[roll call] >> clerk: commissioner taylor, you have a quorum. >> vice president taylor: so as i'm sure the public has noted, we're using a different

platform. members of the public who wish to make public comment on the items in this agenda, the number is 408-418-9388, and the access code is 1469442932. as always, members of the commission, i'll a and presentl ask you to mute your mic until it's time for you to be heard. hopefully, things will go smoothly again. if not, let us know in advance. i'm going to give two minutes for public comment tonight. >> clerk: thank you. so for the members of the public, this meeting is being televised by sfgtv. if you're interested in making

public comment, dial 408-418-9388, and the access code 1469442932, then pound, and pound again. when it's time for public comment, president star-three. when you hear the moderator say your line is unmuted, this is your opportunity to provide public comment. you will have two minutes to provide public comment. once your two minutes has ended, you will be moved back into listening. press star-three to be moved back into the queue once again. please be advised that the agenda has been originally

published with one wrong number. the correct number to call is 408-418-9388, and the access code is 1469442932. >> vice president taylor: thank you. call the first item. >> clerk: item 1 is the adoption of minutes for the meetings of june 3, 10, and 17, 2020. >> vice president taylor: we need a motion and a second. >> so moved. >> second. >> vice president taylor: roll call vote. >> clerk: on the motion and second to adopt the minutes of

june 3, 10, and 17, 2020 -- [roll call] >> vice president taylor: commissioner taylor, you ha-- you. do we need to call public comment on item 1? i don't think we do. call the next item. >> clerk: item 2-a, chief's report. weekly crime trends and provide an overview of offenses occurring in san francisco. commissioner, i just received word that we need to have public comment. it looks like we have two public comments, but nobody has raised their hand. so for item 1, if anyone wants to make public comment, please

raise their hand. okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> vice president taylor: take the vote once again. >> clerk: yes. on the motion and the second to adopt the minutes of the meetings of june 3, 10, and 17, 2020 -- [roll call] >> clerk: commissioner taylor, you have five yeses. >> vice president taylor: great. let's call item 2. >> clerk: item 2-a, chief's report. weekly crime trends, provide an overview of offenses occurring in san francisco. major-significant incidents. provide a summary of planned

activities and events occurring since the previous meeting. this will include a brief overview of any unplanned events or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. presentation of the monthly sb 1421 report, presentation of the monthly collaborative reform initiatives, c.r.i. updates, and continues discussion regarding the racial and identity providing advisory board 2019 annual report and the fourth quarter 2019 and first quarter 2020 reports in compliance with administrative code chapter 96-a.

>> thank you. can you hear me? i'll provide an update on the commission as well as the mask requirement. and then, we will have presentation on the collaborative reform initiative update, and i will open that up and then pass it along to executive director mcguire, and then, we will continue our discussion on the rifa report and that'll be facilitated by myself and executive director mcguire. so crime is down 13% this week over last week, and year-to-date, we're down 16% overall. our violent crime, we are down

15% year-to-date. our homicides are up. not happy to report that. we've had one homicide for the past week, and i'll talk a little bit about that in a second. but we had one last week. our gun violence, we're down 5% year-to-date. we had two shooting incidents this past week that caused injuries to two victims. there have been a total of 51 incidents year-to-date resulting in 55 victims of shooting. our overall part one property crimes were down over last week 17%, and year-to-date, we're down 16%. our auto burglaries are down

25% compared to 2018 and 2017. we're down 38% compared to 2018 and 57% compared to 2017. some of it's driven by the shelter in place. we look at our long-term trends in terms of homicide. looking at the last five years, we are above, of course, where we a we were this time last year. overall, we're going to work to continue to solve the cases that we do have. the overall trend compared to the five-year analysis is we're still doing good in terms of

the number of homicides that we had, although any homicide is too many. in terms of the major incidents of this year, we had a homicide, as i stated, on june 24. we had several persons, including the victim, who became involved in a physical altercation with another group of individuals. it was discovered that the victim had several stab wounds to his body, and he passed away from those injuries. so that investigation is ongoing, and we hope to resolve that investigation. we also had a significant incident involving a robbery with a gun involving a firearm involving an 81-year-old female victim on june 29, 2020, at 4:37 p.m. in the 500 block of

28 street. suspect acted from a silver cherokee with a handgun. physical struggle ensued, and the victim was slammed repeatedly on the ground and dragged before releasing the purse. two suspects then drove away in the vehicle. that investigation is also ongoing, and we hope to shed some light on that. if the public has any information regarding this -- these or any other crimes, please call our san francisco police department tip line at 415-475-4444. it's a pretty light week crime wise, so that's all i have to report for crime trends for the week. if the commissioners have any questions before commander o'sullivan does his report, i

can answer them now or i can wait to the end. >> vice president taylor: i don't see any question from other commissioners. do what do you -- the uptick in violent crime, what do you attribute that to? a shooting happening in the middle of the day on a weekday, that's very concerning. >> yeah. we did have a shooting -- it was now a couple of months ago, in may. we arrested several individuals that we believe were involved in that. we've seen a reduction in shootings. as i reported to the commission, a lot of rounds fired in those shootings, and we believe that those individuals who we focused our investigations on were responsible, so we have not seen that level of violence.

a lot of our crimes are victims of circumstance. a lot of them are of have resulted in homicides that we believe are not connected to any type of series of shootings, so, you know, the state of people's minds on covid, that's speculative. that's the ones that we know of that cause series of shootings, we believe we have those people in custody, at least the ones responsible. so this one yesterday -- i mean, this week, we are pursuing different angles that we believe might be cause or motive in these cases, but until we solidify that, i don't want to speculate and make that

information public. definitely, the fact that we're increasing is alarming, and we don't have any back and forth going on that we know of. >> vice president taylor: i don't see any other questions. thank you. >> thank you. commander o'sullivan will now present a 1421 update. >> thank you, chief. i just want to confirm sergeant youngblood, can you see and hear me? >> clerk: yes, i can. yes. >> okay. so good evening, vice president taylor, commissioners, chief scott, and members of the public. i am here to provide what i believe will be a 1421 senate bill, 1421 update. so i'd like to begin, as i did in previous presentations, a bit of background regarding california senate bill 1421. senate bill 1421 requires the

disclosure of records concerning the following types of incidents. an officer's discharge of a firearm against a person, two, an officer's use of force that results in great bodily injury. three, evidence that an officer engaged in sexual assault with a member of the public, and four, violence against an officer. for the period june 2 through june 23, the department received eight public requests and provided 52 releases. four public records requests

were closed in the last 21 days. one additional officer involved shooting file was released, and that file was actually one of our smaller files in terms of page count. that included 266 payableges. what is new in this go-around is i have what we in the department considers some very good news. i think that everyone on the call and the meeting here this evening is aware that we use a public software system to receive and process our public records request. our legal division, officer in charge, he has been in contact with that company, gov.qa for the last few days, and we will soon from the ability to upload the documents required by sb 1421, and we expect to be live with that by the end of july.

that concludes my report. >> vice president taylor: thank you. commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: thank you so much for your report, commander o'sullivan, and i am ecstatic that we will have our 1421 on-line and be compliant, as i have been sort of hounding the department, the commission, and v.c.a. d.c.a. to provide t portal, so i am so very happy to hear this news and the time frame. >> thank you. >> vice president taylor: commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: actually, i think commissioner elias just covered it. that's something that we've all been advocating for on this commission. thank you for getting that, and i'm happy it's going live soon. >> vice president taylor:

okay. chief -- oh, sorry. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: yeah. i was trying to unmute and type at the same time. so when you say upload, what type of information will be available to the public? >> it will be the same documents that we release to a requester. let's say, commissioner, you made a public records request through the gov.qa portal, those responsive documents, when they're ready, the system informs you of that. there's also courtesy copies that are sent to a number of departments in the city, including the police commission. those same documents will then go into essentially a portal within gov.qa, and they will live there so that anyone who might otherwise not be making a particular request of me or

just wants to see what the department has produced, they can go in through that portal to look at the documents. so everything that would be returned to the requester would go there. there is another feature that i've been informed about, and i think in terms of efficiency, it may prove to be very helpful, and that is that gov.qa team has informed us that once a team member makes a particular search -- it'll do a word search. so if there are words within that request that are similar to the documents that we've put out -- i'll continue to use myself as an example -- so if my name is typed in by commissioner commissioner, it'll direct those users to that information. >> commissioner dejesus: and

some of those files that i hear about are 10,000 pages. would it be all of that? >> absolutely. that was one of our concerns. one of the questions we had when we touched base with gov.qa was what kind of capacity, and we've been informed that we have enough. >> commissioner dejesus: thank you. >> thank you. >> vice president taylor: commissioner brookter? >> commissioner brookter: thank you for that. i think i echo the sentiments of my fellow colleagues, and i'm really glad that we'll be hearing about that weekly. i just wanted to confirm the numbers. 150 public requests, eight additional, i'm assuming to date, with 52 new requests. so just for clarification, we've released 52 of the requests that have come in? is that what that means? >> actually, there was four from january 2019 on. we had received 142 public

records requests, and i want to put that in some context because, as i mentioned, there's four categories. a one request could be for 2,300 police officers for each category. so you do the simple multiplication, you can see how many data points there might be, and within that example, there might be multiple of within that particular request. so the 150, often times -- i'm not implying that you see that this way. the public might not be seeing that as a really big number, but when you get into the weeds of that number, that's just astronomical. so we were at 142. we went up to 150. a release -- it doesn't mean the entirety of public records requests are closed out, but

more likely, what it means is we've given at least one bit of information that's responsive to that request. we've prioritized requests, and we don't want to wait until the entirety of the request is complete before we release it to someone, so as we get information, we're releasing it. >> commissioner brookter: thank you for that. wanted to make sure that was clear for members of the public. >> vice president taylor: thank you, chief. >> thank you, commissioner taylor. so next, i'm going to introduce executive director mcguire, and we're going to get an update on a collaborative reform process. as i introduce the executive director mcguire, i want to talk about the overall progress

and some of the things that we're working through, and i'll start with an update on a topic that was at the last -- [inaudible] >> -- policy releasing booking photos and a couple of updates on this. i'll explain this briefly. there were only two exceptions --

[inaudible] >> -- about the permanency of this policy -- [inaudible] >> -- it's out, it's issued, and we've already initiated that process to turn it into a general order to bring before the commission. this was not a recommendation, by the way. the commission already knows, and for the public who's not aware, but we do think that this will give us an opportunity to address, you know, bias and reducing bias

both in policing and otherwise, so i hope that others will look at this as something that's a way to accomplish that. we have five things that we're working on, and bias is one of the five. use of force, recruitment and retention, use of force, and policing. and we want to allow the commission to see the other faces that are involved in this process, and in order for this to be sustained, we have to get the entire organization involved in this process. so tonight, what you'll see is the executive director and the executive sponsors, the commanders, who have each of the five topics, and they're going to present on where they

are with those topics. we know we had to work on those issues and quicken the pace. we're at 61 that we've been found in substantial compliance, and before i turn this over, just a few of the highlights. 29 of the 61 recommendations that we're in substantial compliance have to do with use of force, and there were 58 use of force recommendations. we are in substantial compliance with half of them, so we said this publicly

before, that our focus was -- all of it's important, but what's really important is use of force, and the department is on board of that. 28 of the 54 -- half of them are in substantial compliance after being reviewed by the california department of justice. our use of force reduction has significantly decreased over the last four years, from 2016 to 2020. significant reductions in the pointing of firearms. almost 60% reduction. significant reductions in officer-involved shootings for the past 15 years. we went almost 15 months with no officer-involved shootings.

