>> can you please call roll. [roll call] >> you have a quorum. also here tonight we have chief williams scott from the san

francisco police department and paul henderson from the department of police accountability. >> thank you. for members of the public, who would like to make comment, the number to call is (415)655-0001 access code 146 270 1967. we will allow two minutes for public comment and as always, please mute any background noise that could interfere with us being able to hear what you are trying to say. mute yourselves unless you are speaking or would like to be heard. thank you. sergeant -- line item 1, report to the commission discussion. weekly crime trends. provide an overview of san francisco. provide say automatic reof planned activitieunplanned even.

having an impact on public safety. commission discussion and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether the calender for a four meetings and the sb421 monthly update and the collaborative updates and presentations regarding prevention and intervention strategies. >> g. chief, yo good evening, c. you are muted. good evening, vice president taylor. welcome back. executive director henderson. i will start out this week's chief report with the weekly crime trends starting with part one crime and we are down 37% from last week, year to date, we're over all down 21% on part

one crime and again, as i they are 42% higher than last year. we had an investigation that led to the arrest of several individuals responsible for numerous residential bug larrys and bicycles stolen from bargess and included in the arrest was a subject wanted in four incidents in the telegraph field area. we continued to have some success with our strategies to address auto bug larrys and larceny which is 39% lower than this time year. understanding 39% is good considering challenges we're

facing with burglaries. in terms of car break ins, 2018 we're down 40% and in 2017 17%. violent crimes we're down 19% over all and over this week from last week and when comparing year to date over all violent crime is down 21%. however, as i continue to report, we're up in homicides by 30%. we have a total of 35 homicides year to date and that 30% from where we were this time last year. of the 35 of our homicides we had throw i three in september e in august. 16 of them by arrest and two have been cleared by e exceptiol clearance 67.

our gun violence is up 2%. there's 86 shooting incidents resulting in 98 victims of gun violence and 76 of those have been non fatal and 22 fatal many of there was one shooting over the week that caused injury to three victims many of the districts with the largest increase in gun violence compared to 2019, are ingleside with a fairly significant percentage, 86% increase in gun violence and 13 in ingleside this year as opposed to seven last year. tenderloin has an increase and 18 this year opposed to seven last year, bayview has three more shooting incidents compared to last year and mission has one more shooting incident this year compared to last year and central ticket has seen an 80% decrease, five in 2019, one so far this year and northern

district 60% decrease and seven last year and compared to five this year. >> at 3:47a.m. and this was calls several calls reporting a victim who was shot and who was in the street. officers arrived and rendered aid until paramedics arrived and transported to the victim to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. the investigation is son going in this case and again, if any members of the public have any information call our line at

575444 where you can text the tips. also, there was a shooting on september 10 the in the area of golden gate in the tenderloin area. a large physical altercation at the same time a person heard gunshotgunshots. a large group was leaving the area on foot and in vehicles and when they investigated the scene they found shell casings in the middle of the streets. at 9:23p.m., that same evening, dispatchers reported that our sheriffs at the hospital had a shooting victim, which ultimately two other victims arrived at the hospital. the vehicle and persons were detained by the sheriff and evidence was collected at the

scene. our private sid yo surveillance was recovered by our officers showed a silver-colored s.u.v. intentionally drove into someone at the scene and an unknown person then fired two shots and fled the location after firing the shots. three victims are listed in critical -- one is in critical condition and one is listed in stable and one with was discharged from the hospital. so again we're looking for information that will help us solve that crime and call us at 575444 if you have any information. i also want to announce that any person who would like to report a crime can do so online.

