>> so no other comments. concerns. at this time, madam secretary, if you can see if there are any callers on the line for public comment. >> please press star 3 to be added to the queue. moderate or, do wor, do we havey callers. >> madam secretary, there are no callers on the line. >> hearing no callers, public comment is now closed. >> thank you, madam secretary. i'll call for adjournment. there's nothing else. >> i'll make a motion to adjourn. >> thank you commissioner. it's been moved that we adjourn

at 5:15. thank you so much. meeting is adjourned. >> clerk: to make this meeting

accessible to the public so you would know where to find it. this is the july 8 meeting of the san francisco police commission. sergeant youngblood, will you please call roll. >> clerk: yes, ma'am. [roll call] >> vice president taylor: i think you're muted. [roll call] >> clerk: vice president taylor, you have a quorum. >> vice president taylor: thank you. for the members of the public who wish to make public comment on any of the items on the agenda, the phone number is 408-418-9388. the access code is 146-773-1245, and as always, i would ask that you mute your -- mute the television or any

sounds in the background so that it's easier for us to hear you. and commissioners, i would ask that you would mute yourself and unmute yourself when you want to be heard. just as last week, please put your name in the chat if you would like to be heard. sergeant youngblood. >> clerk: thank you, commissioner. for members of the public, this meeting is being televised by sfgovtv. at the moment, you can get to our meeting by going to sfgovtv.org. when public comment is announced either for the line item or general comment, dial star-three. this will advise the moderator

that you want to speak and add you to the queue. when you dial star-three, you will hear a prompt that indicates you have raised your hand. this is your time to provide public comment. once you provide public comment, you will be moved back into the public meeting and out of the queue unless and until you want to comment on another item, and you may press star-three to be added back into the queue again. >> vice president taylor: thank you, sergeant youngblood. today, at the end of our meeting, i'm going to ask to adjourn in the memory of jace, who was senselessly murdered when he and his parents were

watching t.v. mr. youngblood, next item, please. >> clerk: item 1, consent calendar. request the chief of police for approval to accept gifts of three $15 starbucks gift cards and intent $10 lou's sandwiches gift cards from the communititor taraval station, valued at $245. >> vice president taylor: is there somebody presenting on this? >> clerk: no. >> vice president taylor: okay. do i have a motion? >> commissioner dejesus: motion. >> vice president taylor: do you have a second? >> commissioner hamasaki: second. >> vice president taylor: okay. mr. clerk, can you take the roll? >> clerk: we need to take public comment. so members of the public, this

is the time for public comment on item 1, request of the chief of police for approval to accept gift cards. we have three callers. >> vice president taylor: okay. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. hello, caller? are you there? good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> yes, hi. my name is mimi clausner, and i'm responding to the introduction given by vice president taylor. i was on the phone for 45 minutes, not knowing whether this commission was meeting or not. why wasn't there an announcement made to the people who had dialled in, saying that

they're going to be starting as soon as possible? it's just not a good thing, and it really represents what you think of the public and your lack of regard, you know, for maintaining communications with -- with us, so thank you. i hope you'll consider this. >> vice president taylor: next caller. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. i think you just opened my line, and i actually am on the line to speak in public comment at another section. >> clerk: okay. that's the end of public comment. >> vice president taylor: thank you. can you take roll for the vote? >> clerk: yes, ma'am. so on the motion to accept three $15 starbucks gift cards

and intent $10 lou's cafe sandwiches gift cards totaling $245 -- [roll call] >> clerk: vice president taylor, you have five yeses. >> vice president taylor: great. the motion passes. next line item. >> clerk: line item 2, reports to the commission, discussion. chief's report. crime trends. provide an overview of offenses occurring in frisk. major, significant incidents. provide a summary of planned activities and events including the fourth of july. 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 audit of

helike tronnic communication devices for bias, second quarter 2020, and presentation of the e.i.s. quarterly reports, fourth quarter 2019 and first quarter 2020. >> okay. good evening, vice president taylor and commission. i'll give my chief's report, and before i give my report, i want to comment on the murder of six-year-old jason young, which is the first event of this year. i'll actually start with desean. he was a 15-year-old shot and killed on hingle street. there was another person with desean when he was shot, and that person did not suffer life threatening injuries, and that just really is a tragedy. to the best of what we have

right now, we don't believe that jase or the other person was the intended person of the gun fire -- the intended subject of the gun fire, however, we still have a lot to do in this investigation. we have reached out to the public for the public's help on this. there were people out and about on that evening, and we do believe that some people witnessed this incident, and we do believe that there are people in the community who know exactly who committed this awful act. so again, we're asking for the public's assistance on this. our investigators are working pretty much around the clock on this, and we are making some progress on the investigation, but we do need the public's assistance. if anybody knows anything that can lead to the resolution of this case, please call area code 415-575-4444.

415-575-4444. you can also text your information. if you text, tip411, and start your message with sfpd, you can anonymously -- or you can text the information, as well. to the individual who committed this act, we're asking that you turn yourself in. we made that appeal to the public via local media, and the family is asking for the same thing that we are asking for, and we stand in support and with the family and the community on this. this is a tragic situation. it's a tragic, tragic situation. we already had a second homicide less than 24 hours later, also in the bayview district. that occurred at 11:04 p.m. officers responded to a

shooting in the bayview. the victim was walking in the area when he received multiple gunshots to his upper body. he succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced deceased. we are following up on vehicle descriptions, and other items. we did locate a vehicle which was stolen, but it had no occupants by the time our officers located it, so we are following up on all evidence in that vehicle. again, the same number, if anyone knows anything about this incident that could lead to the resolution, the same number to call: 415-575-4444. the other significant incident -- major crime incidents over this week, we had a homicide arrest actually from a homicide that occurred on april 18, 2020, with officers responding to franklin and mcallister regarding an

aggravated assault, and they located a 41-year-old male unconscious on the sidewalk. the male was transported to the hospital and later succumbed to his injuries, and was determined to be a homicide by our medical examiner. on july 2, 2020, at approximately 12:17 p.m., our investigated arrested a 52-year-old male resident from the 400 block of eddy street in connection with this incident. [inaudible] that case has been filed and ongoing. in terms of crime trends, sadly, we are up in homicides by four from this time last year. we are at 24 year-to-date, up by 20%. i will say that in keeping up

with major trends in other cities across the nation, this unfortunately is a trend that several cities are experiencing, and unknown -- every city is different as far as the motivations -- [inaudible] >> -- but it's definitely something that we want to resolve and keep that from becoming worse. we are down in all other violent crime areas. we're down by double digit percentages in all the other are areas, and our total violent crime year-to-date is at 15% reduction. we are up in the areas of theft, vehicle theft, and arson, significant increases in burglaries. the number almost -- over 800 burglaries from this time last year, which is a 37% increase, sadly.

in terms of where we're down in property crimes is larceny and theft-related crimes, which include car burglaries. car burglaries are down significantly year-to-date. so overall, we do show a 17% reduction in larceny crimes, which is our largest category, statistically speaking, of property crimes. that is a 17% total year-to-date reduction. in terms of our gun violence, we are overall down 12% from this time last year, but again, we are up in gun related homicides by this time last year. a very alarming increase, which we are working hard to reverse, and that is it for the crime trends for this week. if the commission has any

questions for me. >> vice president taylor: yes, chief. i'm just so disturbed by what's going on right now. i mean, i'm so -- i know we all are, but i'm so disturbed about what happened to that little boy. i'm disturbed by a 200%, 200% increase in homicides in one week. i mean, i need a little bit more in terms of what the department is doing to combat this because at the end of the day, you know, these are black bodies dying for no reason. and sometimes i wish that the people who called in, complaining about, you know, how responsive we are to te technological issues that we have no control over.

i wish we had more public outcry when people are murdered in this way, asking for justice for the family, asking the department, what are you doing about it? so i have questions about what the department is doing to make sure that whoever killed this little boy -- i mean, the family's never going to get their son back, but, you know, this uptick in violence, it's a problem. >> commissioner, the immediate response is, of course, a tactical response from the effort to solve these crimes as quickly as we can, because oftentimes, when the crimes are solved, it brings closure to the community, and we don't have the -- we don't have these people out on the streets. when the person is in custody, and we don't have the retaliation and the payback

that we have when the person is not in custody, so that's the first and foremost is to pour resources and energy into these investigations. as we saw a few months ago when we had the many shootings in bayview and sunnydale, around the housing developments, the back and for back-and-forth shootings, when we arrested the individuals we believed were responsible, we saw a decrease in violence, and the shootings decreased for a while. comparatively, we may be better off than other cities, but we still have an increase. we have a 20% increase in homicides, so the long-term solution, we're working with california partnership, and they're working with us on some of our gun violence and reduction work.

we've done a piece of that with the community, and we'll continue contin continue to do that in partnership with the community, because there is a long range plan and goal with the community. supervisor walton has a plan, and we're working with him, centered around gun violence and what we can do to combat that violence. we know that many of these crimes have been solved through the use of technology -- video cameras not operated by the police department. that's against city and county ordinances, but the information and data we gather from those shootings oftentimes create leads that help us solve these cases, and that's especially important in these cases that might be gang related, where people are afraid to come forward because when they are afraid to come forward, when we

have other evidence such as video evidence, it takes some of that burden away from having to rely on eyewitnesses in these cases. so we've solved many of these cases when we've had video evidence brought to us. so some of this will be forensic. we have evidence that we recovered on homicides, including these two, and the forensic capabilities have gotten better with d.n.a. capabilities and all. we're in a better and better place there, as well, so we hope that some of this will pan out on these investigations. we've expedited some of our forensic requests. hopefully, we'll have some on these two murders that i mentioned quickly so we can see where that leads us, and again,

it's a matter of getting these people responsible off the streets as quickly as they can so they can get in the justice system. and that's the first and foremost response right now to -- i wouldn't say closure, but at least bring some relief to the family by identifying and apprehending the people responsible for this murder. >> vice president taylor: it's never going to bring closure, but at least it says what happened to you is wrong and your child mattered. miss brown is here every week for her child, and we have so many parents out there each week who lost their child. what we're saying is your child matters. it's just like if some white kid got killed up in marin. it matters. i'm sorry, but i'm sick about this. i'm sick about this. it happens to us at a rate that's alarming and just

unacceptable, so i'm going to ask you, chief, to come back and report on this young boy on a regular basis, what's happening on this case on a regular basis. and also, the community initiative that you talked about, i want you to come back and talk about that. i'm going to ask you to come back and report on what you're doing with communities to help stem the tide of this violence. commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. yeah, i -- i want to -- i just wanted to echo the things that commissioner taylor was saying and offer my condolences. i think, you know, this -- like, losing a child in this

way, and the fact that it keeps happening in the same communities that are subject to, you know, having to live in fear of violence and tragedies like this. and i think that we all obviously follow this, but i think there's been a fair amount of discussion about it, but we know this would be different if it was to happen, as commissioner taylor said, in marin or any other area of the city. but for far too long, we've neglected and abused certain communities like the bayview, fillmore, different areas throughout the city.

our government has let us down, and there's no solution that's going to come -- the ultimate solution has to come from our government, our city leaders coming together with the community and actually showing that they're willing to put the resources into the community to make sure this doesn't happen because, at this point, all the police can do is close the case, and that's a necessary part of this case, but that's not going to solve the problem. it's not going to solve the problem this time, it's not going to solve the problem next time. so this is -- my son is going to turn six in september, and you can't help but think about your own child and how this -- you know, how do you live with something like this?

and for far too long in this city, we've asked the black community to just accept this, and i think it's -- i'm glad a lot of the discussion's about reallocated resources to the communities that we've destroyed. it's a crucial conversation we're having right now, and, you know, i'm grateful to the chief for putting the resources into helping the family. but this is a -- this is another example of a time that we need to learn from this and not wait until we get outraged and put flowers out and talk. we need to see action, and, you know, this is -- this is just -- i feel, you know, we're all implicated in this, and until this changes for everybody, we're all

responsible. that's it. >> vice president taylor: commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: so i -- i also have been talking to people about it. it's just terrible, and i actually have a family member that lives near the area near lasalle, and every time she turns around, there's a shooting. she stays in the back of her house. she doesn't want to go to the front of her house. so when you do your report, chief, i'd like to know how many shootings we have in the last 12 to 24 months in that area because it seems like it's a hot spot. and one of the things, you know, you'd just think that we'd have some more -- we'd have -- i don't know if coverage is the right word, but the activity that we have.

if we could know how many shootings have occurred in that area so we can get an idea of how dangerous it is in that area with drive-bys. >> yes, ma'am, we'll do that analysis and bring it back to the commission. >> vice president taylor: thank you. commissioner brookter? >> commissioner brookter: yes, i think i definitely share the comments of my colleagues, commissioners. this is touching my line of work. jace was the cousin of a couple of young people that were in our summer programs, and when we have incidents like this, it affects the entire community and the entire city. and i want to understand there's an opportunity to come together for a vigil, where hundreds of residents came together and said we are no longer going to accept the violence in our own communities, and i just -- this

really hit home. as commissioner hamasaki said, my niece turned six in september, as well, and i couldn't fathom, i can't fathom what the family is going through. i can't fathom what the community is currently going through. i know that we all have to do better and work much harder together to just end this -- these senseless acts of violence in our communities. and there's never going to be enough that's said about it. just definitely hope, chief, we can definitely make sure that these resources are there to get this closed. but i think this is, while we're talking about the reallocation of funds, it's an opportunity to look across the department, as well, to ensure that where there are all these hot spots, as commissioner

dejes dejesus said, that we can keep folks safe here in our communities. yeah, just very sad. >> vice president taylor: i think the unfortunate thing is a lot of our callers will never know what it's like to grow up in a community like that. i didn't grow up there, but i agr grew up in a community where you couldn't take the stairs because you didn't think you could make it, and it is wrong to grow up like that. it is wrong and unacceptable for children to grow up that way where that kind of violence is just the way it is. that is not asked of anybody but our people to just accept that, and that's the way it is, and you accept that you are entitled to less, and when bad things happen to you, that's just the way it's supposed to go, and that's bullshit. that is so wrong. that is so wrong. what we are asked to bear is so

wrong, and it's only in these perfect circumstances where it's a perfect six-year-old child that it makes the news, and this happens every day. it should make the news every day, and we should have people calling in every day. not just miss brown about her son, but we should have people calling in, up in arms, so pissed about this because of the rate that black people suffer in this city, in this country, and virtually -- any way, yeah. chief, i'm going to be very interested in the specifics of what's being done to work with community. >> thank you. >> vice president taylor: okay. next line item. >> we still have our 1421 that we do weekly, and commander o'sullivan is still on the line for that. it's part of our weekly report, and before we go -- commander

o'sullivan is also presenting the electronic communications audit, so he can do both at the same. >> vice president taylor: okay. >> commissioner elias: i think, chief, we agreed that we were going to make the 1421 monthly, so i don't think the numbers have significantly changed from last week to this week. >> okay. i understand. >> vice president taylor: yeah. it's not on the agenda. >> right. >> vice president taylor: but i would think the next time it's on, in addition to the numbers, i would also like a report on the status of getting is on-line, an on-line portal. >> okay. yes, ma'am. so we'll bypass that and go to the audit of electronic communications. >> chief, thank you, chief. sergeant youngblood, can you hear me okay? >> yes? yes, sir. okay. thank you. so good evening vice president taylor, commissioners, chief

scott, and director henderson. i'm sergeant o'sullivan, here to present the audit on the electronic communications. following documents explain the department's policies concerning the use of communication devices and systems. first, the department general order 10.08, use of computers and peripheral equipment. second, department bulletin 19-051, which is titled sfpd members' expectation of privacy, use of computers, peripheral equipment, and facilities, and finally, within the risk management office, we have an internal affairs bureau order 18-02, which actually speaks to the specific of the audit process. it's important to note the

audits are limited to devices the department owns and not to any member personal devices. t the audits, however, do capture messages that are transmitted from personal deviced to department devices. three systems are audited. number one, level two. level two is the california law enforcement telecommunications systems. it's also commonly referred to as clets, it's acronym. two, text messages, and three, the department cellular phones. i will now explain how these are audits and the second quarter report. so the first is clets. entry is made into the system using an established word list. this audit is passive in nature and runs continuously. if a member used one of the

flagged words, a hit is automatically generated and send to the department of internal affairs. each is printed, scanned, and saved to a file. internal affairs division staff investigate those throughout the week. level two audit process has been fully operational since december 2016. that makes it 3.5 years now. so the results. the second quarter results. from april 1 through june 30, there were 35 hits from the programs, and after reviews by internal affairs members, none of the hits were determined to be potentially bias oriented. moving onto department e-mail. all e-mail sent and received, both internally and externally through the department's server are audited using an established word list. the audit process is passive in nature. if the e-mail contains one of the identified words on the

list, the hit is generated and sent to i.a.d. personnel using an e-mail for this audit process. those e-mails are saved and maintained on the server. staff analyzes every hit, and those that are determined to be potentially biased are investigating. the results from the most recent quarter. from april 1 through june 30, there were 274 hits returned from the program, and after review by internal affairs division members, none of the 274 were determined to be potentially bias oriented. third and final. text messages via department-issued cellular phones. audits and text messages issued by the department is conducted for each department personnel. investigators are trained to use active audited using a program developed by cellular provider at&t. every 30 days, a search is done

of all texts using an established word list. additional terms can be used, as well. staff analyzes the hit to determine the manner in which it was used. from april 1 through june 30, there were 68 hits returned from the program, and after review by our internal affairs division members. none of the 68 hits were determined to be potentially bias oriented. that concludes my intention, and i'm happy to answer questions. >> vice president taylor: commissioner hamasaki, is that you? >> commissioner hamasaki: that's my name. commander o'sullivan, i've been on the commission about two years now. during that time, the past two years, did anything come up on these audits. >> yes, it has. and we have investigated those,

and there have been hits and investigations related to those hits, and those investigations have been presented through the chain of command and presented to chief scott. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. so there's nothing been presented for discipline is what you're saying? >> no. what we're saying is we found -- so once the hits are reviewed, they're determined whether they're potentially bias oriented. so those that we believe are potentially bias oriented, we open an internal affairs investigation. at the conclusion of the investigation, the assigned investigator, he or she determines whether there's a preponderance of the evidence to determine whether an agency violation has occurred, and then, that case moved its way through the chain of command, eventually to myself and then chief scott.

