor ronen: that's right. >> -- a car. again, tragic. and that's -- i don't -- as i sit here today i don't remember what the policy was with respect to officer shooting at moving cars at the time. so i'm hesitant to come out -- it should never have happened. >> supervisor ronen: okay. do you believe that the officers who killed jessica williams should have been fired? >> same answer i think.

>> supervisor ronen: do you support equipping sfpd officers with tasers. >> no, and i would like to tell you why. >> supervisor ronen: i am going to just keep going for now if that's okay. but i appreciate you giving a clear answer. did you vote yes on proposition h? it was in june 2018 that would have removed a police commission's role from future oversight over tasers? >> no. i voted no. >> supervisor ronen: okay, thank you. did you support prove proposition 47 in 2014 which reduced the complication of most non-violent property and drug crimes from a felony it a misdemeanor? >> i supported it. and you froze again. >> supervisor ronen: great, did you actively support 83392 in any way which tightened the rules upon which police officers can use deadly force