the manual that's being revised, number one, it goes to the department of police accountability for feedback and input, and most importantly, any manual section that's being revised will come to the commission for approval. so you'll all have an opportunity, when it comes to our arrest and control manual, to weigh-in, and ultimately, you get the decision as to whether this's approved or not. >> commissioner dejesus: what about the time frame? that should be expedited, not something we should have to wait six months for. we want clarification of what we're talking about. >> commissioner, it's being expedited, and as far as that amendment to the d.g.o., it will be amended. the arrest and control manual is more work, but it's being

expedited also, already underway. >> commissioner dejesus: and the second part of my question is how can it be brought to your attention sooner instead of brought by civilians? if they use a knee to the shoulder blade or some way else, is there going to be a way to bring it out to the sergeants by way of a report or some other way? >> yes. it's state -- [inaudible] >> -- in our systems, in our oversight systems is whether there are any gaps as it stands right now, and the way our general order reads, reportable use of force, that level of force, this body control weapon, body weapons, that kind of thing, control holds, wrist control holds, that type of thing, if there's no injury, it has to be categorized, but it's

not a reportable use of force. so the things have to be documented, but if it's what's believed to be a minor type of control hold, a knee on the back, that type of thing, it's not considered a use of force. so some of the things that we have to look at in this investigation is whether a gap in our oversight, in our policies, and in our procedures in terms of that issue is to make sure that the right things are looked at so we don't have this type of situation. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. so you will consider it because now that we're more aware of the shoulder blades and the neck, it's the back area. maybe we should look into this being a reportable use of force, and you will look into that. >> yes. >> vice president taylor: commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: thank you. thank you, commissioner taylor

for listing all the work that sfpd has done and praising their progress, but i think during this time and where we are right now, we need to do better. we need to work harder and faster, and these delays just can't keep happening. commissioner dejesus expressed a lot of my concerns that i was going to address, but i do have a few follow ups. my concern was that this incident of this video happened in january 2020, and we've only learned about it because it's on social media six months later. and i understand that there are secondary use of force laws that sergeants review after the use of force, and it's disturbing to know that as you categorized, minor control holds are not use of force, but those definitely should be logged in, and i'm very

concerned about the secondary review process and, again, why this wasn't caught. so i don't -- i think that in addition to your review of that policy, chief, there needs to be a review of the policy that just because -- if there's no injury, then we don't report it. that can't be the qualifier, and that really needs to be looked at. the other thing that i'm concerned about -- and i don't know. i guess a lot of the questions that i have will be answered later, after the full investigation. i'm reserving any sort of judgment because i think an investigation does need to be done, and it'll be very interesting to see what happens. my other suggestion would be that in drafting this department bulletin that you just mentioned, i think that

given commissioner dejesus' experience on this issue, and given that she was the only commissioner around when this d.g.o. was revised, i think that she should be consulted in the language of how the d.g.o., the department bulletin is going to be revised because i think that her input and expertise are going to be of great use to the department in drafting this. >> yes, commissioner. thank you. we will include commissioner dejesus in drafting that language. >> vice president taylor: commissioner hamasaki? you're on mute. >> commissioner hamasaki: and thank you, commissioner taylor. chief, we e-mailed about this

previously, and i'm glad to know that there's a department -- is it a department notice or a department bulletin? >> a bulletin amends a d.g.o. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. so this'll be a -- okay. >> a bulletin -- yeah. a bulletin amends a d.g.o. we also intend to remind everyone of the current policy, but an amendment is what is needed to amendment a department general order. >> commissioner hamasaki: so we can get the order out within the next few weeks, and then the bulletin -- it doesn't seem like this is a big complicated amendment. i think all of us went back through d.g.o. 5.01 after the george floyd killing and make sure that nothing like this

happens in our jurisdiction, in our city, and i think the language that did -- that could or did -- could potentially create confusion where commissioner dejesus referenced under section 3.1. sb-3 does prohibit -- section b-3 does prohibit the carotid hold and the chokehold restraints, and you're going to clarify that rapidly. a couple of other points, and i did -- i think that this is -- this is -- this is -- this is the -- the -- the frustration

that i think we are feeling constantly as commissioner that cindy expressed and petra expressed, which is we never learn about these things until they're in the news, and this obviously was just -- you know, i understand this -- this may become a discipline gamthing, i've had nothing to do with the actual incidents, and i haven't reviewed the videos, to be honest because i want to be able to be neutral if and when the matter comes before us as a commission. but can i ask, in this situation -- we had this issue, and this issue reminds me of the blue lines matter, thin blue line mask, did any of the officers come forward and report this potentially deadly conduct to the department in a way that the department could be aware that somebody had

potentially used a use of force that could be deadly? >> if your question, commissioner is did anybody report this as possible misconduct, that is -- that is a no. all the officers wrote statements as they are required to do regarding their part in the arrest and what they observed and whatever else relevant information that's appropriate for an arrest report, but again, this was not reported as a use of force, and all that will be a part of the investigation -- not will a part of the investigation, is a part of the investigation, so your question will be looked into, depending on where the investigation leads us. >> commissioner hamasaki: right, and i have no doubt. this has been an ongoing complaint that we've had from the community since -- i mean,

even before i was on the commission, there was this image that the police never report misconduct by officers and are protected from discipline from misconduct. i think the question as to whether appropriate deescalation techniques were used in this case is part of the investigation. i think it's good that you released the body worn camera footage because that was a concern, and any sunshine or transparency to me helps with

the accountability and it really helps the public to know that there's no hiding going on. it's an important first step. is it also possible, as part of that process, to release the police reports? >> yeah. there are actually requests to release the police reports, and as all of our public records account requests, we send those requests through our legal department, and if there is -- if it's legally permissible, those reports will be released. that p.r.a., i think we got at least one or more today, so, like every request, we run it through legal, and if it's releasable, we release it. >> commissioner hamasaki: no, sorry. that wasn't my question, and i'm sorry if it wasn't clear. it's not a matter if it's not a public record, it's just like you release the body worn cameras which show the incident, can the department -- is the department legally permitted to release the

reports in a situation like this where there is this degree of concern by the public? [inaudible] >> yeah, so there are legal -- we usually consult with the city attorney, as a practice, those reports are typically released by request. we don't just routinely release police reports, and i understand the public interest in this one. if it's releasable and legally releasable, we will release it. we have no problem with that at a all. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. i would ask that's a commissioner that if it's possible, after consultation with the city attorney, to release the police reports to help the public feel that this matter is being taken seriously and every effort to accountability and transparency is being followed, that if it's possible, they should be released, just like the -- with appropriate redactions as

required by law but with -- along with the body worn camera. thank you. i have nothing further. >> commissioner elias: yeah, i agree with that, and i want to be as transparent as possible with this. i'm going to read another quick provision because i think it was commissioner hamasaki or commissioner elias who mentioned this. it says, when in a position to do so, officers shall intervene when they know or have reason to know that another officer is about to use or is using unnecessary force. officers shall promptly report any use of unnecessary force and the efforts made to intervene to a supervisor. so i want to make sure that the public knows, these are all available to the public, and so it's important the public knows what the rules that guide the officers. this is 5.01 use of force.

commissioner brookter? broo >> commissioner brookter: i would be reprized and remiss and i didn't say it's the inequality of justice that we've seen across this country for centuries. and the conversation that i constantly get from communities is why wasn't this investigated in january? and i know that we shared the reason as to why, but i think folks are thinking that it took another loss of a black man's life to have this conversation about things that have been going on for centuries. we need to look at is the officers are just as guilty as those individuals that are out committing these crimes against our people. and so as petra said, and as

commissioner elias said, we just have to do better in terms of being proactive. i think also just to add, in terms of commissioner elias, in having commissioner dejesus look at term 5.01, i think it would be good to have a junior commissioner with fresh eyes to take part in drafting that, as well, so i would be happy to work with you on that, petra. i wanted to share that with you chief, but it wasn't a question, more so a comment ta. >> vice president taylor: that's great. >> commissioner dejesus: yeah, that's great. i'd love to have your eyes. >> commissioner brookter: thank you, commissioner. >> vice president taylor: okay. i don't see any other questions, so chief, do you want to move onto the crime intend inte trends? >> yes. so i'll quickly go onto the crime trend because i know

there's a lot of interest from the commission and the public about the escalation of civil unrest, including in our city. so let me just quickly go through the crime trends and let you know where we are. 18,528 this year, year to date, compared to 21,529 last year. the breakdown is a 14% reduction in property crime. 16,507 this year, compared to 19,529 last year, and a 12% reduction in violent crime. 2021 violent crime this year compared to 2300 violent crimes last year. the breakdowns of those two categories, in terms of property crime, we are up in burglaries by 25%, and that

number is an increase of almost 600 burglaries. 2609 burglaries in 2020, compared to 2,085 burglaries this time last year. our motor vehicle deaths, we were trending up before the pandemic, and last year, and we're still up to 2,059 vehicle thefts this year compared to 741 last year. by the way, that is a state and national trend with increase in thefts of motor vehicles this year. arson, we are up by 39%. 116 this year, as opposed to 83 this time last year. and our larceny events, we are down 20%.

included in larceny and theft are auto burglaries, and we're actually down 28% in our auto burglaries. 6,655 this year, compared to 9,293 last year. so violent crime breakdowns, we are up 6% in homicides, and that is going in the right direction. we had 18 this year, as opposed to 17 this time last year. in terms of race, we are down 48%. 85 this year, compared to 163 last year. robbery, we're down 6%, 1,067 this year compared to 1132 last year. and before precovid and preall the shelter in place and staying home orders, kwerp trending up in robberies, so it's good that's in the

negative. human trafficking, we are down by 40%. 9, compared to 15 last year. we had no homicides the weekending may 31, and as i said, there's a total of 18 homicides. we've seen a trail off in our shootings. shootings had started to spike about three weeks ago. our shooting victims were down 27%. 27 this year, compared to 37 this time last year. our homicides with firearms are also starting to trail off. we're still up 22%, however. 11 this year, and 9 this time last year. total gun violence victims, 17 this year compared to 46 last year. going to talk about now our critical incidents of this past

week, including the city's response to the civil unrest that has occurred around the country and in our city. you know, first of all, i really do want to thank and express on behalf of all the police department our gratitude to all san franciscans during this unprecedented time. these are from the shelter in place order to what has happened over the last week after the tragic death of mr. floyd, these are unprecedented in our generation. we know there's a lot of things going on. businesses are closed, people are out of work. people are sick with covid, so it's really a trying time for us. and just to have the public's cooperation in what we're asking of them and what we as a city are asking of them. i want to thank san franciscans

for that because i think that makes our job a lot easier. along with our events in covid-19, everybody is sacrificing to minimize loss of life. this last week, we've had civil unrest all across our nation following mr. floyd's tragic death. we've been through a lot this past week, and through it all, our city and our police department is doing everything we can to keep peace and order, number two, to keep order, and number three, to keep people from losing their lives and losing their property. i'll just give a connectictext

what happened last week. last week, as news immediately spread across the country, the city of minneapolis started to see protests, many of them peaceful, and they also started to see violent protests, just by people's anger and outrage, and that spread throughout cities across the nation quickly. protests across the nation, many of them started out peacefully for the most part and turned violent. what the trend -- that we've seen, not without exception, but for the most part, the protests during the day often times started out very peaceful. with the protests that went on as night fell, there were escalations of violence, escalations of incidents of burning structures, assaults on law enforcement personnel, looting, and the like, and that

was a nationwide trend. in our city, we actually fared well in terms of there were protests, but we didn't have any incidents of violence and that type of destruction until this past saturday. on saturday, we had several protests around the city. some of them went on for many hours very peacefully. as night fell -- well, i'll say peacefully for the most part. there was a lot of hostility and anger, and people were expressing that, as they have a right to do. but with the exception of windows broken here and there, they were peaceful. then as night fell, they became increasingly more hostile and violent. by saturday night, around 8:00, we started to get an influx in the violence of protests, particularly the ones in and around the civic center and downtown. within a couple of hours, it really multiplied to looting,

overtaking the westfield mall, and throwing molotov cocktails in the mall, attempting to light fires, burning businesses, smashing windows, massive looting. and as that progressed, we started to get more and more people coming to the area to participate in these activities. it was a very challenging and quite frankly overwhelming situation for our officers. it resulted at the end of the night, we were able, at the end of the night, with the help of our fire department, to put out the fires quickly. officers, with the help of fire, were able to put fires down at the westfield mall. even though we had officers posted around the mall when people breached the security and got in, the breach of that security and the looting and

the fires, resulted in a massive deployment to secure the mall to try to arrest the looters that were inside the mall and to put out the fires, and that tied up a significant amount of our resources. meanwhile, the looting and t incidents started to escalate in the union square area. our resources were overwhelmed, quite frankly. so that night, the mayor directed that we work on language with the city attorney's office for a curfew, which we obliged. that curfew was implemented sunday evening at 9:00, and it goes now from 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. the mayor asked for help through the state from the

state department of emergency services, so sunday, we began to receive aid from law enforcement officers around the state. by sunday, we had 208 officers deployed to san francisco from stations all-around the state, and those officers were deployed to help us secure areas around the city as we dealt with what was to come sunday night. [please stand by]

-- to work at all city departments that night to make sure that sunday morning when residents woke up and we didn't have images of the city in shambles. with all of the broken glass and graffiti and everything that happened tonight, the department of public works and their director, the acting director, got up out of their beds to clean the city up. all of the trash was cleaned up and as much as they could they cleaned the city and they accelerated the boarding up of the windows and the businesses and by sunday morning, although you could still tell that the damage was done by the boarded

up windows and the ones that remained to be boarded up at that time, the city -- particularly the part that was hardest hit was clean. and it really made a difference in our resiliency and people knowing that, you know, we're not going to allow these things to occur and these images to linger in our city. so i want to thank the other city departments, many of them, who participated in helping our city to get back on their feet after that night. sunday night, very minimal damage. we have had now -- and on wednesday it's been peaceful in our city since that time. and for those who had not seen, our mayor has rescinded as of tomorrow morning at 5:00 a.m., the curfew will be rescinded. and that is -- that is part of what you want to report to this commission. now i reported on the arrests, and i want to -- we received a

lot of questions about the demographics of the people who were arrested and the types of arrests that we made. we have to basically create an administrative response to analyze and to bring all of the data and make the reports of all of the public records and everything else that we're getting for these arrests. but i want to give you what we have so far. and this is ongoing, so these numbers will change as we get more information but this is as of the information that we had as of yesterday. of the arrests that we made for the curfew violations, and the incidents of looting, 5% were asian, 26% were african american, and 22% were hispanic, and 37% were white, and 8% unknown ethnicity.

in terms of looting, 42 of the structures that were looted were large and corporate type of buildings and we're talking about the malls and safeways and places like that. one was a mixed-use facility. and 33 of them were small businesses. we don't have a demographic breakdown at this time in terms of whether those businesses were ethnic businesses like in a chinatown or mission or anywhere else for that manner, but we have been asked for that information and we are in the process of getting that information as well. and use of forces during the civil unrest incident, there were 16 incidents of youth force. and out of that -- that equated to 45 reports. 19 were eirw or weapon deployment impact.

and 14 were pointing of a firearm. one body patrol. three personal body weapons. one was a physical takedown. and one was pepper spray. in terms of the ethnicity of the use of force, 0% asian, 48% african american, 9% hispanic and 18% white and 48% -- i'm sorry, 48% unknown, i'm sorry. and let's see -- 11 female and the rest were male. >> i'm sorry, chief, can you say that again. i got confused. 48% african american or 48% unknown? >> 48% african american.