if there is a positive report, discipline is recommended by myself and ultimately chief scott. >> commissioner hamasaki: in the past two years, do you know how many cases have been generated all the way up to the chief? >> i do not know the number off the top of my head. i do know that it's not been a significant number of cases. i've been in the office about eight months now, and i think there's been about three or four instances where we've opened investigations. there may be more. i'm happy to report back to the commission the exact number. >> commissioner hamasaki: yeah, no. because i guess we get this reporting, and it seems like there's potential hits, but for the most part, nothing comes of it, and what's been discussed before, you know, that everybody knows that these forms of electronic communication are monitored, so it's probably a pretty low probability determination of

whether or not bias exists within the department. is that fair to say? >> yeah. to start with your first comment, it is, as i mentioned -- we've got the department general order, we've got the bulletin. we've got the department unit order. my opinion is that given every time someone logs onto our devices, when it's the computer that i'm on now, or cell phone, our use policy is out there. it's not to be used for certain purposes, and anything that you say is fair game to be audited. it is, for any member -- i say

myself -- i mean, literally, dozens of times i'm seeing that a day. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. i guess what i was wondering, this came up and was suggested to me. have you or have the department considered other audits of, perhaps, like the body-worn cameras? like a random audit of body-worn cameras to see if officers are using the same type of concerning language that might indicate bias or not possibly following policy or any other conduct that the department might be concerned about? is that something that might be done or that you might be concerned about? >> to my knowledge, i don't think it's been done. i think i heard somebody -- >> yeah. just to weigh-in on your question -- this is bill -- chief scott, commissioner. we actually had a case that went to the commission that was

generated from an audit. >> vice president taylor: yeah, i didn't want to interrupt, but that's right, chief. so i was going to wait to get to that, but -- it's not in the last year, but we have had cases, so... >> yes, ma'am, and there's been other investigations where it wasn't ruled bias, per se, but it ended up being other violations that were chief's level discipline. as far as the body-worn camera, commissioner hamasaki, there's language in the d.g.o. 10.11 that speaks to it correctly. let me find it. and i'll read it just so it

puts contexts to your question. department supervisors may access body-worn cameras for purposes consistent to the policy. supervisors may not use body-worn cameras to search for violations of policy without cause. so basically, if there's cause to believe that an officer is conducting him or herself in that type of manner where there's some type of bias that could be going on, that would be a cause for us to be able to do that. it basically reads that we, the department, cannot review footage, purely just random audits like that. [inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm sorry. i almost said your honor. been in court too much. so the department is prohibited from doing a random audit for bias or policy violations of

the body worn camera footage, is that correct? >> without cause, it is how it reads. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. let me ask you this. would that prohibit d.p.a. from doing a random audit of a body-worn camera? >> well, the policy does speak to d.p.a. authority on that. >> vice president taylor: d.p.a. can only do an investigation on a complaint they get, right? >> commissioner hamasaki: according to their charter, one of their duties is to perform audits, and that can potentially -- they also have policy authority, so it's much, much broader. i think it's actually -- who was it that brought the charter amendments a few years back? >> that was malia cohen, who

expanded the charter, and it expanded beyond just the complaints coming in, so we have automatic authority over some of the police practices, and to john's point, there's also an independent authority related to policy development, implementation, as well as to the audit authority. >> vice president taylor: malia cohen, i've heard of her. >> commissioner hamasaki: you know, she seems to know quite a bit about policing and police practices. >> i would expect that this is a conversation that we can take up shortly with good input, suggestions, and directions related specifically to this topic. >> commissioner hamasaki: great. okay. well, thank you for clarifying that topic, chief, and thank you, director henderson. >> and commissioner hamasaki, there is a direction in number 1 that we can conduct audits in this policy, but then, there's

language that you can't do policy audits or violations without cause. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. >> vice president taylor: yeah. i'm going to reread the charter to have that charter power and how that intersects with a body-worn camera because that might be one of the places that's ripe for review and audit. >> okay. thank you, commissioner. >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm sorry. can i just -- i wrote down one question that i -- you know what? that's another section, so i'll just wait till next week. >> vice president taylor: okay. next line item.

>> it's my e.i.s. report, and we have a presentation for the e.i.s. report. >> thank you, chief. this is commander o'sullivan again, and i will be making this fourth quarter 2019 e.i.s. presentation. i believe all of the commissioners have received both the powerpoint presentation and the full report, which is about 50 pages long. the powerpoint presentation, which is about 20 pages, is meant to provide an overview, rather a background on our early intervention system, as well as to look at some data within the report, and to conclude with a look at to start a discussion, which i'm sure we're going to have this evening with regards to different types of early intervention systems. so as we go through the slides,

i have some prepared remarks. i don't plan on being particularly long winded about this. i know that we do a lot of powerpoint presentations, so i certainly will pause if any of the commissioners have questions if i go through this, and if i don't hear any, i'll keep going through the presentation. >> vice president taylor: i'll definitely have questions, but i'll wait for you. >> thank you, commissioners. i'll preface the presentation. the san francisco police department us department's system is to provide nondisciplinary intervention whenever possible to assist their members in their professional development nard to provide the highest level of service and satisfaction to the public. the department's early intervention system policies and procedures are codified in

department general order 3.19, which was last revised in february 2007. that general order is now under review. [inaudible] for this particular department general order, and i believe commissioner taylor and commissioner dejesus, you've indicated you'll be involved in this discussion, as well. stacey, if you'll go to the next slide, please. so highlights to the larger report, there was, back in december 2019, there was a presentation that was made to the police commission by members of the controller's office, and that report was titled san francisco police department use of force data audit interim key issue report, and it looked at -- in essence,

it looked at the way that the department captures use of force data, which i'd like to remind everyone is a component of the i.s. system. but what it looked at was the two reports which the department mostly reports out on use of force, and that would be the 96-a report as well as the early intervention system quarterly reports. through the course of that report, the controller's report made certain findings and then made recommendations as to how our report with regards to e.i.s. and 96-a -- but we're focused on e.i.s. tonight, changes that we could make. there are changed that are in the report. i'll read a few of them. we were asked to make a change so that the report went from an

internal audience to an external stakeholder report. i converted that to a report that any member of the public would be able to pick up and be able to read it on its face without having any knowledge about the e.i.s. system. there's greater detail about the e.i.s. review process, and there's easier to understand work flow regarding e.i.s. alert. we are almost finished with the first quarter e.i.s. 2020 report. we'll be starting on the second quarter shortly, and both of those reports will follow the format of the report provided to the commission, that larger report. okay. so what's early intervention system. sfpd's early intervention report is supported by a.i.m.

first introduced in 2009, a.i.m. is essentially the data rebesi repository to establish thresholds. its purpose is to identify at-risk behaviors so that supervisors may redirect at-risk subordinates for referrals. a repo each alert is reviewed by department analysts for accuracy and then forwarded to the e.i.s. sergeant for review. next slide. so what goes to makeup an alert? there are certain indicators and then, there are associated factors. there's two, four, six, eight, ten, and 14 associated factors.

by and large, use of force indicators as well as d.p.a. complaints and i.a.d. complaints are primarily a focus because those tend to come up the most amongst the indicators. go to the next slide, please. so what causes the alert? you'll see the term threshold there. there are two types of e.i.s. alerts. what has come into focus in the last three or four years largely as a result of the white house data initiative that came out after the 21st century report under president obama was a look at data driven systems, which we'll take a look at a little bit later in the system. ours is data driven, which essentially means that essential thresholds have to be

met before an alert is created. so there are six thresholds that are used that are outlined in front of you there. every officer involved discharge will trigger an alert. three incidents in a three-month period, any five of the indicators that were on the previous slide in a six-month period or -- these six-months alert are looked at on a rolling 12-month basis. so some of the noteworthy data from the report itself. what we did was we compared, in large part, the fourth quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2019. what we saw was there was a decrease of e.i.s. alerts. there was also a decrease of e.i.s. indicators, and we saw a decrease in the use of force incidents both with and without

consideration for the pointing of a firearm. there's a much alarmer decrease in use of force when we consider pointing a firearm as one of those categories. next slide. 88 of our members, which equates to 3.9% of our members had at least one alert in the third quarter, and as indicated on page 84 of the larger report, we indicated that mission officers indicated the highest number of alerts. this is a topic that i know has come up in prior police commission meetings. in the preface at the beginning of this report, one of the things that i did not mention is we do preface the report with a statement that this is not an analytical report, and i think that's something that everyone on this panel is

looking to a point where we actually get to an analysis and we have analytics to look at. so we don't do standard deviations, we're not looking at probabilities, we're not looking at risk factors, there isn't analytic data. that being said, we simply want to point out that there appears to be no correlation between calls for service and the d.p.s. alerted. there's a slide later in the presentation that shows that, but there appears to be a correlation between part one alerts and crimes. so next slide, please. so these are some of the alerts by type. as you can see there, there were a total of 114 alerts during the fourth quarter. as i mentioned previously, the largest category of alerts, meaning -- or the thresholds that were met to create an

alert was use of force, so three-plus use of force within a three-month period. of the 88 members that had an alert or the metric -- 114 alerts. 65 members had one alert, 21 members had two alerts, and three members had three alerts. in total, 88 members had at least one alert. next slide. thank you. so this is a breakdown by alerts by district station. one of the things that i want to point out is you may see -- or you will see that we have not whole numbers. for example, mission station, you'll see an 8.33. there's been a commission at previous commission meetings where the data was being reported according to being associated with a district station or unit based on where

the officer was assigned at the time that the report was generat generated. the request was made to report databased on where the officer was assigned at the time he or she -- based on where he or she was assigned at the time of the incident. so within any one alert, there may be more than one factors associated with that. so for example, let's say, during a respective period, i was assigned to three different locations. the alert itself, because it totals one, one-third of it would be assigned to each of the stations where i was at that particular time. next slide. again, this is a slide slowing alerts by graphic for each district station.

again, the bar graphs, you will see the different indicators. next slide. so alerts by quarter and month. i did mention that there was a decrease in total number of alerts between fourth quarter 2018 and fourth quarter 2019. you can see that number there, and what we see in the lower right hand corner, for the most part, for the first and second quarters of 2019, the total number of alerts was consistent, and we saw a decrease in the number in the third and fourth quarter. next slide. so what are the disposition of the fourth quarter alerts? so of the 114 fourth quarter alerts, ultimately, 53 were sent to the member's sergeant for review. that meant that 61 were not -- a total of 61 were not sent. 51 of them were

administratively closed by the e.i.s. sergeant, and that process -- once an alert is generated by the analyst, that particular data is sent to the e.i.s. sergeant here, and he makes -- he has a first look at the alert to make the administrative decision to close the alert at that level. in january of this year, we added a second level of review so that when the e.i.s. sergeant makes a determination that it should be administratively closed, the lieutenant of the legal division has to approve and agree with that administrative closure. [inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: can somebody mute themselves? there is a lot of background noise. thank you. >> okay. so in order for the e.i.s. sergeant to move to an administrative closer, all the

following criteria must exist. there must have been a recent e.i.s. alert evaluation completed. he must have made a determination that there was no pattern of at-risk behavior, and there must have been minimal behaviors since the last e.i.s. indication. merger. the way we send out our reports, we look at our alerts on a bimonthly basis. so, for example, if, for the period of january and february, if i had an alert for january, and i then had an alert for february, we count those as two alerts, but they would be merged for purposes of review purposes and sent to the district station. so we found that of all those alerts, there were ten that could be merged. next slide, sergeant youngblood.

this is a breakdown of the indicators. i mentioned a few slides ago in terms of where do we see our greater number of indicators. you can see there that it's use of force, d.p.a. complaints, and iadd investigations, followed by tort claims. there is no data and vehicle pursuants and on-duty collisions for this report. this data has, in previous presentations, been provided. what the staff here found was that particular data was not being inputted for internal reasons, which has now been rectified, and in our next quarterly reports, that information will again be presented. next slide. another graphic indicator's shown by district station, and

we can see that the use of force, district report, and e.i.p. makeup the use of force indicators. so interventions. i'd like to provide some information about what an intervention is and those subsets. so pursuant to -- or according to language in the department general order, intervention is defined as follows: a proactive management tool diend to improve the efficiency of members in the department as a whole. as you can see, there are not a lot lar large number of interventions. engagements outside the early intervention system, there are three types that we track.

this was something that was formalized in 2019. the tracking began in 2017. that's why we have data. it's now required that commanding officers provide, on a monthly basis, a total number of informal counseling, formal counseling, and performance improvement plans that members in command have conducted during a month-long period, so next slide. and this next slide refers to the calls for service. you can see the total number of alerts, for example, for mission station. mission station accounts for 25% of the total alerts, and the district accounts for 13.6% of the calls for service and 18% of the indicators.

i don't necessarily see a correlation, and this isn't a scientific -- it's not an analytic work. next slide, and part one, violent crime. to stay with that, mission station does have the largest number of violent crimes -- or had, during the fourth quarter. a little over 1,000, and that station had the highest number of alerts as well as the highest number of indicators, and that's why i use the word that maybe there's some correlation to it. when you see all three of those particular columns, the aggregate total relates -- the highest aggregate total relates to mission station. go to the next slide. so future considerations, and this is really something that, as we know, the department's

early intervention system has been the subject of a lot of discussion in the last few months. it is something that has come under the critical eye of the department itself -- i would say about three months ago with the department general order refresh plan. so to get that conversation started, as i mention, we currently use a threshold information base file. there is currently a difference of opinion as to what is the threshold. calia is an acronym that is one of our particular associations. calia happens to think that

threshold-based systems are appropriate, but as anything, there are advantages and disadvantages to either -- to both threshold-based systems and data driven systems. so a few of those are -- stacey, if you'd go to the next slide. got to go one more. thank you. okay. so starting with threshold-based systems, some of the perks. they -- and again, i'll talk about the systems in general. they're easier to implement because most of our departments are already using data that they're already collecting. the variables for the thresholds can be changed if they're found to be ineffective, and oftentimes, these systems are less expensive compared to data driven systems because departments are relying heavily, and we are one of those departments, on the existing infrastructure within the department.

some of the drawbacks, you know, they tend, as we look outward toward other department threshold-based systems, and the lieutenant has looked at a few of them, there's variable standards for thresholds. lack of effectiveness regarding the efficacy of the alerts. i think that applies to our system, and most oftentimes, there is, associated with threshold systems, a lack of driven data. so i mentioned with threshold system, this particular type of system really gained a lot of traction i think back in 2015 or 16, when president obama came out with his 21st century report on policing. that data was looked at or mentioned or critiqued and

real really professed to be important as departments looked at the reports and determined the best services that they can. so different data, different data scientists, many from the university of chicago went down to the charlotte mecklenburg police department, looked at it, and they thought it was very efficient. typically, these systems use machine learning to flag what's called adverse offense. i'm happy to get into what that means a little bit later on. but it's really interesting. you're using pass data, and if you have a -- the larger the amount of past data, the better

so that your data-driven systems depends on an algorithm as it combs the data point. in a data-driven system, they're often dialled in to live data. analysis is a big part of data-driven systems, so built into that is the ability to look at trends. certain white paper reports, which some of us within the risk management office have looked at. the data scientists have made -- drawn a conclusion that there's a higher efficacy in the prediction of possible adverse behavior. and finally, there's, according to the literature, there's fewer false positive results within data driven systems.