we've seen transparency in our data release. we hope to build trust by releasing that information consistently. our town hall meetings have given the public a view of our officer-involved shootings within ten days, which not many other police departments have do -- are doing that, and that's been consistent, as well. tonight, the police commission is going to vote on a use of force revision, and i think our use of force after the passage of d.g.-01 is more nimble, and

it speaks volumes that we got this tonight before the commission. i'd like to thank members of the department, the staff, and the commission working together so we can get this before the commission. also, the highlight of this rescission that we're getting before the commission tonight has to do with laying people out on the ground unless there's an articulable reason to do that. we think that'll help with, really, our strategy statement of safety with respect. it starts there, and so these are things that i think are all positive. again, i know we have issues that we need to work on. we're not satisfied with the

pace. i want to make that clear, but we've already put steps in place to quicken that pace, and with that, i will turn it over to director mcguire who will have the respective sponsors speak on their respective categories. >> good evening, commissioners. sergeant youngblood, if you can bring up the presentation? >> clerk: yes. prior to doing so, i have to read one thing. these materials were not posted alongside the document because they would create a document load with the agenda that is not attainable. >> commissioner dejesus: i didn't get any of these documents today. this is petra.

>> clerk: we should have e-mailed those to you, commissioners, but i'll have to double-check. >> commissioner dejesus: i didn't get any documents today. >> vice president taylor: commissioner, the content is exactly what we sent you on friday, so not too many changes, but some tweaks here and there. >> still, i think the public needs to be held to the same standard. it's my understanding, in addition to this revision, there was also another presentation that was sent to us today that was not included or posted to the public. so even though you may think it's a minor tweak or substantially similar, it's not fair for the public or fellow commissioners who read this on the weekends to prepare for these meetings, it's not fair and it's not acceptable, so if

you could keep that in mind, we'd really appreciate it. >> thank you, commissioner. this is chief scott. we'll keep that in mind. thank you. >> commissioner dejesus: everyone should be held to that standard. that's really important. [inaudible] >> -- on the day of the commission meeting. >> commissioner dejesus: and i found that e-mail, so thank you. >> okay, commissioners. good evening, acting president taylor of the commission, kathrin mcguire. tonight, we'll be reporting on a collaborative report in progress. if you could, sergeant

youngblood, go to the overview slide. wanted to cover a few of the newest proposals for reform. there's some independent calls for reform and some local efforts, as well? we'll do a high-level process update. i'll provide you all some scenes from -- across all objectives that have to change in the department wholesale and then have the commanders of each executive -- or the executive sponsors, our commanders, provide an update on each of their objective areas. and then, i'll loop back with you and talk a little bit more about what the future plans -- what the plan for phase three and final work that we'll be doing as a department to finish implementing our recommendation. next slide, please. so the collaborative reform initiative both kick started

our strategic planning process and set the vision for the department for the coming years. specifically, safety with respect referenced procedural justice, procedural transparency, and public access. as you know, issues that point to police reform have come front and center in the recent few weeks, and this slide reflects one opportunity that chief scott has had to speak to our nation's critical time. here he's shown in conversation with van jones, activist and c.n.n. anchor, mayor breed, and malia cohen. san francisco has surfaced as a leading agency in making the progress necessary to reform policing.

next slide, please. >> an example of that is the independent organization, subthree-zero, and they've put together an initiative, eight can't wait. they've set forth a list of eight ways police departments can begin to improve their metrics immediately. only tucson and san francisco met all eight metrics that were reviewed. mayor breed set forth our own metrics to improve policing in addition to the eight can't wait. those elements, straight from her press release are

demilitarizing the police, decreasing funding, and racial equity, end police bias, and end use of police as a response to noncriminal activity. we think that improvement is really important, and having an infrastructure to make sure that things keep moving forward and improving, and so sfpd has continued to push forward even beyond the usdoy -- usdoj

recommendations. finally, this slide is just meant to recap our timeline of the usdoj report and subsequent activities as a reminder of where we stand. next slide. in addition to many smaller changes, divided by c.r.i. objectives, there are fundamental structural changes that really touch all aspects of reform, and those are surrounding strategic planning, policy revisions, data collection systems and reporting, and academic partnerships and sustainability. so the strategic planning piece really speaks to the technology road map that has recently been completed. strategic planning has commenced in sfpd with response

of policing with respect, strategy 1.0. we don't have a budget to necessarily hire a consultant to help us with that, but we may have the capacity especially once personnel are back in place from covid response. community policing with over 100 collaborative organizations. members of the community policing group and others participated in that, and they're very well aware of those plans. so those strategic planning schemes are well underway, and we'll be speaking to you about the other plans, as well.

we are supposed to revise policies every five years. as you can see, that would touch all objectives. data and the infrastructure is now in place to really continue to make that work, so that is another area of continuous improvement. if we're reviewing each policy every five years, it's incumbent on us to make sure that we're following best practices and making sure what's out there to continue to make improvements. so on the data collect and reporting front, we do have -- there are a number of systems that have to get put in place in order to track and collect data, and then, we also have to have analytical sides, which we now, through the last budget cycles, have funding that allow

us to have those positions, as well. some of the problems that we've had with data collection systems, we've had three systems over five years, different data system and collections. then, i'm going to move onto academic partnerships in this section. we've done a lot of work innen dajing with academic experts, and that's another way that -- in engaging with experts, and that's another way that we can test theories, so we're happy to do those things and help keep moving our efforts forward, and so that's another effort of how is you -- example

of how we will continue to improve the department and continue to ensure we won't become stagnant. and auditing and continuous improvement speaks to is that stablity as does organizational structure. we've begun to discuss with cal d.o.j. on a weekly basis the initiatives that are nearly ready for submission. these meetings have provided an immense amount of clarity for our project managers and other team members. i believe a couple of our commanders may be speaking to that. in addition, after an assessment earlier this year of

the outstanding recommendations, i'm confident that we have completed the vast majority of the work to implement recommendations? we just have to submit and compile the documentation to be evaluated. i'll talk a little bit more about that after the executive sponsors have the opportunity to brief you. with that, if we can go over to the next slide, and i'll turn it over to commander o'sullivan >> thank you, executive director mcguire. my name is robert o'sullivan. as of today, july 1, 28 of the 59 department of justice c.r.i. use of force recommendations have been completed and gained substantially compliant. of the 29 remaining recommendations, four have been submitted by the use of force to cal d.o.j. and hilla

hillard hines. as illustrated by the graph in the upper right hand portion of the slide, the department has released a significant decrease of force over the past four years. we believe that's due in significant part to the officer's use of extra time and deescalation techniques. 57% of sworn members have attended a 40-hour c.i.t. course, which includes presentations for medical and social work practitioners, as

well as individuals who have previously experienced a mental health crisis. recommendation 12.2 states that sfpd should ensure an appropriate distribution of c.i.t.-trained personnel across all shifts in all districts. c.i.t. lieutenant mario molina, served as the project manager for this completed recommendation. he and his team regularly review the recommendations for all team members. training records are automated and easily accessible in compliance with recommendation 6.2. so this slide here is very forward looking. the use of force team in july will submit seven recommendations to our cal d.o.j. and hilliard hines to s

recommendations 15.1 and 15.2, both of these recommendations speak to educating and informing our community regarding sfpd use of force, in-custody death, and officer involved shooting investigative protocols, and recommendations

19.1, 19.2, and 19.3 speak to the departments -- [inaudible] >> we go to the next slide, please, sergeant youngblood. >> good evening, vice president taylor, commissioners. my name is darryl fong, commander and executive director for community policing. 60 of the 272 recommendations are currently assigned to the community policing objective. 24 haven't been submitted for

review. there are an additional 36 which remain a work in progress to be completed under these recommendations. two significant milestones include the creation of the department's new policing strategic plan and the development of the department's five-year technology plan. in 2017, the department established the community engagement commission to formalize and bring structure to community policing and problem solving strategies department wide. as noted in 2017 and 18, they engaged the community sponsored working group. this executive sponsor working ground developed the vision and values that define community policing for this division.

it allows for a collaborative process with over 100 community and department members attending the meeting in a one-year-long developmental process. the community policing plan reached over 500 representatives of organizations throughout san francisco with over 100 sworn and nonsworn members at all ranks and assignments. with over 2,000 hours of research and analysis on best practice to develop this plan. the departme the -- this now serves the department's overall strategic plan 1.0. in august of 2019, the

departmentation community policing strategic plan, which outlines division value goals and objectives for community policing was adopted by this department. in 2019, the working group reconvened to focus on the general policing order 1.08. this general order which was under internal review, but i saw today it was forwarded to d.p.a. for their internal review process, along with the community policing and problem solving manual, will now serve as the guiding policy for community policing and department solve efforts department wide. the adoption of department general 1.08 and the adoption of the community policing problem solving manual will help set community policing

throughout the department and assist assists with up to 18 d.o.j. recommendations. some of these i'd like to highlight. recommendation 40.05. assisting in the creation and the benchmark of community policing goals so that data can be incorporated in the crime prevention strategy. 40.3, which incorporates patrol beat assignments, highlighted in slide number two, in alignment with the community strategic policing plan. also providing guidance and structure to annual community policing plans for department units and district stations department wide. 42.3 and 42.4 highlight

requiring i.t. support for district stations, newsletters, and sharing best practices for community engagement. in addition to the community policing strategic plan, there have been numerous recommendations implemented in the department. 54.1, through the amendment and revision of the department general order 3.09, the department supports and recognizes the proper exercise of power and authority with positive community outcomes through additions of the community policing, problem solving, and the discretion under duress awards. 54.2 implements department wide recognition to officers of the month and then year award. 50.1 and 50.2, a policy rating

the mandating and continuous discussion around the six pillars of the present task force on 21st century policie with implemented roll call training. the department currently supports the homeless outreach teams through the collaboration under the healthy streets operations center. 53.1, officers' evaluations on meeting community policing goals are now incorporated as a component of the officer's annual and semiannual work performance review. another accomplishment of note has been this department's five-year technology plan. we began by conducting a technology needs analysis and incorporated that into the department's i.t. strategic

plan. this analysis addressed te technological needs, personnel, records management systems, and i.t. equipment. the department engaged external consultants with two independent assessments identifying gaps with recommendations to ensure that the divisions could support the needs of the department. it's consisting of department leaders which mean quarterly to assess the department's needs. the department also codified two of the processes with the adoption of two unit orders.