>> okay, what were the percentage of unknown? >> 24% unknown. as far as the age range, let's see, we have 14 -- 42% listed as unknown. 3%, 50-59. and 0%, 40-49. and 5%, 30-39. i'm sorry, 15%, 30-39. and 32%, 18-29. and 2%, under 18 -- or 6%, i'm sorry, under 18. and that -- that is the demographic. i know that there's been a lot of debate about the need for whether or not a curfew is the right thing to do or the need

for it. and as i told the board of supervisors in their public hearing yesterday and i said in our media briefing about this issue, it was my recommendations to our mayor to implement a curfew. and it gave us the ability to restore order in our city very quickly on sunday when the civil unrest repeated itself. and i know that the mayor was very thoughtful and deliberate and it weighed very heavy on her. and we as a police department wanted to make sure that we did not abuse this law that was -- or this emergency order. the majority -- or the vast majority of the arrests with the curfew were in those volatile situations. and they were sunday night. the vast majority of them were sunday night. or after all of the activities that occurred on saturday night. so that is the extent of what i

have to report here. i know that there's probably going to be questions. so i will stop there on this part. i have one other -- a couple other items to report but i'll stop there if the commission has any questions. >> chief, i have a question. so i asked you to report on the demographics of what was going on in terms of the weekend because when i watched the news, what i see -- i see the people and the looters and it's generally black people. so i wanted to know what the demographics were and i watch the news and read the newspapers like everyone else, and i was, you know, it is significant to me in terms of percentages that the majority of the people who seem to have been involved in the violence over the weekend, 37% white. that is not what you see when you watch the news. that's not what you see. and so those -- those statistics are i think are important because for whatever reason that's not what is getting out.

now i've also read about, you know, right-wing kind of anarchist groups inciting violence all throughout the country at protests. and i don't know if the department has been keyed into that, or aware of that, or has any sense if that's come into play in san francisco? it might be difficult because they're doing it so secretly. but you just -- you hear less about that when we watch the news, the liberal news. so it's just interesting to me the large percentage of white people, frankly, who were involved in this violence. >> yes, commissioner. and i don't know if that was a question but as far as the -- the question that i got out of it at the end was that a lot of the information is out there on the -- in social media. there's posts about white supremacy and other posts about what has been described as domestic terrorist type of

extreme mass liberal organizations. some of it is believed to be fake. some of it is believed to be provocateurs and we have to determine, you know, which is difficult to do, what is real and what's not. i can't say and at least up to this point -- none of what we see on the website about people coming to our city, shooting up the city and raiding residential neighborhoods, that type of thing -- none of that has panned out. but we always have to take these things cautiously, particularly in today's world. and to take them seriously. so it really put us in a position where we have to be ready, we have to deploy -- i didn't mention that that we cancelled all days off until further notice. we won't have this forever and it's a day-by-day thing and if we have continual peace there's a likelihood that we won't have that assistance, and understandably so. so we have to stay vigilant and

we'll stay deployed at least for now with all off days cancelled and we're fully deployed and ready to help the people of our city to stay safe. >> vice-president taylor: commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: i see that she has a comment first. >> vice-president taylor: sure. commissioner dejesus. >> mute, mute. >> vice-president taylor: you're good now, you're good. >> commissioner dejesus: i got this from the newspaper. they showed a mat of map of the looting areas and they talked about the presumption and the strategy that the looters had and perhaps a lookout so they knew where you guys were, so where they could go. i don't know if that is true or not, but i'm wondering in terms

of strategy for next time, i mean, have we studied or learned anything from this in terms of how to try to protect and -- i mean, you know, to protect property or to protect things in the future? that's number one. and then i have a second part. >> so for number one to answer your first question, yes. we are looking at everything. our analysts are looking at everything locally and you have a regional component to this. definitely we believe that what's out there on social media that there was some organization to this where kind of flash mob type of looting and let's go here to this location and they overrun the location and they leave and they go hit another place. we do have evidence of that. and that occurring. we saw it on saturday night here in our city where we saw what we

believed to be organized activity. you know, people showing up in cars and it looked very synchronized in terms of looting a store and dumping the merchandise in the car and going to the next store and some other people dumps and we saw what appeared to be a very synchronized and organized action. on top of that, i think that a lot of the people that we saw were just opportunist. the later it got, at least saturday night it seemed that more people started to come just to get what they can get. so we believe that a lot of that is just people posting on social media, hey, it's happening here and others saying let's go down there and get what we can get. nationally it's been kind of the same trend. >> commissioner dejesus: and i'm assuming -- i'm assuming that, you know, for whatever cameras were out or anything like that that i assume that your department will be investigating in terms of trying to, you know, get the

perpetrators? >> yes. thank you for bringing that up. this is far from over as far as the people who we weren't able to apprehend. because thankfully a lot of our businesses have very good security systems and there's a lot of footage and private video from around the city that our residents are providing to us or giving us an opportunity on the backend and hopefully to identify some of these folks and bring them to justice. >> commissioner dejesus: and then the last thing is that i was watching the board of supervisors last night regarding the curfew. and the mayor's curfew was an indefinite curfew. did you recommend indefinite curfew? or not? >> no, no, i didn't recommend the indefinite part. the way that played out is that the curfew is drafted. and sunday night's event happened -- or saturday night, i'm sorry -- and the city attorney's office said that it's

a daunting task, they had worked through the night to get a curfew order done. so the goal was to get -- the basic language that we needed to keep our city safe. and as of -- as i understand the rules, the board has to concur with that emergency order. there's two parts -- there's the emergency order and then the actual curfew order itself. they are actually two documents, but they work hand-in-hand and that's what the board meeting was about yesterday. so the indefinite part, the goal and my recommendation is to let's see how things progress, you know, for us and, fortunately, we had peace after saturday night's events. and nationally it seems that it was peaceful yesterday, and for the last day and a half. so the recommendation from the start has been to see how things are going and then i would make my recommendation to the mayor and she did ask me for my opinion when she decided to lift the curfew order today.

and i agreed with that. and that's how the system works. this is so fluid and so unprecedented that it's really a day-to-day thing. you know, somebody can say something that stirs everything up and that's happened a couple times and we see a spike in violence nationally. and then we have to react to it. so it's just very fluid right now. i mean, people are very angry and very upset. we still have the covid issue that we're dealing with and it's just a really trying time. so to answer your question, it was never meant to be indefinite. we just wanted to get it going so we could keep the city safe and reassess as needed. >> commissioner dejesus: okay, i have one other part. i noticed that in washington, d.c., they have people showing up without their insignia or their name plates. are the people that are assisting us able to be identified as to where they come from, you know, or are they blocking any insignia that they have?

>> no. so our -- and these are all folks from like from agencies around the state. so we have a deputy chief who daily debriefs whatever personnel that we get -- not debriefs -- briefs. he has a briefing presentation. they brief and they give him kind of what the rules of what we're doing here. and we put them on post. and most of the assignments for the folks that are assisting us, if not all of the assignments, have been security to secure like some of the businesses that i had mentioned that had been looted. and to not patrolling our city. san francisco police officers are patrolling our city. every squad or unit of outside resources that we're using, they're supervised by the the sn francisco police supervisor. and we have to do that for many reasons, including our communications.

so nobody is out there just patrolling our streets from a different agency. >> commissioner dejesus: thank you so much. >> thank you. >> vice-president taylor: commissioner brookster. >> commissioner brookter: one so it was a follow-up, chief. i would also like to see as commissioner taylor was receiving the demographics on race if we could receive the demographics on cities and counties that folks are coming from and which we're making these arrests. so i'd like to see if people are coming across the bridge to our city in order to protest and to provide some of this vandalism in the city during this time. and you actually answered the one question that i did have in terms of seeing and hearing that the curfew has been lifted. so i was going to ask if you feel that there's any recourse that's going to come because of it? i know that san franciscoians

had felt that folks were voiceless and we were unable to go outside and to voice our opinions and you stated that the curfew itself was a suggestion that came from the department, what would be another suggestion should we see another spike in protests, you know, over the next couple of days? >> well, we always in this city to try to go with the least restrictive way to do business. and, again, we know in this emergency -- nobody can remember around here when the city and county of san francisco received mutual aid, within the department right now, nobody can remember. it may have been in the early 1990s. but it's rare. and that gives you an indication of the level of emergency in our city. to your question about how we proceed. i mean, what our plans are is,

number one, we have to constantly adjust based on what is going on. you know, when things were very, very violent and volatile, of course we're going to wear personal protective equipment and the like and there's a high likelihood of that. but oftentimes we can deescalate just by the equipment that we show up in. and if there's no known reason for us to expect violence or there's going to be a peaceful protest, we police that in a different way than we would a protest where we expect violence. so showing up in helmets and personal protective gear, people automatically go to a high level of anxiety. so our goal is that we to not to, and take it down a notch if we can. but it's based on the intelligence. and the other thing is this, as i said earlier, people in our city have been really good in terms of cooperating. it started with covid and that's

why we did as well as we did up to this point. even with the curfew. by and large people did what they were asked to do. and i just, you know, i think that we have to rely on the goodwill of the people of our city and that is why it's so important for people to trust us. for us to do our jobs in a way that people would trust us. we have emphasizing and reemphasizing the safety statement that we have. it means something. and i know that we are not always perfect. we don't always get it right. but that means something. so that goes a long way in terms of how people react to our mere presence. and, again, you know, as much as we can try to do things without those type of restrictions, we will. and the national picture also plays an issue in it. because what is happening at the end of last week nationally, i

mean, this was happening all over the country. and i think that we have to pay attention to what's going on around us as well. you know, things are happening in east bay or the peninsula, and eventually they come to our way as well. so we can't make decisions in a vacuum. we have to look at what's going on around us. we lift our curfew and everybody else has a curfew and, you know, we're probably going to get more people in our city. but from what i'm hearing anyway, i haven't had a chance to watch the news today, i am hearing a lot of the cities are reconsidering the curfew and whether it's still needed. so it's a lot better when we work in unison. but we're going to do everything that we can to be as the least restrictive as we can, with our recommendations and with our actions. >> vice-president taylor: commissioner hamasaki, i apologize, i forgot the order. you had a question? >> commissioner hamasaki: yes. i am a little -- i don't know --

maybe i have a pretty different perspective than some that has been expressed so far, but, you know, i did follow the board of supervisors hearing yesterday. i have seen a fair amount of the commentary and i heard the commentary from small business owners who after being decimated by covid are decimated by the curfew and their inability to work and for the small businesses and the restaurants that rely on -- or trying to stay alive in the delivery services and people to eat. and i think that a curfew is a last, last, last resort. it is taking away our civil rights, our civil liberties of our citizens at a time when the country is horrified. our country is disgusted. and the country is appalled at another police killing. when we shut down without enough

cause and keep it indefinite curfew in place, i have zero -- i just don't respect that. and i respect -- i understand the westfield mall got trashed and i understand that there was, you know, a fair amount of pretty appalling behavior, but by yesterday, you know, people are hungry to get back to life. we have all been locked down and struggling and when our government shuts us down and locks us in our houses, there better be a good reason. and i haven't seen one in the last few days. and i got to say that i'm pretty disappointed to see you there yesterday encouraging it. i know, you know, i understand that safety and security, those are great things, those are the foundations of what we need for liberty, but, you know, when people want and need and -- the

pain that i've seen -- the pain that we've all seen, you know, on the streets, in the streets, and on the social media and on the -- in the news, and then to have our government come down on top of it and say go back in your homes, you've had enough freedom for now, there's some bad people over here and we can't handle it. and i think that moment was gone a few days ago. i think it brought great disrespect to this city, to our freedoms, and to our department because -- what it said to everybody is that we can't handle this. we don't have it together enough to handle this at this point. i understand the night that it got hot and heavy and things were pretty bad. but i have been in this city for 25 years now. i've been through -- i don't know how many protests and how

many of the rallies that have ended up in acts of looting and acts of property destruction and breaking, you know, bank windows and so forth. not my thing. i understand. but, you know, it's really -- it was really -- i thought that yesterday that -- i thought that the curfew should have been lifted and i thought that, you know, it's costing a lot of people a lot of money in this city and the people in this city don't have that money anymore. and i'm glad that the board of supervisors took action and forced the hand of folks. but it -- if this ever comes up again i think that you should reach out to the commission because i think we have very different opinions on the points that we're willing to give up and sacrifice our liberty and our freedom and our ability to make a living in this city.

and so i'm not happy about it. i think that we'll talk offline about it, but i'm glad that it's being lifted now. and i hope that we can all, you know -- because the protests -- there's just so much that's been pent up over this year that came out. you know, people are done. people are tired. people are beaten down. and we just don't need anymore of it coming from the government. >> yes, may i respond, vice president taylor? >> vice-president taylor: yes, yes. >> i wanted to respond to commissioner hamasaki's question. for the commission, for the public, i too take civil liberties very seriously. and i know that my role as chief of police is to return the day-to-day operations of the police department.