one of the cons is they're expensive, and that's not a reason not to pursue a data-driven system, it's merely to point out with most things technological, they're not cheap. in order to get one of those systems, the cost can start at $5,000 and can easily go up as it needs to be tailored to the needs of a particular police department. so with that, i hope i was specific enough in that brief presentation, but i'll leave it at that and open it to questions and comments. >> vice president taylor: thank you. i know that fellow commissioners have questions, as well, but i do have some questions for you. i do want to acknowledge the work that's been done, so

looking at page 35 and 36 in the report, i want to look at certain parts of the report. the decrease of certain crimes is commendable and we're going in the right direction. i want to commend the department for that. i have some questions, and this might be the methodology that we can't solve with the system, but i want to probe on that. so what i am really looking for here is getting a sense of being able to identify indicators based on an officer's kind of historical behavior, so averaging his behavior over a period of time and being able to assess that being able to determine if there's a pattern of at-risk

behavior. and i don't see that in this report, but i want you to correct me if i'm wrong, if there's something else used in a data-driven system. >> so we're specifically looking at fourth quarter data for the most part. when you screen out t-- what w this is going to be aggregate data -- i'll just use myself as an example, if i was officer o'sullivan, we can go back and look at how many times on a quarterly basis i come up. so we can look at did officer o'sullivan show up in quarter one? did he show up in quarter two? three? four? this is not going to provide personal information,

biographical information, but we do have the ability to say, for purposes of reporting, how many times i come up. >> that's good. i want to know what subsection of the a.d.a. is generating the three or more uses of force in three months or the six or more in 12 months? [please stand by]

how are they being trained to make these decisions and decide that someone who has an alert has been appropriately, you know, counseled or supervised or

trained or whatever? i don't know the answer in the presentations, and to me that's the second-most important thing we can do. that will give us confidence as a commission that, you know, in the next report which hopefully there can be an addendum that's soon so you can come back. if you have that data, you can come back and just kind of present that data. my third question is kind of -- i kind of embedded in my monologue there, but how many officers are within that subset, within the 88, how many of those are more than three months and six or more indicators than 12

months? it says ada sworn members total 14 alerts, the majority of those coming from officers compiling six or more indicators within 12 months. so what number is that? when you say the majority, what number of the 88? i'd like to know what you're doing about them, but go ahead. >> you're referring to page 9, commissioner, on the larger report? >> yes. >> so i'm looking at that as well. so there are three members of the 88. of the 88, three that have three alerts. do you see to the right there? >> okay. okay, so three -- so three plus -- where am i looking at? i don't see. >> the lower right-hand corner of page 9. >> okay. so three members -- okay.

so of the 88, three of those have more, and what about the 6 within 12 months? >> so those are -- i would have to get you that particular data. >> you see my confusion here? the top box says of the 88 the majority of them have three or more, and six or more, but i just don't know what number that -- what percentage of the 88 that reflects. >> okay. >> should i assume from this officers these are mission stationed? i'd like to know where those officers are stationed. >> okay. if i can just to interject, i know that i've used -- mission station tonight, it's come up in the past because there are oftentimes at the top of the station for total number of alerts, and indicators so no, they are not all -- i would say this without knowing, i think

i'm pretty confident to say that they are not all or the majority are behind mission station. we will look at the data inside the data to make that determination. >> okay. all right. >> commissioner, this is -- if i can interject on your question on page 9? >> yes. >> just to clarify. so the top box on the left, officers that had six or more indicators within 12 months, and the indicators are indicated on page 5. and then the bottom box is the amount of members that had actual alerts. so the indicators are what triggered the alerts. and so 35 employees had six or more indicators during that 12-month period. that necessarily equates to six or more alerts as indicators -- >> what page are you on? you say nine. >> page nine of the large report, not the powerpoint. >> but even on that --

>> right, on the larger one, commissioner. vice-president taylor was referring to. >> okay, chief, break that down again. i'm looking at the box. it says 88 sworn members generated the 118 alerts, so a majority of those alerts come from officers reporting three or more uses of force within three months and officers compiling six or more indicators within 12 months. >> correct. >> okay. and so is it three or more uses of force, is that only three officers of the 88? >> three or more uses of force -- where are you looking at -- oh, in which box? >> you see what i'm saying? so this box says the majority of the 88 is three or more uses of force and six or more indicators within 12 months. i'm trying to figure out what number that's supposed to be. like how many of the 88 officers have three or more uses of force, how many of the 88 officers have indicators of six or more in 12 months. they are saying that the

majority of that 88 is in those categories. >> yes, so that three or more use of force in the pie chart, 56 had three or more uses of force within three months. >> okay, so that's 56. what about the six or more indicators within 12 months? >> 35 had six or more indicators within 12 months. >> okay. >> if i can be helpful, commissioner taylor, the box directly next to that quote that you read out actually has the breakdown. you can see 35 and 56 right next to it. >> okay, so that's -- i mean . . . am i -- okay. >> so there's six or more indicators equated to 35 alerts. so you look at that box that commissioner was just referring to, six or more indicators in 12 months. >> that's more than 88 members,

though. does that mean some of these people overlap? is it the same people? >> it could be the same people. >> you see what i'm saying? something's not jiving for me. >> right. so some members had two alerts. >> the math just doesn't make sense. >> the math doesn't add up. if it's the same members, great, tell me that. but right now, 56 and 35 doesn't equal 88. i just got pointed to the box at the bottom saying three members had three alerts. it's just not that clear to me what's going on. >> the math at the bottom box, just on the right, i think this is clear, 65 members have one alert. so that's 65 alerts. 20 members had two alerts, so that's 65 plus 40, which is 105. three members had three alerts, which is 108, and then 114, so that's where the 114 comes from. in the top box on the left.

>> okay, and we might want to move on from this point. let's say the bottom box on the right, that adds up to 88 members, which i get. but those numbers don't match the numbers in the middle here. we're adding 65 and 35 which is more than 88. i'm trying to figure out the breakdown. >> 88 members had 114 alerts in total. >> got it. that i got. what i'm trying to figure out is, you know, within those 88 members, that the box at the top left says the most of them can be broken down into those having three or more uses of force and those having six or more indicators. you see that in the top left there? >> yes. >> and there's a whole pie chart in the middle that has 56, 35, i think that's supposed to be officers, but if it's officers, that is more than 88. and then at the bottom, the numbers do equal 88. but that only says thee members having three alerts, which would

contradict what it says in the pie chart. and so i'm just not sure how to read this. >> chief, can i try? >> sure. >> okay. >> the fact that we -- [indiscernible]. >> you guys can just find the answer and tell us. if you know the answer tonight, great. but if not, it's not clear. >> it doesn't add up. >> on the fourth quarter of that pie chart, if you add the middle number and two plus 35 plus 1 plus 18 plus 2 plus 56, that equals 114, which is the -- >> but those are indicators, not members. >> that's alerts, not members. >> okay, great. so then -- so back to my initial question, then. so then in terms of members, what we have are three members with three or more alerts, and then how many members with six or more indicators? members. >> what you're asking is members versus alerts?

>> yes. i'm trying to get to the actual number of officers, right? not just alerts, but what number of officers are we talking about with these alerts or indicators. and i think the answer to the alerts is three if the bottom right is correct. and so i'm asking for the answers to the six or more indicators because this says that the majority of the 88 comes from three or more uses of force within three months, and six or more indicators. but three is not a majority of 88. so i'm just -- it's just not adding up. no matter how you slice it, unless there's something that i'm missing here. >> i see your question. i interrupted. >> okay. so the bottom line is we don't present it as to how many officers have six or more indicators. so moving forward in the next

report, we can add that. >> yes, that's all i'm asking for, because when we say a majority, i want to know what that means, how many. and that's the question that's not answered here. >> all right. so if you want, i can revisit the 114, or we could move on, i don't know -- >> well, is what the chief said right about the 114? so what we have in this pie chart here is not members, it's indicators, right? >> that's correct, ma'am. >> okay. is there anything in this pie chart that speaks to the number of members? >> not in the pie chart, no. it speakers to day, and alerts. >> okay, great. so i'm going to move on now. if you look at page 38 of the report, that chart is at the top of page 38. so the indicators increased exponentially it looks like in october to december of 2018. like exponentially.

now i appreciate that it went back down in 2019, but what is the -- what is the reason for the . . . wait, hold on. now i'm even more confused. now we have october 2019, november 2019, december 2019, and then october to december of 2018, and then october to december of 2019. tell me what this is supposed to be showing. >> the first three lines, so the fourth quarter of 2019 obviously didn't -- includes the month of october, november, december. so the first three lines just break out the quarter by month, and then we make a comparison below it between the totally of the fourth quarter 2018 and theity of the 2019. >> so this is not a year-by-year analysis. so essentially we go down from october to december 2018 to

october to december 2019. do you know what the numbers were in 2017? >> i do not. they are not included in this report. >> okay. we have the total on page 36, commissioner. upper

figuring it out, then if it's confusing to us, then i can only imagine how confusing it is to the public. one of the things that i asked for was to me i'm very skeptical of this program. i believe that it's very subjective and it's not data driven and the numbers and information we receive from this aren't really based in -- they are not -- it's not on solid footing and based on facts. one of the questions i have is when i looked at your powerpoint on page 8, and i also reviewed the 50-page report that commissioner taylor had you prepare as well, i've seen, the way that i understand it, is that there are 114 alerts, and my question has been, has always been, since these reports have been in front of us, out of that

114, how many are counseled and that there's an intervention and how many are outside of the engagement? because when i look on page 14 on the powerpoint, you indicate that out of the 114 alerts, 53 go to the sergeant for review, 51 are closed by e.i.s. and 10 are merged. so what that's telling me is we have the alerts, half of them are closed, they don't get a secondary review, and so the other half, which we'll say the 53, out of those 53, how many of those actually result in intervention and/or counseling to the officer? because i can't find that number anywhere. and i think that's a really important number because, as someone who deals with numbers and statistics and charts on a daily basis, for me, i want to

know, we have a number of 114, what's the end number, right? because if you correlate it to your chart on page 8 of the big report or the 15-page report, which is a great visual of the early intervention chart, it doesn't tell me how we go from the top box, right, of 114 all the way down to the bottom red box, right? so i think that information is crucial for us, especially if we're analyzing that, and i mean, i don't know if you have this answer, but out of the 53 that were sent to the sergeant for review, how many of those resulted in a closed case and how many resulted in further action? >> so one resulted in an intervention. >> so out of 53, only one resulted in an intervention? >> that's correct. so what they are asked at the unit level is to make a determination whether there is a

pattern, an apparent pattern of at-risk behavior. so of the 53, there was a determination that there was the potential or at-risk behavior for one of those cases and an intervention, a write-up, which is to be reviewed at certain increments, that was [indiscernible]. >> it just seems that those odds are so -- if i was a betting girl, those would be good odds for me, but they are not good odds for us when we see that they have 114 alerts and half of them are already incorrect because we're closing them and then out of the half that's left only one results in some form of intervention. >> that kind of goes back to my question about training. like, how are the officers trained to know what is at-risk behavior? we're going to want to hear a lot about that. >> more importantly, how do we make it so it's not so subjective? because even if you train them,

there's still that element of subjectivity that we can't get rid of because you and i can go to the same training and we're still going to review things differently just because of who we are. so you know, and i know that in your last slide one of the things that you say is if we go to a data-driven system, it's very expensive. but my question is: how much money are we wasting on this current system that we have that isn't working? because that seems like a waste of money if you're telling me that, you know, the numbers we get don't add up. it's subjective. i mean, how much more expensive is it to get the actual real hard data? >> commissioner, i would advocate for going towards a data-driven system. i would advocate for procuring the money to have the sfpd have a data-driven system. you know, one of the things you just asked was how do we get away from -- i think you put it this way, how do we get away

from the subjectivity, and that's what a data-driven system does. a data-driven system in this whole computing part of it is my forte, but it's machine learning based on an algorithm, and for a data-driven system, data-driven systems create risk factors for each member, and they are based on different variables, which i'm happy to get into, what those variables look like, but it creates a risk factor, and what the risk factor says is that this officer, officer o'sullivan has a risk factor of x, which means that he has this probability of being involved in an adverse event within a future period. so for purposes of what the data scientist did there, they created a risk factor for an

officer -- each officer, whether he or she will be involved in an adverse event within a 12-month period. that triggers the alert, and that -- i can't speak to what they do at the front-line supervisoral level, but that's saying to the department there's a probability that o'sullivan is going to be involved in something, so sit down and have a conversation. what's going on in your life? what's going on in particular, how you're handling ourself on the street? if it has to do with use of force, let's look at your application of uses of force. systems like that actually look at not only the officer biographical information, they hook at geographical information as to where officers work within a particular municipality. within a city. and it looks at situational factors such as within a defined period of time what types of calls as an officer -- as he or

she responded to. i'm getting a little in the weeds now, but i'd like to take this opportunity to do that. what the data-driven research shows is that what is actually a very good prirkt of whether or not an officer is going to be involved in an adverse effect are the types of calls he or she experiences, and in particular they talk about exposure to -- responding to calls of attempted and repeated suicide, calls of crimes against children, sexual assault-related calls, domestic violence-related calls. those were all shown to have -- to be good predictors of future behavior. for myself, i think that the -- what shows as being promising is using a data-driven system. to your point, it gets rid of the subjectivity. it assigns a risk factor and

says here's the probability that this is going to happen. now there's a whole discussion that needs to take place as you get down into kind of the training that both you and commissioner taylor alluded to. i think it talks about how information like the data-driven system, when you know, if you were to come in to me and say, officer o'sullivan, you have the risk factor of being involved in x in the future, well, it might really kind of catch a person off guard to hear that. so that's the educational component of what this system is, what it really means. it doesn't predetermine that it's an absolute that you're going to be involved in this behavior, but what it means is the algorithms and machine learning and when we look at so many years of data, this is the prediction that we're looking at. we're just here to have a check-in saying you're working a lot of overtime, what's going

on. compared to your peer group, you've used an extraordinary amount of discretionary time off. is something going on in your life that would be causing you to do these things. >> i completely agree, and i also think that other categories need to be included when we analyze this data, because again, for example, one of the categories, the use of force, isn't comprehensive because, again, the use of force only covered instances where there's been a firearm -- there's been a shooting or the use of force results in pain or injury, right? it doesn't include all types of the use of force, meaning if there was a use of force that didn't result in pain or injury, that wouldn't always be included on this, and my other concern is, you know, especially charges where, you know, individuals are charged with a violation of penal code section 148, which is resisting arrest, i think that is also something that we as a

department need to look at because oftentimes when 148s are charged there's a lot more going on beneath the surface. that kind of data does also need to be captured. i have one more question and then i'll -- you know, i will allow my colleagues to ask their questions. you mentioned it a couple times, about how we've been on notice and how we are aware that mission station has a high number and that we -- this isn't an analytical review and that we shouldn't really look at it that way, but i think that it's problematic for us to accept that answer because if we've been on notice that this is a problem and we haven't delved into why, that's on us, and that's negligence on our part. and it's also alarming because when we look at the 96a report, it also shows us that the mission district station has a high number of searches and seizures and use of force.

so there has to be some reason or there has to be something going on. i mean, i can't -- you know, we can't just look at these things in a vacuum. and also too when we talk about culture changes, i mean, maybe this is the kind of data we need to look at to see, you know, is it a cultural thing? is it a station thing? what exactly is happening? because the example you just gave about, you know, encountering an officer and figuring out why these things are happening and why they are doing the things they are doing, i think it's incumbent upon us to also have the same kind of questions and, you know, the deep dive, as commissioner taylor loves to say, to that station. so, you know, again i thank you for your presentation and i appreciate it. i'm hoping that next time the presentation will encompass all of the things that all of the commissioners have asked for so that we can get a better understanding. so again, thank you, commander o'sullivan, and i always enjoy

speaking with you about numbers. >> thank you. >> yes, and i believe [indiscernible] so i do want to acknowledge, i asked for it and you gave me a much more detailed document, and i really appreciate that. the questions that we have, though, are important questions, and i look forward to you coming back. so i think -- so commissioner ham saki, are you yielding your time or not yielding your time? i think i'm confused. >> oh, no, i think i was observing. that's what commissioner elias was stifling herself from saying. >> okay, commissioner, you're next. >> let me begin. commander, o'sullivan, so i'm really glad to hear that you're a proponent of the data-driven model. i think a lot of my questions and my readings and my research in the last week, it seems like that is, you know, nothing's

perfect, but a clear and obvious improvement. is this under discussion? where are we at with this? because it seems like there's been -- and i actually reviewed some of the old commission meetings. the commissioner has been advocating for certain changes for a few years now that we have been on the commission. and i know others -- >> me too. don't forget me. >> who? >> i said me too. >> there were some concerns, and it caught commissioner elias. i'm senior you're in there somewhere. how do we -- >> no respect. >> it's like we have, we know the -- i mean, are you satisfied

with this system? do you think it's doing a good job of alerting us to potential at-risk behavior? >> i think it's doing a good job of alerting us to it. i think what we need to get at is improve upon our -- we need to take a deeper look at what it means to do an intervention, quite frankly. we talked about low numbers. and the reality is it's presented in both of the documents. there is a tremendous amount of counseling and attention being done by supervisors at primarily the district station level, because that's primarily [indiscernible]. so where you see the informal and the formal counseling, there's a lot of dialogue that is taking place and i think it warrants taking a deeper look at where any of those types of

counseling sessions and [indiscernible] might cross over and relate to behavior that we're looking at in our particular work. so i do have -- i just have concerns about the use of certain language within our current policy. you know, there's -- it's conclusionary in some way as to, you know, what the purpose of it is. you know, the literature that i've read more recently, it is about looking at the [indiscernible] purposes of, yes, the intervention, but somehow correcting the [indiscernible] something that may be a possibility, and i truly believe that a lot of that takes place at the district station level. i just think that the way it's being captured warrants a closer look and see if we can improve

upon that particular feedback. i think you have [indiscernible]. so i know that as as far back, it's recent, but two years ago is a pretty significant amount of time, 2017, the department started a partnership with university of chicago around data-driven systems. and that was because of the initiative that, you know, folks particularly in this office, commander walsh and others, had seen the literature about data-driven systems in other cities and said let's take a look at -- let's make the reach out. there was someone on the call intimately involved in that process, and the connections were made to bring them in to look at, you know, in our system and the possibilities of

creating a data-driven system, and for reasons that are, you know, complicated and maybe less so complicated, you know, that relationship relationship, you know, kind of came to a stop. and this conversation isn't so much about that particular reason, but it does get to the question of have we considered it. so two and a half years ago we were considering it. we've had vendors come in to the department and make presentations about data-driven systems. so yeah, it has been on everybody's mind, and you know, i mentioned the d.g.o. refresh plan. that's our opportunity as a working group to come together, and as part of that process, you know, it's obviously mandated in the refresh plan, but whether it is or it isn't, it's just good policy to look at what best practices are. so what's going to come out of

that is a recommendation among recommendations as to whether or not to use the data-driven system versus a threshold system. getting to that point is there's a lot between making the recommendation and getting there if that's the way that we're going to go, and it's time, it's money, it's contract purposes within, you know, the structure of city and all those things. i'll pause there. >> okay. i mean, i'm glad that we're all on the same page, that at least, you know, the literature, the study that show that data-driven systems are better than systems like this. in reviewing all of this, and i did look at the university of chicago report as part of my preparation, and there's so much subjectivity here. and it's not -- that's not saying, you know, the officers, the sergeant has a bad

influence, are trying to cover up for their officers. we all, as commissioner elias pointed out, we all have different views of things, and removing that subjectivity i think you create more confidence that i think in the community that there were addressing at-risk behavior before it ends up on the front page or, you know, in the "chronicle" or "examiner" or any of our other great local media outlets. let me ask this: has the department ever basically created a system for looking back? right? we've had, you know, all of the dplin cases we have. we have all of the scannedals that end up in the media. a lot happened around 2015, 2016. the system was in place at that point.

did we go back to say, okay, you know, here's racist scandal. were these people flagged by the system? here's an officer who [indiscernible] an individual, mario woods. do we look back at all of those officers and see whether anything in the e.i.s. system had flagged them? have we done that type of our own audit of this system? >> to my knowledge, no, but i -- i don't know if chief scott or sergeant youngblood want to weigh in if they have knowledge of that. i know that there was -- i believe there was a look when we looked at some of the officers involved in the texting scandal, with ewent back and looked at personnel files, but i have very limited knowledge about that. i don't want to put that in the context of looking at it in terms of e.i.s. alerts.