with traffic collision and the representatives and gives the public a venue to both report and request crime online. requesters will have the ability to create an account portal, which will allow for the tracking and receiving request for report. we think this is the service value added to members of our community. there's also the ability to securely ask questions online and using this portal, it's the most secure and convenient way to request and receive copies of the incident files filed with the testified. they have requests of incidents remain available it was a very

good events and they had a lot of positive messages regarding that unveiling as well as that counter opinions on that unveiling as well. i just want to thank the commission for their leadership on this and thank the commission for his leadership and for being there to help us unveil the first of the hanging of the posters. which came out very nice. >> thank you, chief. i don't want to interrupt you but we have a question from a commissioner. were you finished with your -- >> i'm finished with this portion if there are any questions, yes. >> thank you. i know that you had a town hall,

i think it was yesterday, regarding the side show. i was hoping that you would report on that as well as the allegations that the sfpd but they didn't do anything until shots were fired. i was hoping you could address that in your address as well. >> absolutely, sure. so we did have an incident that resulted in a shooting in ingleside. we had a community meeting as a result of that. the captain of ingleside as well as supervisor safai. a part of your question about the incident itself, there are over 100 calls to police dispatch regarding and shows reckless driving stunts, tricks, doughnuts in the street, figure 8s, often times with

passengers in the vehicle hanging out of the windows and bystanders and spectators filming in the immediate facility so it was just a dangerous situation. we responded, like we always do, there was a second press conference today regarding legislation that supervisor safai to the board of supervisors. one thing that i reiterated last night and today with our response to these events is the following. when we get officers that get called to these events, the response has to have the requisite amount of resources to be able to safely deal with the situation in hand. that particular incident, there were over 300 people and 50 cars

and when that first unit gets there's and it's officers it's not advisable to take action alone and these type of events what we've learned over our history and handling these events and our experience, officers have tried to break up these events. they've been surrounded. we've had police cars vandalized and officers assaulted and other cities we've had officers run over. often times, we've had shots fired at the location and if not a situation where you want to go in without thought and without a plan and without resources. so as frustrating it is for the public, you see two officers standing there and wait on back up, that's the appropriate and right thing to do. in these side shows where 400

people, it would be really not a wise decision for officers to get themselves in a situation and then have the outcomes be bad against the public and the officers. you have to have a cor din tated frame and that's what i said about how we have deploy. whether we work with the highway patrol, which we've done in the past, or the other jurisdictions which we've done in the past, that response has to be coordinated and it takes officers to handle that situation. i definitely can understand some of the frustrations of people that saw officers, i know i talked to a person today who brought that concern, how many officers did you see initially. the answer was only one or tomorrow you can't handle that type of situation with one or

two officers. it's dangerous for the officers. it's dangerous for the public. the outcome is usually disastrous and we really need to public the to understand that. the key is having the appropriate amount of resources to deal with the situation. we trained officers and specifically for that reason and we've been deployed and sometimes it's hit or miss. we tried to get as much open source information. we have the resources we have on duty often times. sometimes we're under resourced. >> that was my second question is we're not the sfpd has received training to handle these situations and whether you are working on devising a plan of action to deal with future incidents, should they occur. >> we have, prior to the shelter in place safer at home

public-health orders, we actually trained members of special operations, our special operations bureau, and we actually deployed them a couple of times thinking that we were going to have, based on the information we had, these events happen in our city. we didn't have that to materialize but they were trained up and ready to go and we have officer training. it needs to be expanded. this was a special operations which is not regular p patrol. supervisors safai's legislation put a little bit more certainty no the consequences and as far as vehicle impound and the legislation passes has written, it will mandate a 14-day hold if any vehicles are impounded we

were able, unthe current law, if we can prove adding and abetting the spectators they can be arrested as well. if we can put a person around the wheeled they can be arrested for vehicle co violations or reckless driving or exhibition of speed or being a participant of speed contest. >> thank you, chief. i have a question. i am not going to -- i want you to take the time to come back answer this i read an article alleging sfpd is, according to the article, black people are being pulled over in traffic stops at a higher rate than they were a few years ago in san francisco. i don't know if that data is