that is not -- respectfully that's not the commission's role at 12:00 at night when we have massive violence in the city, and the mayor asks me my opinion on what i recommend for the order for the city, i'm going to give her my recommendation as to what i think is the best thing to keep people alive, to keep people's property safe, and to keep our city safe. i don't think that anybody expects me to call the police commission before i make that decision. i respectfully, respectfully ask you as your chief of police to allow me to do my job. >> vice-president taylor: chief, i -- i -- i don't think that you should call the police commission to make those decisions. i think that we all ask that we

make them carefully and, you know, considering all of the impacts on the citizens of this city. i think that it would be helpful if you would explain to the commissioner again and the public one of the things that i have heard is that there were molotov cocktails being thrown at property, at officers, and also at just civilians on the street, people on the street. and so when you're talking about the situation from looting -- looting is one thing and vandalism is another. but coordinated efforts, organized efforts, you know, throwing molotov cocktails at people is something that i have never seen in this city or any city. so and then talk about how you came up with -- this was not a general curfew, it was a curfew from 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.. so how you came up with the timing of the curfew. if you could walk us through some of those considerations, i

think that it would be helpful. because it wouldn't be possible or efficient for, you know, a good idea, frankly, for the commission to be consulted on every single decision that you make in an emergency situation. but i think we want the comfort that you're making this decision based on the right input. >> yes, absolutely. well, the trends that we have been seeing -- well, at that time -- the violence and other parts of the country, in the region, was happening after hours of dark. the looting, the majority of the looting and the majority of the structures that were set to fire were happening after the hours of darkness. most of the protests, as i stated earlier, were peaceful. particularly during the daytime. there was some violence during the daytime but most of the protests were peaceful during the daytime. and even here in san francisco, we had sporadic vandalisms and the like, but what we saw saturday night was a quick

escalation of violence when the night fell. let me say this -- typically with mutual requests and you can see it now and it's happening right now, we have seen it in the past, that typically the cities get aid after the fact when the city is in shame bells. -- shambles. so my recommendation and it was the mayor's leadership on this is to get in front of it. why wait until we have structures burned down and lives lost, and police officers killed or hurt, and then ask for help and then implement the curfew type of restrictions so we can restore order? that is the respective that i was coming from. i don't think that anyone here wants to see a loss of life. and i don't know if you all realize how dangerous the

conditions were. here in our city on saturday night. we were very lucky, very lucky that we had no one seriously hurt or killed but it was extremely dangerous. so that's the root and the basis of the recommendations. i was here for all of those hours listening to the officers screaming and yelling on the radio when bricks and molotov cocktails were being thrown at them and people were almost getting hit by cars and it was chaotic. we were very lucky that we didn't have more damage. that is the basis of my recommendation. i know that it's easy for all of us to sit here when things are peaceful and say what we would and wouldn't do. we have to make decisions at the moment based on what we think is the right thing. and, again, to the commission, hopefully you all know me by now and i don't take that responsibility for granted. but i have to be -- i have to be able to make decisions based on

what is going on and my best recommendations as to how to secure and keep the city safe. so those are things that went into the fact pattern that guided my recommendations. we were seeing friday night just across the bay tremendous violence that ended up in a death. we saw it in southern california, tremendous violence. we have seen it all around the country. you know, so our goal was not to wait until things happened to try to get in front of it. it really was to try to get in front of it and to prevent it, like we always talk about anything else that we do -- whether it be preventative homicides or burglaries or whatever. prevention is better than reaction. and i realize how serious it is to limit somebody's civil liberties. i do. i take that very seriously. and it was never meant to be an indefinite curfew. what it was meant to do was to stop what was going on as quickly as we can and restore

order to our city so we can get back to normal and let people to enjoy their lives. but if we didn't get this under control and keep it under control, that's going to be delayed even further. so that is how my rational pattern of thinking happened. >> vice-president taylor: thank you, commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: so, chief, just to be clear -- and i can't speak for commissioner hamasaki, but i don't think that we're telling you how to run the department because you are the department head or how to give advice to the mayor. i think that i brought it up more in how it was framed as an indefinite curfew. and more importantly last night i didn't get to see the whole supervisor's meeting but i was wondering if you were supporting at that meeting an indefinite curfew? and that to me -- if we had calm days and you were supporting an indefinite curfew, that does bring up a lot of civil rights connotation, especially if it's not really needed. so i'm really glad that the mayor withdrew it today, but as

of last night it was the issue that was burning and i wanted to know if you were there supporting an indefinite curfew and the question would have been why. but you told me that you didn't write it that way and didn't put it as indefinite and i don't know if you were there last night supporting it as an indefinite curfew. and three days after things calmed down that's why i questioned why would you support an indefinite curfew at a meeting last night. so i think that we're just getting a little bit confused. we're not telling you what decision you made, but i'm wondering after saturday night were you still supporting an indefinite curfew? >> yes, thank you. so the issue on the floor for the board as i understand it was to vote -- the idea was to vote to support the emergency order or to rescind it. and there were several -- if you heard the whole hearing -- there were several things that came up. there were recommendations from the board to take action either

to let it go through the weekend and if the board took no action then it would have expired on saturday night. that was one option that was recommended. there were options to modify it. and there were also options to craft language that would give us, the city, a couple more days of curfews. and my recommendation is that if you watched the whole hearing was to give us time to make an assessment. we knew that we had big protests going on today that was intended to be peaceful. we didn't know what was happening in the rest of the country at that time yesterday. so the recommendation was never for an indefinite curfew. supervisor peskin had made a recommendation to take no action. and maybe let it expire at the end of the week and it would have been expired anyway. and there was talk and debate about whether that would give us one more day or two more days. so i just want to be clear on what i said and what i did at

that hearing. because i never said that it was meant to be indefinite. there were several options on the floor and i gave my recommendation based on the options put on the floor that gave us the most flexibility to do the job that we needed to do. but it was never said by me that it should be an indefinite curfew. >> commissioner dejesus: okay, thank you. that's my focus. thank you. >> vice-president taylor: commissioner brookter. >> commissioner brookter: i'm glad that you asked that with the clarification from you, chief. i want to thank you for your leadership as a leader during times like this. there are unprecedented decisions that we have to make that are real-time. that are extremely hard to make. and you made it. and you're standing by it. i want to commend you for that. and i also want to state that i think that it's a little bit unfair -- well, i don't think, nor should you have to call

every commissioner when there is a crises that is taking place, but we did receive updates. we did receive updates from the commission office that came in on sunday. so i want to make sure that is clear and that is not true that we weren't receiving information and updates. >> vice-president taylor: now, we received hourly updates for a while this weekend and i want to thank the staff, and from your office, chief, it was helpful to know what was going on. commissioner elias? i think that you're on mute. >> commissioner elias: thank you. actually, i think that commissioner dejesus addressed my issue. and the other kind of comment that i have is that while i understand, chief, you and i had several discussions about rights and civil liberties and oftentimes we don't agree, but i know that you are cognizant of it. and i get my request would be that in the times of calm when

we do have an opportunity to reflect that we dig deep and we figure out where we are and take that assessment. because i think that oftentimes when we're in the mode of chaos or we're being reactive, that we don't have time for reflection. and i think that is really important and it should be taken into consideration. because i too didn't agree with the indefinite curfew. >> thank you. >> vice-president taylor: commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: yes, and commissioner taylor, i've had a request to speak up since she was speaking -- most of the time i reinforce it, so i ask to you please try to respect that. >> vice-president taylor: wait, wait,. >> commissioner elias: let me apologize to and you i'm looking in the chat box and it's a live chat box and i see a request from you and it's hard for me to (indiscernible) so i

respect your right to be heard and everyone's right to be heard and we're all doing best we can here. so please go ahead. hamasaki thank. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. chief, you know, you -- i know that you are doing your best under difficult circumstances and i respect that and i have expressed my respect to you repeatedly on and off line numerous times since i came on the commission for the work that you've done. but, you know, my background, my life, is civil rights and civil liberties and our freedoms and that's what i have fought for and that's what i have dedicated my life to. i have dedicated my life to keeping people out of cages and not putting them in cages. and i fought for people to be free and fighting for people to have the same rights that we

should all have. when you say statements like, you know, as long as when we have a curfew everyone is safe, that's true. it's absolutely true. and we could extend it and it could be a longer curfew and we'd be even be safer. but there's a balance there, right? and i wasn't talking about saturday night. i understand that. nor was i even talking about sunday but there was still fair time to assays -- reassess it. because there was a movement to lift what was an indefinite curfew barring action by the board of supervisors within seven days of its inaction to lift it. and, you know, would it to become -- once we start to give up those rights -- and i think is a problem of perspective in that you're focused on keeping us safe and i know that you care about civil rights and civil liberties, but i just -- it's

just been hard to see everything that has been going on in the streets and to see our liberties being curtailed more. i don't want to belabor the point. i will say that, you know, i don't -- i didn't appreciate the comments about the police chief's role and the commission's role. our role is oversight. okay? and our role is who gets to be police chief. and, you know, i'll tell you truthfully -- everybody thinks that you're a good man. but we -- we need strong leadership. we need -- this city needs you, needs you to be strong and fight for all of us, especially during these difficult times. and for our freedoms.

and so i'll leave it at that. but -- and we'll talk offline. but i -- i just -- you know -- i'm -- it may -- and there's -- there's beautiful images going around today of all of these young people out there in the streets doing what makes this country great, which is standing up and fighting against injustice and fighting against oppression and that is something that i am never going to stop fighting for. if we're going to butt heads on that, that's a point where we're going to butt heads. but i don't -- i didn't question the weekend. i just questioned what happened yesterday. and i'm glad that it's being lifted and if it comes up again where we start to feel that, you know, the people are getting too crazy, too active in the streets, everybody is too angry, that's not a reason to shut down a city.

violence and a certain very high level that you can no longer control, then we can talk. but it's a last resort. because this -- you know, i can't think of another time that we've had in my time an indefinite curfew in place in the city. so i'll leave it at that. >> vice-president taylor: thank you. and we can -- and perhaps we can agendaize at some point the discussion about the police chief's role and the commission's role. it is clearly that there's a document that clearly defines that and we're authorized to do and what we're not authorized to do and maybe at a future commission meeting we can talk about that.

but maybe sergeant youngblood, call the next line item. >> under 3a of the police report and it's the updates. chief scott, is it being done by yourself? sorry? >> vice-president taylor: no. yes. >> okay, thank you. so our update for the week and the commission sent the report

and i'll go through it. a total number of requests for this week is 142, which is a difference of an additional one request from the week before. or a total number of releases increased by 208. there's a total of 1,916 releases. our total number of closed p.r.a. requests increased by 3, went up to 70 from the week before. and our total number of cases identified, 122 for this week and it was 121 for last week so that was a difference of one. our total number of officer-involved shooting cases identified or released, i'm sorry, officer involved shooting cases released, 54 this week and 489 -- 49 last week. and the number of officer involved shooting documents released, 27,826 o.i.s.

documents released or pages of documents. and a total of 24,418 last week. that was a difference of 3,408. the number of officer involved shooting and response to public record request act, 315 this week. and 292 last week. a difference of 23 additional responses released. and the next category is great bodily injury cases and the number of cases identified as great bodily injury cases were three additional cases this week. so there's the total of 13, compared to 10 last week. and the number of great bodily injury cases released, there was no change from last week. the number of great bodily cases released, no changes from last week. and the number of productions and response to p.r.a.s, no change. and the number of determineation letters sent, there was an

increase of 64, 416 to compared to 352. and the number of officers reviewed, 236. compared 196, for an increase or difference of 40. and the officer notification letters sent, and the cases assessed. 2,175, and a difference of 477. and that is -- that is it for the 1421 report and if the commission has any questions. >> vice-president taylor: i think that commissioner elias has a question. >> commissioner elias: i do. first of all, thank you, chief, for providing this 1421 stat update and i appreciate it and i appreciate it in written form because it allows us to sort of

see. i was just trying to understand the form better because i didn't see the year-to-date totals on here. i was a little confused because the total number of requests received from april and may, 41 in april and 142 in may so what is the year-to-date total? >> what we have done to try to streamline this, there were a lot of duplicate requests from several agencies, so we actually were working -- or we are working with those agencies to actively identify -- like if one agency had the same request 20 times and we'd send that agency

a document. so these numbers represent the year-to-date totals and so that's a total as of that date. >> commissioner elias: the 142? >> yes. >> commissioner elias: because last year you told me that there were like thousands, thousands of requests and now thousands have turned into 142. >> a lot of those were duplicate requests. if you had an agency or entity that requested every record for every san francisco police officer. and then you had that same agency make a request based on a specific incident where there were 10 police officers. so the question -- our staff went through the requests and worked with those agencies in a mutually agreeable format to streamline and so there's a true count. so, let's say the public defender's office had five public defenders all asking for the same officer's information. and streamline that, and once

that record goes out and then it goes out to the five -- i'm using that as an example. so the original report that lieutenant whalen gave was before we went to that process to consolidate all of the duplicate requests which we've now done. >> commissioner elias: so using that example, say that five people asked for files on officer x and you count it as one request in the 142 number, am i understanding that correctly? >> if it's the same set of records, that is correct. >> commissioner elias: okay. >> vice-president taylor: i want to clarify, the same set of records or coming from the same -- all from the public defenders, is that why? if it was the public defender's office and, i don't know, like a newspaper, would those be different requests. >> right, those would be different. those would be different. >> vice-president taylor: coming from the same agency -- okay, got it. >> commissioner elias: and then my other thing is for the

142, i thought that i understood it that there were 141 requests in april and another 142 in may but that's not it, it's year-to-date 142, am i understanding that correctly? okay. and so if that's the case that there's only 142 requests year-to-date, how are there 1,916 releases? >> the releases are -- we're doing rolling releases. so like for officer-involved shootings and, let's say it's a voluminous volume of records. and what we have been doing for really quite a while now with rolling releases, we release a portion at a time. so you can have a file that has multiple releases. and so one request can have multiple releases for that particular record. >> commissioner elias: explain that one more time. i don't understand. >> so you have a volume of

information. we have to release volumes of information. we have been doing rolling releases where we release a portion of the request at a time. when we did a request. if we have to go through and redact all of the videos or redact the information that can't be revealed from videos, that takes a lot of time. so we may release the portion of, say, the written report and then we release the video and then we release the audios. and so the records are broken down to where it's manageable. we want to keep the requests going but if we wait until everything is there, it would take even a longer time. >> commissioner elias: okay. so you're saying that one request for officer x, so there's five different sort of releases, like body cams, police report, all of those things are considered a release and accounted for separately than the one, is that right? >> correct. correct. oh, if i could just add -- then

one request could be for multiple officers in each category. so it's sort of complicated. so you could have a request that -- it could be one request for a category, let's say, dishonesty. and it could be for multiple officers. so the requests are coming in all forms and formats. so we're trying to manage it and streamline it and we're working with the requesters to do it in a way that mutually is beneficial to everybody to make this as efficient as possible. but -- i'm sorry -- >> commissioner elias: i'm so sorry, chief, i thought -- there's a delay. i'm so sorry. so the 142, so the example before that it's like five people request one record of officer x, right, you consider that one sort of request? >> five people request one record for officer x, if it's coming from the same

organization -- >> commissioner elias: right. so what if there's another -- like they request officer x and officer y, do you count that as two? or is it still the one even though it's the same agency? you see what i'm saying? >> yeah, that scenario, the two officers, and one use of force and they requesting for a single officer or requesting just a use of force incident. it depends how the request comes through. so could some of these categories, they're multiple officers and so let's say if somebody was interested in a use of force. that resulted in a seriously bodily injury and there's 10 officers involved and they just ask for a specific officer from the incident. they'll get the whole report and that's one request. if they ask for two officers, if they ask -- the city asks for officer x and officer y in the same request, that's one request. but if they break that up, it

would come in as two requests and that's why we have been working with the people that are making these requests to try to streamline that. so we send them the information in the most efficient way. because sometimes information will trickle in. somebody will find out that a certain officer is involved in an incident and they'll want a report for that officer. and they ma have already requested a report for the incident itself. so there's a lot of duplication in the request. >> commissioner elias: okay. and then the other question that i have is the 1c, the p.r.a. request where you have 70. and is that 70 from the 142 -- >> yes. are you still there? i think that you froze up, commissioner.