>> okay. >> commissioner, i can't add anything to that. i'm same as rob, but i know sergeant youngblood, if we can allow him, because he has a lot of insight being that he was the e.i.s. director or the person in charge for a while. stacy, if you can answer commissioner hamasaki's question, if that's okay, commissioner? >> absolutely. sergeant youngblood? >> so no, we did not. when i was at the e.i.s. from late 2015 until early last year, so the e.i.s. system was not used as a tool to go back and look at people's behavior. >> i'm not saying looking back to impose discipline, but to learn, to learn and say, okay, this is somebody -- it comes out

a lot of the time in the media that somebody who's involved in an act of violence and excessive use of force had previous incidents, right? and so i'm wondering if the e.i.s. system -- it sounds like this hasn't been done, but it would be a way to validate whether or not the system has, you know, a measurable determination or a way to measure whether or not it works, essentially, right? because it's hard to look back and say we know what we prevented, but we know what we didn't prevent. we know we didn't prevent the at-risk behaviors we all see in discipline cases or we all see in the media. so we know what we didn't prevent bs but it's hard to say what we did prevent because hopefully an intervention helps that, right? does that make sense?

>> yes, that makes sense. >> okay. then i think maybe, chief scott, as a department, is this something the data-driven system that you're on-board with as well and interested in pushing forward? >> yes, i am, and we have been exploring as commander o'sullivan pointed out those types of systems, but i totally am on board with that. >> okay. and i had a question that i think has come up before, but i couldn't find it in the commission meetings that i reviewed. so there's the -- if you're looking at page 6 of the 50-page report -- or around 50-page report, the associated baskets.

do you know, commander o'sullivan, these factors, are these associated factors actually used as a way of determining whether or not an officer would be showing risky behavior? some of them, and let me -- just, like, voluntary overtime worked. like, what would that show? is that a good thing or a bad thing? because i heard at the board of supervisors a lot of concern about all of the overtime that the department is wracking up. i guess some of the associated factors in addition to the factors commissioner elias identified as being insufficient, is associated factors seems like it would give, again, in the subjectivity and discretion of the reviewing sergeant, you could say, well, umm, you know, the officer had a

citizen compliment, factor number one. a letter, email or card complimenting a member of the service. and, like, how are those -- do you know, like, specifically how those are used? is that completely subjective by the reviewing sergeant? i don't know, can you give some insight? >> sure. i think it's well settled that there is a lot of subjectivity involved, and what these associated factors go towards is trying to create the fullest picture of an officer as possible when making an assessment as to whether or not some's at risk for engaging in events that we don't want them to engage in or to use force, for example, in inappropriate manner. so some of these associated

factors are more readily available to us as a department than others. you know, you asked about 10b, so overtime. that just on its face is not a bad thing. but it's something to look at because is the officer working an inordinate amount of overtime, and if he or she is, could that be a contributing factor to their performance? the bridge there being if you're working a tremendous amount, are you at the top of your game? are you as prepared as you possibly can be physically, emotionally and mentally when you come to work? so that's why something like that is looked at. our business intelligence theme, i think this might be the second time that i've mentioned it tonight, which resides over in the professional standards unit, has been working the last three or four months very, very closely with our e.i.s. unit to

determine whether or not the data that you see here as associated factors in the access to electronically. and if it can, to what extent? it's a good number, but not all of these associated factors are stored somewhere where they can be extracted electronically. the challenge comes, however, when you're trying to create a full picture, is whether all this data sits in the central repository. the aims system that i referenced earlier came on board in 2009, two years after the federal order was last revised. so the particulars of the policy and the procedures of the general order got out in front of the systems to support it. so given that we have a system in aim that can't accommodate all of these associated factors, we're looking for ways to get it

elsewhere, and thankfully, you know, we're very pleased that our business intelligence team can provide a lot of this information electronically. so we're starting to incorporate that over here on the e.i.s. side. >> okay, so then for each time there's an indicator, is there essentially like a file of some sort that's opened? and again, this is not -- i understand this is not discipline, but to track -- orcok, so we have this indicator. there's a use of force and then the sergeant reviews it and says here's the associated factors that i looked at. here's the other -- like as you were saying, the data, is this all recorded somewhere so, say, you know, an officer maybe has a few months that are kind of on the margins, right, but then there's a good six months.

maybe going through personal issues, you know, marital issues, a rough time on the job, and then it clears up again in a year, is that tracked over time so we can say, okay, well, here's somebody who when stress is particularly hard demonstrates risky behavior. >> it's tracked in terms of the supporting documents. so for example, the incident reports. of course there is a file created every time that, you know, there's an alert that's generated. that's stored within the aims system. the supporting documents, so if it's a use of force it will have the use of force log. you'll have the accompanied incident report. if there's an internal affairs investigation, the totality of the file doesn't get sent because there's confidentiality

reasons around that. a certain amount of information is sent. phone calls, the officer is instructed to call to see what additional information can be released. the totality of d.p.a. complaints are released. all of that information is provided to the supervisor who will be making an assessment. but we don't -- but commissioner, what we don't do, and and this is kind of part of the larger suggestion about that analytics component. you just asked the question is do we have -- i think, do we have something, do we have a file where we can go back and say, officer o'sullivan expressed stress for these reasons and then subsequently had this type of event. or he attributed it to this event. what we have is we've got the language that the sergeant puts on the tracking form, but we don't have a system that's

necessarily where you could do a search and say stress and output. that's what we don't have. >> and i don't want to go commissioner elias rs , and i'll pass this along in a minute, but we're doing a -- we're revising a department bulletin to update reportable uses of force. is this expectation or do you plan to incorporate the updated use of force reporting as indicated? >> the force will -- whatever gets adopted, i think you're discussing it this evening, whatever is determined to be a reportable use of force, that will be incorporated into our system. >> and then this -- you know, i

guess -- i'm a fan of external review. you know, i think that's what we do as a commission, and maybe it's gone -- the power has gone to my head or something, but has there ever been a situation -- is there a situation, commissioner elias is nodding vigorously, as is commissioner taylor, for the record, your honour, but you know, is there a way to open this up to say you could flag cases, randomized cases where there are indicators and have, say, d.p.a. review it or another outside auditor? i remember i think it might have been in the chicago report or another one that i was reading with having an external review or audit is a recommended practice. >> so this is where i'm going to ask sergeant youngblood to -- i've been told it's perth that

actually recommends that. >> okay. i would like sergeant youngblood is weigh in on that. he was involved in the look that the university of chicago did, and he can speak to, you know, the data that was provided to them. so they, in essence, did call it an audit, but they did a look at our system and drew conclusions in the report which, you know, i think is probably for some point probably within the d.g.o. refresh plan, but i think, stacy, you can speak to that. as far as outside entities, i'm not in a position to say, you know, whether we would do that or whether we can do that. the chief's on the call, and he can weigh in. >> i'm sorry, was that -- was

that sergeant youngblood supposed to address something there or did we change -- >> i addressed both parts of your question, i think, so whoever would like respond first. >> you want me to respond to the university of chicago data that we were collecting and sharing with university of chicago. >> yes. >> that specifically we -- university of chicago wanted to share pretty much everything we could on officers that was not only tracked within the aim system, which includes vehicle pursuits, on-duty accidents, complaints, use of force. they wanted us to go a little bit beyond and gather data such as from hr. so we were looking at officers' sick time, secondary employment, looking at how much -- we pulled from a lot of data that we pulled in from was stuff that

was during the time when we had the d.o.j. recommendations come out. so the department was starting in the middle of collecting a lot more data than we were before. so the data that the university of chicago was asking for, a lot of this was not available as far back as they would have liked. they needed, like, at least a three to five-year period where they can go forward and go back, because they basically judge that entire -- the whole methodology on if there was an adverse incident, and they judge an adverse incident on an officer having an i.a. complaint where there was a negative outcome on the investigation. but in order to judge that, sometimes the data that we gave them, a final disposition had not been given for that i.a. complaint, so the data was a little bit incomplete on that university of chicago report on what they were trying to report our data was capable of doing. so they basically wanted us to go for another year or two of

collecting data and fine tuning this, but the grant they procured ran out, so they kind of ran out of money on the project and their team kind of disbanded. >> understood. thank you, sergeant youngblood. chief, did you have a follow-up? >> yes, i was going to -- and i want to make sure i understand your question about the intervention outside of the department. so not intervention review. of indicators, right? basically the review is done within the e.i.s. system, through the sergeant, through the e.i.s., p.i.p. and so forth. you know, having an outside review of that, so somebody who gets flagged essential. >> has not come up in terms of our discussion points. i know -- i mean, we'd have to look at what information we're

actually allowed to be reviewed, whether that would violate anything in terms of personnel records, but as this system is supposed to be, as you stated, commissioner, non-punitive and a review of patterns of behavior, it's something that we definitely can look at and see if that's a feasible idea. there has to be some consideration as to what's being reviewed and who's reviewing it. we're definitely willing to take a look at it and get back to the commission. >> i still like the data-driven model and i'll leave with that, and i really hope that -- it sounds like everybody here is on the same team on this, and so if we can move forward, i think it would be -- it would restore a lot of confidence of the commission, and it sounds like of the command staff as well and the system. so thank you. >> thank you. >> i think -- before i go to

director anderson, chief, i do have a question for you because i'm reminded, at the beginning of the report there is a reminder that this is not designed to detect bias, and it kind of jogged in my memory that, you know, just recently the p.o.a., the san francisco p.o.a. issued a letter apparently with some other police office commission, committing to rooting out bias. to my knowledge, there's been no action on behalf of the p.o.a. to root out bias in the department. i'm wondering, chief, have you heard anything from the p.o.a. as to how they plan -- they made this commitment, right? so how they plan to fulfill that commitment? >> not at this point, i have not heard how they plan to fulfill that commitment, commissioner. >> that letter was a few weeks ago, i think, and i just had not

heard anything. >> not at this point, and i will keep the commission updated on that. >> okay, great, thank you. director henderson? >> sorry, i had to unmute myself. i will raise it back up to a higher level. i don't want to get too much in the minutia with the presentation, other than to re-identify again why i think we need to shift away and focus on the threshold system. because anything else that you do is never going to capture a lot of the data implications that deal with the systematic problem that i think we have with rates disparity. it also for me, as i look at the report and as we've talked about this ad nauseam over the years, it doesn't capture, you know, the threshold system doesn't capture proportionality for use

of force and also doesn't capture force justifications or analysis. that's really an important issue, especially if we want to expand, and we have the opportunity like we may have in the very near future to be collecting more data about use of force. that has to be on the table because i think that's a solution that we're all looking for, capturing both real-time data and having data analysis. i think it's really important that we remove the subjectivity element of this approach, and i think you only get there with data-driven systems, and the things you were talking about before, like commander o'sullivan you were talking about factors when folks are working overtime and what that means. you really don't get to address things like that without having more in-depth analysis, and i think you need data to have that kind of analysis, and so having

something that looks at creating risk factors that's both individual and race neutral i think is mandatory. anything else is a perpetuation and a waste of our time. the restrictions that we have articulated tonight in this conversation about the time necessary for a shift to a data-driven system, about the money associated with a data-driven system, about the contract complications with a data-driven system, are never gonna be justifications or an excuse to perpetuate a system that fails our vulnerable communities and doesn't -- and results in a system that has race disparities in it, and i appreciate the nuances in the woods and the weeds of how the system has failed us in the past and how the system isn't serving our interests right now as a community, but i can't urge the

commission and the department enough about the necessity to -- rather than to continually beat this dead horse to try and wring some truth or validity out of it without the proper collection of data and without the proper implementation of analysis, i don't think we're ever going to get anywhere, and we just need to accept that right now moving forward we -- the problems that we have or the limitations that we have with data-driven systems, those have to be accepted. that's what we must do, i think, as a city, as a department and as commission. so that's -- >> i think we all want the data-driven system. i think even the command staff wants it. it's part of the -- i keep adding [indiscernible] but when you come back to present to the commission, i guess i need to understand the conversations with [indiscernible] if it's money, i need to see the

comparison. like, if we're talking about if it's time. i think we all know this needs to happen, and so i need to understand more about why it hasn't and what the impediments are. and if it's going to happen, i want to see a timeline for when that will be. commissioner brookter. >> thank you. i really appreciate the discussion and dialogue from all of the commissioners, director henderson. i think the biggest thing for me, when i think about any sort of a data system, and thank you, commander o'sullivan, all 75 pages. lots of data and information in there. i think commissioner elias -- but the one thing that really stood out to me as the crux of what are the outcomes. i think whenever we have any sort of a data system, there have to be outcomes that come with it, and so that's just what i didn't see and what i don't feel. i even think with the system that we currently have, there's a couple of things that really stood out to me.

when we're looking at the fourth quarter for indicators, just looking at the use of force, that was the highest indicator across the department, right? that's something to look at. that's something to sit back and say how do we look at the d.g.o., how do we look at the department bulletins that we have? i was also thinking about looking at the powerpoint presentation and talking about in 2019 we saw that the mission station had the highest number of e.i.s. alerts. that didn't trigger an alert for us to look at the station, what's the culture, what's going on, what types of indicators are coming from that station, and why is that going on? is it because we're sending brand new folks from the academy to the mission? there need to be outcomes with the data and information that we're receiving versus just being able to look at data year upon year, whether it's subjective or objective.

it's about what are we doing with that data. i think one of the things i was thinking about this morning is really breaking it down to grade school. when we were in grade school, everybody got a report card, and we're getting a lot of fancy reports, but you got a progress report along the way. if i knew in that first quarter i was not doing well with math class, i need to go get a math tutor. i needed to study harder in math because my english and history are doing well. and that to me is how we need to utilize data in the most simplest form to help really inform the entire department and the entire system versus even looking at just individuals. because some of those things are just more alarming to me, as commissioner elias pointed out, the mission station, and looking at central station around use of force. those, like, were eye-popping, to be able to have some discussions and conversations, look at the individuals that we have there to really tighten up and make the department itself better while we look at any system that i think we're going to have. i just wanted to kind of pinpoint that just in terms of

what i saw and what i don't see. >> thank you. commissioner dejesus? >> okay, so you know, i actually want to jump a little bit because, you know, in 2008 when first talked about this, they mentioned san francisco, we have a very narrow and limited criteria. it's just two. use of force and the complaints from the d.p.a. that was it, right? and the associated factors were huge, and those were very important once. when commissioner elias was asking about out of the 53 alerts that the sergeant reviewed, only one was counseled, part of that is because we don't capture the associated factors. that sergeant didn't have an opportunity to look at if there was 148, 242s or court or anything like that because we're

just starting now to gather it. 12 years after we were criticized, we are just now trying to find a way to gather the information, even though the press is able to gather it. that's why we were able to tell us the use of force in the black community and latino community is high. so we just haven't implemented what we have, and we could talk about, yeah, the data-driven, and i also am a proponent of that, but i didn't see it in the budget. that's a two-year budget we proposed. i didn't see $500,000 for an e.i.s. system on a data-driven basis. so really, until we -- until we can make that a reality, we have to work with what we have, and it's so disappointing that 12 years later we're just now starting to realize, you know, that one indicator, that one indicator should have been followed up with anything in the associated factors. we should have had a file already with associated factors going back five years. we've had this in place for 13

years, so the idea that the university of chicago was saying we need more data and we didn't have it because we don't capture it just shows that we don't care about this system. we don't value it. we don't -- there's no leadership here. this has fallen by the wayside so many times. every time there's a criticism, we pull it out and say we have a system. it's pulled out now, and it's a system that doesn't work. it's a system that hasn't been utilized correctly, and it's a system that's based on subjectivity, but you can use other factors to make that decision and those are the associated factors, and we have no way to capture that. so that's disappointing. when i look at this report, for years when i see these reports, i'm very confused, and i think the public is very confused, because even though you put all r calls for service in that are

higher in some districts and not in others, or part one crimes that are higher in other districts and stuff, there's no correlation between -- and as you said that, there's no correlation between calls for service with a part one crime, but what comes out is making excuses for the mission district, the tenderloin district and the central district as to perhaps why they might have more alerts, but we don't know that, and until we capture the data, we'll never know that. and i don't want to make excuses. if we can't correlate calls for service and we can't do part one clients, it shouldn't be in this report. it's very confusing, and it just sounds like excuses to let off certain districts. those districts have a high amount of alerts, and until we can actually capture data and say why, we shouldn't be speculating and we shouldn't try to make excuses for those [indiscernible]. going back to the money, you talk about lack of national

standards [indiscernible] that's what we got to work with. >> you're cutting out for me. can everyone else hear her? yeah, you're cutting out. >> sorry. so what i was getting at is we have to work with what we have, and no one has put any real -- no one has paid attention to this. nobody wanted this to succeed. no one stayed with it. no one owns it. no one gets it done, and i just can't tell you how disappointed i am that maybe now we should capture the associated factors. i don't know how you make good determination on any officer that has an alert without looking at the whole picture that captures the data that we're willing to capture or that we're supposed to capture by your general order. i am extremely disappointed in that. >> -- about the associated

factors, commander? >> i am getting a little bit of interference on my side. >> i am too all of a sudden. petra, i'm going to ask you to mute only because it started with you. i don't know if that will fix the problem, but i will mute myself too. >> petra, if you have i think both on, like a tv in the . . . >> [indiscernible]. >> can you try muting yourself?