true or what sfpd's response is and i want to give you a chance to look into it and present at our next meeting. >> i did see that article as well. i don't know what data set they pulled that from. we know what our chapter 96a reports show and we know what other folks that have looked at our data shows. i do need an opportunity to look at that particular data to see what they pulled and how those conclusions were drawn, which i have not had the opportunity to do yet. >> thank you. and i realize so i wanted to give you the heads-up. i want to differen give you theo do so. >> clerk: next line item. >> i have my happened raised. i don't know if you can see it many of. >> new york city did you put you.>> did you put your name ine chat? >> it wouldn't let me. >> go ahead. >> so, chief, i'm glad you

brought up black lives matter monument that you put up. when you bought it in front of the commission it's a nice sentiment and it was sober with rainbow colors and the black lives matter poster is black, red and grow green and recognizs able and there was a purpose. i'm glad you debuted the reimagined, reenvisioned one that the department appeared for us but the department should still put up an actual black lives matter poster in each station. and i think you captured some of the spirit of the thing with all

those nice quotes but we should have a poster. i want to throw that out there and the second thing is, i was hoping that you were going to come back and report, you mentioned that you were going to report on this department of human resources about the contract. reopening the contract and renegotiating the raise and we wondered at the time why we couldn't negotiate some of reform. like shortening the meet and confer process, give-and-take in this process. i don't remember which commissioner asked for it, it might have been commissioner ham, maybe we can calender that for the future. the very next future meeting so we can know what went on in that row opened process and if any row form requests were made and if not were not. >> commissioner, if i can answer the latter question. the department was not involved in those negotiations, that was

led and spearheaded and done by dhr? there's really nothin a lot reao report. it wasn't like the contract negotiations, when we settled the mou, for this mou. i didn't have any information as far as what went on in toes discussions, i wasn't a part of it, that was a dhr department of human resources-led effort. so th. >> i was the one that asked for if and i asked for dhr to come before the commission and brief the commission on this issue.

i spoke with dhr and i wanted this -- i was hoping it would be on the agenda for our last meeting i spoke with dhr extended the invitation and they're not comfortable reporting to the commission during their negotiations and during the courts of negotiation and made the point they have not done so for any other commission during labor negotiations and they're not comfortable doing so for this commission it's unfortunate for us. that was my request and my follow-up. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i'm just wondering, can we have them maybe tell us why they don't -- why do the don't they s about what our future context.

what we as a commission feel is important or speak to the department what they think of important in terms of contract negotiations regarding police reform. so maybe they can do general question, why they don't ask us when they go no these negotiations something beneficial to the community, the citizens of san francisco and sd the department itself. >> i grow and i'm happy to ask that question and follow-up. i was hoping we could have it here. and then i just wondered about the posters. we should follow-up and put the actual poster in which was the original intent? >> if i could answer just for fun. that original conversation. i mean, i recall the discussion being that this is not an endorsement of the organization or any movement but it was an expression of the black lives matter expression and the values is the way it was interpreted by me during that conversation.

the commission gives further direction, of course we'll comply with that. >> i would ask you to com ploy with the resolution itself and the resolution gave specific details of what we expected to go up in there and i'm happy, we don't have to do it right here but i will go over the resolution that was passed by the full commission of what was to go up in the station. we do have to do it here we were

very moved and impressed by the chief going above and beyond what we asked him to do vow a vt resolution. >> it was my commission report so i hear you and thank you for that and it's something that i'll already when we have our commission reports. >> i'm happy that you will address that. i don't see why they both can't coexist. >> we might be on the same page. >> i can see it. i think it's rod able that they have great comments and it child to silver and. >> >> if i just comment those aren't rainbow colors those

whether the commissioner read the resolution he talked not about pan african colors being on the poster itself the colors and the possibility of coming up with these pins and in honor of those colors so i want to thank that distinction because i've heard that comment. >> thank you. >> next line item. >> just for the record, i'd like to state that commissioner

hamaski is present as of 1740 hos and we have the monthly update of the sb14. we have commander rob sullivan in. we skipped over the collaborative reform update that i'll present briefly. and 1421 and come back to the collaborative row form update. >> 1421 is fourth on the agenda. >> commander sullivan. >> hi, lieutenant, i'm filling in for commander osullivan this evening. can you hear me? >> yes. >> ok. i'm going to go forward with the