>> vice-president taylor: maybe she'll jump back in. does anyone else have questions. in the meantime until commissioner elias rejoins us? >> the commissioner didn't ask the question but to point out the complexity. we have requests like every officer in the department and it might be four different categories. so those things are very, very complicated. and that would be 8,000 requests but we try to streamline that to where we can be as efficient as possible to get the information to the requester.

>> vice-president taylor: i wonder if it makes sense to move on and then we can circle back when commissioner elias rejoins us. oh, here she is. welcome back. wait, i think that you're on mute. >> commissioner elias: thank you, i'm so sorry. i don't know what happened. >> vice-president taylor: the chief said something while you were gone so you may repeat that, chief. >> commissioner elias: you know, that's okay. you and i can do it offline. i don't want to prolong the meeting any longer than we have to. but i want to say thank you for the numbers and i think that they're helpful for us to understand where we are. and then i guess that one final thing was the dishonesty and sexual assault numbers, they're not on this. does that mean that there weren't any categories requesting those documents? because i see officer-involved shooting and g.b.i. but the other two, 1421 categories are the sexual assault and

dishonesty? >> i don't think that we had any but we should be reporting on it anyway, whether we have any or not. but we could add that. >> commissioner elias: thank you again. >> thank you. >> vice-president taylor: next line item. >> so the next line item is going to be the presentation of the audit of electronic communication devices for bias, first quarter 2020, that's done by commander o'sullivan who is here with me. (please stand by)

>> number 1 is department general order 10.08, use of computers and peripheral equipment. second department bulletin, 19.01, which is titled sfpd's members expectation of privacy and use of equipment. we have a unit in the department and the jenna fares, and that gets into the specificity of which, when, and how we do the audit. the audits do capture electronic messages that are transmitted from personal devices from personal devices to department devices. the three systems that are audited are as follows: number one, level two, commonly referred to as clets,

an acronym for california law enforcement transportation system. a program is searches all entries into the system using an established word list. the audit is passive and nature and happens continuously. if a member uses one of the "hit request "hit" words, it goes to a file. those determined to be potentially biased are investigated. the level two audit process has been fully operational since december 2016, so this has been in effect for over three years

now. first quarter results are as follows: from january 31 to march 1, there were 28 hits returned from the program. after review by i.a.d. members, none of the hits were determined to be potentially bias oriented. our second system, department e-mail. all e-mails are sent and received, internally and externally through our department server are audited using a department word list. the audit is passive in nature. if an e-mail contains one of the identified words on the li list, again, a hit is generated. staff analyzes every hit, and those determined to be potentially biased are investigated. from january 1 to march 31, there were 213 hits generated by the program.

after investigation, none of the 213 were determined to be bias oriented. and finally, the third system. text messages via department issued ce issued cellular phones. investigators are trained to conduct active audit determined by cellular provider at&t as well as the san francisco police department information technology division. every 30 days, a search is done of all text using an established word list. additional terms can be used, as well. staff analyzes every hit to determine the context in which the term was used. those hits determined to be potentially biased are investigated. all false hits are saved by at&t, meaning they can be retrieved at any time. from january 1 to march 31, there were 23 hits from the program, and after review by

i.a.d. members, none of the 23 were determined to be bias oriented. that concludes my presentation with regard to the first quarter. i'm happy to take any questions, listen to comments. >> vice president taylor: i don't see any questions from the commission, so let's call the next line item. thank you, commander. >> clerk: okay. the next line item under the chief's report is presentation of family code 6228, quarterly

report january 1, 2020 through march 31, 2020. >> good evening, vice president taylor, commissioners, chief scott, and executive director -- lost my train of thought. >> anderson. >> i see you right there in your nice sport coat. any ways, any ways, greg yee, the former deputy chief of the administration bureau, but any ways, family code 6229 is a report first -- 6228 is a report first quarter. background general, the family code 6228 requires state and local law enforcement agencies to provide, upon request without charge, a copy of all incident reports to the victim or victim's representative of a defined crime such as domestic violence, sexual assault,

stalking, human trafficking, and elder abuse. the incident report needs to be made available within five working days, and this report, this first quarter report gives a summary of january, february, march 2020 where the san francisco police department received a total of 10,397 requests for police reports. however, of those 10,000, 128 of those reports were classified under the 6228 provision. of those 128, the vast majority of those reports were requested in person, and 95 versus 25 by e-mail, and eight by u.s. mail. of the 128 reports requested under 6228, all the reports were fulfilled within five days of the request, and the last majority, 93, were for domestic

violence, and 28 were for sexual assault, six for stalking, and one for elder abuse. going to the back page, there were no delays. of the 128, 112 were made by victims, and the average time out or processing of a police report was 1.2 days, so most of these reports were provided or made available the same day. of those reports, 115 report requests were made in english, 12 in spanish, and one in chinese. in light of covid and the department closing its front counter at the public safety building on third street on march 20, signage was also placed on the facility to direct people or the community to go to the southern station, which remained open, and we were able to continue to provide the service through southern station. in addition to that, we placed

the instructions and notice of how to collect access and that police report. that banner was made available on the face page of the sfpd website. in addition to the ongoing practice of providing service to the community through a district station to request those police reports, the department is in its final stages of formalizing and distributing the how to request a police report protocol to call members assigned to -- all members assigned to district stations. all reports include those requests under 6228, and that's it. >> vice president taylor: thank you. i don't see any questions from the commissioners. i'm particularly happy about this report because as many of you know, i, along with

commissioner hamasaki, were part of the effort to make sure that domestic violence victims, elder abuse victims get fast access to the police reports they need so they can get restraining orders against their abusers, so this is -- this is good progress. oh, commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: oh, i couldn't see if i sent it or not. i'm actually pleased with all this, too, considering all the years that we weren't complying. the issue that there was a contentious issue, and i couldn't remember if they had to go in person or what, but did any of those come up in this three-month period or was this a straight in-person or e-mail request? i can't remember what the issue was, showing i.d. or proving who they were. did any of these issues show up

in this three-month period? >> there was no issues providing the report whether by phone, by mail, or by e-mail. the public is able to verify their identity at any facility in san francisco or statewide or at the nation. as long as they're able to provide their i.d., we make arrangements to provide the report to them via e-mail or in person. however they chose to receive the report, we accommodate them. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. you said the banner you put up -- the station was closed, but the banner you put up told them how to get the police report? >> yes. the banner that we put up, it tells them how to get the report. it's right up on the face page

of our website. >> commissioner dejesus: wow. after everything we went through, it's good to see that it's working. thank you. >> thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you. please call the next line item. i think you're on mute, sergeant. >> clerk: so the next one under the agenda is going to be the presentation of the racial and identity profiling advisory board 2019 annual and the fourth quarter 2019 and first quarter 2020 reports in compliance with administrative code chapter 96-a.

>> good evening. i'll be providing a report, while providing descriptive events, incidents, arrests, and so on. this represents our 96-a report. finally, through that half of the presentation, i'll provide you with changes that we've made to impact disparities on communities of color while ongoing efforts we are making to continue to improve in this effort. first, let me say that we have not solved the problem of disparity in policing. however, sfpd is making progress, and i hope to outline this progress and point to some data showing that progress. and finally, i also want to say that reform is an ongoing process and not something that will ever end. if we end reforms, we finish

reforms, we will become stale. the whole point is even when we get to that 272nd recommendation, we always must have ongoing efforts to change, ongoing efforts to meet those changes within our community, and so therefore, reforms never really end, so i want to make sure as we're going through processes of changing, we have to make sure we're continuously improving the department and our policies and our processes. okay. so i do have a presentation. let me just make sure -- okay. i want to provide you an overview of some of the things that have come into my sphere recently including obama made a

series of recommendations today in his task force in which he outlined some of the high level things that police departments can do -- the 19,000 police departments can do to implementery forms, and those things were implementing the 21st century police task force recommendation, changing their use of force policy, being -- and also being a my brother's keeper community. those three things are all true in san francisco. in addition, looking at the data and science behind disparities in policing, they outlined an evolution of thinking on reforms to prevent shootings and uses of force, from body worn cameras being a potential solution to using that data or that information in body worn cameras to inform training, and then finally, really looking to data and

policy revisions to really make a difference in uses of force. and so what they said in that podcast is body worn cameras don't change behavior, and they talked to police in oakland, and that this wasn't explicit bias but implicit bias. what dr. phillip goss said while implicit bias training has been studied, but without the data and science behind it, can we point to implicit bias

training as the solution? rather than, the biggest thing you can do to change the hearts and minds of officers is changing policies and reducing the use of force in all instances which then reduces uses of force for african americans. and then finally, he also says that you identify and change those policies that maybe inadvertently encourage them. so as a bit of background, you'll notice that in the most recent 96-a report, there was information from academics that have studied bias in policing, and the report provided an academically based structure around nine approaches that can be taken to address the issue. they include training, they include policies that change -- sorry. collecting data, improving

technology, racial providing, diversefying police force, and rotating police assignments. so some of these things, many of these things we are doing is -- are in place in san francisco. so i just want today give you a little of academic background and then i'll just dive right into the data. i'm sorry. this part of the information is not in the presentation, but i did want to kind of cover it high level. it is in the report that we issued to the commission a few weeks ago. it's a quarter 2 -- quarter 1 2020 96-a report that we issued to the commission and the board of supervisors, as well. so all of that information is in there, and we also kind of

talk about how san francisco is doing on many of those things. so with that, what i will cover today is the racial and identity profile act, some background on what they looked at, best practices, comparisons, data collected, and findings for california compared to san francisco. and then, i'll walk-through the 96-a report and provide you a summary of what we're doing in san francisco, the quarter 4 summary, and the quarter 1 summary, and some data as well as some arrests that are contained in the 96-a report. the report in 2020, as the 2019 report, actually covered data

for the last six months of 2018, so july 2019. so the report includes -- the report found best practices in san francisco which includes the report from the department of justice on the stop data. you'll see on the subsequent slides how -- how san francisco really was a best practice in their reports. the ripa, the first wave agencies were eight agencies in california, including c.h.p.,

l.a. county sheriff, lapd, riverside, sfpd, san diego county police, and the san bernardino county sheriff. and so in the ripa data collection and submission process, you -- you will see that -- i'm sorry. i'm running two computers here. so you'll see that the officer will -- enters the data, which is every stop that an officer takes, they collect a series of a number of data points that they have to enter that information in an on-line data, and then, that information is collected by the california d.o.j. sfpd every year downloads the entirety of that data. the business team here in the

professional standard unit downloads that data set and scrubs it for potentially identifying information and reuploads that data. and then, once that data is back with cal d.o.j., the department or academics or california d.o.j. can analyze and report on that data. next slide, please. okay. so ripa has the -- excuse me. the ripa report found that sfpd has the lowest amount of profiling complaints. the bias complaints in the 2018 report, again, the latter half of 2018, were 21 bias

complaints as -- or profiling complaints as opposed to -- and that represented 3% of the total complaints reported, and that was the lowest number of bias related complaints. ripa found the san francisco complaint process was a best practice and met all four of the criteria -- or four of the criteria that they looked at, and sfpd was one of the three law enforcement agencies that met all of those complaint form requirements. and then, as we move into looking at our bias policy, sfpd met the most criteria over any other agency with respect to its bias policy. and the one item that was

missing was a component on racial and identity profiling training. however, i believe with the new -- i believe that the training that we -- we actually do this. we just don't -- we don't have -- we didn't have it specified in the policy. the other items that the ripa report recommended was the other agency follow the policy development model that sfpd undertook around the update to d.g.o. 5.17. and then finally, the ripa report specifically called out the sfpd as the first agency that will have a bias proxy policy in the state. okay. and so we are now at slide 9, and so hopefully, we're

following along now. the data elements that are included in the -- so remember when i mentioned that our officers have to collect a lot of data? these are the elements that they had to collect, so it's information about the stop, whether there was contraband seized or what the result of the stop was, and also information regarding the officer's perception of the person that they stopped, and then, finally, information about the officer themselves. so to give you a sense of what data is -- what the data looks like, from those first eight agencies, as you can see, c.h.p. skew -- c.h.p. and lapd skew the data considerably because they represent about

1.4 million stops of a total of 1.8 million. and then, when we move to comparing sfpd data to california, you'll see that our stops are fairly comparable until you get to the hispanic and latino populations, the african american population, and the asian population. okay. and then -- sorry. so vehicle stops are consistent with driver demographics, so one of the things that the ripa report did is often, our -- often, population data is not consistent with who you might stop on a regular basis, so they did make an assumption that maybe -- maybe stop data

could be compared to driver information, who drives in a city? so maybe you can get at that, and one of the things that they came up with was looking at the not-at-fault data. so the collision data that they collect. so essentially so they're moving with the idea that somebody who's not at fault of a traffic accident, that's very random. the person who's driving who is at fault may not be as random because they might have some consistent skewing of their data in some way that might result in skewing the data, as well. >> commissioner elias: wait. can you repeat that?

i don't understand that. >> so ripa was looking at a way to provide stop data to the general population. so when you're talking about the stop data, they looked at vehicle stops and said okay, who is the driving population? so they look traffic accident data and looked at someone who was not at fault because someone who is not at fault in a traffic accident is pretty random. you're driving along, and all of a sudden, somebody hits you, and it's random. you want to randomize the drivers because that is a more close representation of the population at large who might be stopped in a vehicle stop. and so what this data shows is it compares san francisco police -- or san francisco vehicle stops with not-at-fault drivers in collision data.