>> i did mute myself. >> it is commissioner dejesus. it's the system, it may be an internet issue. sometimes it happens with feedback we have. >> multiple -- yeah. >> because you're watching it and participating in it? that's why? >> [indiscernible]. >> do you want to mute while commander o'sullivan answers and then we can go back if you have more questions? >> okay, go ahead. >> okay. so that's better. so we are tracking some of the associated factors. there are some that we're not tracking. so the department awards, we can

track those. citations by officer, that's a good example of what we are now able to get out of our officer dashboard through our business intelligence team. the sergeant who was in the position of sergeant youngblood previously has worked with the business intelligence team. we now have the ability to go in and put any member of the department, find out how many uses of force that individual has been involved in over a collective period of time, how many citations he or she has made, how many arrests that officer has made over a pre-selected period of time. so while there are things that most certainly weren't tracked, i'm just going to generalize it, i don't have that -- sort of that institutional knowledge about it, but i do know that there were a number of things that weren't tracked previously. maybe the better way to put that is they were tracked but they

weren't easily accessible. you know, there's -- what the department is -- my opinion, my observation, the last handful of years, we've come a long way in terms of centralizing our data. you know, we've had over the years we've had disparate record management systems, and now those standalone systems still exist in some places, but the business intelligence team has worked over the last year, year and a half, i suppose, to bring the data from those systems in to a central repository. so i guess in summary there are associated factors that we have been tracking, and there are those that we now have the ability to track and make readily available so that they can be used in the assessments that the sergeant are doing at the district level and the unit level. >> can you go through -- i'm looking at page 6. can you go through and tell us which ones you're able to track, which ones you'll be able to start tracking, and if you can start tracking, can you start

tracking them historically, can you go back? >> [indiscernible]. >> so a little bit of interference there. i'm just -- the main report, i'll go through the associated factors starting from the left down at the bottom. citizen compliments, we track those. department awards, we track those. arrests by officers are now in the business intelligence system. citations by officers, similarly are now trackable through b.i. the reports by officers, we've -- for the longest period of time we had the ability to pull reports. the data warehouse goes back, gosh, at least probably eight or ten years and does afford us that opportunity, ability to do so electronically. vehicle stops, i am going to have to profess that i'm not --

i don't have an answer for you with regards to that. there's e-stops, and then i know that we've, as a consequence of some state-wide legislation, what, maybe a year or two ago, there's the system where whenever they -- an officer makes a vehicle stop, and a pedestrian stop, for that matter, he or she has to make an entry. i most definitely can follow up on whether the b.i. team can tap into that system. pedestrian stops, as i just spoke about that. training history. this is a big deal. this actually ties in to one of our c.r.i.s, 6.2, i believe it was, which called for the automation of all our training records. and that has been accomplished. all those training records now can be incorporated into the business intelligence record, and just today i was with sergeant naval.

we were looking at various officers in a profile report we're able to pull how many training hours a particular member has had over a period of time. we certainly can get more granular than that and look at it does provide what that training is. voluntary overtime work, that's -- we now have the ability -- we've always had the ability since we've had h.r. management, our human resource management system, to go in there and actually do searches through h.r. mess, but that data is now being pulled from h.r. mess into the business and into the business intelligence repository. so again, we did a search on me, all that data would show up in my profile. it would show how much overtime i've worked over a selected period of time. similarly, it's discretionary time off. so we have ways, as you might expect, of categorizing the

different uses of time. commissioner hamasaki talked about the 10b, which is obviously an overtime. sd is an acronym -- s.p., it's for sick pay. if someone were to leave for maternal or paternal leave or to take care of an elderly parent or a sick child. participant in critical incident. this is -- i'm not so sure that it's necessarily -- we're able to pull it into business intelligence just yet. i'll follow up on that. we certainly know when somebody's been involved in an officer-involved shooting or in-custody death or an officer discharge. we listed that in some of the -- demonstrated that in some of the slides that i showed. here's kind of -- and this goes

to what commissioner dejesus was talking about, and i know that, commissioner, you brought this up when we had our quarterly meeting just a couple of weeks ago, i think it was. and it has to do with the 148 pc, the charges of resisting, delaying, interfering with a police officer, as well as charges of assault on an officer in criminal cases dismissed. i think those prove to be a little bit more challenging for the department, and i'm optimistic because that we will have -- i'm not going to commit to it because i don't have enough information to do that, but i think based on what we've been able to do with business intelligence around some of these other associated factors, that gives me confidence that we will somehow find a way to bring some of this information in to the b.i. field, but that's going to require more follow-up on my

part in the team here for e.i.s. and continue those discussions with the business intelligence team. and part of that, i just -- i guess to provide some context about that, when we talk about criminal cases dismissed, it kind of gets to -- i referenced some of the c.r.i.s, within some of those recommendations we're asked to look at how we obtain and track and assess arrest data. when you're not the custodian of those records, it can become problematic, and so we're talking about cases, criminal cases dismissed, that's obviously a function of the district attorney's office. so the look that needs to take place is how do we take that information and incorporate it, if it doesn't already reside somewhere. i kind of want to put that caveat out there. if it doesn't already reside somewhere, how do we get it over into a system, and if it is in

one of our systems, you know, the follow-up is how do we get it into business intelligence, so for purposes of b.i.s., that sergeant naval and the others here, when they are pulling the data, the information to then send to the district station level supervisor, it's one-stop shop. >> [indiscernible]. >> [indiscernible] charges of resisting an officer? >> i don't think you missed -- maybe i just didn't mention it. so the bottom three in the right column, criminal cases dismissed, charges of assault on an officer and charges of resisting an officer. i think the follow-up, commissioner, will be to see if the business intelligence team has a way to actually go in,

look for particular charges, and then bring that in to the profile of a particular officer. i'm optimistic that we can. i'm sorry for interrupting you, but one of the profiles that i saw today where, for example, you could search the last however many incidents rob o'sullivan was involved in, some of the data within there were the associated charges if an arrest was made. so the question becomes how do we extract a 243, a 245 so that it shows up in a profile. >> okay. commissioner dejesus, hopefully the technology is -- >> thank you [indiscernible]. >> we still can't hear you. >> how about now? >> it sounds like you're in a fish tank. >> everything is off. there's nothing on here [indiscernible]. >> it's more like a robot.

>> did you turn off the sf gov tv? >> i have nothing on [indiscernible] there's nothing on in my house except for lights. [indiscernible] so i don't know, you can't hear me at all? >> i mean, it sounds like you're under water. to me. >> [indiscernible] slowly can you hear me okay? [indiscernible]. >> okay. >> [indiscernible]. >> would it be easier for you to put your question in the chat and someone else can ask it? >> no, [indiscernible]. >> everyone hears the same

thing, yeah. >> [indiscernible]. >> will they be able to recognize -- >> yes, i can put her in. >> can you put the number in the chat box there, stacy? >> vice-president taylor, while commissioner dejesus is calling in, i'd like to answer a question that you asked earlier about the p.o.a. there is a meeting scheduled for the 21st of this month where the p.o.a. will present its proposal to the department, so i will keep the commission updated on that. >> great. i can't wait to hear it. >> thank you. >> while commissioner dejesus is

calling in, can i ask a quick question out of turn? >> sure, go ahead. >> so my question is for the chief. chief, you know, commissioner dejesus mentioned something, and my question is: why wasn't this data-driven system included in the police department's budget? i know you presented the budget to the board of supervisors today, and i'm sure that they would have been happy to hear that this system that isn't working is being transformed so that it can produce results that would be beneficial to the department and the community. so why wasn't it included in the budget or presented to the board of supervisors? or to even us? you're muted, chief. >> so we have explored vendors that we believe offer data-driven systems that work for the department, and i know

director henderson has mentioned one of those vendors. we have contracts, as you all know, procurement rules with the city and county. one of the things that we're trying to determine from the office of contracts, administration o.t.a. is whether or not this vendor will qualify for sole-source approval. that streamlines the process greatly. [indiscernible] only vendors that can offer the service to the county and city. that is in the process right now. we understand that we are talking about probably half a million dollars, so it's not a small cost. that's a ballpark figure, and then there are ongoing costs. we don't know what the data migration piece is going to look like. we don't know what the ongoing costs may look like. there may be yearly costs for data conversion, data migration, so we do have enough information to move this forward. we just weren't ready to put it

in a budget because there are rules that we have to follow in terms of contracts, and we have to make sure that we are compliant with the city rules on that. so we are doing work on it. we have taken a look at vendors. at least one vendor out there that we know of that we believe will hit the mark on what we're looking for, and we are doing what we can to expedite that process. >> no, and i understand that there are all these rules and government contracts that you have to adhere to, but i believe that when you do propose budget, you can allocate some money towards it or give an estimated cost, which wasn't even included in the budget that was presented to us or the board of supervisors. >> yes. most of the time, commissioner, we have to have more solid information at least to know what the costs might be, and

particularly this budget year because things are so tight. to answer your question, we're proceeding with that. it's probably not going to get into this budget proposal, but we will definitely work with what we need to work with within the rules. because that's information that needs to be vetted out in terms of following the procurement procedures. >> is that you, petra? >> yeah, can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay. go. >> go ahead. >> i just wanted to say i do appreciate the people who really are working on this now. i am disappointed all these years that it's fallen by the wayside. there's a whole year where it didn't even meet, didn't even come in front of us. so i want to give a little history to the new members. i sat on this c.g.o. in 2008, and there was heavy opposition from the p.o.a. i think half their board of directors, if not all their

board of directors, sat in on the working committee, and they really opposed at the time one of the best practices was to have 148, 242 and 245 in the indicators, not in the associated factors, but in the indicators. and a deal was struck, and they put them in the associated factors. i think we really should consider if we're going to keep working with this, until we move to a different system, that we consider amending this d.g.o. and putting the 148, 4242, 245 in the indicator system, you know, so that the time that was the best practice and i think that is instead of the use of force, which is finding new officers when they can't handle thing, they charge a lot of 148s. there's a lot of dialogue on that, and something we should consider. the second thing is i am disappointed the way this is. it just can't -- they just can't be having 80, 90, 100 hits and

maybe one person counselled. there's something going on with this picture, and not having captured all the data, maybe that's why. i think we should actually consider putting some type of time frame on whether this thing is, you know, we turn this thing around. and if not, we might want to invite, you know, if the election changes, our federal government, we might want to invite a federal pattern and practice consensus to come in and help with our e.i.s., or any alternatives, work with the attorney general to take this over. because it's such an important program, and it's just something that has not been done for years and years, and i don't know really what's going to make it turn around and change. so those are my two suggestions, that we amend the d.g.o. and put some type of time frame and consider putting this in some type of consent review. >> you and i chairing the group, so we will be amending that

d.g.o. >> okay. that's it. i'm done. thanks. >> okay, commissioner hamasaki? >> yeah, i mean, so i'm -- a question i had flagged before and i forgot to ask: looking at page 4 of the 50-page report and step five, the last sentence, the last sentence in parentheses under step five, after the performance review is forwarded to the e.i.s. for review, what happens, and it says the department bulletin is being authored to address further review and appeals by members. and i didn't -- i couldn't understand what that would be,

and i'm hoping that commander sullivan or the chief can explain why there would be further review. because there's already, like, seven steps of review which, you know, the case can be kicked out. what other steps and appeals are needed? >> so, commissioner, the bulletin is the response to the acknowledgement that up until recently there was only one level of review, which was the e.i.s., here within the e.i.s. unit, that it sat with the e.i.s. sergeant. so when we met after the quarterly presentation in december, we made the decision to incorporate internally here that the e.i.s. sergeant confer with the lieutenant if there's a discrepancy between what the

e.i.s. sergeant sees and what the sergeant sees at the district station or unit level. >> and what would be the appeal? who appeals what? >> so if the sergeant at the station says i don't see that there's a pattern of at-risk behavior and that the e.i.s. sergeant does see that, the department bulletin would essentially kick it to the lieutenant in the process, the lieutenant of the lael legal division so that he, in this case he would make the determination to proceed with the assessment or -- excuse me. whether or not to start an intervention process. >> after this long discussion on this and all of the issues and subjectivity, why are we going

to add another layer of review and appeals into it? is that -- is there something -- do we get -- i can't imagine why we would -- like, we got one for 2019, and i'd love to say that that's an indication that we're the greatest department that ever walked the planet and we have no problems, but it seems more likely that all of these problems identified tonight are why we only had one intervention out of all of that. >> so again, it's simply an attempt to address the situation that within the e.i.s. unit we go beyond just the review process being handled by the e.i.s. sergeant. it goes to the lieutenant. so i think that, you know, if you're of the opinion that we

shouldn't have that particular level of review, that additional level of review there, i mean, there's -- as commissioner taylor alluded to, we've got the working group. now's the time the re-write -- not that it couldn't happen before hand, but now is the opportunity to re-write and adjust the general work. >> yeah, i guess, the deputy bulletin is amending. i don't know why this would be the one area of all of the areas raised that the use of force, of the different categories, of the indicators that we need to add another level of review before doing an intervention. that seems -- that seems a step backwards to me, right? i would want to see a department bulletin adding in the use of force, issues identified by commissioner elias, dejesus and taylor. >> thank you. thank you so much for acknowledging that. >> and brookter. honestly, i think everybody did

their homework this week, and you know, it's a good thing. myself included. so it seems unusual, but let me ask you this: what was the one case? like, what was it -- what triggered it? completely anonymised, nothing about -- just the general use of force, didn't show up to court? >> well, i can dig through here -- i can tell you what the outcome is. it was a time management issue. so if the supervisors created a plan to improve the time management of this particular officer. >> somebody showing up late to work a few times too often. okay. >> perhaps. >> sounds like there's a lot of work to do. thank you. i'm good. >> okay.

i think we're actually out of commissioner questions, which is great. unfortunately i will be asking you to come back, and i'll work with the commission staff to schedule a time for you to do so to try to answer some of the questions that we asked tonight. but thank you very much, and we do appreciate the work that went into this, but you know, miles to go before we sleep. >> thank you, and thank you for that acknowledgement. i just want to thank the staff here that, you know, sergeant naval and lieutenant cox and the analysts who have been working here, have put a lot of effort into that. >> yes, i can see that. so thank you very much. >> with that, we acknowledge in this discussion it's pointed out that changes are coming. >> thank you. >> yep. thanks. >> okay. next line item. >> line item 2b [indiscernible]

limited to a brief description of d.p.a. activities and analysis. discrimination will be limited to determining [indiscernible] commission report [indiscernibl [indiscernible]. ready? >> yes. >> all right, so in terms of where we are in terms of statistics, we are at 451 cases that have been opened so far this year. this time last year we were at 374. our case closure is higher still at 482 cases that we've closed so far this year. this time last year we were at 339, so there's a big jump in terms of those numbers of cases that have been closed. in terms of sustained cases, we are at 20 cases that have been sustained so far this year.

at this time last year we were at 39 for cases that we have open investigations still passed nine-month period, it's at 33. this time last year we were at 18. in terms of cases that have been mediated, we're at 21. this time last year we were at 24 cases that we had mediated this year, and this week we opened up eight more new cases. in terms of the mediation, you have those numbers. we've talked about the stuff that's on the website already. in terms of the outreach, this is new. we're starting to put our new calendar so people can more readily see the outreach that the department does on the website. i believe it's already up in the website, but i don't know if it's been populated so far.