1421 report for august. a little background on 1421. california senate bill 1421 requires a disclosure of records and information concerning the following types of incidents. an officer's discharge of a firearm at a person. an officer's use of force against a person which results in great bodily injury and a sustain findings that an officer engage in sexual assault involving a member of the public and a sustained finding of dishonest tee by an officer. the september has received 193 request relate today senate bill 1421. with a period of august 1st, through august 31st, the department received four additional public records requests. the department has prod 58 additional releases, a row lows is defined as a production of

records and or a determination letter which indicates to the requester that the department has responsive to one or more categories of disclosure for a specific officer. one public records request was closed and additional officer-involved shooting was released, 843 pages in total. we have some additional information regarding our portal. which i will give you guys at the request of commissioner elias. the police department will be posting our records related to 1421 and the documents we're producing on our welcome back sight. website. where people make public records

request. requests for 1421 documents are received through the online request portal and it can be accessed on the public records page on the sfpd website by e-mail, mail or fax. it's assigned to the sb1421 group and they will receive an acknowledgment and the department will maintain contact with the requester until the request is closed through extension letters, determination letters and productions of documents. including outdated forms of technology and they are gather and reviewed and may be subject to disclosure.

a determination letter is sent for all categories and and records are reviewed and found to meet the criteria for disclosure and redax and release process and started and the files need to be scanned, uploaded, reviewed, prepared for production. the request that have requested the cop vert and moving forward, when the files are ready to be produced, under construction. documents enclouded posted there and the request access the files and the member of the public is going to request documents and they can check there first to

see if the documents that they're interested in and have been posted and if not they can go ahead and make a request to the portal. released document and the near future and we're preparing files is there any follow-up questions to the report. >> i don't see any questions so thank you very much.

we'll call the next line item. next is the cri update. >> thank you, sergeant. commissioners, i want to give our monthly collaborative reform update. so, i'll start with the high level where we're on the potential compliance tracking. we're at 78 in substantial compliance and we have another 39 that there was a request for information. we submitted them to california doj and they requested additional information we have another 20 broken down as follows. seven that we've sent to hayward

heinz for review -- i'm sorry, they're in review for hayward heinz and seven that are actually i mentioned the request for information this time last year when we sent say package in for review or sent a recommendation in for review it goes to hillard heinz and they give their evaluation and it goes to the california doj who has a final decision on whether or not it meets the agreed upon sun stan shall compliance standard. we introduce a process of pre screening and what pre screening is is rather than send it cold

to hillard heinz or the california doj we pre screen and go over the com ployance standards prescribe to submission so if there are any gaps or any issues, we address them before we send it for final review. and what that is done, it's really, in the past couple months, it's eliminated this request for information. holding pattern that we've seen with some of our recommendations, we have a good track record when we introduce the pre screening and when they get to hillard hines and subsequently the california doj we've had really good success with substantial com ploy ant. we do anticipate because of the pre screening process, the 20 that are being reviewed right now will be found in substantial compliance and if that is the case, it will bring us to 98 within the next couple weeks, we believe, it's substantial

compliance and i've discussed this with the commission in the past, about our plan for the next five months and really our plan for the next five months is to bring more than 100 and we have a really good flow right now and that's the high with 32 of the 58 use of force

recommendations. commander rob is the executive sponsor so he is in charge of moving this work and he has a staff of people, officers, both sworn and unsworn to help him get these recommendations in and complete it. we have successful completion of six use of force recommendations and this month and four are in that external review process that i just described and two have already been moved to substantial compliance. two of the police station examors our crisis intervention team, protocols, that was a completed finding so that work was turned in this month and the use of force executive sponsor workgroup has created community outreach materials quarterly public presentations to the police commission on the department's use of force and officer-involved shooting investigations and protocols and that brought us into completion of findings 15.