>> commissioner elias: that's page 11? >> that's page 12. >> commissioner elias: okay. because -- okay. i'm on the right place. and so what does that mean? what do we take from this? >> so instead of -- so when we have talked about comparing to the population in san francisco, when we talk about african americans representing 4% or 6% of the population in san francisco, and you see that they are 13% of the drivers, so it just means that if you're looking at vehicle stops alone, and potential drivers in the community, that our stops are

still disproportionate to a agree of who was actually driving. >> commissioner elias: okay. sorry to interrupt. go ahead. >> no. the whole point of this is really trying to get at the trouble academically and from a research perspective of who are you comparing the population to? how do you compare who you're policing with what's the population you're comparing to? okay. so i'm going to move onto the next slide. so the next slide shows that sfpd searches and finds contraband more often than the rest of the california agencies that were recorded, and so as you can see, there's a total search rate, so we search more often. we also yield more often, and

we have fewer high discretion searches, also known as consent searches, but we yield more in those consent searches. and then finally, when -- we also conduct a much larger proportion of lower discretion searches, and those are searches that involve a search warrant or they're an incident to an arrest or they're the vehicle inventory after an arrest. and even those result in a higher discretion or higher yield rate than the -- than the rest of california. so this is the frequency with which san francisco finds contraband, the frequency with which we actually conduct searches compared to the other

seven agencies that were collecting data at this time. okay. okay. i can pause here and take questions about the ripa report if you'd like, or i can dive right into the 96-a portion. >> vice president taylor: i think it might make sense -- i mean, i have questions, but i think it would make sense just to wait until the end. i realize that other commissioners might have questions, but i think we should plow right through it. >> okay. i'd like to talk now about some of the things that sfpd is doing to change training and policies. so on the policy side, as you know, we are in the meet and confer stage in the policy prohibiting bias policing, and this is really a state and national lead with respect to bias by proxy. in addition, the investigative

detention policy, that is another topic that you all are working on, that having the documentation piece in that investigative dissension would be helpful in continuing analysis and continuing to support documentation and motivation and those sorts of things. and then, 11 of 7, as you know, prohibiting harassment and discrimination was a really key policy in getting it finalized. and then, on the training side, as you know, many trainings that we have implemented include equal employment opportunity and harassment training, implicit bias

training, which is implemented in the leadership academy and institute, bias, all of those things are addressed in the department right now. okay. so now, we're going to dive into data, as if this hasn't been nerdy enough. let's just go ahead and jump to slide 17. as you know, these data include quarter 1 of 2020, and i just want you all to be aware that as we move through the quarter 1 and quarter 2 data in the future, that these will be

outlier quarters because of covid-19 and now because of the protests that we are in the midst of, that those two things will create an anomaly in the data, i suspect, and we'll see some of that tonight, but we won't know the bigger reach to which is an anomaly until it's over. so with that, though, the quarter 4 data is actually pretty similar to our quarter 1 data, which is on the following slide. and just a reminder that about 1% of our total uses of force -- sorry. about 1% of our calls for service result in a use of force okay. i'm going to jump to slide 19.

as you can see, in the stops column of the table at the bottom, you'll see that african americans in the last year, that that has decreased by 4% -- four percentage points, from 27% to 23%, and while this is a marginal decrease, it is the largest decrease among the various demographics here. and then, the same thing goes when you compare quarter 1 2020 to quarter 1 2019, and then, the same -- the same trend applies to searches, as well. okay. and then, i'm going to go onto slide 20. so what this really shows is a continued reduction of total

searches, and so this really -- it shows a 37% reduction of total searches, and the same table is shown here below, but it's -- you're able to see quarter over quarter for each of the demographics what the percentages are in the chart there. we can move onto slide 21. so in -- and so searches -- again, searches are down for all groups, but the required searches in 2019, in quarter 4 2019, using the same data for the ripa report, accounted for

8% of all searches -- i'm sorry. that is actually consent searches accounted for 8% of all searches while the sort of required searches accounted for 46% of all searches. and so all searches are down, as you can see in the required trends there. okay. i'm going to move onto slide 22, and so you can see high discretion searches, so these are consent searches, are down 32% in total, and as you can see for african americans, it is, in quarter 1, lower than it is for whites. okay. i'm going to move onto slide 23

because this'll take a moment to explain. in 2017, the usdoj found that not only were african americans stopped, searched, force used against them at a higher rate, but the searches yielded less contraband than any other population. so the litmus test is swipe, and that's no longer true. the 2016 finding by the usdoj is no longer true, and what we're seeing that with consent searches and with required searches, that the rate is either comparable or higher on yield rates for african americans than it is for whites. so if you can see, in quarter

4, for african americans, 42% of the time for a mandatory search, there is contraband yielded, and then, for whites, it's 39%. and then, the 31% for african americans for consent searches versus 32% for whites. and we went back and looked at the data or rates that were in the 2016 usdoj report, and those yield rates were much, much lower. now i don't -- i can't attest to their methodology specifically and what they used, but their yield rates were below -- were in the 15% range for all demographic groups, with african americans being about 12%, and so this is a very different, very different look. and again, i still think the quarter 1 data is very odd, so

i'm more -- the quarter 4 data is more consistent with what we've seen. so this is one of the areas that we feel that sfpd is making progress. so i'm going to move onto slide 24. and one of the things, we'll move onto use of force. some of the significant changes to policy and training that has reduced force in the last three years include 5.01 use of force policy revision in 2016, which was prior to the california legislation, the training that we put in place with respect to training, and then, the improvements that we made and

continue to make is the forced field response unit, which involves officer involved shootings which we continue to make improvements in training. onto slide 25. so use of force continues its downward trend, and we are seeing about a -- sorry -- continued reduction to the tune of about 50%. 48%, i believe, over the total collection duration, but in the last quarter, virtually no reductions in the last quarter of 2018 or 2019 with respect to these quarters. however, i would like to point out the reduction in --

[inaudible] >> -- on african americans in quarter 1 2019 versus quarter 1 of 2020. and then i'm going to move onto slide 26 that shows the total uses of force compared to holding a firearm. it's down 26% since 2016, and pointing a firearm down 60% since 2016. on slide 27, we are taking a look at the officer involved

shootings, and there were no deaths in the first quarter of 2020. and slide 28, these are just the arrest data, again, the reduction in the arrests of african americans has come down. so slide 29, and just talk more about our next steps. so our next steps are to continue the trend analysis and interpretation of data and trends and really bringing in that academic approach and outlining how we are

implementing our changes in the department in the academic rubrick, and really sort of bringing a strategic approach to those changes through an academic lens, and we're working to determine what sort of measures and trend analyses and with the metrics, we'll provide the best indicators for the department. so with that, i will take your questions. >> vice president taylor: thank you. so i will say one thing, and then, i will turn it over to commissioner elias, who has a number of questions. thank you for including the data that includes that black people were searched more than

any other racial group for contraband, and less contraband was found on them than any other group. that just who are identified and made me so any, and so it is -- horrified and made me so angry, and it made me so happy to see that's lessened. this report has a number of good positive signs. a lot of the metrics are down here, which makes me very happy reading this report. i do have questions regarding this report, and this is my main question. even though stops are certainly down, it still seems like african americans are still searched at a higher percentage than other groups, and so i don't know if there's a reason or justification for that, but everything else is largely

down, so i want to give you kudos for that, meaning the department, but i don't -- unpack that data for me. >> yeah, commissioner, again, this is, you know, the good news and bad news about data. the good news is we definitely are encouraged, and we get to share trends and learn more from the data. as i said at the very beginning of the presentation, we have not solved the problem. there's some encouraging data, for sure, but these are some of these indicators that show that we just haven't solved the problem yet. and so no, you know, kind of the why piece is a really difficult question because what we're talking about is the summation of the hearts and

minds and/or motivations and/or very individual incidents over this big data fest, and so we can't come to some conclusion of why without, you know, very large russian-like models with data that we don't have even right now. so, for instance, additional study might be required on infrastructure and investment within a particular community. for instance, if we stop african americans in their community or we have a traffic enforcement operation at a particular intersection, and we identify intersections in the

city that are most dangerous, those intersections may well be underinvested, meaning, d.p.w. or the city has decided not to invest in that particular intersection, and so therefore, it's unsafe. and if there is a tradition of underinvestment in that particular community, then, we might be targeting that particular intersection in a community that is already a community of color. so you can see very quickly how these things can kind of build upon themselves, and that might be one explanation, but there might also be another explanation of we don't have access to jobs or we don't have access to food, or we don't have access to education or we don't don't -- you know, the social safety net is a big part of this of increasing the likelihood that any individual

might come in contact with the community. so this is -- this is -- this is sort of a theory that dr. phillip goss talked about in his talks, and he's one of the people at the centers for police equity that we've been working with. he talked about the kinds of social impacts that might drive certain demographics to appear in police contact more often, in addition to policies and hearts and minds and all of the things that we worry about, and in the police department, we're really trying to address those hearts and minds things, through policy changes and reducing the discretion that officers might have but really still making sure that they have the training in place to enhance their discretion. >> vice president taylor: i think i want to let everyone know i think the chief and

everyone knows that there is a process that's happening and has been happening today, and i understood was largely beautiful and peaceful, but circumstances may have changed, and the chief needs to leave. and so if you're still on, chief, we get it. that's fine. go and do your -- your job. >> commissioner, i am, and i'm going to -- i have assistant chief mosier with me, so this portion will be over. it looks like a couple of commissioners have questions, but i will excuse myself after whatever questions commission have for me. >> vice president taylor: okay. great. if you're able to stay and answer some questions, that would be fantastic. i do want to commend you for some things.

sfpd has the lowest number of bias complaints in california. sfpd meets the criteria for fighting bias. but maybe at some point, you could comment why african americans are still being searched more, even though the stops are down and the data is down. those were my questions, but commissioner elias, go for it. >> commissioner elias: thank you, vice president taylor. when commissioner hirsch was on the commission, this was one of the requests that i had made to him, to have you do a report on the 96-a report so we can understand, and the ripa report because it's very important.

while i thank you for this presentation, i'm a little concerned that we were asked to provide the police department several questions about the 96-a report and what we would like the police department to cover, and commissioner hirsch and i responded with about 20 questions that aren't necessarily addressed in the presentation. but then, i'd like to start with the presentation, and i'm going to talk to you -- well, i have questions about the 96-a report, and i'm going to ask if we can start on page 6 of the presentation, which says that sfpd has the lowest rate of profiling complaints. now, the data is very confusing and seems like -- it seems like it needs to be sort of labelled better because it seems a little misleading. for example, we're comparing ourselves to seven other agencies with respect to how providing complaints are

received, but how does sfpd define profiling complaints? because i can't imagine the way that we define profiling complaints is the same as the los angeles police department or the los angeles sheriff's department or the california highway patrol. so it's hard for me to sit here and say oh, these numbers look good on this chart when i'm sitting here and can't see what we consider a profiling complaint. so that's my first question. number two is how do we go from 678 complaints down to 21? what happened? how did we go -- like, how did we get from 678 to 21? are they all -- i mean, does that -- is that -- to me, that means -- so, you know, only 21 complaints are really valid, and the rest of the 650 are

not? >> commissioner, to your second question, the 678 represents the total number of complaints, and the 21 represents the profiling complaints. so that 3% is the percentage of the total. so 3% of the 678 were profiling complaints. >> commissioner elias: okay and out of the 3%, that 21, what were the outcomes of that? because if we're looking at that, we have more profiling complaints than san diego county? because if they -- you know, if -- or i mean -- i guess, my question -- >> oh, i'm sorry. go ahead. >> commissioner elias: i'm sorry. i misstated that. my concern is we're being compared to county that are geographically completely different from us. we are a seven-by-seven.

san diego, san bernardino, and riverside, they are huge. they're miles and miles bigger than san francisco. additionally, their demographic is way bigger than ours, so i don't know why we're being compared to those counties. >> so what ripa does is they took the i think it was seven or eight largest agencies in the state, and that was the first group of reporters in the ripa report. when you compare us and the san diego county sheriffs, the difference between a police department and a sheriff's department, a lot of differences with a sheriff's department is typically custody. so depending on how many incorporated stations they have in that county, that may make a difference. some counties have sheriff's

departments, like, for instance, in sacramento county, they have a large patrol jurisdiction with a lot of the unincorporated smaller cities. other county sheriffs may not. i'm not sure what the san diego sheriff's county, what their total patrol jurisdiction, but that could be a reason why they have so few complaints. it depends on what their patrol jurisdiction, so the comparison -- i mean, ripa decided which agencies to include, and my understanding is the first round of mandatory reporters to ripa were these large agencies across the state. and again, you're right. everybody has different sets of rules in terms of how they report and what they report, but that's the information that the state collects to report that comparison. the report does not go into

detail about outcomes. bi >> commissioner elias: but the report, doesn't it breakdown the report of the profiling complaints? >> i have the report in front of me, and i'll look at it while i talk -- let me go to that section. >> commissioner elias: and the other question i have is on page 7, where it talks about san francisco complaint process, a best practice, okay? and again, i think this chart is a little misleading because it says that san francisco has a check mark all -- on all four categories, whichbut i think te need to be clear because in order to submit a complaint on-line, when you go to the san francisco police department on-line website to report a complaint, it's -- you can't report it to the sfpd. it directs you to d.p.a. so d.p.a. is the one that has the ability to have an on-line

complaint -- it has the ability to have a complaint submitted on-line. additionally, the multiple methods of submission, that's also not entirely correct because again, when you go onto the sfpd website, the only way you can make a complaint against the officer is either you go into these stations, and you speak with a supervisor at that district station. so i'm -- the multiple methods of submission i don't think is completely accurate, and i also don't think that the available multiple languages, agai -- agn the website, when you file or type in a complaint against an sfpd officer, the only way it happens is it diverts you to d.p.a., which is the department of accountability, or you have to go into a station. so it's a little misleading for san francisco to have all four

boxes ticked when we're not complying. >> well, it's the california d.o.j.s evaluation of us. we've just reporting how they evaluated us. that's not a self-evaluation, and i do agree, there are areas that we can get even better in terms of our reporting, but what this report represents to the commission is how we were evaluated by the state on those issues. definitely, we can get better, and there are things that we can implement and get better. i don't know how they scored us, but this is how they scored. >> commissioner elias: chief, i know you have to respond to emergencies, and i know you want to answer questions for us, but i just don't want to keep you from doing your job. i'll try to steam line these,

chief -- stream line these, chief, so we can get through these. >> yeah. i can answer a few of these and then, i have to go. >> commissioner elias: and we can reagendize this. this report says we're doing a good job, and i disagree with it. >> vice president taylor: commissioner elias, we can continue this to next week. i mean, i have additional questions, too, and i don't want to cut short this process. this is an important item. we've all been waiting for this report, and i don't want to rush through it and get the clarity that we all need. >> commissioner elias: look, i think we do especially when we're seeing numbers that are saying that there's a 37% of toting reductions since 2019. what they're saying is quarter 1, and three months out of