one, dealing with strategic planning and budget prioritization. it identifies technology products that could be absorbed into the department's technology sector. the second adoption was the enterprise life cycle management policy which governs all enterprise systems within the department and provides a framework on how this plan will plan, acquire, deploy, manage, and retire its technology. moving forward, the community engagement community is currently working with the i.t.

division community feedback already critical in providing information for analysis in the development of effective crime prevention strategies. implementation of community surveys will help to address numerous recommendations requiring feedback and input within community policing as well as other objectives. and that concludes my update. >> next slide, sergeant youngblood. >> now onto the [inaudible] who's going to be presenting on accountability. >> stacey, can you see me and can you hear me? >> clerk: am. >> -- yes, ma'am. >> good evening, san francisco police commissioners, chief

scott, and director henderson. tonight, i want to take the opportunity to share with you what my role is as the executive sponsor, acknowledge and discuss the successes of the accountability team and offer our updates for our recommendations. before i dive in, i want to thank a quick moment to thank the accountability project managers. there are 20 in total. in my early assessment a year ago, i hand picked the project managers because quite simply they are some of the best this department has to offer. they're already in demanding roles. these recommendations require project managers be consistent in their efforts and respond to the demand reform requires. it is through their hard work that our team has seen the success we have. next, i want to take a moment to briefly explain any role as the accountability executive sponsor. accountability is about

expectation. true reform of accountability requires a comprehensive look at our policies and how we train to those policies while at the same time ensuring both policy and training align with our mission of safety with respect. by doing so, we offer our members a clearer understanding of our expectations in their roles, and the expectations of the community we serve. when a member's conduct does not meet our expectations through accountability, a member will know exactly what to expect of us as an organization to address such conduct. equally as important, the community will know what to expect of the department as we hold ourselves accountable. as the executive sponsor, it is my duty to examine each recommendation and work with the project managers to identify the vision of the recommendation, planning needed for the recommendation, and most importantly, the strategy for its implementation. over the past year, the accountability team have worked

collaboratively within the department and with our external partners. i really just have to take a moment to acknowledge executive director henderson and his department of police accountability team. they have been responsive, thoughtful, open with us as we work in partnership to improve accountability, so thank you, director henderson, for your leadership? 40% of recommendations have been submitted for external review, while 11 of the recommendations have been returned as a request for information, most often referred to as an r.f.i. is 15 recommendations have been recommended as substantially compliant, while one is pending review by cal d.o.j. if you take a look at your slide, you'll see your slide indicates we only have 14

recommendations in substantial compliance. i'm happy to report that today, we received notice from cal d.o.j. that we are in compliance with another recommendation, so that's the reason for the change in the numbers. we have 41 identified as in

progress. >> outside our quarterly audits, team members remain engaged. it has been achieved through frequent communications in meetings, phone calls, and e-mails. this process has served our team well. in recent months, the process of prescreening recommendations has been offered by cal d.o.j. and hilliard hines. once the recommendation has met the threshold, a prescreen of the recommendation will be scheduled. quite often in the prescreening, cal d.o.j. and hilliard hines will acknowledge the framework is in place, and

they'll make suggestions for revisions to make our recommendations stronger and more sustainable. the meetings have been instrumental in our momentum. in recent months, we have submitted 21 recommendations for prescreening. of the 21 presented, five are part of the 11 r.f.i.s previously mentioned, and 16 are part of the 41 in-progress recommendations. as an executive sponsor, i have seen tremendous benefit from the prescreening process of our reforms. at this time, i'd like to draw your attention to the bottom of slide number 15. you will see that there are nine recommendations that are clustered into three areas. in my review of these recommendations, i believe six of the nine are ready for prescreening with cal d.o.j. 55.1 will take us a little more

time. 57.1 just went through prescreening on monday, and 58.1 is already recorded as a prescreening. so we should see six more of those recommendations move forward. i am confident the accountability team will continue to experience success as the majority of the remaining recommendations will see completion in the coming months, and that concludes my presentation. >> thank you, commander. commander ewen? >> yes. all right. good evening commander, vice president taylor, commissioners, and everyone participating tonight. i oversee five of the downtown district stations and the executive sponsor of the bias recommendation.

the present task force on 21 century policing is at the forefront of change with we began this in 2015. through the work on collaborative reforms through these years, it has made our department one of the only across the nation to completes the eight use of force requirements of #eightcantwait. the sfpds efforts to root out discrimination and bias follows several recommendations. any department employee becomes aware of bias policing or misconduct is required to report it in accordance with

established procedure in sfpds own not on my watch pledge, which was created to guard against implicit bias. our crews and staff attend training regarding equal opportunity and harassment, racial and cultural diversity and racial profiling, creating an inclusive environment, implicit biases, fair and impartial policing, and bias by proxy. all of these things we have been working on in past years, particularly the bias recommendation. when you look at the recommendations, you see 39 in

progress, nine in review, and six in substantial compliance. this is very important because we have one recommendation that has five difference compliance measures, and it took that much time to complete all those. i'm happy to say we're close to also doing the strategic plan, which i'm hoping to be done by august. slide 17, nine that are red noted for r.f.i. response. there are five of those, and i can go over each one for you. 24.5 is review an audit of electronic devices. 25.1 is, as i said, d.g.o. 5.17, policy prohibiting bias policing. 1107, discrimination

harassment. 25.4, assess the needs for antibias programs. 26.3, public education campaign of policies and procedures. 29.3, work with the city to ensure quality bias investigation training for supervisors. 25.4, explore alternative resolution. 33.4. data collection. 33.1 is report of all nonconsensual stop data. 34.2 is mandate stop data. it's ab 953. many of these have been reported to the commission, and there's ongoing analysis as we move forward. my recommendations have three to five compliance measures that need to be addressed.

this can mean evaluation and revision of general order or orders, technology applications, data collections, and audit process, to name a few. this can be seen in the update of both 5.17 and 1107, which is one recommendation, which is 25.1. this -- this recommendation has five compliance measures, as i stated before. it began in 2017 and was completed in 2020. this delay was due to many reasons: promotions, retirement, change from the fed -- federal d.o.j., state d.o.j., and now to today's pandemic. even though obstacles occur, we are dedicated and committed to the completion of these recommendations and raise the bar even further in progressing san francisco to lead the country in reform. thank you.

>> thank you. do we have more or can we take questions? >> yeah, we still have a fifth. >> vice president taylor: hi, commander. >> commissioner elias: it's also doctor. >> that's right. congratulations, and thank you for correcting me, commissioner elias. >> clerk: commander ford, you're on mute. >> he can't even hear my compliment. >> oh, okay. there i am. i'm sorry. i had a little glitch there. can you guys see me and hear me okay? >> yes. all right. welcome. >> good to see you guys again. good evening, vice president

taylor, director henderson, and chief scott. a quick overview reveals that this objective has a total of 32 recommendations, 18 of which are in progress. 14 recommendations were initially submitted, 11 of which returned for r.f.i.s, which is requests for information, which means that hilliard hines has requested additional information. an additional three of the recommendations that were r.f.i.s have reached the threshold of substantial compliance, and that's illustrated on slide number 1. 92-2, 92-4, and 94-2. as always, we're committed to identifying and retraining a diverse group of quality candidates. we have three recommendations that have reached the threshold

of substantial compliance with more expected in the coming weeks. important also, our staffing and deployment unit, led by captain nicolle jones continue to invest a tremendous effort and insight into the realm of recruiting, training, detention and deployment while seeking the best candidates for this organization. can we move onto slide number 2? thank you. again, looking at the top of slide number two, as noted, 18 of the 32 recommendations are currently in compliance, moving towards the bottom of slide number two, all of these are still in progress, but it's important to speak to what these represent. so just as a quick overview of

what these represent, 81.2 speaks to the publishing and annual statistics on african demographics as each stage of the hiring process. 88.1 speaks to the hiring rates, and 89.2 reports sustainability efforts to continue through the process. 85.1 speaks to the diversity within our recruiting efforts, and 82.5 and 82.9 utilize community input. 85.3 and 85.4 are awaiting efforts, and those will be submitted for prescreening and hopefully move onto hill yard

and heinz for furth -- hilliard hines. everyone, specifically our department's project managers, have done a tremendous amount of work and deserve truly all the accolades. staffing continues to analyze and provide current data, and our recruitment background efforts are as robust as ever as they continue to reach out to all neighborhoods in san francisco and beyond. objective number five, recruitment retention and diversity, and at this point, i will turn it back over to executive director mcguire. >> thank you, doctor. >> thank you. >> hi, again, commissioners.

i'll make this very quick. the phase three plan -- so as the commander has sort of stated, we feel like over 100 more recommendations are ready for submission once we have the documentations, really -- the documentation really in place. so i think that's really -- that's one of the core messages we wanted to send you all tonight? and then, can i just show the last slide, sergeant youngblood. after we complete phase three, and we're really finalizing on what that timeline looks like, there will be a remainder of recommendations that we'll have to do some longer term planning on, and those recommendations represent things that are either -- things that have to happen, such as additional technology or budgetary needs, and those really go hand in hand. and then finally, we'll be working with hilliard hines and

cal d.o.j. to figure out those recommendations and exactly how we'll proceed, both in the phase three timeline, and then beyond that. and at this time, we can take questions. >> vice president taylor: great, thank you. so this is the first of what will be many updates on the c.r.i. process, and, you know, i've asked and will continue to ask that you come back monthly. as you continue to do that, we'll be able to stream line. [inaudible] >> vice president taylor: -- the key d.g.o.s, things like bias, subhearing is something we're all very interested in. i'm going to want everything on how that's going. so with that, i think the queue is elias, brookter, and

hamasaki. so commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: great, thank you. thank you for the presentation, and i do want to applaud you, chief, for having each of the executive sponsors appear to present on their own working group. i know there's been a lot of changes in the past, and that was one of the criticisms that we received about the executive sponsors being changed from various groups, so i think that that's a great practice, and i appreciate that. one of the things that was said during the presentation was -- i think it was by commander flaherty who wanted to thank d.p.h. and director henderson for their work in that working group. but i do think we -- i think we -- while we want to thank d.p.a. and director henderson, i think the one thing that we do also need to do is recognize the staff that he has that puts

a lot of work into these working groups. i have been to, at some point or another, each one of these working groups. samra marian has been at every single one of these working groups. so i think in addition to thanking director henderson, a huge thanks need to go to her and the other staff, as well. turning to the presentation, i am glad to see that the recommendation that i have been working on with the chief regarding the use of force reporting and the low ready are in this presentation and will be presented to the commission with a revised department bulletin very soon? the one thing i wanted to ask the chief was with respect to -- [inaudible] >> vice president taylor: i

want to keep everybody on these timelines, and if it's not next week, i want to understand why, so there's that. >> commissioner elias: thank you. i appreciate that. here's the thing. with respect to the use of force, i am very suspect of that because some of the numbers in the reporting that isn't included in the use of force, for example, if there are no reports of injury because that isn't included in the use of force or a loaded weapon pointed but not used. what i want to know, chief, is what you attribute the decrease in the use of force to from 2016 to today. >> commissioner elias, you cut out on part of the question. so i heard what do i attribute the use of force to, and then,

you cut out. was there another part of your question? >> commissioner elias: the decline. i am skeptical of the numbers, but what do you think is working so there is a decline in this area? >> oh, absolutely. let me answer that, but i'll begin with the numbers that you say, conceskepticism. when we change our reporting procedures and capture more incidents, we will have to then make a comparison -- to try to, if we can, to compare apples to apples to see what we have. we are comparing the same data set over the past four years, any way, since we started capturing the data for 96-a.