finding 19 is complete with consistent officer-involved shooting files in the mou and operationalized and put into practice. we have five recommendation that's have been found to be in substantial compliances this past month. which, is a nice accomplishment. couple of highlights there, our staff inspections created and implemented a continual audit practice to ensure com ployance with the department equipment and appropriate use standards so that's on going and then our department noticed 20 -- 125 for newly adopted general orders including the proxy general order that the commission has of. part of this is refining processes to distribute general

orders notices and bulletins when they've been approved and we have now ak ta rate ised our power dms system to make that processees year too and it's another recommendation that the commission we will hear about and we believe it will be substantial compliance and the recommendation as well. community policing monthly highlights. there were two recommendations brought in into and nine recommendations are in review. we've had two orders issued by the deputy chief of the field operation bureau and. one operational order established policy and procedure for supervisors and captains to focus on the president's obama's 21st century policing task force report which was one of the recommendations is that every comment of the department needs to read and be familiar

with that report. our district stations incorporate six pillars of the 21st september row policing report and monthly community meeting and we audit toes community meetings and the content of the meeting to ensure it's happening. and just as a reminder, those pillars are a pill one one is building trust and legitimacy and oversight and technology and social modia and community policeing and crime reduction and training and education, wellness and safety so those pillars are discussed at the captain meeting on a monthly basis. the second is a format for our district station news letters. we wanted to stand ar dies the news letter so they're consistent with the content and order. if you look at the news letter you will see the same content and order as you will with northern. or bayview. so, those are available on the

department's website and this order will help bring us to compliance for that particular recommendation. the next is accountability, we have throw recommendations to use substantial com ployance next month and five recommendations are in that external review and validation process. i mentioned the power dms technology that we i am muchmented and through out the department. that's a part of accountability and it's been rolled out department wide. we did a pilot in the southern district and it was successful and we are rolling out that department wide and the power dms system makes the department general orders in notices and more accessible and easier to access by our rank-and-file officers. so, we believe that is a step major step in the right direction and in terms of the

reform and what we need to do to make sure that information is available to everyone. our power dms allowed for concise concurrent because we up load those documents so it's easier to access the document to add it to provide and put in feedback. it will increase our see efficiency and it will increase our monitoring capabilities to determine whether officers are signing off on the bulletin and officers are receiving these document and being held accountable for their content. and then the last category recruitment, hiring and retention, two recommendations were configured in august and have been submitted for external review and we made progress

senior leadership ex the rank-and-file and that information is accessible and both by department members and to the public and also our staffinstaffingstaffing and dept created two and a half years ago created on going mechanisms to allow for comparative demographics and analysis against our workforce composition. we can look at tenure and manage our personnel more effectively because now we have this information available in our finger tips thanks to the work that our staffing and deployment unit and our technology team has created to make it easier to manage those issues. those are the highlights, commissioners, and i will be there for any questions.

>> chief, i have a question to read this report. i'm just trying to following along. on slide two it says there were five subjects were moved to com ployance in august and seven in september. you have five in june and july. i was just trying to follow along and track what is in this report to those numbers. so what got put into substantial compliance and when and what subject matter. it's not that clear to me what i'm trying to read through the report. what is happening in each month and it's a small point but it would help me in terms of clarity and i'm sure it would help the public in terms of trying to figure out what is in compliance in terms of substance commissionesubstance. in each of the categories, these

reports, is that part of the -- where is that the over all slide two moved to substantial compliance in august or september. where did each of these things track? >> so two have been moved into substantial com ployance since our last report to the commission. these basically we have 20 in review right now so what we expect and what has been happening is we'll have those 20 and we'll get notifications from this point forward, within the next two weeks, that the 20 recommendations are in substantial compliance. so in the next report, whatever has been found in substantial com ployance from this date to our next report, will be reported. and in september, we're halfway through the month right now, and