2019, we're been sheltering in place. >> vice president taylor: this is 2018. >> commissioner elias: but even then, there's an increase. so again, i think that i appreciate the presentation. we need to unpack it. the data isn't -- i don't think it compares correctly the 96-a report. quarter 4 is 100 and something pages, and quarter 1 is 100 and something pages. so while i appreciate you trying to simplify it for us, we have questions because the numbers, they aren't going down. >> yeah, so commissioner, i'd be happy to talk in detail at the next meeting about all the questions that you have about

the numbers. >> vice president taylor: let's do that, chief. but in the meantime, if you could have deputy chief moser or whoever you have plan to answer your questions, available to do that. >> okay. thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you, chief. >> chief moser will be sitting in the seat. >> commissioner elias: >> vice president taylor: i think we should table this until next week. >> commissioner elias: i appreciate that because they've already -- if you could let the office know to repost the 96-a reports, and they were in last week's posting in that huge dump, so i think it would be good because we can let people know exactly the reports that we're digging into. >> vice president taylor: o y okay. let's do that. i think before we move to the next item, we need to move to

the next line item. >> clerk: no public comment. >> vice president taylor: okay. thank you. >> commissioner hamasaki: vice president taylor, director henderson has had his thing up for quite a while. >> vice president taylor: yes. thank you for the opportunity to speak, and you're muted. >> yes. part of it is my own ignorance. i've been raising my hand all meeting and then i realized i'm on a completely different microso microsoft team string so part of that was my fault. any way, what i was going to say -- and again, i don't want to go into the weeds on the

96-a report, but we have all the experts and staticistician that can go through this. the data is coming from the ripa report. the difficulty is in looking at their data, when we record other jurisdictions, it's how ripa represents the jurisdictions. so the problem that you're saying, as commissioner elias was pointing out, they don't take the number of offices by agency, and that's why you take skewed data. if you correlate in for that and translate the same data per 100 officers, then, you're comparing apples to apples, and we're not even doing that. that's why we have all these

skewed questions. but you can't even raise the question if we're not comparing pure data. what i'd like to offer is to sit down with commissioner elias with my audit team to go over what the standards are so we can change this and chair the same things rather than saying okay, it's what ripa's reporting. it is what ripa is reporting, but there are algorithms that are best practices that we can use that we don't makeup before we can get to the difficulty of analyzing what the y is. i think we can do that because i think that will help. and rather than have the department defend what ripa is presenting, let's start coming up with some of these solutions so we don't have a third party translator analy

translate or analyze the data that we have now. i mean, i'm happy to have staff work on that. >> vice president taylor: can i ask that it's really difficult for me to following the chat, and there's conversations happen the chat. if you want to get in the chat, you can put your name in there. if you're putting in a full sentence and i have to figure out what's just chatter and who wants to talk, so i'm just going to ask you to follow -- either put your name and nothing else or put your p penguin or teddy bear emoji of choice. so can we check for public comment now?

>> clerk: we go onto 3-b, and then, we have public comment. >> vice president taylor: okay. let's go onto the next item. >> clerk: item 3-b, d.p.a. director's report. report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. d.p.a.s report will be limited to a brief description of d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any issues raised for future commission meeting. >> okay. let me just raise some important stuff because we have some other important things to talk about. for the number of cases that we have opened, we are at 322. at this point last year, we were at 299. that's still much more, but it's even more significant because we're getting still a

high volume of cases that hasn't dipped off considerably even with the quarantine. so in terms of cases closed, this year, we've already closed 423 cases. this time last year, we've closed 260, so my investigators are continuing to do their work while they are working from home, telecommuting in part. in terms of cases pending, we are at 337, and at this time last year, we were at 329. we are at 18 cases that have did not sustained -- that have been sustained so far last year. of the cases that are past the 270-day mark but still within 3304 deadlines, we are at 35. this time last year, we were at 25. and of those cases, 15 of them are tolled, and the other cases

that we have, the majority of them are delayed because they require extensive -- more extensive investigations and because of the shelter in place order that has restricted some of the work that we've been doing. of the cases mediated, we're at 16 so far this year. we were at the same number last year, 16, as well. i want to talk about some of the cases that have been coming in because we have had a number of cases that have come into the department, including the case that we spoke about earlier that was in social media and it's on the police department's page. i'm excited that we are talking now about beyond just the open case that existed with d.p.a., and i wanted to touch on this because i had a number of calls, police in the community reaching out to me beyond the

chief just reaching out and asking the agency to do the investigation. i know he talked about making the amendments with 4.01. i think that's great and fabulous. i just want to make sure that d.p.a. are able to play a role in those drafts. i think our participation can improve the process immensely, especially if we're talking about the department bulletin, so i look forward to that. we have received a number of complaints that have come in regarding the protests, the rallies, and riots. they're both singular and group related. i'm only talking about that specifically because i want people to know and understand that the agency, even though the doors aren't open for people to come in, they can still reach us.

we've expanded our phone access so that people can call us 24 hours a day. people can still e-mail us and send us mail complaints. i just want to say that so even though they know, they know that their cases are continuing to moving forward even though we are still sheltering in place. in terms of the mediation, we've had a steady flow of referral cases that have continued throughout the shelter in place. i've asked the team to try and prioritize the older cases to make sure we don't run up against any of our deadlines, especially while we are here on the quarantine. one of the things that we've done in the time period that we've been in the shelter in place is work on creating an on-line mediation response form for the complainants. i've told you what the numbers were. i want to pause for a moment

just to thank commissioner cindy elias. she raised some questions at the last police commission -- where'd she go? oh, there you are -- at the last police commission that i followed up on about the lack of information, and you, of course, were correct. there was very sparse information about the program that was available on-line. folks can go on-line now to see. it's been put up on the website that has a much more information that's on there right now, including an introduction to the team and their role with the trained mediators, a description outlining the objectives for the mediation team, the types of cases that can be sent to mediation, as well as a road map outlining exactly what the mediation process is, and links to resources about mediation and the complaint process. and then at the end is an f.a.q. about the mediation

process and the website. it's just the first step, and we're still working on the policies manual, but that's a much bigger lift, especially right now, but i wanted to acknowledge it because i do think that it makes a big difference in terms of the public having questions about what the program is and what the project is, and i'd encourage commissioner elias to look at it, and, again, thank you for raising the issue for it and pointing it out so that we can fix it during this time while people have questions. and i want the website to continue getting better. we still don't have the full rollout of the website, but as things come up, i'm just adding it to the pages so that people can find information that either they're googling or going through our website to find. i think it's important that people know that they have access to the process that d.p.a. is providing for the city and for the different communities here. in terms of outreach, a lot of the information has shifted

on-line, obviously, and we've been participating in numerous virtual communities and workshops to make sure that folks know that we are still actively engaged and connecting to a number of different communities. those include working with the o.f.a. -- that's the opportunities for all employer engagement workshops that have been participated all throughout the city. that's been related to many of the internship programs. a lot of them have fallen by the wayside in the city. i think it's important that as many agencies as possible continue to do that work, to invite and have young people learn about the roles of public service and the role especially of public safety, so we are committed to continuing our program, and we've been reaching out, both to the ancillary organizations that are supporting the program and to the participants in a lot of

these virtual workshops. we're also working with ucsf dealing with community organization leaders, talking about the community roles to target specifically black and brown communities, addressing covid and resources for communities that are affected by the stay-at-home rules that we have in the city and how to reach out to city departments and city agencies to connect to services or get and/or provide information. we've also participated in -- and this was in may -- an open virtual forum on open virtual equity, discussing programs and plans for youth, and our interns are going to be working with that program, as well, throughout the summer. also, outreach has continued to distribute the new know your rights brochure in seven different languages at the various stations throughout the

city. from this time of the last police commission to today, the stations that we participated in to make sure that they have updated their brochures were central station, southern station, police headquarters, and ingleside station. we monitor where people are collecting their information so that if and where information is missing, it's replaced, so that we take on that responsibility. we have the -- you're going to get a program -- a presentation from us shortly from our policy director, that's tamara. i would ask, though, that when we get to the d.g.o.s, i would ask that the deaf and hard of hearing general department order, if we -- commission president, if we could take that first. i'm asking because many of the community participants that are

here for that, i don't know how this happened but the translators are only here for that item, so for much of the rest of the meeting that is really important, i don't know that they're getting the accurate information to hear the information that we're all talking about, and since they're all waiting for this item, i'd ask if we could go out of order when we start addressing the d.g.o.s just so they can leave their comments, give us their input, and then move onto the rest of the issues that we have to deal with. in terms of the 1421 -- in terms of the 1421 update, d.p.a. continues to work on their 1421 related discovery. the shelter in place has obviously slowed down some of our document review because most of our case files are paper and in the office, so the telecommuting process is a little difficult for us. however, we do continue to work

on the tiles during the shutdown, and we're -- filed during the shutdown, and we're moving towards an on-line portal so that the documents can be easily requested and provided digitally. right now, we're attempting to implement a system but it's somewhat of a slow process with the city contracting rules and the situation that we're in with our budget. i have the names, but i don't think i'm allowed to talk about the names of the companies that we're looking at for the portal, but we're continuing to do that work to expedite it and make it as clear and transparent as possible so people can see it ongoing and not have to wait for the weekly meetings to hear and know what we're doing with our 1421 work. our paralegals are coming still june 15. they've been delayed because of the slow downs caused by the shelter in place order.

in terms of the numbers, the actual numbers, we have the total number of allegations reviewed so far are 2,126. the total files that have been produced and turned over have been 54. the number of officer-involved shooting files produced is four, and those pending production is about 47. in terms of on-site files that are pending the secondary review, that's 208, and for storage files pending the secondary review, that is 2,575. in terms of our mediation investigation, i have my chief of staff, sarah hawkins, here, to talk about what is going on with our ongoing investigation. sarah, the floor is yours. >> am i on? >> yes. >> okay. good evening, commissioners,

a.c. moser, director henderson. commissioner elias, you had asked about what impacts covid-19 had had on our ongoing investigations. i am quite proud to say that our team did an excellent job transitioning quite quickly? you have to remember we just literally moved into our new space and the shutdown happened two weeks later, and our crew moved rapidly to ensure that our work continues. so we have been able to get on-line complaints and expand our access as director henderson mentioned so that we are still getting complaints regularly that shows that there hasn't been a dip in the number of complaints. we also have been able to change our interview practices so that we're conducting interview process via zoom and

via the phone as necessary. we've also worked with our officers to conduct their interviews in that format. if our officers require a conference room, we have set up up with social distancing, and we've tested all of that with everybody wearing masks, so that component took a little bit of time to develop, but i am proud to say that we are able to complete our investigations. when director henderson did speak about our statistics, he did say some of our cases have had a little bit of a delay beyond that 270-day shutdown. we are doing very well about being able to complete things within the 3304 deadlines. as you know, governor newsom did issue an executive order that extended that 3304 deadline for 60 days initially,

and then recently, we extended that for another 30 days? our priority is not to use that extra extension and to still be within the 3304 deadline? there might be circumstances out of our control which will require us to rely on that extension, but i think they'll be very few and far between? and so our work is continuing. we are, while not able to take in-person complaints, we are open for business. the investigations are getting done, and we really pivoted in a way that i think i'm very proud of for a small city agency that has really struggled with technology in the past. >> vice president taylor: thank you. now commissioner hamasaki, i think that's a mistake, your emoji. did you want to speak or not? >> commissioner hamasaki: no, no, no. that was in -- when you were discussing how people should signal, i wanted to demonstrate -- >> vice president taylor: excuse me. >> commissioner hamasaki: no, no. i wanted to -- i think it's --

i think it's an easy way for you to see, so that's why i'm confusing it like that. >> vice president taylor: i do appreciate that, and commissioner elias and trying to test my vision with her new emoji, so i'll call on her. >> commissioner elias: no, i'm could. sarah clarified it for me, so -- >> vice president taylor: okay. >> okay. are you done, sarah? >> i am. >> okay. also in the audience is one of our investigators, brent. oh, there he is. last week, when we had a question from the audience, i was trying to get to someone who had called in for public comment, and i have one of our senior investigators. he will be here and available. it's hard to loop him in to respond to the questions, but i want to announce and articulate what the phone number is to

d.p.a. if anyone has a complaint or a question. the phone number is 415-241-7711, and we have an investigator here that's available. if people can't get to a phone and would like to send information through the internet, the website is sfgov.org/dpa/, and then, you can just click on complaints to get in contact with us and to send this information. and again, both the number is live and the website is live 24 hours a day. i will ask, when we are done, i would like to schedule a presentation from the interns when they come -- do we mention that now or mention that at the end, the things just to follow up? >> vice president taylor: yeah, that's coming. >> okay. well, i've said it now. i'll be asking that, and to reiterate, my other asks are,

one, to participate in the 501 amendment, in the early stage of that process, to coordinate with the 96-a process before it's put back on the calendar, and to move up the deaf and hard of hearing d.g.o. to address the concerns of the vulnerable communities that are here with us tonight, waiting to be heard. >> >> vice president taylor: why don't you work that out with commissioner elias. i was planning to continue that to next week, but that may or may not make sense based on what you discuss. >> love it. love it. i'm happy to counter. >> clerk: commissioner? >> vice president taylor: yes. >> clerk: i have to make an announcement. we lost the audio bridge for public comment, so if anyone was waiting to make public comment, you'll have to call back in.