we're continuing with the intern program, and we've expanded the intern program. i think the last time when i was talking about it i said that we had 70 interns. that was a -- i misspoke. i got a lot of emails about that, so we're wondering what we did with 70 interns. what i meant to say was our five interns are participating in the agency, but for the speaker series, i've opened up the program, and so we work, and the interns from both the public defender's office and the district attorney's office are allowed to participate in my speakers series so they see the speakers that come in and ask questions and do the training that we have for our interns, and that number is up to 70. and that includes the opportunities for all program that we're using with our interns so that folks are

getting paid. i think that's it. that's just my brief summary. >> okay. commissioner elias? >> thank you. there's a couple requests that i have for you, director henderson. >> yes. >> every week you report to us on the number of cases opened and closed and the sustained cases. but i think you should start providing the commission and the public with the number of cases that are with the chief and the number of disciplinary cases that are with the commission so that the public has a better understanding of how many cases are being brought before either the chief or the commission for discipline, because the number of cases opened and investigated is rather large. and then when we look at the sustained cases, that whittles down to 20, and just like the

previous speaker, you know, you have to give us all the numbers and put them into context. so i think that those are very important numbers for us to look at. so i'm going to ask you to start including those, because those are very important. i know that some of that information is provided in your yearly report, but it's not even complete because my understanding is that you are missing information from the department, so you're not even able to track all the information. which brings me to my second request, which is, there have been instances and several examples where [indiscernible] is not having access to records, and records that, according to you, you're entitled to but are not being provided. so you need to inform the commission of the records that you are not being provided and who is not providing these records, because we need more transparency, because we have no

idea what records you have or don't have, what records you're entitled to or not entitled to, although we do have some idea about that. but unless you're reporting to this us, which is i think important information for the commission to know, we have no idea, and we also need to figure out if people aren't giving you the data you need in order to do your job so that we have the correct information as a commission, then we need to be notified of that. so you know, i need to -- i think we should have, you know, a monthly report of documents that you're missing or believe you're entitled to and why you don't have them and who's not giving them to you. >> yeah, i second that, and i want to ask, before the monthly report, director henderson, if you could write a letter to the commission listing the categories of documents that you don't receive and the basis for which you're supposed to receive them. if you're entitled to get them under x, let us know. that way we can follow along and kind of make things happen if they need to happen. >> thank you. we already started preparing

exactly that document. i think commissioner hamasaki had asked us to start preparing that if it wasn't last week it was the week before that, so we've already started to document that, and just to quantify some of the stuff that we're talking about, and i'm not going to go into detail now because i can report something in the future, some of the issues are basically fitting in two categories, things that we regularly have access to but getting access to it is an arduous task that we have to go through each time with making a request and then back and forth and then if we don't get it we have to ask again and then it goes to a second person. >> but we need to know that. >> that's what i'm saying. i'm justify quantifying what the different categories are, and then there's the stuff we feel we should have access to but it's been limited or eliminated from us. so it will all be in there. >> a letter would be great for us to actually look at it and -- and also if you're entitled to

it, show us where. just so we can have all that information. okay, sorry. commissioner elias, continue. >> well, and it may not -- i mean, it may have to be a revolving document, not just a letter but something that we can track and see where we are so that we can continually monitor it. i don't think that it's going to be something, you know, you give us a letter and they are all going to miraculously turn over documents that you want, right? >> that would be great. >> right. the other thing that i wanted to ask you is that i received an order from judge shulman attached to an exhibit, and it lax like it's a case -- looks like it's a case involving the d.p.a. and p.o.a. that happened a couple of months ago, and i want to know why we weren't notified of this case that appeared before the superior court. >> well, as you are aware, we are not allowed to represent

ourselves when things go to superior court. and so it involves something with the city attorney's office, i'm presuming. >> well, even though you're not allowed to represent ourself, you're still allowed to let us know that you're involved in some sort of court proceeding. i think that's important information for us to know. >> i don't disagree with you. >> the commission staff to circulate that case? i don't know what you're talking about, commissioner elias. can someone circulate to all the commissioners? >> it's an order granting an ex parte application is what i received attached to an exhibit. but my point being is that if instances like this occur in the future, fwen, that information -- we need more transparency and we need to know that, and that's something that i think you should be reporting to us when you report the numbers on cases. i mean, that's critical information, right? >> it is, and oftentimes that may relate to ongoing investigations, and so if in

fact it is related to an ongoing investigation, it's information that will get presented ultimately to the commission anyway. i don't know exactly what that specific case was, but i presume that it's related to an ongoing investigation that we're working on and the information is going to get presented to you. >> is this about not granting you access to interviews to people? >> i'm not sure. i just didn't want to -- i don't know what it is. >> okay. >> offhand, i don't know which one it is. >> okay, let us know. i've heard a little bit about that, the p.o.a. trying to prevent you guys from completing your investigations by not granting you access to interviews. i'd like to know. >> we ask you how your investigations were going during this covid crisis, and your response was there wasn't a problem. when in fact there may have been a problem, and granted we may not need to know the specifics if it's tied to an

investigation, but the mere fact that there's a court case involving d.p.a., which is an agency that we are responsible for, then yes, we do have a right to know. so you know . . . i'd like to have information on that. the other thing that i wanted to talk about and, you know, i've asked several times for a report on the bias training your investigators receive to identify and investigate bias cases. again, when i look at the 96a report and there's only one bias complaint from d.p.a., i want to make sure your agency is trained properly to identify these kinds of cases. i think we should have a presentation on the training that you give your staff to identify these cases and how you track them. and in conjunction with the status of the dante king

investigation. i think both myself and commissioner hamasaki has also asked for an update as to what d.p.a. is doing and how it's going based on commissioner hersh's directive to have you investigate this. so you know, that's another thing that i wanted to bring up. >> yeah, that had been calendared for this week or next week. the issue is whether or not it's going to be in closed session or open session, and right now we're trying to have it in open session, and so i think d.p.a. just needs some time to prepare for that. but it's going to be coming up. >> okay, and also again, i again, i want an update on the -- report, and i'm going to ask that again. i think that it's -- d.p.a. has been investigating, but they've been stonewalled and not been provided information, so if that's the case, we need to know about that. so you know, let us know, and the public has a right to know, because it looks like, you know,

you've had this case for a year and if there's issues, then, you know, people need to know. and so those are my questions, director henderson, and i want to thank you for your time. >> thank you. many of those things are in progress already, but thank you and i will get back to you and respond on all of these issues. >> commissioner dejesus, is that you asking to be heard? i can't quite tell. in the chat? >> no, i'm not asking to be heard. thank you. >> okay. commissioner hamasaki? >> yes. so you know, i think commissioner elias actually covered the areas i was going to go into. b but, you know, i think asking for the report from you a few weeks ago, commissioner elias's questions tonight. the commission is also the

oversight agency for d.p.a., and we want to ensure -- like, d.p.a., as we discussed earlier, has invested with a lot of authority, and we expect you to use that authority to its fullest to ensure that all of the duties under the charter are being performed, because you know, really, your role is a role for public safety, right? and if you're not getting it done because hurdles are put up in your place, or there are other issues that arise, we need to know about it so we can either mediate between you and the department or -- whatever ways we can use our role and our power on this commission to make sure that you are able to effect your duties through d.p.a.

i think the point of commissioner elias and myself and the others have spoken is really -- >> pathetic. >> really focused on us now appropriately so, and i think that applies to all of us. and so moving forward, i think you're going to be expecting a lot more of these questions asked. >> i would just add to commissioner elias's request. not only the training, but i'd like to see, like, what policy documents kind of govern what you guys do. i think that would be helpful for us to know, the commission, talk about policies of the department, but also the policies that govern the d.p.a., policies that govern d.p.a. okay. >> and just so you know, i think that -- i think that you did request it, but i want to make

sure, commissioner taylor, that the order granting the ex parte application for the restraining order that i received, it was attached to a motion that i received, and i would ask that that exhibit be distributed to the commission. >> absolutely, yes. >> it is regarding the case that you identified earlier, commissioner taylor, about the officers -- the p.o.a. not wanting to have its officers come to d.p.a. for [indiscernible]. >> yeah, i definitely -- >> that's the exhibit that was attached to the motion that was submitted to me for review said. so it was confusing to me because i had no idea that in fact d.p.a. was being -- there was any court case involving d.p.a. or the p.o.a. >> yeah, that is exactly what i'm asking for, so yes, it should be distributed to the full commission. okay, next line item.

>>. i think you're muted. >> 2c, commission report. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. [indiscernibl [indiscernible]. >> i'm going to try to be brief because it's already 9:22, so i'm going to let my other commissioners speak. >> no, wrong one. [laughter] next. >> okay. i don't see any hands. next line item? >> hang on, hang on. there's one. >> oh. >> oh, this is reports. sorry, i thought this was agenda items. never mind. >> next line item. >> i just made that mistake. didn't you watch me? >> 2d, commissioner announcements and schedules of items identified for

consideration at [indiscernible]. >> okay. commissioner elias, did you have something? >> yes. so my first request is the bias training, but you said that that's going to be on, so we'll scratch that. my second is i would like an update from the chief regarding the docureport and where we are. i know it's an ongoing investigation. i'm not asking for the specification of the investigation. what i'm asking for is a status, and i think that should be presented to the commission. >> do you mean d.p.a.? >> i meant both. i know d.p.a. is investigating, but also the chief is also conducting an investigation, or the department is conducting an investigation. so i think we need to hear from the chief as to what, you know, is being done, where we are with that investigation. and that outside agency is handling it, if sfpd is handling it, because it's my understanding that it's a dual

investigation, and if i'm incorrect, then one of them needs to correct me. >> does someone have a correction? >> no. >> okay. commissioner hamasaki, did you have something? >> i realized that we haven't heard from the youth commission since we've been back, and i know that that -- >> oh, that's a great idea. >> you know, i was -- it's been great to have them. i know everything got, you know, during shelter in place, but lots going on and a lot's going on that impact the youth of the city. the incident we started out with was -- i mean, it's been so -- i'd love to hear from them if we can work to agendaize them, if their availability, that would be great. >> that's a great idea.

>> thank you. >> this is petra. i want to add something. >> okay. >> all right, so i really think we should at some point put on the agenda that we can talk about the issue that came up on the meet and confer on the d.g.o.s, and perhaps we can prioritize, like, sending -- prioritize our -- what we want, like in terms of -- like, sending fewer d.g.o.s to meet and confer, maybe putting a short period of time on it. you know, something that gives great transparency and tracking, and you know, with it -- and really try to delve out what the understanding of is what's managerial rights so that we can have at least some control of the process with the overall goal of reducing, yeah, implementation delays and ensuring there's effective and impactful policy language. i think we should put that on the agenda and have a discussion.

i think we should discuss that in the public arena. >> thank you. i don't see anyone else. okay. next line item? >> next line item is going to be public comment. commissioner, i'm going to mute you for public comment. >> okay. >> so the public is now welcome to comment on line item 2a through 2b. the number to dial is 408-418-9388, access code 146 # 731445. press pound and pound again and then dial star 3 if you wish to make a comment to raise your hand. if you call in, star 3 to raise your hand.

commissioner, we have two raised hands at the moment. >> okay. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> thank you, sergeant. it's john crew. first and very briefly, the san francisco voters adopted the o.c.c.38 years ago, and they put language in the charter very explicitly that they are to get "full cooperation, no ifs, and or butts" and it's 38 years later they are still getting jerkd around. it doesn't matter if it's coming from police management or sfpoa. that is intolerable, and particularly if it's coming from sfpoa. we need to know about it. perhaps that should be a factor on whether or not we pay the exorbitant prices or salaries if they're going to ignore san francisco law. more importantly, i want to connect the e.i.s. issue to what you started with tonight, the

horrific murder of a 6-year-old child. i've been around police reform work professionally and as an activist for 35 years, locally and nationally, and two of my most important professional mentors were the old executive directors of the national organization of black law enforcement executives and the national black police association. and they taught me a lot, and they weren't motivated by civil rights laws or technicalities. they were motivated by violence in their communities. and they understood if you do not deal concretely realistically with issues of officers who use force disproportionately or jerk people around with 148, then you're never going to get the cooperation you need from the community to solve these horrific murders and deter them. that's why this is so important, and that's why it is so outrageous that after all of this time -- four years ago that the e.i.s. system wasn't a priority. there's no sign of it tonight that it's a priority. walk you through these 148s. what we're talking about here,

you know right now from the data reports you were given, you know the 40 officers who in the last quarter of 2019 were using force more frequently than their peers. what was supposed to happen to those alerts is you go back and you check the 148 reports and see if there's any pattern. also with those officers making bogus -- [bell ringing]. thanks. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> thank you. i hear a lot of people speaking about 148, and i'd like to say that we can take that and do the reverse and we have 148.g which says we can film police officers, and that is something, one way to hold police officers accountable. i think most cops are good, but the ones that aren't need to be held accountable. filming is a neutral thing

anyone can do, 148.g says we can film cops. i completely advocate for people to just -- anyone, you see a cop, take out your phone, start filming. there's no problem, go away, but that's how we're going to catch use of force incidents. the only way that use of force incidents actually get recognized is when it's filmed. [please stand by]

>> clerk: line item 3, discussion and possible action to approve issuance of department bulletin, revisions to reportable use of report, discussion and possible action. >> vice president taylor: so on this, just to the public knows, there was a bulletin posted on the website on friday. there have been some changes to

the bulletin made today as we were gathering for this meeting. i'm being told that we should put this over a week because the changes were substantive changes. i frankly have not had an opportunity to look at them, so i'm trying to figure out how to proceed here because the advice that we're being given here is we should put it off. >> commissioner elias: if i can interject, vice president taylor. wi i worked with the chief on this bulletin, and there were no substantive changes. the only changes that were made were two things. number one, the numbering. so what that means is if you notice the d.b., it has numbering in terms of the sections and the subsections.

we did not catch the fact that the d.b. did not correctly correlate to the numbering of the d.g.o. already in place. so what i mean by that is you will see that on the d.b. where we have section -- the first substantive change to section 2, definitions, you'll notice changes to deadly use of force resulting in death, and then use of force, and they had a, c, and e. those were not corresponding to the present d.g.o., 5.01. 5.01 is going to remain in effect except for certain sections and revisions in that department bulletin.

so again, we didn't catch that we didn't correctly number the existing items, and that's the change that we made. it's my understanding that it's being posted now. but in terms of the actual substantive paragraph, that has not been changed. second, the other change, which i am asking to do and has been done in the past, where the commission looks at a d.g.o. and we can make recommendations on the fly, that's the change i am requesting. that's the only substantive change, and it's noting a substantive change because the chief knows it, and it was omitted in error. in the 5.01, you will notice

that -- allow me to get the correct sections for you. >> vice president taylor: commissioner elias, i think the scope is, the city attorney has said we haven't had a chance to read it. i just feel like it would be safer to put it over a week rather than have brown act issues. so that's my only concern. you know, i can say i support the bulletin, but i don't want to have notice issues. >> commissioner elias: let me understand this. i understand what you're saying, but i understand what the city attorney is saying with respect to the way it's agendized, and it's agendized with respect to 5.01. i don't believe it is a notice issue, and i don't want to take it off the calendar because we've waited so long to get it on, and the chief and i worked really hard to get this d.b. up and running. we're ready to get it going. >> vice president taylor: you

know -- i am not the one who's about to lay. i want to get everything done quickly, but miss cabrera -- i want to make sure that the public -- the public has enough notice if it's a matter of putting it over a week. but miss cabrera, are you able to talk about this? i know that she sent you an e-mail, commissioner elias. are you here? >> i am here. >> commissioner elias: well, i think, too, allow me to finish what i was saying, and the city attorney can jump in. on page 12 of the d.g.o., when we talked about pointing a firearm at a person, in the old d.g.o., it says the pointing of

a firearm is [inaudible] and requires justification. the chief and i were in agreement that the sentence should be left as is, as is, meaning that -- >> vice president taylor: the city attorney is saying that that violates california law. i think there's some stuff that we need to talk about. if it's a matter -- talk aboutk about. if it's a matter of us putting it over a week -- >> commissioner elias: well, here's where i disagree. a seizure is a matter where anyone doesn't feel free to leave, and i can't imagine a circumstance where a police officer would feel free to leave with a police officer pointing a firearm on this. >> vice president taylor: well, commissioner elias, you

might be right -- >> commissioner elias: let me say this. if you look at d.g.o. 5.01, if you read the introductory paragraph, it says that we as the commission have the ability to be stricter than the law. we're allowed to go above that and create greater protections so that people are protected. in terms of a firearm being pointed at a person is not a seizure, that's unreal to me. but we need to look at the point that this d.g.o. came out in 2016, and the definition of

when you have a firearm pointed as a -- >> vice president taylor: commissioner, no one is arguing with you about this. the question is whether or not to put it over a few days based on what the brown act says. i don't one disagrees with your fervor around here. god knows i've been pushing for this, but if it has to do with public notice, and we can give the public the ability to look at the changes, commissioner -- i mean, miss cabrera, can you speak to this? >> yes. so under the brown act, we're required to put items on the agenda that gives the members of the public sufficient information that they will be able to make an informed decision whether or not they want to participate. so on the agenda for tonight, it's listed as discussion and

possible action to approve issuance of department public, "revisions to reportable use of force," discussion and possible action. so originally, i believe it was just to expand the categories on reportable use of force, which is why the agenda item was written in that way, but it seems that based off the changes, there's more than that. there's additional changes within the use of force policy in different areas, and so it is -- there is a potential there. again, i hate providing advice in public, but i'm being asked to do that, that it could be seen as a brown act violation. >> commissioner elias: and i respectfully disagree because how we have it agendized, it's up for discussion on the revisions to the reportable use of force. that's this d.g.o., that's this