in terms of why, i believe a couple factors. first and foremost, the use of policy revision was one reason for the decline. it's a very good policy, and others have emulated our policy. the use of vehicles, the banning of carotid, i think those were very good revisions. i think the revisions have done th this city and its police department well. we have instituted some initiatives. this continuous improvement loop that we always refer to that cal d.o.j. always reminds us of and hilliard hines, it's important that we refer to this

process, as well. when we saw trends in pointing of firearms and command and control, we created the critical mindset coordinated response training that we believe has made a difference in suppervising and controllin those things. we saw that just before this really good run of officer involved shootings. we created a field training review unit, and i think that's reaped benefits because we're able to really analyze some of our incidents and really walk away with where we need to get better. and that unit has done a really good job of that. infrastructure and structure, i think, have helped, but the bottom line is we have to have

the officers buy into what we're doing. buy into the policies, buy into c.i.t. training, which we now have half of the department -- over half, trained on the 40-hour training. 97-plus herself has bepercent trained on the use of force training. making sure we're coordinated in our responses, we believe, has made a difference. i think a lot of the things that i just mentioned really weigh into that issue, and we're doing a better job. we don't have it all figured out. we need to work on the disparities and things that have been brought up to this commission and the public that it's holding us accountable for, but i think we are well along our way. the improvements are substantial, and they're not by

accident. >> commissioner elias: well, i'm glad to hear that. how do the mayor's reform play into the d.o.j. recommendations? are those going to take priority over the d.o.j. recommendations or how are you going to sync the different recommendations? >> i think they're aligned. i think they're aligned with the categories just presented. the hiring, the auditing of our hiring practices, that aligns with recruitment hiring and retention. it also aligns with bias, because one of the things that we're doing is we're implementing, based on the commission's direction, we're infusing testing specifically for bias at the entry-level hiring process and throughout

the promotional process, so i think that would align. when you look at the mayor's initiative or the reform initiative or the police department to reenvision or reimagine even the types of calls that we respond to, i think that aligns with the calls for collaboration in how we deal with our homeless population of our city. we have to work with other city partners and community-based organization to get to that vision -- to realize that vision. that's going to take collaboration, and that's one of several of the recommendations that were in that finding. we can't do this type of work without that collaboration because we know there are areas that we have identified and will continue to identify as we flush this out, whereas other entities may be better suited to handle these calls. people trained to deal with crisis and other crisis and the

like. we are challenged and charged with revisiting our policies, and that includes our manuals and all that, you know. so as we look at how we do things, how we conduct our crowd management and how we conduct our critical incident, that piece will be critical. i don't know if we've ever done this in our department's history, we've never had a process where we redo our general orders every five years. we have to go through our manuals, and we have manuals that haven't been touched in almost 30 years. but i think we're doing very well, and i think that it's promising. >> commissioner elias: it seems like, what i hear from you, is that her reforms are similar to

the d.o.j.s, and i guess you'll just prioritize them accordingly. [please stand by] >> i want to thank my colleague,

commissioner taylor, for ensuring this was on the agenda and making sure it is in front of us each month. i believe the d.o.j. recommendations is one of the most consistent questions i get nationwide as i have calls and conversations with folks. i am happy we are receiving presentations and being able to hear from the staff on folks living and breathing and touching this on a daily basis. i think there is an opportunity, across the board to make presentations. i will share this more palatable. we were talking about a number of d.g.o.s within the presentation and some not within the presentation. i can foresee members of the public confused anglossed over when we have conversations in terms of numbers because i was.

commander sullivan talking about 10.1 and 12.3. i saw different numbers. we have an opportunity to clean it up and make it more transparent. i definitely really enjoyed the last slide from director mcguire where we say we have 100 more to get out that is the narrative and conversation we need to have with members of the public so it is transparent that they understand the recommendations put forth, one, are being worked on. two, letting them know where we are to get these recommendations taken care of through d.g.o.s and opportunity to refrai to ren from using acronyms. they are confusing.

i think for transparency and where we are headed with our reforms and changes we are making, being able to be more transparent, more palatable for members of the public would be great. >> some of the calls for the, you know, it is a point raised more than once. we need to make sure the public understands what we talk about. is that it? commissioner hama saki. >> good evening, chief. i may want to reiterate a few of the points made. that was a lot of information

that i think that was four or five different presentations that were pretty dense in detail. not only for the commissioners we have most of the materials beforehand, obviously, it was a problem raised earlier when we get them late and don't have a chance to review like with the power points today. having it in this way, i am a little concerned we are excluding the public's ability to meaningfully participate. now you have two minutes to comment on a whole host of items that have been covered. i would like to think about a way to do this more efficiently with respect -- again, great presentations, a lot of details, but it was jus just a little too

much to listen to about an hour without the opportunity to interject questions and making sense of the notes i took right now isn't probably going to work out too well. a couple of things. the community policing strategic plan, is that on the department website now? >> i will check, commissioner. i will check while we are in this meeting if it is on the website. i know it is done and approved. i will check to see if it is on the website. >> i think there is a lot of discussions about what community policing means in 2020. i know i have received questions and comments about what it should look like moving forward so it would be great for the public to be able to access and know what the department is

intending or even visions for the future of community policing in this department. >> i think it is one of the ones i am pushing before the commission to pass. commissioner brookter worked on it. i am putting it on the forthcoming agenda to vote on it and get that ball rolling. there is a lot of balls languishing. that is one of them. >> i am sorry i wasn't intending to imply balls were languishing. i was referring to the strategic plan, the overview of community policing. i did receive the e-mail today about 1.08. the vision, more executions and policies. >> commissioner, it is on the

website. if you go through the sfpd.org and type in to search community policing strategic plan, it will take you right to it. >> thank you. i also want to echo what commissioner elias said and acknowledge that, you know, from the commission side we end up being very incredibly dependent on d.p.a. for policy input, you know, they have been doing this for many years and since it is revamped, really they are at the forefront of policy, procedure afternoon training and everything. i do want to acknowledge

director henderson, sarah hawkins, and the soul of policy and brings this together for a lot of us. when i see the powerpoint, i am seeing all of the issues raised by ms. marion and the new changes underway. i appreciate ms. elias worked on those and raised and advocated for those. i want tokin to acknowledge the department is acseptive. it came out different than i asked for this morning, but, you know, i am glad it is out there. i think it is a powerful sign that we are no longer going to create these really negative

racial stereotypes of black and brown individuals. when we talk about implicit bias, it comes from somewhere. i think we all owe it to the community, to ourselves to look to see how we have contributed to that. i spoke to a reporter earlier about it. i said i grew up watching the local news and seeing the same mugshots. if you ask why we have implicit biases, there are good reasons. there are things to change. i thank you for moving that forward and acknowledging this needs to be policy, it needs to be something we address as a commission. the other points i had -- captain flaherty did acknowledge

d.p.a. i will stop for right now. i might have a follow-up. commissioner, you are on mute commissioner taylor. >> sorry. i want to thank all presenters tonight. i am happy you guys are on this. i think it started and ended with, i think, commander talked about a lot of starts and stops.

it is four years later and we are stagnant. 61 of 272, 29% and the use of force 29% in substantial compliance is nothing to write home about. when we get criticized we get on this and it falls by the wayside. there is no continuity, i don't think substantial compliance is good. it needs done. after four years it is disappointing it is not done. some fields are better than others we focused on use of force. with the presentation 60 out of 270 for community policing, only nine in substantial compliance, 36 in progress. we talk about strategies and goals those are the subparts we are criticized by the department

of justice. i thought i heard ms. mcguire say we don't have ability to do that but we hope soon more employees will help us. we are not going to reach compliance without the goals in place, strategy in place and tools to measure it and data capturing part of it. i really am glad you are on it. you need to stay on it. this is leadership. if you want it done, it will get done. every time we get criticized the flame comes back up. i hope the people with it now can stay with it and get it accomplished and we can move forward. 61 out o of 272 four years late. you put a positive spin and there is hard work. it is all by the wayside. we can't continue this. it has to get done, you know,

and this is the leadership issue. if you want it done, it would get done. i am happy with the people on it. i hope they can stay on it. we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back or clapping. this is not it. we are still way in the hole with a lot of work to do. i want to point that out. i am happy we are moving forward and knowledgeable undependable people i in charge. i have seen this and heard this before. the board of supervisors has heard it before and the community heard it before. before we see completion to check off the boxes we are in the same position for four years. it is stagnant. i hate to be debbie downer here, we need to do what we need to do to complete this and move forward because new changes are coming. a lot of forward thinking ideas

are coming. we want to move to that area and we have baggage of four years, criticism from the community from recruitment, community use of force, those things. i am glad the people are on it. i am glad we are going to stay on top of it, but we need to check the boxes and get it done and move forward. i am cautiously optimistic. thanks. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. i want to follow up what commissioner dejesus said. i was involved in the collaborative process until last year. my schedule got in the way, but

what commissioner dejesus said, there is accurate criticisms we need to face head on. i think that would be something to see in the presentation, a real acknowledgment of shortcomings. without -- we all want to look good. i put on a nice shirt tonight. without acknowledging failures. i think i have acknowledged the failures i have had, shortcomings on the commission where i haven't pushed things or gotten things done. from the department side, i think that instills credibility when we say, hey, here is the great work i did. here is where we fell short and we didn't get it done because i

know the department hears it. we all hear it as commissioners. we saw the protests which really, i felt implicated all of us. i don't think we should look and say we have done a great job. we should say if we are on this commission in this department we have to be dedicated to getting it done and making the community safe and making people feel safe on the streets so there is not this real negative harmful fear and energy within certain communities. the thing about the commissioner dadejesus that triggered it is shifting of personnel. i know people have to move and you have to reassign things, but, you know, the delays that come from that, not having

subject matter experts, having subject matter experts be switched, people assigned to working groups switched out, no meetings for months at a time without telling the community. why we haven't gotten this done, and the end of it all has to be this is the time and this is the moment. i think we have all acknowledged that on this commission. i appreciate that from the chief as well. he has made some strong statements around what we need to do coming out of this moment. that has to include collaborative reform that we have been working for for how many years? three, four. i wanted to follow up on that. we have to hold all of ourselves accountable.