you'll have to call 888-273-3658, the access code 3107452, press pound, and then pound again, and to request to speak, press one, and then zero. >> vice president taylor: okay. well, that's unfortunate, but we sometimes experience difficulties. okay. can you call the next line item until they call back in? >> clerk: we're going to go to line item 3-c, commission reports. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be estimated to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission hearing. commission president's report

and commissioners' report. okay. no comments? >> commission >> commissioner dejesus: no, i can't find my -- >> vice president taylor: okay. did you have a report? >> no, i can't find my -- [inaudible] >> vice president taylor: okay. commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: i just want to briefly follow up on where we are this week and where things are at with us as a commission. i really -- you know, i do appreciate commissioner taking the time to put together a statement -- the statement she read at the beginning of the meeting. i think the events of the last

week have made me feel like i have failed, like we have failed as a commission. even though it wasn't in our jurisdiction, you know, i think that we all need to do to -- i won't tell you what i've been doing, because that's not my role to tell you what we need to do, but some real soul searching what we do as a commission and how we do it because for far too long, this commission has been seen azrieas a body of injustice to police reform. it's not my intention to call

anybody out tonight any more than calling myself out

tonight. [inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: i've held myself back because i wanted to keep the commission functioning in a way -- when i've made compromises that i think haven't benefited the city, and, you know, i don't have the answers. i'm not the smartest commissioner or the most knowledgeable person. this is a constant fight, but you know, this -- looking at the country, looking at what happened to all of the individuals who have died recently from -- from white supremacy and police violence,

we've got to do better, i've got to do better, and, you know, i didn't really -- i guess i just -- as you can see, i got out of -- i had surge in the last week, and i've spent a lot of time on my back thinking, and i don't have any answers tonight. some people think that we're -- you know, as i said before, and i've read it on-line and on social media, we're putting a gloss over -- >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to answer each question, press one and then zero. >> commissioner hamasaki: do i need to stop for something? >> clerk: no, you can go. >> commissioner hamasaki: i don't have anything deep or

profound to say, other than i really hope, i really hope that this is a moment that we rise to, and i -- i just -- we can't just keep going and reading out names of people that have been killed and honoring them and keep going back and doing it the same way that we've done it before. you know, we have such an opportunity, and the community is behind us, and the community and the country is demanding that we act, so that's all i want to say, and i hope that -- we do have to have our battles and our fights, but i hope that this moment -- i hope that

people don't forget what we're here for because there's not -- you know, to me, honestly, if that's -- then i'm not going to be on this commission because we have to ensure that our communities and our homes are safe. i could be home with my family right now, so that's all i have to say. >> vice president taylor:

okay. can you call the next line item, please? >> clerk: 3-d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration of future commission meetings, action item. >> vice president taylor: okay. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. i do have a couple of items. i would ask that a budget presentation be prepared for next week so we're up to date, and i'm assuming that it will include -- i'm sorry, yeah. i'm assuming it will include how the department's proposing to do the budget cut, and i can't remember if it was 15% or 18% or whatever percentage the mayor is asking, so it's under a deadline. they have to go in on june 12, so i'm asking that it be on the june 10 agenda. >> vice president taylor: it

will definitely. just so you know, i talked to the chief about it this week, and everything exploded in the world. i made that request of him several days ago, and i was hoping that we'd have at least some interim presentation on it, but situations beyond our control, but it will definitely be on next week. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. i'm glad you did that. since we didn't talk last week, i didn't know where everything was going. okay. on the d.g.o., i know it's not on for action tonight, but this matter has been on since 2017. what i understand is the d.p.a. and the working group agree with the d.o.j., the california d.o.j., and we'll talk about that in more detail, but i really think it's got to go on as soon as possible for a vote

so we can get this dpg goingoi. it's really disheartening for people to work so hard for so many years and don't see any effort. any way, it's just minor changes, so that's what i have to that. and let's see...what else do i have? i don't know how to keep track of this. i know the agenda has been packed, but i do want to get date certains for some of the this information that i asked for to the -- [inaudible] >> commissioner dejesus: i think looking at the -- looking at the minutes, he asked back in february how the gang task force is being maintained.

he asked about an update on that, and commissioner elias asked for an update on that, and i think i asked for the d.o.j. criticism of us and the potrero staffing audit. i'd like someone to be asking about that because i don't want them to call by the wayside. >> vice president taylor: we don't need to make a list. i have a list, and the problem with the -- you know, notwithstanding the situation over the last several days, i thought the chief was going to be reporting tonight. the staffing is coming up. all of the mug shots are coming up, but you'll just have to bear with us because we have a lot in every meeting. we're going to get to it.

>> commissioner elias: can you give us a preview of the agenda, too, because i don't think people realize when we the agenda is the exact same time that the public sees the jend. we get -- agenda. we see it on friday when the public sees the agenda.

>> i think if we can get a month view of what's going to come up on the meetings, we'll just bullet point it, i think it would be great. >> commissioner dejesus: if we have a running list, we can see what's on and what's off. >> vice president taylor: i don't know that they're prepared too much in advance, but i think we can get it earlier than 4:00 on friday. stacey can tell me -- >> no, it shouldn't be a problem. >> vice president taylor: okay. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. that's it. what else do i have?

thank you. >> vice president taylor: all right. thanks. commissioner elias, is that you? >> commissioner elias: yeah. so i wanted to add some items to the agenda. like commissioner dejesus said, i think the dante thomas issue needs to come before the commission so we can talk about it, where we are, and what d.p.a.s role is in this audit and what the status is. so i think we need to take a good look at that. the other item is -- i'd like d.p.a. to report on their base training and investigation. i've been noticing in a lot of

this report that there aren't very many bias complaints, and i'm wondering why when people in the community have told me otherwise, so i'd really like to know the training and investigative practices regarding how d.p.a. receives bias complaints, how they handle them, how their staff is trained to recognize bias complaints when they come in, how they're tracked, how they're investigated, so i think those -- that information is really important for the public to know because, you know, again, a lot of the community members come up to me and say that they -- they don't understand how the bias numbers are so low, especially when they have themselves given me examples of some of these complaints, so i'd like that to be agendized, as well. and then, i'm going to ask that the d.g.o. 5.03 be, as well, and i think those were the five

things that i was requesting. >> vice president taylor: okay. all right. >> commissioner hamasaki: oh, sorry. >> vice president taylor: are you sorry? oh, commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: oh, i understand there's a lot going on. on the agendizing items, i apologize, i'm going to run through a number of them, and i might repeat one of them. we had asked last week -- i mean, it wasn't last week. we weren't in session. -- the week before that to agendize a session of the thin blue line masks, the p.a.o. mask -- i

ma mask. the d.g.o., we talked about having that on next week. i haven't heard from the chief about that, but i'll e-mail that and like to have that on next week. yeah, in reading my notes and reminding myself that the gang database, what i'd like to see there is a presentation because when i raised it back in february, i believe that lapd or sheriff's department had been caught basically fabricating to add black and brown people, minorities, to the data basis. i certainly hope nothing like that is happening here, but what we do need to know is how that database is maintained, how somebody gets on it, what the criteria is, you know, just

being -- having somebody who's a family member who's a gang member can be a criteria in some of the counties if you're just walking to the store can them. i have zero knowledge of what the sfpd's knowledge is, so the criteria to be put on the gang base, and also for individuals to be removed because this is one of the reasons that i brought up because i've dealt with that through a client who was applying to medical school and found out he was on the gang database, and he's not somebody who needs to be on a gang database, and it was crazy. but i'd like a presentation from the department about all of those -- those questions,

and the -- the other issue that came up, and supervisor walton, and i believe one other supervise, and i forgot who it was, but brought forth a measure preventing hiring officers with misconduct, which is a problem that we've all discussed, and because of the police officer's bill of rights and the way that may or may not be shared between agencies, agencies can either end up with bad officers from our department or we -- concerns that we may end up with bad officers from other departments. as commissioners, any time anyone gets in real trouble with discipline, they leave,

they resign, and we don't -- and this is something i've brought up for at least a year now. we close the investigation, and i -- i don't think that's what we should do, and up until two months ago or three months ago, we were advised by the city attorney -- >> we can't get legal advice, remember? >> commissioner hamasaki: i think that's -- okay. we were advised that it is possible to continue investigating officers who have committed misconduct, and so the point there is for us as a department to have

accountability and transparency because when we're talking about these 1421 records, if somebody resigns, there's no accounting so there's no transparency. nobody knows about the bad conduct that took place, so what i would like to agendize is that an open discussion occur. we actually have to have this discussion in open session about the procedures and policies we need to do as a commission to ensure that we are cleaning our own house and we are keeping our house clean and we are not sending -- and those of us who have been on the commission -- i know petra's been on the commission for a pretty long time, but even though we're a young commission, we've seen some

pretty bad stuff, and that's all for tonight. i could add a couple more, but that's it. >> vice president taylor: commissioner hamasaki, you know i agree with you on that. i think it was commissioner elias and i. we have a problem with people who resign who otherwise should be disciplined, and so we've all been very frustrated by that and had a conversation with the city attorney, so that's something that's far from just you. we've been very vocal about that as a commission. [please stand by]

>> good evening, commissions, chief scott. i'm brian cox from the public office and many people are protesting. >> it cuts against the anger and frustration of decades of

policing. i would caution this commission because sftv and it is deserves applause and within the anger and the voices of though protesting. this is those who have had the courage to speak up and say something when daunte king remarked the black sediment. his observation is an anti bias trainer is this report the data sfp presented shows 13% of the drivers are black and make up 26% of those stopped that's 100% higher and something is wrong here. the people protesting the streets see it, the public defender office seize it and this report doesn't recognize it. as long as black and brown people make up of those stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted in san francisco it will feel the system doesn't and cannot treat them fairly. but there's room to moves

forward. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hello, this is magic open and the first thing i want to say is there is an emergency and appealing to all the chief especially to not use this arbitrary curfew to perpetrate violence against peaceful demonstrators and they're overwhelmingly a majority are children who can now feel they have a future when the curfew will be dropped tomorrow anyway and and so she some i is off ths

and she nominated two people to the police station commission and that are working on police brutality in san francisco and 100 people waited six hours to test fie so the mayor soft rails and we cannot have a commission with those people on it. nancy received money from the p.o.a., ok. and the death penality so to have her thrown out on fair again when she has no interest in helping to transition a police force out of a despicable past into a decent future, it's appalling, also, where is the report about the thin blue-line and i saw two cops throw a woman of colour holding a teddy bear on the ground wearing these face

masks. we cannot reform and be sweet -- by the way i was kicked off the line when we call in, we are not to be told your question. we're not here to ask questions but make statements and i don't want that to be the props next time i call. i'm concerned about the young people on the streets right now, please do anything you can to get in touch with the cheech and lechief sohe is not treated to r people off the streets for her lunch and takes care of our people. thank you. you have four questions remaining. >> hi, my name is anne wily. can you hear me? >> yes, go ahead. >> thank you. my name is anne wily and i'm a nurse and i've been working and living in san francisco for the past three years now and this is the first time i've called in and i want to say i've learned

so much tonight and and i want to respect the work being done. i'm really thankful for that. i do want to saw i'm calling in and i was mobilized tonight -- i'm nervous. by the sf united in crisis protestors should not and police contact with nonviolent protestors or anybody doing anything non violent should be nonexistent right now due to the. >> adrienne: and i can sutter and in the icu intensify importance of that and so we should be the least from jails and juvenile detention centres. i was listening to the discussion of the use of force

with the neo knee on the neck ai heard the police chief say it's difficult when someone is moving around on the ground and those could can easily -- it seems like that one can convert into the other. that to me seems like if anything could be fast tracked it would be that. right now, i was disappointed to hear it might take months to even make that reportable. where as, this curfew that as was mentioned is curtailing of our human rights and i'm at home tonight and i've been home all night and i'm not arguing against that. what i'm arguing about right now is that such a violent act to be neon thknee on the neck not to e reportable i would like it to be a priority. it's clear the police chief can do it and it was clear he did it with the curfew and it needs to be done here in this moment with someone died from it. what else would it take and we need to fast track that.

>> good evening, you have two minutes. >> hi. can we talk about the deaf and hard of hearing? >> that's the next line item. >> ok. i'll wait. i'll wait for the next line item. >> thank you. >> you have two questions remaining. >> good evening. you have two minutes. >> thank you. i'm a dissident of dictionary six. i have two questions and it's dem on respond and the requests for the commission. the two questions for sfpd, i heard earlier that the department implemented 61 reforms of 272 recommendations from the doj. i did find the list of recommendations online but i was wondering if a list of those implemented reforms is reforms is probably available and if so

why is it so difficult to find? second, i also heard earlier that the sfpd conducts bias testing and looking to increase prior to hiring the officers and i was wonder what is does your testing consist of and in addition of that, electronic communications devices do you conduct background checks ex review their social media accounts to ensure they're not members of white supremacist or other hate groups. i have a request for the commission as well. i was reading the chronicle this week and i was gobsmacked by toni tobac montoya which he defended to the statements and the concern about the january

and i believe he wrote this in an e-mail and i'm quoting here. nano naked publicity craft to defect the san francisco police officer in an unflattering light is not only wrong but a sick attempt to take some sort of political advantage of the horrible death of george floyd, end quote. naked public unflattering light. when it comes to police brutality and racism, culture is just as important. actually, even more important than policy and this type of -- >> thank you. next caller. >> you have one question remaining. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, there. brad edwards district 11. i want to -- i appreciate commissioner hamasaki asking to agenized the mask matter.

i was very disappointed and sad to see that and this is the agenda to we can discuss how racist symbol that we saw in charlottesville and it is so many awful associations and i look forward to and it's glossed over. and lastly, commission hamaski i thought his heart melt message to the core it was sincere and moving. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> next line item.