5.01. it's the use of force d.g.o. so the public has been aware of -- we posted this last week. in fact, that's why we had to make a mad dash because friday was a holiday, so we had this posted on thursday so that everyone had the opportunity to see this impact department bulletin, which is supplement -- and supplements the d.g.o. 5.01. >> they saw what you posted, but you're saying there were a number of things changed tonight. >> commissioner elias: there were no changes. there were only a few sections added, and i don't think there was anything substantive added. for example, just last week, when we had a department bulletin on, commissioner dejesus asked us to review it on the spot, and we reviewed

it. aga again, my position is the public had notice on this. we worked very hard to get it out tonight. i don't believe there's a brown act violation, and the substantive change that i want to make isn't substantive because it's already in the old d.g.o. so i don't see how this is categorically different than what we did last week or previous times when we've made additions, subtractions, or modifications to a policy that's before us. >> vice president taylor: i think the question is whether or not it's different than what we posted to the public. >> commissioner elias: and it's not. it's the same thing as we -- like, last week, when we said, okay, we're making a revision to the section. >> vice president taylor: last week, the revision didn't add or take anything away. >> commissioner elias: it did. we took away a whole section. >> vice president taylor: we didn't. i was there. we literally clarified that section by taking out a few

words. commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. you know, i think it's always the city attorney's job and role to err on the side of caution, but again, you know, this is what we run into every time. it's our role as commissioners to make the decisions. we need a -- we're free to listen to their advice, and we're free to use our own knowledge and wisdom and many years of experience and make decisions based on that. this is weird to me, to be honest. we've revised d.g.o.s, d.b.s, resolutions on the fly in much more substance than this i don't know how many times since i've been on the commission. i don't know why, all of a sudden, this one is getting flagged when it hasn't happened

before. like, this is just unusual, and i don't know quite what's underlying it, but i'll say this. you know, my concern, you know, my concern is what happens when this comes to the same circumstance as the resolution last week. they say they didn't have a chance to read the d.b. that was on-line and posted to commissioners -- >> vice president taylor: that's not what i said. last week -- >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm sorry, commissioner taylor. i didn't direct those comments to anybody. so that is the issue, that these delay tactics, i don't think they're healthy. i think right now, we have a

moment where we're trying to move things forward, and i'm with commissioner elias on this. i -- this is -- we're ready to adopt it. let's adopt it, let's get it moving because everything takes so long. look at this e.i.s. discussion we had. 35 -- you know, how many years, 13 years, and it's still making the same mistakes? we need to pull the trigger. >> vice president taylor: thank you. so for the record, last week, we had a resolution that was on for a vote, and instead of taking a vote on the resolution, it was on f resolution, -- it was on for a vote. there was a motion and a tactical decision something that was not on, on a letter from d.p.a. commissioner elias and i had placed time limits on the department, a deadline for concurrence, and we also placed

a deadline on d.p.a. because this entire process needs to tighten up, and what d.p.a. did was to remove any of the timelines that we imposed for them but kept the timelines for the department and kept other changes in. so it was not that i had not reviewed the letter, it was that i had reviewed it and was not in agreement with it and didn't feel it was ripe for a vote and even had discussed that. >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm sorry. i'm not finished. >> vice president taylor: i'm sorry. i'm not finished. >> vice president taylor: commissioner brookter? >> commissioner hamasaki: did the d.p.a. address all the limits in the letter? >> vice president taylor: commissioner hamasaki, please. there's an order here.

the idea that you get to speak for as long as you see fit is out of order. commissioner brookter can speak, and then, commissioner hamasaki, you can address this. >> commissioner brookter: yeah. what feels different about this is the changes that were made just before the meeting. i trust commissioner elias, and the revisions that were made, but i think the fact -- we should have just made the revisions during the meeting in open -- in open public versus making those beforehand because now i just want to make sure that we have an opportunity for everybody to read and review because i don't think that anybody's disputing what was put in there, it's just, for me, that it was literally put put -- the changes were put in

there right before the meeting was held. >> commissioner elias: what i'm saying is how is that different from us doing it live? the reason i did those changes in a document so we wouldn't have what we had last week. commissioner dejesus is trying to change a section when we didn't have something to look at. i'm going to ask to make these changes orally, like we would have done any way. so again, it was to prevent the chaos, and i don't think, you know, it's -- it's the same thing. >> vice president taylor: well, you can ask the city attorney. this is the first time -- >> commissioner elias: let's put it for a vote, then. >> vice president taylor: can we ask the city attorney -- this is the first time the city attorney's ever interrupted and said this is the first time we should put something over.

that's why it's raising my red flags. that's what the difference is, though. can we agree that this is the difference between this and last week? >> so in my mind, there's a difference between something that is properly noticed on the agenda versus making changes to something that's on the agenda and not been noticed. so there's a difference between the two things. if you want to make all these changes whether it's done as a group, whether it's an individual commissioner coming in and making the changes, that is separate and apart from whether or not the agenda provides appropriate notice. >> commissioner elias: can you please explain how it doesn't provide proper notice when it talks about use of force? maybe that's what i'm not understanding. >> so let me read the agenda item again. but the issue has to do with the agenda item being very specific and narrow. it doesn't say d.g.o. 5.01, but

i hear your point, which is that the -- this is the document that was -- that was posted, so by point -- my point is that the agenda item as listed would narrow. >> commissioner elias: but it is listed the same way as last week where we had the one that d.j. and petra worked on it. >> i believe it was different than the second. give me a minute, and i can double-check that. >> commissioner elias: perhaps, commissioner dejesus, can you chime in?

>> commissioner dejesus: i mean, i -- i mean, we've been going for, like, 20 minutes on this issue, and yeah, if we're -- maybe we just do the vote and see if we can go forward. i would like to hear what the city attorney says is the difference, but i think we should just call it to a vote whether we're going to put it forward or not. >> commissioner elias: i think -- >> vice president taylor: i think that everyone wants to pass it, but no one wants to violate the brown act. it's concerning to me because the city attorney brought it up. >> commissioner dejesus: i did change a whole paragraph last week, so that's why i'm a little confused. >> commissioner brookter: can i say, my whole thing is we did change an entire paragraph, petra, and it was within the document that folks were able to see and take a look at while we were making the changes.

the only thing for me is that changes were made to a document that's already been posted that we just haven't been able to see. >> commissioner elias: well, you've been able to see the d.g.o. it was posted. >> commissioner hamasaki: it was posted, just like the other one. >> commissioner elias, to answer your question, the last week items was discussion and possible action, clarifying language added to department general order 5.01, use of force policy. tonight's agenda is different. >> commissioner hamasaki: i don't understand it, either, miss cabrera. >> the distinction last week's agenda item was broadly, and it talked about any use of force changes that were going to be made to the policy. this specific agenda item was

narrowed to reportable uses of force and expanding that category. >> commissioner hamasaki: and that's what we're discussing. >> if you look at the document, you are expanding changes to more than just reportable use of force. >> commissioner hamasaki: and what is the change that is concerning to you, miss cabrera. >> there is no change that is concerning to me. it is the notice of the agenda item that i was asked about, so this is my advice, which is this agenda item, in its current state, it's more narrow. last week, it was more broader, the way it was listed on the agenda. >> vice president taylor: okay. so let's just take a vote. but before we do that, i think director henderson still has the opportunity to respond.

>> commissioner hamasaki: if you can unmute -- if he can unmute himself. >> thank you. sorry. just wanted to clarify the thing that we had opposed was the time review in the letter that reduced our time from 30 days to 15 days. i felt, and the agency felt like that was inappropriate specifically because we need that time to review the documentation. but as a reminder, the d.p.a. has never been and is not the problem and moving forward with the d.g.o.s and the policy implementation. we asked for a shift to evaluate a bigger fix so it wasn't just a small part of the evaluation in the d.g.o. process, and that was what we discussed ad nauseam last week. and specifically, we had asked the department to provide details, the police department, about the volume of the d.g.o.s both for the public and for the commission.

that was why we crafted the letter. it wasn't just us rejecting limitations on our agency. and again, the bigger picture is this process has been inexcusably slow, and not for the reason that d.p.a. was being asked to have limitations on our work. just by way of example, like the domestic violence d.g.o. it took over four years. we constantly met our deadlines. we never missed a deadline, and so that's what we were pushing back against, that there was going to be a new rule that limited the amount of time that we had to do the work as if we were the problem, so that was the context. that's why we were rejecting it, but it was with those other things. that was the point. i'm sorry. >> vice president taylor: so thank you for clarifying that. thank you for confirming it did walk back what commissioner elias and i had written into that resolution, and the small

limit that we imposed on d.p.a. and i guess why you feel like no limits should have been imposed, but we didn't agree with that, given the number of bites at the apple that d.p.a. had, and that was one of the reasons why -- why, you know, we had an issue with it, and that was not the resolution that was on for a vote, and there were problems with it. that's not on the agenda. i don't want to spend 20 minutes talking about what's not on the agenda when we have to talk about something that's on the agenda. >> commissioner elias: all right. i guess i'm going to make a motion to proceed on this department bulletin, and the reason why i'm making this motion is, number one, again, this is no different than what we've done in the past. wh if we were to sit here and discuss it, i would tell you all the deletions aor revision or additions, just like we did

last time. second, all of us were on notice that this came before the commission because commissioner taylor had said several times that this was going to be on, and why this was taking more time than the revision that commissioner brookter and commissioner dejesus were working on with the neck restraint. so my motion is to move forward on this and to adopt this tonight. >> commissioner hamasaki: we need the magic language. i would second commissioner elias' motion. >> commissioner elias: this is no different than we did last week. >> commissioner hamasaki: yeah. i really trust and understand. like, i really want to move things forward. >> vice president taylor: i think we have to take public comment. >> clerk: yes. members of the public are now invited to comment on-line item 3. members that would like to

comment dial 408-418-9388. enter meeting i.d. code 146-773-1245, pound, and pound again, and star three if you wish to add public comment. and commissioner taylor, there are no public comment. there is no public comment. >> vice president taylor: so i think you should call roll. i don't know how you can take a vote on a document you've never seen, but i think you should call roll for adopting it as commissioner elias described it? i'm not sure what to do with that. >> clerk: so on-line item 3, on the motion to proceed with the issuance of department bulletin revisions on

reportable use of force -- [roll call] >> commissioner hamasaki: unmute. sorry. [roll call] >> vice president taylor: but it will be on the agenda next week after the public has a chance to vote on it, and hopefully, we'll have it back on then. >> commissioner hamasaki: can we have the resolution back on next week, after everybody's had time? >> vice president taylor: which resolution from last week? >> the resolution that allows d.p.a. to make an opposition to

the resolution. >> vice president taylor: i'm sorry, sergeant. you were interrupted. did we just take a vote? >> clerk: yes. you have three yeses and two noes. >> vice president taylor: okay. the motion will be on agenda for next week, and you can talk about it now. next line item. >> clerk: line item 4, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or d.p.a. personnel. under police commission rules of order, during public comment, neither politi or d.p.a. personnel nor commissioners are required to

respond to questions presenced by the public but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and d.p.a. personnel should refrain, however, from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. if you are listening to this meeting, you may call in by dialing 408-418-9388 and entering meeting i.d. 146-773-1245. press pound twice, and then star-three to be entered into the queue. again, caller, you have two minutes. >> hello, commissioners. my name is lisa king. i'm a resident of california --

or san francisco, and i've been waiting for about four hours to make a public comment, so on a personal level, i'd like to ask that public comment be either in the middle or somewhere near the beginning of these meetings. i'm also representing wealth and disparities in the black community justice for mario woods to ask some questions. how will the police commission ensure the completion of the 272 d.o.j. cops recommendations will actually happen, and how will the commission also ensure the reduction of the disparate high rate of policing against black people in san francisco? thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you. any other callers? >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. my name is catherine chi.

i'm a resident of district 5. i've also been on the phone over four hours at this point. i called in today because of the agenda items later, items 7 and 8. i would like to comment that i absolutely think that results of the negotiation with the police officers association should be made public, especially on topics as important as accountability. i am extremely disappointed that item 7 will be closed to the public. i'm also just really disappointed and upset at the four hours that started 40 minutes late with not even as much as a tweet on your sftv

police commission twitter act to let people know that want to participate and are showing up in our communities the courtesy so that we have an idea of what's going on. and i would just like to say that i'm extremely disappointed in the four hours of conversation. all i've really learned, as i've learned every single week of calling in is sfpd is an unreformable corrupt racist organization that is enabled by the police commission, the internal affairs, the department of police accountability where all i hear you guys doing is look how much paper we pushed around without holding anyone accountable or actually enacting any change that helps our communities. i am ashamed and disappointed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

>> vice president taylor: thank you. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> good evening. my name is ben, and i'm calling with wealth and disparities in the black community, led by felicia jones. we know that black folks are ten times as likely as white folks to be arrested here in san francisco, 12 times as likely to be subjected to the use of force, and this hasn't changed since the start of data collection in 2016 to present day. and when we see the work that's trying to improve this, it's 272 cops' reports, we know they're going too slow. we've seen the cal d.o.j. talk about how it's significantly slower than expected, and sfpd must implement the recommendations with a greater sense of urgency is what the cal d.o.j. says. so we talk regularly to the

sfpd about this, and my question for the police commission, how can you help to increase the urgency at which these 272 cops' recommendations are fulfilled? >> trying. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next caller. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. i would also like to echo the concerns of other callers about length of this meeting and about item 7 being closed. i don't understand. you know, why is this -- this section, you know, closed to the public? it's sort of does -- does nothing to restore any of my

faith in government, and also, why isn't that open to public? you know, like, why are these things happening behind closed doors, especially at this time? and i'm another person who had issues at the beginning of the meeting where, you know, i -- the first, like, 40 minutes, when i tried to call in, i had problems. so yeah, i'm just kind of concerned about, you know, t the -- these closed secret meetings and the length of the meetings and -- you know, at a time when people are asking for police reform, it just doesn't seem like it's working, really, very well, so thank you.

and i strongly encourage you to more transparency; and that's all i'd like to say. >> commissioner hamasaki: can i just say that we do like to agendize a public discussion of what's going to meet and confer, and we do have the opportunity after the closed session to release information from the closed session, and i'm hopeful that that's what we'll do tonight. it's something we have to vote on, so i'm optimistic, though. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. this is gloria berry, a member of the democratic county central committee of san francisco, and i'm the chair of the democratic party black lives matter committee for san francisco. i'm calling for the exact same reason almost as the last

caller because during these times, it should be clear that the police commission is in the limelight right now, and to look at your agenda and to see that there's actually a continual vote, which means a choice, to hold items in closed session is frightening. and then, tonight on the agenda specifically, you've got disciplinary penalty and referral guidelines, policy prohibiting bias policing, body-worn cameras and police commission disciplinary hearings. for the public not to have these discussions and not have it edited as far as what we're being shared is absolutely disgusting at this point,

especially the disciplinary penalty and referral guidelines. i'm still stuck on why the killer of jessica williams only got 40 days suspension for murder, and he's able to work. anybody in their life could survive for 40 days without pay. that's too easy and definitely not acceptable for someone that murdered someone, so we vote to have all sessions open, and quit toking, smoking, and joking with the police officers' commission, and that's all. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. i'm jeff watson. i'm a resident of district 5,

and i'm also calling to express concern about the closed session items. i think it's -- i think as a resident, i would expect that these types of things wouldn't be held in closed session, and to hold him in closed session just feels like it excludes me from participating in democracy and obfuscates the decisions that are being made. i yield my time. >> clerk: commissioner, that is the end of public comment. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next line item. >> clerk: line item 5, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 8 below, closed session, including public comment on item 7, vote

whether to hold item 8 in closed session. dial 408-418-9388, enter the meeting i.d. 146-773-1245, then pound, and pound to star. there are no callers. >> vice president taylor: so my understanding of what will happen in closed session on these various issues is -- so i've -- you know, there are five items presently in meet and confer right now, and i have -- we as a commission have had no clue, no window into what is going on with those five items, and i'm trying to find the e-mail. we just -- we learned about them today. it's d.g.o. 5.17, it's the protocols for in-person disciplinary hearings, the

policy prohibiting biased policing, and body worn cameras. my understanding is, on item 7, we are going to get advice -- an update and advice from counc counsel, which is why it was put in closed session, but we do have the ability to vote and allow the public access to anything that is not a privileged communication, and i certainly have no objection to doing so. so just so the public knows, that's what's going to happen in closed session. to the extent that there is nonprivileged information, we will vote whether or not to disclose that. >> commissioner elias: i also think it's important, in the information that we have received, there was a meeting between commissioner hirsch,

the city attorney, and d.h.r. on protocols being developed on how to handle policy that neither myself -- >> vice president taylor: you can't speak for me because i told you. >> commissioner elias: exactly. we didn't know about this. so apparently, this is a problem, and i think the public needs to know that this is the problem. there are several things that are happening, and other commissioners aren't aware of what's happening, and we're learning this as we go. >> vice president taylor: things that had happened that we learned for the first time there was a protocol put in place in terms of what things get sent to meet and confer and when. we all read this today and learned about it for the first time today. >> commissioner hamasaki: we can overturn that protocol, right? >> vice president taylor: yes, we can, but yes, that was sent to all of our e-mail inboxes today, and i have lots of questions about that, as well.