i add myself to that. >> do you have a question on are comment? >> thank you for this presentation. this was fantastic. a lot of people have been wanting to see this information. i want to shift a little bit. i think a lot of the highlights have been talked about that i thought were important especially the reference for the work my agency and staff have done. it is amazing. there are a lot of people standing behind me who work every week that is reflected in the comments and goes on all of the time. i want to talk about some of the things the commissioners brought up and something the chief mentioned in several of the presenters talked about when we talked about the use of force,

it is amazing that we have had 49% reduction in use of force. that is fantastic. that is what we want to happen. that is what community expects and that is what we want to have dub. i just want to give voice to the specifics and it is particularly relevant because we are going to talk about the report about correlating the use of force, diminished role but how it is connected to race. it is important that we just talk about race. it has to be tied to all of the stuff we are talking about. as we talked about the solutions associated with why the use of force has gone down and we had great examples from the new use of force policy with time and distance and the scenario-based experiences and cit training. all of that is likely. we should have those answers to the questions to know why the

use of force has gone down done by evidence based analysis so we know what those issues are and asking the harder question. how are these numbers going down the correlation that is associated with race still a factor? those numbers haven't changed. we have the race disproportionalty. it is not going to be fixed if we do not talk about it at the forefront. a lot is the d.o.j. priorities. maybe some of the solutions we can look at are figuring out are we addressing early intervention which is data analysis. like i said bringing that issue to the forefront. if we just say with a lot of these things how does race play a factor and formulate what the

solutions are? it is one more opportunity for us to focus on the same problems we have had in the new way to give us solutions that have been up until this point precisely the reason much of the frustration and pressure we are feeling to come up with a focused solution. my take away was that. trying to make sure that we are analyzing the data and it is databased and evidence driven so we have a solution not to address the general policing but specifically to focus on race outcomes to get to race neutral policing. that is it. >> this is not a commission shy when it comes to talking about race. we can also get to the issue.

that is why we are here and the real work. we have a vote on reform coming up. can we call the next item up they had a lot of questions in the middle of this. we continued it for a future commission meeting. this is that meeting. chief unless there is something to say we will tip with the commissioner elias to ask questions and have you address those questions. chief, you are muted. >> we can go straightforward

with the commissioner elias' question. >> i will apologize in advance to fellow commissioners and to the public. i do have a lot of questions in this area. i am apologizing in advance. it is a long time to have these questions answered. they are questions i asked on the april 3, 2019 meeting. i will ask for your patience. this is something very important to me and i believe the community. we really need answers and solutions at this point because we can't pat ourselves on the back because we recognize what the problem is. that is not going t to cut it ay more. i want be to get to the presentation. i have to say, chief, and i have to be honest, i am disappointed

iin thein the 9 6:00 a.minin th6 presentations. these are slides selected and described aren't reflective of what is going on in the community. i know that when we were here last or the last two times specifically in april of 2019, i had raised the concern what issues need addressed in the 96a report when presented to the commission and the community. i hope that the department will finally hear us and present information and solutions to these problems. what i would like to say, and i raise some of the questions when this first appeared on june 3rd. i want to turn to your 96 a

report, page 11. this is a combination of the report, all one there will be a lot of questions. turn on page 11, and it talks about percent of all stops represented by demographics. troubling for me to see in california it breaks down to race and people are stopped. in san francisco the majority of people stopped are people of color. the people that -- the white population that is stopped is 35% yet they account for 52% of the population in san francisco.

what i take this to read is that 65% of noncaucasians being stopped in san francisco is troubling to me because my question is why are blacks and hispanics being stopped at a rate of 26% and 19% when they account for less than 5% of the population with respect to blacks. with hispanic an and latinos ony 15% of the population. those numbers don't make sense to me. i want to turn on page 13 which you talk about ripa, the ffpd searchings, what we find and contra band and yield rate. in the slide it looks like we need to pat ourselves on the back. we aren't searching people and if we do search them we find

contraband, which isn't the case. i would like to turn your attention to the 96 executive summary and 100 page report for quarter 4. with respect to the searches and i will point you on page 4 of the executive summary on quarter 4 of 2019. these numbers are troubling. it tells me the stops and searches by perceived race of individuals. if we look at this, it shows us that the stops made by sfpd are the subject of the stops are 60% noncaucasian people. they are not white. 40% are black or hispanic.

when we stop and search someone, those numbers are alarming, right? because again we are searching people of color more frequently than anyone else, and i asked in 2019 why this was happening and what the solutions are? i still haven't heard. again, if we look at how many people we are stopping, we look at how many searches are done after we stop people. the numbers in that category and this is page 4 of the executive seem for quarter four. we stop nor white people and search more black people. why? why do we search more people of color versus white people when we stop more white people?

if we look, 70% of the searches by sfpd in 2019 are on people of color. i want to know what sfpd is doing about it. we know what the numbers are. to ask why this is happening i don't think that is relevant. the question is what are we doing about it and how do we get it to stop? >> you want to answer those questions before you move on or do all of your questions and then answer? sure. >> i have a lot, chief. >> i will start with page 11 first. what commissioner hama saki said and i am paraphrasing. owning our shortcomings. we know this is a problem. we acknowledge that and continue

to acknowledge that. the rates of african-americans on page americans, 26%. what we try to do is look at, number one, the data itself. then look at what that represents. the disparities of african-american stops is one of the issues we are working on through the collaborative reform. we know that is a problem and it is out of whack. a couple of things we look at that indicate whether or not we are making progress. first we look at the stops. if you look at the presentation a couple of slides after that it talks about the state-wide integrated traffic system, that

information that some academic partners, including california department of justice, they look at that data. they look at the information statewide integrated traffic record system is they look at the people who are driving in san francisco, who are involved in collisions. i know executive director mcguire went into this in her presentation. it is believed when you look at that demographic, it is more representative of who is actually driving in san francisco. it is not comparison to the population who live in san francisco. it is a representative of who is driving in san francisco. >> but that may be true, chief, fine. that report is where that information comes from. the 96 talks about how you stop

people. the numbers people being stopped not in a car but sfpd coming into contact with somebody stopped on the street. those numbers are in the 96 report and people of color are being stopped more frequently. excuse me. the portion of people being stopped are predominantly people of color. then when you put that aside, the stopping. another thing to point out is

that the way this 96 report is done is not correct. if you look at the actual charter amendment with respect to 96 and what is required. it says we are to document the encounters that is sfpd has with the public. that is nowhere in the 96 report and why they are important to report them so we can get a better data set and accurate view of what is happening in terms of who is stopped, who is searched and why this is happening. you know, i have a lot of concerns with how this 96 report is prepared. it is inaccurate. additionally, were you aware that the name and star number of each officer who participated in the encounter is supposed to be recorded and that is nowhere in

the 96 report. i think the reason it is important bias is not in a vacuum. we need to see the whole picture. if one officer is responsible for stopping one group of people, we need to be able to see that. we need to see the patterns and practices of certain officers. if it is just one officer committing these offenses it is a problem. we have no idea it is a problem unless we have the data to track. we aren't tracking it. with all due respect, i understand we can say acknowledging we know the problem and are working on it. it is not good enough. we acknowledged that in 2019 when we raised these issues. they are still here, you know. let's talk about. >> commissioner do you want me to answer that question?

>> sure. >> on page 13, it is going through the search rate. one of the indicators based on the academic partnerships we formed. one of the indicators how we are doing on stops. this doesn't discount it. i am not trying to discount disparities. they are there. we need to work on pit. one of the things we look at and the academic partners told us that are indicators are the yield rate in terms of who gets searched and the yield rate. the way that works. is look at the demographics and look at the white control group.

if the yield rate for whites is high and african-americans is low. there is a potential african-americans are being stopped for less than probable cause and reasonable suspicion. when the first report came out in 2016 when the d.o.j. assessment was done and the different enat th entities. the yield rate of african-americans were low. in 2020 they are up. they went from 10% to 30%. they are almost the same as the yield rates for whites. indication is that, number one, the stops are consistent with the white population in terms of the reasonable suspicion or probable cause is why they are stopped. the other thing is that

indicates progress. i want to be very clear because i am not saying we still don't have a problem. when you look at the yield rates for the last four years, that factor has improved. it is important the public. anybody can read this for themselves. i am interpreting the data and research. it is important to look at yield rate. that is an indicator whether or not we are stopping people based on a hunch or something less than reasonable reason to stop or we are stopping people with probable cause and we find contraband. the other thing the stops themselves, the traffic stop it is important to look at arrest and citation rates. if we are stopping people and not siting or arresting and

those rates, you look at our data and it shows african-americans in particular they are stopped for traffic violations and often times there is no citation or arrest. whites and asians high percentage of citations and arrests. that is an indication the stops that need to improve. we have to look at the factors and monitor them. those are signs that we are improving. what we have done and this was a d.o.j. recommendation. they recommended a lot more training on search and seizure and probably cause and those issues. same shortcomings on the trainings. we hired an attorney. now we have on staff. it has slowed it down.

last week that attorney is hired with the san francisco police department to do just that with the hope of improving those indicators i talked about, training hopefully will improve. >> i am glad you brought up the yield rates in searches. that is my area. i respectfully disagree with your numbers. the 96 report on page 13 is not the correct representation when you actually look at the data from the 96 report which is one hundred pages. on page 13 it tells me when it comes to searches in california, california is a whole has a higher percentage of allowing consent searches. that means a consent search when an officer says can i search you

and that person says yes. in california there is a higher consent search rate than in san francisco. what that tells me in san francisco we don't ask people whether we can search, we assume we can for some legal basis. then we turn to the othergraphs to the right of concept which talk about higher and lower discretion yield. that tells me we are higher than the state average. we have a higher our rates are higher when we think we can search people. we do more searches and more searches based on why we assume and when i say we why police officers assume they can search whether than asking somebody whether they can search. data for that information can be found in the 100 page report. now, i will turn to quarter one of the 2020 report. >> can i add before you go

forward? you are miss interpreting the yield rates. when they go up that is positive. we ask for consent. we have a process and policies where we do ask for consent to search. >> no, chief, let me stop you. i understand what you are saying. i do understand the yield rate. i am getting there. i wanted to show on your presentation the data you provided from 2018, that is what that showed. now into 2020, what the data shows in 2020. for instance. >> the 2018 is the california d.o.j. report. all we do is feed the information. we have nothing to do with how this information is reported. those yield rates are from the california department of justice on page 13. >> if that is fine. it may be from d.o.j.

the numbers are high. the consent serve searches are . aside. turn to quarter one 2020 the data talking about stops and searching. we are failing. page 12 of the quarter 1 of the 2020 executive reports. the report and data are in the 120 page 2020 report. i will stick to the executive summary. the actualgraphs are in the 2020 full page 120 plus page report. >> commissioner to be clear we talked about the report and the

96 report. >> i talked about the ripa report which you showed me on page 13 of your presentation. now, i am turning to the 96 report which is the executive summary for quarter 1 of 2020. that is page 12. it talks about the stops and searches. the 2019 numbers are very similar because it shows that we are failing. in the executive summary report for quarter one 2020 page 12 you go over the different level of searches, high discretion, consent, required searches, search warrant incident to arrest. vehicle inventory like legal basis searches where there is actual basis for them. then the other searches. it is the other searches where the officers have discretion why they believe they can search

people based on some ground. that is is most subjective area of searches. look at your numbers in th 96. with respect to how people are searched in san francisco, 7.7% are asked, consent searches. 47% are being searched based on a legal basis, a search warrant incident to arrest or vehicle search. 65% of all searches in san francisco are based on subjective criteria of the officers. if we look even further, we are asked. when you look at the rate of how people are being searched in terms if it is consent, high discretion, required searches or other searches, it shows that, you know, we in san francisco are asking people less if we can

search them on a consent basis. we are asking specifically people of color more often -- excuse me. with respect to the subjective characteristics the officer has for the basis to search which is 165% -- which is 65%. people of color are searched more than nip other race. 82% of the searches done by sfpd are done without consent. meaning we don't ask. we think we have a legal basis or some other subjective criteria based upon the officer that gives them or makes them feel they have a right to search. that is important, but what is more important you are right the yield rates.