>> status update on interactions with deaf and hard of hearing individuals discussion. there's a dpa presentation and we do have an asl interpreter who will be on the screen during this presentation. will it be d.p.a. or sfpd first? i will defer to my own. >> yeah, we can hear you. >> oh. i'll defer to sam, my director of policy. do you guys want to go? thank you. >> good evening, vice president

taylor, commissioners, director henderson, members of the public, and especially a warm welcome to the deaf advocates who have been waiting so patiently for this agenda item tonight, for hours, and without the benefit of a signing interpreter, we're thrilled there's one now and they've also waited for months and months and months. so tonight, sam from the department of police accountability, i thank you so much to the commission to take the opportunity to address you about this deaf and hard of hearing djo and i want to focus on two things. i want to describe the incredible work that community members, over 15, came together throughout 2018 and 2019 to work on research further expertise, give their heart-felt day-to-day

experience, the clients that they represent, the personal pain that they've experienced and when they cannot abstain police services and that this work has all accumulated into this department general so i want to talk some about those individuals but more importantly i want them to have the opportunity to directly speak to you and i'd like to highlight a few aspects of this cto. so i first want to do a shout out and rod clarke. >> they've been online waiting for hours. susan gonzales and orchid who sits on the disability council for the mayor's office of disabilities and she also is a part of the deaf centre at our incredible public library and

steven mayer who is just been constant at being an educator and is a member of the deaf community and erika pappas from safe and sound and beverly and da victim witness, wendy lau, who we used to be the gender based violence institute and nicole bond from the mayor office of disability and sandra atkins who used to work there and was part of this group from the beginning and rod clarke and jessica flores from toni tobac flores and she her self is an amazing key participant. i just wanted to shout out all those individuals and if i left anyone out i apologize, because it's a long journey and we started back in 2017 because at

the language access members there talked about two deaf survivors who did not get appropriate police services and we were -- we wanted do something to address this problem and so, a sub group of us got together back in 2017 and talked about how we can put together a department general order. we began looked at the police department because they have a incredible department general order and the advocates they brought in their own training materials, provided an educated many of us who had a long role to learn and from that we invited the inspector to the

working group and we met with the chief to explain what we were doing to get his support and request authorization for funding and for video conferen conferencing and we talked about putting together an officer training video to accompany the role out of this dgo and he requested we continue to have a captain from professional standards to attend our meeting. in the middle of may of 2018, more advocates came to the meetings as well as police officers as well and that year we put together and again, collectively, an amazing project that we put together a department general order and we created an officer communication guide and this is really the incredible work of jessica flores and this was a guide so

when officers are interacting with someone with deaf and hard of hearing, they can first figure out the individual that can use this card to figure out the best method for communication. during that year, we also identified different types of technologies. the entire time we were meeting, we had asl interpreters, mayor's office of disability largely hosting our meetings and it was a really productive year. at the end of that year, and we had provided the dgo to the professional standards of division so there was an opportunity for the police department to review and identify areas of concern. also, in the middle of that, we presented an update to the commission as well in july about the progress on the deaf and hard of hearing dgo in the hope that in september, the following september, we would be able to present it to the commission because it was deaf awareness

month. that was the time when the commissioners and hats off to you, commissioner removing the ball forward. we started attending our working group. by the end of december, we met with the chief. there were four areas of concern around front handcuffing, how quickly could we roll out the training, there was a few other minor things and the ed from mayor's office of disability, nicole bond, myself, the commissioner and the chief, we had really productive discussions and we resolved those issues by february of 2019. in february of 2019, things moved forward more rapidly. the dgo was reviewed by the department of justice and they did an excellent job revising the dgo so it was reform ated so it's easier to read and they had some suggestions or questions. we welcomed their review and

unfortunately, the working group didn't get those revisions for a few months but when we did, as soon as we got those revisions, i reconvened the working group in january of 2020 and we overwhelmingly agreed with those recommendations. and provided the department written feedback and the recommendations doj formatting so there was no reorganizing issues that anyone need today do because they did such an excellent job. the doj recommendations are version two and again, the working group we fully support that version and there's a few minor things that could be tweaked but we believe it would take a very great amount of tie and it was since october from 2019 to now and it's really another nine months those problems have not been resolved. with that, i want to go to a few key parts of the -- it's based

on the metropolitan department's dgl and because of complaints involving deaf and hard of hearing individuals. so we had really looked at and identified the best parts and so, this dgo, it most certainly begins with a strong policy statement that emphasizes the police department's dedication and providing the highest level of service including those who are deaf and hard of hearing. it explains the federal state law it requires effective communication and cannot discriminate or deny services to those who are deaf and hard of hearing and the deaf and hard of hearing individuals, they're entitled to the same level of service as any hearing individual. so this identifying provides

details procedures for officers to fall and it uses a communication card which you can see part of the dgo similar to communication across the country so it's a way in which officers have tools in the field to identify the best communication interacting with someone who is deaf or hard of hearing and restricts unqualified interpreter and defines emergency circumstances that allow alternative communication methods and i don't know if you are able to forward -- thank you. if you could go even further than that. thank you so much. if you can go to the next one, that would be great. >> is that the one right there? >> can you go beyond that one, thank you. and, myself, i am breaking every rule. i apologize to the interpreter. i know i'm speaking far too fast. in part, it's such a great

relief to be able to present this to you. it also, besides outlining what officers should do in emergency situations, it explains the different ways in which officers, if they're interacting with the reporting of victims, a witness or complainant it provides guidance to officers at what the required to do and how to appropriately provide effective communication and it also addresses the procedures for detentions, arrests, interrogations, police warrants and consent to search. it has a level of detail because each of the circumstances raises kinds of problems an problems ae and based on looking at best practises we believe that level of detail would provide officers the tools that they need and exclusive with best practise.

it also, it designates services, training, data collection, reporting and outreach. those are essential points of any department general orders, someone needs to be responsible for problem solving and really implementing the dgo and it puts that responsibility on the police department language abilities ofly say o --who has y lifting on the department of the dgo concerning spoken or foreign language, this would incorporate that language access liaison officer to now expand that purview so that that individual is also dealing with deaf and hard of hearing, reportedly requirements, training and problem solving within the police department and to the public as well. it requires scenario-based training and using approved communications tools every two years and that training is to

commence within four months. that was when we met with the chief back in december of 2018, the chief, his suggestion was four months to believe it was a doable amount of time to rule out training. the dgo includes a guideline for communicating effectively with people who are deaf and hard of hearing so it's really, how do you work with interpreters to guide officers, most certainlily for staff as well. so, in closing, i guess part of what i would like to say, when i reached out to the california department of justice, about this dgo recently to make sure that we really address the california department of justice's concerns and ask them, do they have an opinion of how the dgo and of course they said, as i know many of you heard them say, they will not endorse any one department general order of a particular agency. that's not what they do.

it asks, could you describe their opinion of this dgo and they said it is solid and it is consistent with best practise. so, with that, i just urge this commission to move this department general order so the next step so that officers have the tools they need and the deaf and hard of hearing community members can feel assured that they will be able to have effective communication when interacting with the police department. thank you so much for your time in this situation. >> thank you, i have a question for you and the next presenter. i'm just confused about the status of this dgo. i was told that there were questions that doj had that the department still has to answer and that this is still in concurrence. i'm just confused where we are in the process. and i also -- i just have a question about why -- it's a 12-page dgo and as you know, i mean, officers have 124 department general orders to memorize and be accountable for

and responsible for so they have to be digest able and they have to be in a format so that officers can commit them to memory and action and impact and so a 12-page dgo strikes me as really long. so just wanted to get your thoughts on that as well. what is happening in terms of the out dating question that i was told was one that we've been on for status and not for a vote. >> i'm happy to take your first question about a 12-page dgo and i can also say of course, your second question, about the status and i think probably the police department is in a better position with that. it's concerning it being a 12-page dgo, when we looked at across the country and the type of problems that officers had challenges in with complying with the ada and that the metropolitan dgo was in detail

and it is a variety of circumstances that would lead to usdoj intervention so based on that, we believed and had further discussions that there was a need to have that level of detail so when an officer, let's say interrogating a suspect, there are time limitations, there are instructions about when you need to move from what is appropriate perhaps through written discussion on note taking versus the need for an actual in-person interpreter. so we vetted this and spoke at length about all of those aspect and i would like to underscore that when the california doj looked at this dgo as well, they were not concerned about the length, they again said it was consistent with best practise and this level of guidance is actually helpful so that there aren't violations or questions and officers don't know how to problem solve. i also think because of the doj

revisions, it will be actually a bit shorter because they did an excellent job in making it more condensed so it's hard to see that in version two. your question question about the status. what i can say is that, the doj recommendations in october of 2019 they asked particular questions that the working group responded to in writing, in january, when we had that opportunity. and so, those questions are -- they're fairly simple questions. a question is, one question was, what's the supervisor's responsibility when the supervisors informed that an officer in the field needs an asl interpreter? there's one line that could be includeddeincluded and the workg group -- [please stand by]

>> okay. i do have a presentation, and sergeant youngblood, i don't know if you are going to run that. >> clerk: yes. >> okay. thank you, sergeant, so i will just respond.

so first, i want to thank the working group because i know you all have put in a lot of time and effort, and we want to be respectful of that for sure as we move forward, and thank you, thank you, thank you, for all the hard work. the -- and first of all, just to remind you all, you all know this, the department is committed to providing the highest level of service to all communities, including individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. legal and federal regulations under state law require standards who are individual for deaf and hard of hearing and are not subjected to discrimination or unreasonable

policies. we establish effective communication free of charge by providing the tools or resources to communicate. and finally, by the dedicated efforts of the d.p.a. working group, this policy sets the standard for an equivalent level of service to be provided for this population. so the next slide shows the timeline, and sam did a good job of outlining this timeline and demonstrating the efforts of the working group, where we landed in january with sort of all of the input coming into the department and, of course, all of the input from the working group, and the working group, cal d.o.j., and we are here in january, february,

really starting concurrence, and trying to -- you know, the usdoj and cal d.o.j. have said repeatedly that hilliard, our reform contractor, has said we need to take any policy and make them our own, and this concurrency policy is doing that. so a series of unfortunate events have occurred since january that we all know have made things more difficult. i believe we had a concurrent meeting before covid-19. we had about 1.5 hours which we spent on the first paragraph, so this process can be very tedious. i think anyone who's been involved in the bias working groups or other working groups that have worked on policies

understands how detail oriented we have to be as we go through these policies. so the second concurrent meeting was scheduled for the week that the covid-19 shelter in place was ordered, and we had more meetings scheduled this week, in fact, and that has been made more impacted by additional emergencies. so again, no real excuse for how long it's taken, but we are -- we are well aware of the fact that it has taken a long time, and we are not going to delay any further. >> vice president taylor: what does that mean, not going to delay any further? when can i schedule this for a vote? when can i get this on the calendar. if you -- not you, but if sfpd

is the holdup here, i want to move that logjam. >> okay. >> vice president taylor: i get that we're in the middle of an emergency, and i know we need a little bit of flexibility, but i don't want a lot of flexibility. when can we have the d.g.o. to hold a vote on? i want to give you a timeline because if i don't, i'm afraid that we'll be here in three months. i'm inclined to put it on in july, so if you don't want that, speak now, but if not, i'm going to put it on july. >> i think that since july is only a month away, that august would be best, but i do understand -- you know, we would not be able to finish a concurrence process in the next ten days because you need a month to see the finished

product, and that would be -- if you did july 8, for instance, i would have to have a d.g.o. to you by june 26, which is two weeks from now. so you understand that schedules with the chiefs and the assistant chiefs and everything, that those schedules get very hard to coordinate, so -- but we are -- we are making progress. if we could schedule it for august, that would be a more likely timeline. >> vice president taylor: i'll give you the first meeting in august, august 5, but it'll be on for a vote that meeting. so whatever you need to do, it'll be on vote for august 5. >> copy that. >> vice president taylor: commissioner hamasaki. are you not asking a question, commissioner hamasaki? is that just -- >> commissioner dejesus: i -- petra. i asked a question. >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm

sorry, petra. i was muted. >> commissioner dejesus: oh . >> commissioner hamasaki: director mcguire, thank you for appearing tonight. i think that that's important, that you appear tonight for everything that's gone on with this d.g.o. i think you know that i am not happiest in the least and i've expressed that to you multiple times over the last year. the deaf and hard of -- you know, i'm going to go back. this came up probably a few months into my term on the commission, and it seemed like such an exciting opportunity to be part of something really just neat and ground breaking and indcredible, and i did all this research, and you look around the country, and you see about deaf and hard of hearing individuals having really bad and up until death, police

killings because they did not have the training policies and procedures in place at the time to ensure that their officers did not go nknow how -- or knew to deal with deaf and hard of hearing individuals to have a safe outcome for the community. this is what i was speaking about earlier how it is to be so disheartening on this commission sometimes. i hold you, director mcguire, responsible for this. you have your knee on the neck of the deaf and hard of hearing community. >> don't do that. >> commissioner hamasaki: don't interrupt me.

this gets delayed and delayed again. when we talk about the problems with this commission, now that this is finally on the agenda, i have numerous e-mails that i pulled today of my request to get it on the agenda. we can go back to other meetings where i've requested it live to get it on the agenda, and the department keeps making excuses, and it's been a year. if somebody died during this time because you couldn't get it together, that would be on your hands, and that would be on mine, too, you know, because when i was talking about me not doing enough, i didn't do enough to push this forward because i -- this is -- -- it's appalling, it's outrageous, it's unjust, and your delays -- i don't even -- i can't even

imagine what's going on behind it because there's no excuses. i've read your powerpoint, i've gone back to all of our e-mails, and so let me tell the public how things happen on this police commission. the police commission has four mayor appointees and three supervisorial appointees. because the mayor has four votes, they generally maintain leadership. last year, it was bob hirsch and our current acting president, didamali taylor, ani repeatedly asked to get this on the calendar at that time for a status so we could check in and have that conversation. i had -- i wrote a long e-mail to president hirsch along with director mcguire. i'm going to read it to you,

just so it's clear about the record. friday, january 31, 2020. dear president hirsch, i am requesting to add the following to the police commission agenda: on february 12, two weeks -- and mind you, this had been done for six months -- the department shall appear at the february 12 commission meeting to address the status of the deaf and hard of hearing d.g.o. director mcguire should be present and prepared to address the status of the d.g.o. any further changes the department wishes to make, and the cause for the delay. second, on february 19, 2020, we add the deaf and hard of hearing d.g.o. to calendar for adoption. this has been nearly a two-year effort with no substantial changes in the past six months. i am confident that we can

resolve all issues prior to that date, save perhaps some minor ones which we can resolve at the hearing. the deaf and hard of hearing community and our officers are put at risk with each delay. i will remind everyone this is exactly what happened with the working group on the domestic violence reporting form, and the delay and inaction resulted in a lawsuit by domestic violence advocates, not to mention the media coverage, which was a tremendous embarrassment for the city and the department. you responded and oh, well, you know, it's -- i'm -- i'm -- it's -- there's too much going on, the same exact thing you were saying tonight, and so here's what happens to the people out there. the mayoral appointees will not put things that the board of supervisors appointees want on calendar until they want to put it on. and so while we're here, fighting for the safety and

security of our community, we get gamesmanship, and it's -- you know, how can you look at the last week and see what happens when the department doesn't get their act together and not feel disgust and shame? i'm glad you appeared tonight because i've been asking for it since at least january and then orally before that. and then tonight, i asked, back in may, after having to vigorously, vigorously, vigorously fight to have commission meetings -- and i'm not going to go back through that again, but they were the same people that did not want to have commission meetings and did not want to have these