all of these processes have become more transparent over the last month with all of the commissioners, as well. >> commissioner elias: no one involved on the commission is not in on this process now. >> commissioner hamasaki: maybe we should agendize a discussion about this so it doesn't go too far down the road? >> commissioner dejesus: well, quite frankly, i looked at what they sent us, the disciplinary penalty and referral guidelines. that's the one regarding covid and how we're going to handle it under covid. i think that's something that should be transparent and in the public eye. >> vice president taylor: yeah, i agree. >> commissioner dejesus: wait.

and with the body worn cameras, i think that's policy, and it should be done in public. these three items, i'm not comfortable going into closed session, and i would not vote to have a closed session on those items. it's just a discussion of what the police association wants, and i think that should be open to the public. >> vice president taylor: we are going into closed session to get vice from the city attorney. i think the nonpublic thing is potentially privileged information, but then, we vote to make sure that these documents go to the public. >> commissioner elias: but then, does the public get to comment on it after because if it were in their possession, they would be able to talk about it in public comment. >> commissioner hamasaki: maybe we should put -- take petra's lead and put this over, put it in open session. i would support commissioner

dejesus' recommendation in that regard. i agree with commissioner taylor, elias, dejesus, who all have spoken tonight. we've been put in this position, and this isn't fair to the public or to anybody involved, so -- >> commissioner dejesus: if we're going to talk about language changes, that should be done in the public. and then, if you want to go to closed session, it's really something the attorney has to add to it. the changes that they're requesting, the public should know about it. >> vice president taylor: yeah, i completely agree. so to the lawyers that are going to advise us on the line in closed session, to the extent it's privileged information, it makes sense to go into closed session. but if it's just about these documents -- speaking to the lawyers, if you're going to make recommendations or provide legal advice, let us know. but if it's just about the documents, i don't see any

reason why the documents shouldn't be made public. can someone speak to that? >> commissioner elias: well, i do think we need to speak with attorneys about the legal advice because some of the things that have been passed or they're engaged in -- >> vice president taylor: oh, i agree. >> commissioner elias: -- that's something that i agree with, especially that these time limits that they aren't putting into place with respect to, you know, some of these d.g.o.s. the body worn camera, two years old, it's been in meet and confer. it's ridiculous. >> vice president taylor: i don't see any reason why the documents should not be public documents. if there is legal advice, and i assume -- i have -- i have legal questions, so i assume there's going to be legal advice, and i have questions as to why things happened the way they happened, but the doc -- like, is there any reason, to the lawyers, that the documents can't be public documents, that

we can post -- >> okay. so there's a couple of things that be happening here. to the extent that you are negotiating with the p.o.a., those documents in terms of the -- the proposals that are going back and forth, lawanna, are you on here, too? is she on here? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. so those proposals that go back and forth, we have an obligation to negotiate in good faith, and oftentimes, the position of d.h.r. is to not disclose or show their hand in terms of what they're negotiating back and forth. so the majority of the time, that's why those documents are not released, because we have the obligation to negotiate with d.o.a. in good faith. >> in addition, this is lawanna, if you look at the bottom of the page, there is a confidentiality notice, and there is a confidentiality

requirement when the employer and organized labor are exchanging proposals. those are not things that get sent out in public, just -- that's not how this process works. t [inaudible] >> the way it works is after you have an agreement, the documents that you argue with are private documents. after the agreement is reached, you can release them, but while we're negotiating -- and this is not just the p.o.a., all the other 30 unions in san francisco, we do not release documents when we're in a meet

and confer process with anybody. >> commissioner dejesus: this isn't a contract for money. this is how we're going to proceed under covid and whether it's going to be in person or on zoom. i don't understand why that is confidential? i mean, you know -- i don't understand why we can't have a discussion with the public knowing what the issues are without your advice being given in public. but they at least know what the issues are and what we're talking about, and then, you can go into closed session for something that you need to add that's private. but these things are not -- these things are just not and should not be in closed session. >> all right. this is the deputy city attorney [inaudible] i certainly became a little confused as to what we're talking about. >> vice president taylor: can you speak a little louder because we can't hear you? >> can you hear me now? >> vice president taylor: i think your microphone is now. >> commissioner hamasaki: if

you move towards it there for a minute. i think it seems -- >> okay. now you get to look at my chin. so i'm not -- i've suddenly lost track in a way of what we're talking about. i thought we were talking about whether or not proposals from the meet and confer process would be released to the public, which i think is what miss preston is addressing. >> vice president taylor: it's everything that's on calendar for closed session. so what we have is the -- the disciplinary cases, right? so whether cases are going to be -- hearings are going to be in person or via zoom, commissioner dejesus just addressed. we have the body-worn camera, the counter proposal from p.o.a. -- what i think is a counter proposal from the p.o.a., and then, we have the bias policing update on where that is. i mean, we sent it -- apparently, we sent it to meet and confer may 20, so an update

on that. >> commissioner dejesus: didn't said didn't -- we didn't send it. >> vice president taylor: that's why i said an update. we're talking about any or all of those documents, why those can't be made public. and so they include what commissioner dejesus was talking about, the disciplinary hearings, whether they're in person or zoom, and if it's not zoom, then webex or whatever platforms. >> two things. to the extent those are on calendar for legal advice, those are attorney-client information, and it would take a vote of the commission to release any such things. but more to the point, and more importantly, miss president is correct, under the myers milias

brown act, the actions are supposed to be confidential because the negotiations between labor unions and management is positioned to encourage the free flow of information and discussion, and if those discussions are made public, it inhibits that, and it's contrary to that purpose. >> commissioner elias: why can't we release those documents, with the p.o.a.s suggestions, but what we discuss with you, we discuss that in private. >> how are these documents privileged? >> because they're proposals. >> commissioner dejesus: but wait a minute. see, jonathan, to get to the nitty-gritty. some of this is just policy. they want to change the policy

language. that has nothing to do with the training or labor department, they just want to get a second bite at the apple to change the policy language, and that needs to be done in public. >> okay. the exact same bargaining obligations apply, and so that's my answer to that. >> commissioner elias: well then maybe we should go to closed session and then after, take a vote to release the documents because i do believe that documents can be released so the public knows what the p.o.a.s edits and suggestions are, and what we discuss on how we handle them, that can be private. >> commissioner dejesu i mean, your advice is privileged. i get that, but our question is about the documents. >> what jonathan is saying is that the documents are also confidential. they are part of the bargaining

process. >> commissioner hamasaki: can you give us a cite that can help us, commissioner brookter, because otherwise, we're all lawyers here. >> commissioner brookter: well, government code 3505 generally lays out the meet and confer obligation. general code 3505 talks about changing policies and the requirement to provide notice and an opportunity to meet and confer, and again, it's the same meet and confer obligations that arises in regard to a comprehensive memorandum of understanding concerning labor -- concerning wages and the present terms and conditions of employment. >> and what deals with the confidentiality process is what we want to look at specifically? >> the government code you cited only lays out the procedure. >> yeah. so what i'm asking for, is

there a case or a statute that says this process, these documents need to be -- the confidentiality of them needs to be maintained. >> this discussion should occur in closed session. you're asking legal advice. >> okay. so let's go to closed session, and you can tell us that. >> commissioner hamasaki: well, i mean -- aren't we allowed to receive legal advice if we request it in open session? >> not without waiving privilege, and i don't think anyone is comfortable waiving privilege about things that we don't even -- >> as i said at the outset of my statement, in order to reveal privileged information, there would have to be a vote of the commission with four votes in favor of doing so. >> yeah, waiving privilege is generally a dangerous thing. i don't want to put us in a bad position with the p.o.a. that they can take advantage of

that. >> commissioner dejesus: i'm more concerned legally, policy. if you have advice on policy itself, it is not fair game for closed session. so we're hiding the policy language in closed session because you want to give us some advice on that, and i just want to divide it up, to put the policy out there with the policy changes. >> vice president taylor: we all agree with you, petra. >> commissioner dejesus: what i'm hearing is this is all just blanket. all of this has to be in closed session at the same tail we session. >> vice president taylor: well, i think we can go to closed session and still vote to release the documents. what i want to get is what the legal authority is for the confidentiality, and so if that's legal advice that we get in closed session, fine, let's get that legal advice, but we can let the public know what that authority is if it's legit, and if it's not, we can publish the documents. >> commissioner elias: i agree,

i agree. i think we can go to closed session and discuss it, and after, we can vote for what documents we need to release and why. >> commissioner hamasaki: i think just on the advice -- but i think the discussion, as everybody has already said, should take place in open session. >> commissioner elias: but what i'm saying is we have to go -- >> whatever the statutory documents are that these cases are confidential, we need to hear that. so we can discuss that in closed session. >> commissioner hamasaki: i still think if he can cite a case or a statute, that would be super helpful. >> yeah. that's what we all want to hear, and that's legal advice. us asking for a legal basis is asking for legal advice. that doesn't prevent us from

going to the public and saying hey, this is the statute or case. we agree with it or we don't agree with it. >> commissioner dejesus: can i just say, management decisions or management -- >> managierial -- >> commissioner elias: so i guess i'm going to make a motion to go into closed session so we can figure this out and then we can deal with it after. >> clerk: all right. so we have line item 6, which is a vote on whether to go into closed session. >> vice president taylor: yeah. that's what you have. you have a motion and a second. >> clerk: all right. on the motion to go into closed session -- >> vice president taylor: i'm sorry. don't we need public comment?

>> clerk: yes, we need public comment. at this time, members of the public are invited to vote -- or i'm sorry, make public comment on-line item 6, on voting whether or not to hold item 8 in closed session. 408-418-9388. meeting i.d. 146-773-1245. pret press pound, and pound again, and then star-three to enter public comment. president taylor, we have three public comments. >> vice president taylor: okay. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> yes, this is gloria berry again. i'm calling specifically to address the matter of the point given by the city negotiator about the confidentiality

explanation at the bottom of the agenda. i don't see an explanation. i see that the items that are not confidential have been distributed, but other than that, there is no explanation on that, so perhaps in the future, we could get more explanation on that. and then, i want to reiterate why closed session is a concern to me. it's because -- and i'm not speaking to any current commissioners. i just can speak on the past, but i am concerned about who is selling out, who is a puppet, who is on this commission for further political gain, and so forth. and i think during these type of meetings with the p.o.a. and the -- and the labor relations

and whatnot, we can learn certain information. i understand this is typical for labor, but if a policy as simple as just being changed, it's a policy versus if it's illegal to do it, that's different. so if there's any policy that can be done to stretch it as far as we can to make things transparent, i think the public will really appreciate that, and thank you for meeting for five or five or over five hours. >> vice president taylor: thank you so much. just to be clear, we are not going to be meeting with the p.o.a. tonight. this is with our lawyers. >> it's on the agenda. >> vice president taylor: yeah. the agenda makes it very confusing, but just to make it known, this is not a meeting with the p.o.a. i looked at the agenda, and it's not quite clear for us to

tell. >> clerk: okay. next caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> umm, yeah. i would like to say that i strongly oppose the notion of going into closed session, but if you do choose to go into closed session, i think it's absolutely imperative that -- that whatever happens in closed session does end up being released to the public afterwards. but, you know, i -- i -- before, i was one of the people who thought that all this stuff about police structure was a little bit overblown, and i not only trusted the p.d., but after listening to tonight's meeting, i honestly don't feel very comfortable with all of this secret closed session stuff. you know, i -- i think that

maybe, you know, those people talking about corruption, they were probably right. so if you want the trust of the public, you should think again about all this closed session business. and having as much transparency as possible, it's the best thing to do. and the stuff about labor stuff, yeah, i don't know. it seems -- yeah, i just don't understand it, so that's -- i guess that's all i have to say. thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next caller. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> this is catherine shay from district 5, and i just wanted to say [inaudible] i'm going to

echo what everyone else who has called in before has said. it's just a little bit concerning that something that items like this would be discussed in closed session in the climate that we have in a city where black and brown bodies have been subjected to so much disproportionate violence, and all we heard for the last 4.5 hours is how much paper pushing has gotten done, and no change has happened. so i think at the beginning -- [inaudible] at the beginning [inaudible] the public would care and show up. we were trying to, and it's the idea that, you know, you would spend 4.5 hours when something -- in public comment when something like this is on the agenda and now happening at 10:30 p.m. on a week night is

really deeply, deeply damages the trust, the very little trust that you have with the public and your community to begin with. thank you. >> clerk: and -- all right. that is the end of public comment. >> vice president taylor: thank you. >> clerk: all right. on the motion to go into closed session -- [roll call]

>> vice president taylor: i would note that the agenda is confusing. it makes it seem like we're meeting with the p.o.a., so let's be clear about this. it makes it seem like the p.o.a. is part of this discussion, and they're not. >> clerk: all right. commissioner taylor, you have three yeses and two noes for the motion. >> clerk: line item 6, vote whether to hold item 8 in closed session, san francisco administrative code section 67.10, action. >> vice president taylor: i'm sorry. what is this? >> clerk: item 6, vote on whether to hold item 8 in closed session, san francisco administrative code section

67.10. >> see, that was the thing, after we went into closed session, we could vote to see what we could release so that after closed session, we could share with the public the closed documents. >> vice president taylor: now we have no legal advisce, and now we don't know what to do with the documents. we still don't have anymore insight into that what process is. we still don't have any legal authority for why this thing is supposedly confidential. >> commissioner hamasaki: i would suggest perhaps that we should agendize it for a public discussion. that would be my suggestion. >> vice president taylor: we can't agendize an item for a legal discussion. what i need to know what the

authority is that we can't release these documents because otherwise, i want to release these documents. we still need to go into closed session to get legal advice. i'm with commissioner elias. we can go into closed session, get legal advice from our lawyers and release these documents. now, we're hamstrung. we can't do anything. >> commissioner elias: well, i really want to know, which is what we want to talk about, is what created these protocols. this is a huge issue, and we need to talk about it, and that's the only place that we can talk about it. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. all right. you know what? can i change my vote just so we can do this? >> clerk: just for clarification, on-line item 6, it's a vote on whether to hold item 7 in closed session, not

item 8. >> commissioner elias: yes. >> vice president taylor: okay. so commissioner dejesus, are you changing your vote? >> commissioner dejesus: yes. >> clerk: well, we need a motion and a second. >> vice president taylor: another motion? >> clerk: for line item 6. >> i'm going to renew my motion with respect to line item 6 -- is it. >> vice president taylor: yeah, it's 6. >> clerk: okay. so do you renew your motion on-line item 6 to go into closed session? >> commissioner elias: yes. >> vice president taylor: second. >> clerk: so on the motion to go into closed session on-line item number 7, --

[roll call] >> clerk: you have four yeses, and the motion passes. all right. so we are now going to go into closed session. commissioner dejesus, i'm not able to bring you into closed session with me from the phone call. are you able to go back to your desk and try your microphone again once we're in closed session? >> commissioner dejesus: okay. >> clerk: thank you.

>> clerk: vote to elect to disclose any or all items discussed in closed session. >> commissioner elias: i'll make a motion, and this is a motion to d -- >> vice president taylor: i'll make a motion, and this is a motion to disclose on friday. >> commissioner elias: it should not a motion not to disclose the appropriate attorney-client privilege

materials, after which the other materials will be disclosed on friday. >> vice president taylor: that's the motion. is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: public comment on-line item number 8. members of the public are now allowed to call in for public comment. call 408-418-9388. press 146-773-1245, pound, and pound again, then press star-three if you would like to provide public comment. we have one public comment. >> vice president taylor: okay. >> clerk: meeting caller, you have two minutes. >> yeah, hi. i would like to express my disappointment in the commission in having this closed session. although i do appreciate that

you have made this motion to disclose these documents, and i do strongly encourage you to disclose documents, i understand that there may be some things that are confidential, so it's certainly reasonable that whatever has to be confidential for whatever attorney-client reasons should remain confidential. but anything else absolutely needs to be made public. and another thing is i find it very strange that you have this closed session and then it comes back open again. so i think it would, you know, make sense to set a time to have a closed session so that, you know, members of the public who might want to listen to the remainder of the open session, you know, know how long the

closed session is going to be closed so they're not just left hanging after midnight. well, i mean, they wouno one kt the meeting would go on until after midnight, so that they're not hanging on until 12:50 at night, and they would have a time frame. so i strongly encourage you to disclose and consider giving the public sort of a time frame in which you will post your closed session. >> clerk: thank you, caller. all right. item 9, adjournment. action item. >> vice president taylor: well, we haven't called roll on the vote to disclose on friday. >> clerk: so on the motion to

elect to disclose on 7-10, friday -- [roll call] >> clerk: vice president taylor, you have five yeses. >> vice president taylor: great. and for the record, a couple of items on the closed session agenda will be continued because the closed session went longer than we anticipated. the personnel exception and body