right? because before i get to the yield rates i want to turn your attention on page 13 of the report. that is very troubling when we look at the numbers. page 13 talks about the yield rate, right? if you look at the actual 120 page 96 report. out of the searches we do, 57% of the time we don't find anything so we are wrong 57% of the time because the whole purpose of searching someone is for weapons or we feel they are dangerous. what that tells me is that 57% of the time we are not finding anything. why are we searching people? if we look at the search yield rate. it is on page 11 of the actual

120 page 9 of -- 96 report. if you look at the summation on the executive summary on page 13 of the same report, it shows the yield rates. it talks about the total yield rates for all searches are 34%. that means we find something 34% of the time. i mean those numbers don't add up. this is a failing grade because we are searching people of color and not finding anything 65% of the time. that is just unacceptable because again what is the basis for searching them other than they are a person of color? that is what the numbers

indicate to me. when you look at the yield rate in terms of high discretion, searches are 24%. on page 13 of the executive summary. high discretion searches are consent searches. what it is saying when we ask can i search you, 24% of the time they are right, they have something. that is yield rate. the required searches are the legal basis searches, which are search warrants incident to arrest or vehicle, the yield is 44%. we are not half. 44% of the time they have something which means that 56% of the time they don't. we got it wrong. then we go to total yield rate of other searches. that is the subjective criteria where officers have nor subject

activity in terms of basis or why they feel they need to search someone. those rates are more problematic. out of those, which are highest category, we are only right 33% of the time. that means we are wrong more than 50%. that is very problematic because we are searching people and we shouldn't be. we are stopping people and we shouldn't be. again, i don't think we should be, you know, saying that we are doing a good job because we aren't. another thing that i noticed in this area is that you don't have pat searches. we don't know the numbers with respect to pat searches, which are searches officers do when they suspect a person has a weapon. right? that is very problematic.

i can give you a moment to respond to that section, chief, or do you want me to go on with my questions. those numbers are quarter one of 2020. they are disturbing. they don't jibe with the ripa report. >> commissioner, i will make this as quick as i can make it. the discretion rates. one of the things we have to look at and we are looking at is whether we are making progress with those yield rates in terms of the yield rates going up as you stated. we find in some cases 30% yield rates or 50% yield rates. there has been progress made in that regard. now, i want to make sure we are

not conflating the legal basis to search with what is found. officers can have the legal basis to search and you talked about 65% on page 12, the 65% of the searches defined as conditions of parole, probation. i will start from the top. contra want, detection of crime, violation of school policy, parole, probation, those type of things. if officers have a legal basis to search and don't find anything. it doesn't mean they don't have a legal basis. not to conflate the find rates with whether the officers have a legal basis. the other thing one of the reasons and you and commissioner

taylor were in many discussions we had on revising our deputy general order 5.03 on detentions to address some of these very topics. to have the incident reports written when we conduct detentions and incident reports mandatory reports written when we stop somebody against their will which includes the reason for the search. we debated that heavily. these are features in our revised 5.03 that i believe and you stated in your discussions that will make this situation better. that is what reform is. we know we have a problem. i am not saying we don't. we have disparities. this policy 5.03 is a way to address these issues. i don't agree totally with what you are saying about read rates. i have read the report and we

will disagree on some of those interpretations of yield rates. what i will say i don't think there is a doubt that everybody who does this work inconcluding the california d.o.j. said this is an indication of measurin mef progress is being made of searches of african-americans and hispanic people. you have to mo monitor the yield rate percentages. we are doing better. in terms of the certains, consent searches, again, if a person doesn't consent to the search and officers don't find anything. there are two things important. one it is documented to measure it. second thing if there is a violation of policy or law those are addressed with the accountability and the things leading to better outcomes.

you are not hearing us say we have this figured out. we have problems. i do think our policy revisions will help guide that in the right direction. some of the things to reduce bias like booking photos are all in the puzzle to get to a better place. i accept your frustration, i acknowledge it. we are trying to work to make it better. >> i appreciate that. i am sure you can understand, in 2016, acbeinging we can do better and we aren't where we need to be at this point. they are just words. we need to sort of show action. i understand the bias issue is in one step in the right direction. there has to be policies the

department is willing to implement above and beyond what the academic people are saying or the norm. we have to be more proactive in that respect. i think you bring up a good point with respect to data. that is another issue. the 96 report the way we are collecting the data is not even in compliance with the administrative code. it doesn't necessarily -- we don't track all of the data. we aren't tracking data in the d.g.o. 5.01 in 2016. we have a d.g.o. we passed in 2016 that requires us to post bi-weekly by risk management certain data on the use of force. we don't do that. we are required to post all of the factors as to why the use of force was even how we got there

and that is supposed to be on the department website monthly. that has not been done. this was passed in 2016. additionally, when you look at the reports that you are presenting to the commission and to the public and you talk about data, in the 96 report you have data not even required by the charter. the calls of service. that is not required by the charter. what is required is the number of encounters. the calls of service don't matter other than to dilute numbers. we got 180,000 calls and 216 resulted in use of force. that is not true. the 180,000 calls for service. most had nothing to do with the use of force. that is why the 96 required you to document and track how many encounters there are with the

police based on use of force so we can compare that number to the actual incident of 216. 216 actual incidentses where use of force was required. you know, when we talk about this stuff, we have to be correct when we talk about data and what we collect. we weren't there yet. my frustration is i have raised this for the past year and a half, i asked you specifically what are we doing? your response was we are going to have an academic institution come and look at it. at this point we need answers how to address this. these numbers are not good. if we will disagree on the yield rate and the searches and percentages. that is not what the data shows me. >> commissioner, to answer your

question what we are doing. that academic report you cite. one recommendation on the use of force bulletin came from that suggestion. these are things that are concrete. they are real. again, i definitely accept that we have to do better, but i think in order to acknowledge the progress we have made. we have made progress. to say we haven't when our officer-involved shooting have gone from an average of six a year the less two and a half years to less than two. how can we say that is not significant progress? when the biggest demographic of people having guns pointed at them is african-american males

that we reduced by 60% in terms of people having guns pointed at them? we own what we own. i am not making excuses. what i am saying there is concrete progress made. the d.g.o.s before the commission are all steps to make progress. 5.03, 5.07 on bias. use of force. this is what reform is about. i understand and i am not being disrespectful here. i do think to acknowledge some of the good work that has been done. we can't just talk about bad stuff. we have to talk about progress to give people transparency on that as well. >> let me be clear. we have made progress.

you are absolutely right. we have. it is not the kind of progress that where we need to be. we can do better. i feel like commissioner said we made progress and that is it. no, we need to do more. i disagree with you when it comes to how much progress we have made. in some categories we have done well and in others we haven't. some of the progress how we measure progress is i am skeptical of it because we are saying our use of force is down when in reality we aren't even tracking all of the uses of force. now we will be able to show the uses of force that haven't been tracked because there was no complaints of pain or injury. those numbers are going to be

eye opening for all of us, especially with respect to when weapons are pointed at people in a low ready position. we are going to have eye opening numbers because the data is more reflective of what is actually happening in the streets. i do disagree with you with respect to the use of force against black males. with the people of color that hasn't gone down enough. look at page 6 of the executive summary for quarter four or excuse me quarter 4 that 79% of the use of force is against nonwhitnonpeople. >> what page? >> i am looking at page 6 of the

executive summary of quarter four of 2019. if you look at it, it shows you the use of force in terms of the race of the person. if you add them all up together, it is 21% of the use of force is against white people. that means the rest is against nonwhite people. use of force has gone down substantially against people of color specifically pointing guns at black men i disagree. >> commissioner, we have looked at every quarter since the 96 report has been in place. when you look at every quarter, you will see a downward trajectory of pointing of guns at black men you will see

significant trajectory. maybe one or two quarters had a slight increase. overall use of force is going down against black men. when you look at this. if you compare quarter to quarter one year to the next. that is not the same as 2016 when this first started getting the data captured. now it is significant reduction in this report. >> chief, according to the quarter four report black males have guns pointed am them twice as much as white males. >> we are talking about two different issues. reduction of use of force among black males. that is different from the fact we still have a disparity in use

of force among black males. we know that. no reduction would not be true. there is a significant reduction. how do we get better if we are not reducing force to begin with? we have to deal with some of the things before the commission to help do that. i am not arguing there is disparity. there is. you just pointed that out. what i am saying when you look at every quarter from 2016 to now there is a significant reduction in use of force particularly pointing firearms at black males. there is progress. >> my concern is this. i understand what you are saying. we will respectfully disagree. my point is how as a department do we get officers t to the poit

where they aren't scared when they see a person of color? the searches and the yield rate and use of force against people of color is telling me that we are using more weapons against people of color more than we are against white people. we are stopping them more than white people, searching more than white people. my question is, you know, why is this happening? how do we get it stopped. when we encounter a person of color those emotions aren't triggered to give them the basis to stop people or give them a reason to believe they need to search people or give them a reason to believe they need to use some sort of force on this person? that is what it is that i really want to get to. you know, these are great, but we need to do more to stop this.

thank you, fellow commissioners and the public for your patience. these numbers are disturbing to me and it is very important topic. i was just really disappointed in the way this was presented. i am hopeful commissioner brookter and i will be able to help the 96 report presented to the commission and public in the future and data actually tracked. i will yield my time.

>> wering going to say something commissioner hama saki. >> i will thank commissioner elias for the questions. it will change again and give the commission what they want in terms of reporting and having these discussions. >> doctor elias, you might have gotten a degree in statistics tonight. i think this raises an issue with these presentations. i think -- i know i struggled with when we get the 100 page 96

report. this has gone on at least a year. i think we had discussions about this the whole time i have been on the commission. the confusion it creates when we are trying to do what commissioner elias bravely and it appears through many hours did which is dig deep in the numbers. compare to the presentation and try to find the meaning there. i do think and i thought at various times and this is raised before, this goes back to the earlier statement. these presentations should not be a sugar coating of the hard numbers, right? i think it builds the departme department's credibility when it is out front with what the statistics are and what they mean. this brings up the old i just looked it up when commissioner

elias was going to quote three types of lies. lies, damn lies and statistics. that was popular by mark twain. when we have these numbers turned to a format where it doesn't give the clarity that we need without spending four or five hours or 10 hours or a month on this like commissioner alias did, we are not meaningfully able to do our job. everybody on this commission right now i know has very intense jobs with long hours and a lot of other obligations. to break down these numbers for every 96. >> reporter: is 99 -- 96 report.

present in a way to feel good about what we are providing to the public. this is a public forum to advise the community of what is going on and the changes we have made good, bad, otherwise. i hope to see that happen, but, you know, i had a couple questions about these. in the 96 report is that broken down between vehicle stops, remind me, and pedestrian stops? >> yes, it is broken down between to two, commissioner. >> within somebody said something in the last presentation that i am not sure if it was true.

i thought somebody said 80% of a certain type of searches were consent searches. is that accurate or am i miss remembering the last commission meeting? >> that is not accurate. >> the high discretion versus low discretion, can you explain clearly. high discretion stop is something where it is -- i think the language used is subjective criteria. >> high discretion stops are stops where officers have the discretion of whether or not that stop is going to be made. in other words, an officer can choose to make a pedestrian stop

or traffic stop. then whatever that search is going to pull from that. low discretion is where an officer is basically has no discretion. searches, sorry. low discretion are searches where there is no discretion. the officer makes the arrest and is required. inventory, search for contraband. low discretion there is not that discretion. the officer is obligated to search. that is the difference in the two. >> what are the questions about probation and parole status come in? >> probase and -- probation and parole is under other searches. when you look at chapter 96

report on page 13, i believe, this will fall under other category. >> do you what percentage of the stops are those type of stops? >> in the 96 report. let me find it. >> i know other jurisdictions have stopped using questions around probation and parole status in stops. perhaps that is one way to cut down on these type of encounters is not to try to search people or find reasons to search people based on probation or parole

status. i don't know how big of a portion it is. you know, i don't want toecap it if it is not easily -- if it is not easily accessible. >> the 96 report on page 10. look at the first page 10 the third conditions of probation and parole as the basis of the search. the percentage is here. 15%. >> we could eliminate that. consent searches, what

percentage of searches are consent searches. >> that is page 9. consent searches are 6%. >> all searches in san francisco 6%. >> that is for quarter one of 2020. >> do you have a sense is that consistent with previous quarters? >> it is fairly consistent. i can pull up the last quarter of 2019 real quick for that comparison to confirm. >> the numbers aren't that different from 2019 to 2020. i looked when i did the analysis. >> thank you, commissioner elias, you know these numbers better than i do. chime in if you also know the answer. >> it is page 9 of the quarter 4 of the 2019 report, chief.

not the ripa report. the full 100 page actual 96 report. page 9 from quarter 4 and page 9 from quarter 1. there is only about a 600 number. the numberings are a couple percentage points. >> that is okay, chief. i can look this up after the meeting. i think this area is an area that needs to be given the attention that commissioner elias has given it. i appreciate the presentation, but i think and i appreciate the

policies. they are what the commission it is the charter duty. i always come back to the line said by the former commission president who said that the policy every time. [ inaudible ] that is meaningful. with regards to the challenges. we can talk about the greatest policies on the use of force and the development stage of a number of great policies. until we change the culture that under lies a lot of this conduct that makes officers more inclined to stop black and brown people, more inclined to search black and brown people, the best policy in the world is not going to do anything. this goes back to the questions

that have come out of the recent protest. that is why black and brown people and primarily black people are forced to live in a society where they cannot enjoy living in the community existing in the community, working in the community without being subject to racially motivated or biased treatment. as much as we want to acknowledge the progress that this department has made, that is still the state of san francisco policing in 2020. that is still the way that the community feels about policing. i doesn't matter how much backpack give aways or coffee with the cop, until we street people equally in the country and city, we will never have equality, equity.

commissioner elias was right to focus on this. i hope the hour plus of questions that she just shared with us which were all on point, i hope we take away from this that this is really an area where we need to do better because, you know, how do you feel if you are in your neighborhood going to the store and you get a dope team that searches you. it doesn't feel like your neighborhood any more, like you are part of the community any other. your rights as citizen have been taken be away. to get 24% yield rate, well, you know, the other 76%, maybe one-time. maybe two times, but at the end of it when they are saying ask

the police, the police have to acknowledge their role in that. it is people saying during this protest nobody says ask the fire department, right? there is a rope for it. that -- there is a reason for it. that is what i hope we take away from this session. >> i am not going to add much more. i do have a question because this exercise raised questions for me. i am trying to understand the numbers and back and forth to figure out what is what. i am looking at page 9. consent for 2019. i turn the page it looks at like given for black people 85.

white people 85. then i turn the page and it is like reasons for stop by race, age, gender. it is 38 black people and 55 white people. that is good. how these numbers connect together is not clear to me. whenever we come back next and i think the 2019 report which we have to come back to do the 2020. connecting those dots will be helpful for me. i am trying to follow the back and forth and get in between the numbers. i am not sure how it all intersects. when we talk about 2020 that will be helpful for me to what is going on here. >> commissioner, you are referring to the actual report or the presentation?

>> i am referring to the report. some of these things i am not sure how they relate to each other. on one page it is twice the number of white people that had encounters than black people. that is awesome. on the other page it is equal. i am not sure what they all mean. i don't want to take up any more time tonight. next time i want to go through it more. that would be great. >> yes, ma'am. >> commissioner brookter. >> that goes back to working with the department on reporting templates that we can have so it is consistent. i want to say thank you for the cheap for not shying away. we asked he be here and have the

conversation. he has been here. as we sit down and i want people to understand. as we look at the report and it is alarming, disturbing, disproportionate. in looking to 2020 we have made a progression in the right direction. we have a long way to go. i wanted to make sure for the record i am looking forward to working on this with commissionerrelincommissioner e. what do we do about this report? that is what i am looking forward to. >> can we move on to the next item? 2b. d.p.a. director's report. >> report on recent d.p.a.

activities and announcements. commissioner discussion will be limited to determining whether to calder any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. presentation of the april and may 2020 statistical reports. >> this is all love and respect. i hope you don't follow commissioner elias' lead. >> everybody get comfortable. i will be brief. let me start with the staff. the case is open, at this time this year we are at 413 cases. last year we were at 366. cases closed we closed 458

cases. this time last year it was 318. we have 392 cases pending and open right now. this time last year we were at 337. there is a higher number and a trend upward in cases. in terms of cases sustained 19 so far this year. this time last year we were at 36. for the cases that are older than nine months open in the department we are at 36. this time last year it was 23. for cases mediated we are at 18 currently. this time last year we were at 19. the larger numbers and some of the delays we have been having, some of the delays for cases that have taken longer than nine months to closeout. they typically require extensive

investigations and shelter-in-place order and the work we have been doing to close the cases. they are still closed out. we have continued to receive cases on some of the civil unrest. we talked about this last week or the week before when we were talking to them. just to try to quantify that or give background on that. not all of the cases but some of the cases have been difficult to follow up with the investigations because they are not associated with individual officers. it is difficult to track down the specific request. many of the complaints that have come in talked about the general observations for the civil unrest we have seen. one suggestion about having a

town hall or the department to talk about the distinctions between rallies and protests and riots and the type of targeted responses that the department tries to do just to maybe address some of these complaints coming in. i mention it because i am not sure how else the department would we seeing or hearing if the complaints are coming here. couple with the fact it is difficult to assess the individual transgressions described and presented to us with specific officers. it is more of a general observation. we would love to work with the department if they are interested in the follow-up. in terms of mediation department. we have updated our application for the online form as well as mediation brochure that also

commissioner elias asked in the past. i try to put it online as quickly as i can when the changes are made so the public can see and review in realtime. we will continue to do that. in terms of outreach. we had a couple of incidents. a lot of the outreach is virtual to make sure the agency has a presence along with community partners in making sure we are visible and actively engaged in what is going on this summer. we did a verytul virtual presenn with b magic. the presentation program is on the agenda. we have a speaker series for the 32 plus interns that are here. this week we had speakers from

superior court and pre-trial diversion talking about the programs the alternative prosecution programs that the city has been involved with. we participated in several presentations this week including one with moab talking about rape and disparities in the justice system. they work with all of the san francisco police department stations to make sure the brochures and information about contacting this agency is available. again, that project that had been in the pipeline for years didn't get completed until september of last year when we finally achieved having all of that information. we will monitor those so it doesn't drift off and to make sure we keep that information in the department.

we are currently working on a know your right pocket card as an extension of the brochure developed by the agency. in terms of 1421, we released a second half of the files. 1800 pages in the first release at the beginning of june. second half contained a thousand more pages. [please stand by]

>> and that will likely be on-line and up in the next six to eight weeks, so i'll keep you updating on outlining what that program was. in terms of our numbers the number of allegations reviewed have been 2,126 approximately. total case files that have been produced are 85.

changes are what we talked about earlier. case files currently in production, 45. [inaudible] >> in terms of the categories, and we talked about the categories earlier, for g.b.i., we have five cases officer involved shooting cases, and three have been disclosed. we have officer honesty, ten pending cases.

the monthly reports have already been there i'm n. i'm not going to go through them. you can look through them. i'll just point out that the april and may statistics are in there, as well as complaint totals, which had been down initially amid covid stuff in april but have bounced back up in may. we're still up 7% total for this year. 2020, from january through may, d.p.a. this year has received 321 new complaints, so there's more information. that stuff is public and on the website already. don't need to go into the weeds there, but those are the monthly reports, and we will continue to provide that information to the public and to the commission. in the audience and on the call with me right now are senior

investigator kandise carpenter and members of my staff are on, as well. again, if someone has information that they need to share with the department of police accountability, i want to make sure i articulate what it is. we had an issue come up because one of the automatically generated addresses that comes up did not allow people to contact us. we discovered that problem and fixed it immediately. our phone number is 415-271-7711. you can make complaints there, but for all other requests, including public record requests or questions, you can

e-mail the department directly at sfdpa@sfgov.org, and the phone number is the same. sorry. i just wanted to give that information because we had a problem before with automatically generated e-mails, website, and contact information that was sent out when you sent out information that did not get to the agency directly. >> vice president taylor: okay. commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: thank you. director henderson, did i understand you correctly when you said a town hall with -- can you explain to me what you meant by that? is it -- you want a town hall with the protesters -- >> no, no, no. i'm saying that we've been getting a lot -- we've been getting a significant number of complaints coming in, people contacting us -- individuals contacting our agency saying they want to make a complaint about the police department.

typically, it has to be tied to an individual for us to track it down. many of the complaints haven't been able to be tied to an individual. rather, they're addressing and talking about the ongoing peace rallies, marches, protests that have been happening in the city, so much so that i thought it would be a good idea if the department was interested in having some sort of town hall to address those types of concerns in explains what those problems were, explaining the difference in how they react and those kind of standards, that kind of thing. >> commissioner elias: that sounds great. that's a great idea. >> okay. i just think stuff like that is helpful coming from d.p.a. because it's evidence-based. we're not just making it up. these are actual complaints coming in that we can address, and it's one of the ways that i'd love to see the mediation take an active role in building

a link to how the community can be in conversation with the department and build restorative justice sites of conversation to clear things up or address concerns that people have been answering or asking beyond i filed a complaint, and i don't know what happened. this is how we can respond better and be more engaged, so that was part of the idea. >> vice president taylor: director henderson, you have a presentation up next, or is that -- >> do i? >> vice president taylor: i think that's what we just talked about. it's listed as a different line item. i think that's what you just went through. >> okay. the monthly reports? >> vice president taylor: yeah. i'm just making sure it's not our reports. >> i can read down, go into it. i can give you the highlights of it, but we can go through

it. >> vice president taylor: no, no. i'm just making sure. okay. can we call the next line item? >> clerk: commission reports. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. commission president's report, and commissioners' reports. >> vice president taylor: okay. i'll be brief. we have two bullet points on tonight, and one of them will be on for next week. there was a problem getting the reports from d.p.a. by friday in time for the meeting, so because of that, we're delaying by only one week. i expect that to be on next week for a vote. that's the bullet point with commissioner elias working with

the chief. [inaudible] >> vice president taylor: you should mute yourself. thank you. and then, beyond that, just in general, as everyone knows, we're trying to really stream line the process for reform. justice delayed is justice denied. a lot of those things have taken far too long, and that's what we'll be doing in the coming weeks. that's my very brief report. next line item. >> clerk: no commissioners' reports? >> commissioner elias: i have nothing to report because i was too busy with 96-a. >> clerk: all right. 2-d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. action.

>> vice president taylor: commissioner dejesus. you're muted. we're going to be talking about that resolution that's coming up. i think what i'd like to put on the agenda so we can talk about having the commission have deadlines, as well. like, when we -- first of all, two discussions. when we do meet and confer, that we do not send policy issues to policy meet and confer; that we make it real clear to the department that helps us with that, we don't want that in there, and that we talk about some kind of time frame on meet and confer that it comes back. i don't know if i'm articulating this right, but it goes into the black hole. i want to know how many d.g.o.s are in the black hole. how many are in meet-and-confer

process, and how many are -- and i want to put a limit for the things that we do agree. we need to agree, what goes meet and confer, and what go to s see -- goes to meet and confer, we feneed to give them a timeline. i want to -- i want to somehow tailor that so we can put it on the agenda items, we can discuss that. >> vice president taylor: yeah, yeah, yeah, i think totally agree. i think all the commissioners who talked about that [inaudible] >> commissioner dejesus: i can't understand you. you're breaking up very badly. >> vice president taylor: oh, sorry about that. i was just saying that i agree with you. the meet-and-confer process is

the most frustrating process for me. i've never gotten a good reason behind the scenes why things take so long. so why things take so long to meet and confer, who makes those decisions, i think is something we need to get our arms around as a commission because it's a source of delay, and it's one of those things that's the less delay, the better. i think we're going to be talking about stuff tonight in closed session about meet and confer, and i think next week, we're going to be getting an update on the status of 5.17 and the discipline matrix. so i don't know what the status is and what the process is. >> commissioner dejesus: so if maybe the chief or someone can give us a presentation of how long the meet and confer process is, and how long, if they go out there, how long

they sit. justice delayed is justice denied. we need to talk about that, and we also need to talk about, you know, policy is policy, and how it doesn't need to get stuck back in the meet and confer. [inaudible] >> commissioner dejesus: one on thing. can you still hear me? >> vice president taylor: yes. >> commissioner dejesus: when we have the e.i.s. on there -- i might want to talk about it

offline, but i think we might want to have a discussion about that program. just not a presentation, but whether or not that program is successful or not and, in fact, whether we want to put deadlines on that program. i don't know if we want to put that as a separate agenda item or whether we can incorporate that in the e.i.s. presentation. >> vice president taylor: absolutely. you and i are going to be running those programs, so we can discuss that deadline and whether it's going to work. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. >> vice president taylor: okay. so i think we can move on. can you call the next line item. >> clerk: the next line item is going to be public comment for line item number two. for members of the public -- >> commissioner hamasaki: sorry. i did have a -- >> vice president taylor: oh, i'm sorry. commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: yeah, i'm way up here in the chat at

8:41. >> vice president taylor: oh, sorry. >> commissioner hamasaki: yeah. i understand we're chatting tonight in the chat box. i think what commissioner dejesus raised is a good point in that i haven't raised here before, but it was an idea that we had that we should have monthly reporting on the status of d.g.o.s that are in meet and confer, and so this can be something that's done in public session that'll state which d.g.o.s are in meet and confer, when they entered meet and confer, and basically, present the stats. so that, to me, will address the concerns about policies disappearing into the black hole of meet and confer, and so that way, we can also track it as a commission.

you know, it's one of the things that we don't follow, but there's a lot of moving parts on this right now, and i think reporting on this would be a good idea. one of the things that i want to agendize, and i don't think it'll be ready for next meeting. but seeing the resolution about concurrent -- >> vice president taylor: yeah, i was wanting to go back to that resolution. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. thank you. so i wanted to -- to have a -- a hearing with the d.p.a. and -- to hear all of the challenges that they're facing

because i feel like in some sense, the d.p.a. gets blamed, the police department gets blamed, and the commission gets blamed. to an extent, we are responsible for some of that, but we need to know what are the issues deepikeeping d.p.a. doing their job in a timely fashion. director henderson, you can get us know offline, but the timeline you can get a powerpoint, whatever you need. but i think that will help us learn from the department what causes the delays to hear from d.p.a. so i'd like to hear from the department, but give d.p.a. the time to figure out what they need to figure out. thank you. >> vice president taylor: thanks. next line item. >> clerk: all right.

next line item is going to be public comment for line item number two. members of the public who wish to make public comment on-line item number 2, dial 408-418-9388, enter access code 1426449238, enter pound, and pound again. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. i've listened to the back and forth with the chief and commissioner elias around the interpretation of the use of force data as an overall decrease over the last few years, which are also, as well as ongoing racial disparities, which is also important. but what i've also heard is the

mention by commissioner elias and coat tailing by commissioner hamasaki that the department is lying. i think the commissioners need to be careful about what they're saying, because if the chief is lying to the commission, he needs to be fired. it further erodes trust from the public, and it furthers the racial bias that you're talking about. you're consciously and callously calling a black man a liar. he either needs to be fired for lying to the public and lying to you, or you need to stop insinuating that or saying that. it's really problematic.

>> clerk: next caller? good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> good evening. i'm calling again to try to understand in the forms of community policing if there's an incident or a person calls 911 and they suffer harm, who's responsible? shouldn't there be a vetting that an individual was harmed by a false 911 call? i'm worried that there should be some public vetting of these high profile cases where someone's innocent and they had the police called on them. >> the bias d.g.o. that we

passed may 20 now has a provision for bias by proxy. on sfpd, if you have false calls being made on persons of color, and you have reason to believe that it's been generated by bias, not only can you call us and say the same, but consider pursuing charges. if you think there are malicious calls to the police based on a bias reasons, one of the things that we are encouraging the department to do is to call that out and to pursue criminal liability. so thank you for that, and i'll be happy when that's out of meet and confer. next caller. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> my name is zach, and i'm from the public defender's office. sfpd, the commission, d.p.a., have all made progress since last summer, but there's much

left to be done. last summer, our office worked with the commission, sfpd and d.p.h. calling for the records to be made public by 1421. senate passed a bill last fall that requires agencies to develop a procedure releasing records. now, a new law is working towards the legislature, ab 1022, that would require agencies to develop and maintain a website for that information. it seems like d.p.a. is ahead of the curve on this. there's an opportunity to speed up the creation and combine d.p.a., commission, and sfpd records all into one location. calls from the mayor and the public and the commission to

decrease the police budget, and to speed up the production of this website so that records can be easily accessed by the public. it will reduce the represeetit requests and replies for records. hopefully, this will lead to proactive records release. [inaudible] >> -- they were created largely in september of last year when 1421 already applied to them. so by posting to these websites proactively, it could help a lot of these departments. so i hope the department takes the initiative and posts the records when they receive them, not when they're requested. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next caller. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> my name is mimi clark, and

i'm a white 35-year resident of san francisco and a member of the d.f.a. justice committee. a lot of people think the vast disparities in how police treat white people versus black and brown people would be solved with more training. you all think that the c.i.t. trai training is a good program, however, three of the four officers who shot mario woods had gone through that training. commissioner hamasaki mentioned that the reports were very long, making it a long time to wait for public comment. not only is it a long time to wait, but given the two-minute maximum, it prevents people from fully addressing each item. now, they have to wait until after items 2-a, 2-b, 2-c, and

2-d. it's very arbitrary that those items are listed as subsections. they should be listed as separate so the public can comment on each of them. why is it that four years later and such little progress has been made? well, it's pretty clear that sfpd is not interested in reform, and the board of supervisors and the mayor and the police commission do not have the will to force them to do so, and that is why more and more people are calling for defunding the police. the police cannot or will not be reformed, so other people need to take over their duties, people who don't carry guns and who are respectful to their communities. thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you.

next caller. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. my name is 1seymour, resident f san francisco. i'm calling because i'm disappointed in the chief's report. i'm here to remind the commissioner that chief scott routinely lies, and lies to this commission's face. he lied last meeting when he said that the thin blue line masks have an important history that has been changed more recently, even those masks were created specifically in protest to the ferguson riots in 2016. as commissioner elias pointed out, the sfpd is stopping black and latinx people disproportionately higher than

white people in san francisco, and there's nothing found 65% of the time. this happens over and over and over and over every week. the chief says the sfpd is improving, and it is patently untrue. i would like to take a moment to thank commissioner elias to question the police chief and not taking the police chief at his word. no one should be taking the police at their word and thanking police officers. for decades, police have been terrorizing black and brown people, so why should anyone believe and thank them? academic studies report and data are not going to do anything. reform isn't going to do anything. only defunding, disbanding, and abolishing the police will fix

the problem. the police are the problem. fuck the police. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next caller. >> clerk: and that is the end of public comment. >> vice president taylor: okay. next item? >> clerk: item 3, discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution to shorten the time period for revision of sfpd general orders, discussion and possible action. >> vice president taylor: okay. this is the project that commissioner elias and i worked on. this was our attempt to shorten the time period for the reform process, shorten the time period for d.g.o.s. 3.01, it's good in many respects, but there are flaws in it, and we wanted to address

some of the most pressing flaws, shortening the time frame where possible, shortening the time frame of the entire review process to no longer than 135 days. it's not a tile for reforming or revising 3.01, but it will get to our most frustrating roles on our commission, which is d.g.o.s are getting lost in the process. we got input from both d.p.a. and sfpd. we made revisions, and this is the product that we have and we'd like to discuss tonight. commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: yes. i think commissioner taylor was the one who first brought this

up because she'd like to shorten the length of time it takes to get d.g.o.s passed. so we did work on this bulletin or this resolution, and i am hoping that you will support it. it is not a fix-all, meaning, there's other d.g.o.s -- this process, it is a long process. and while this resolution addresses some of the time that it takes in terms of the length of this process, i do understand that the delay can also happen prior to concurrence. so again, this isn't going to fix the entire length of the process, but it is one step in the right direction to getting or being able to pass these d.g.o.s in a quicker manner. >> commissioner dejesus: i