we have had seven that have been moved to substantial compliance and we anticipate out of the 20 we'll have seven brought into substantial compliance for the end of the month. if that happens, the next report will show a total of 14 for the month of september. >> every month when you come, i've asked to you come in here monthly and report on it so month to month when you report i want to make sure i understand what just happened and that prior month so what subject areas were moved to potential com ployance in that month and it's not always clear when i look at these presentations, i want to say we did that in september and that was in august and so i know that as we're tracking when you come to report next month, which it will be in

october, i want you to be able to list out what do we do in the last month since our last report. >> so for instance, for the next report, where that seven in september, what we can do is modify the report to actually tell the commission and the public which recommendations. >> that would be helpful. >> ok. >> it's just numbers but to see the work being done. i'm speaking for myself. i imagine that it might be helpful with the members of the public when the same numbers it doesn't mean anything and when you are tying it to the recommendations that would be helpful. >> commissioner. >> the 98 you said we should have achieved in the next few weeks does that include the 20

that you are talking about? it should be checked off as suck substantially comply around. >> we have 78 moved and we have 20 in review. so 78 plus the 20, that's are with the 98 comes from. >> i will present in front of the board of supervisors regarding the cia updates and i wonder if you will present that material to us first because last year's presentation, there are a lot of interesting facts that came out in front of the board of supervisors that the commission wasn't aware of.

and so, i am hoping that this year we will be given a preview of what is going to be presented at the board of supervisors hearing and it's my understand tag hillard heinz will be there like theunderstanding that hills will be there. >> we can definitely do that. my understanding is that it's been moved and i don't know what the exact date is but we can work with young blood and vis president taylor from the agenda and we can do that. >> i also would welcome you and your staff to reach out to the board of supervisors and find out their concerns and last year the hearing they have several concerns especially with how the implementation process is happening and how slowly.

>> my final issue is that, what and maybe this is again, i don't know if you can answer this on the spot now, well it should be addressed. we're in phase 3 right now in terms of trying to get all the of the recommendations done and be substantially compliant. what happens after that? what is the next move? i think that you know, we need know what happens next or what

the plan is after we comply with all these recommendations. i don't think the work ends there? >> it does not end there. i think the commission heard me say the work should never end, really. in terms of the recommendations, when we went no this mou two years ago with hillard hines and california doj with mou and the contact with taylor heinz, we said then that we felt there would be a need to be some type of follow-up or just by virtue of some of the budget challenges we've been having since this work started. we didn't anticipate some of the recommendations would have a real chance of being completed. particular low those dealing with technology where money is involved and we have to get the budgetary support to implement some of these recommendations. we went into it with that

discussion on the table from the police department's perspective that there's going to be a after phase needed to finish the work. we would really, really, i think in the department thinks that the col ago ra tive partnership nodes to continue as much as we can do that. it really benefits the department in the city in terms of this work. with that, we're working on what that next phase looks like. we believe that we'll have definitely in the low 2 hundreds, completed by the spring of this year. and we also have identified about 50 recommendations that will go beyond this year and this coming year and based on the things i said, budget and other issues that are going to

take more time so we've identified about 50 and we're refining our plan to get those 50 done. we still need, in my opinion, to have that collaborative partnership to really make this work on going. think the processes and the foundational work that we've done will help us carry forward but we're not done yet and come next spring we shouldn't be done with this col ag collaborative partnership. as you know, it took a lot of af work to put this together. it's important we continue. with everything going on and the world of policing in this country. that's what we plan to do.

>> great, good to hear. >> thank you. >> i don't see any other questions so next item. >> i should be there. i don't see in the chatbox. go ahead. >> ok. chief, thank you but i, and a lot of zoo, i' other, i'm sure , don't know what you mean when you say substantial compliance and it can vary from each and every one of the recommendations. one can be a matter of putting the picture on the website and adding phone numbers to the website, accepting out letters to applicants? or it could be as serious as not

having to process in place in terms of measurements, follow- follow-up, and following up and making sure the achievements are met. i don't know what you mean with all these different 178 substantial compliance. for me, we need to clear that up. if there's other significant issues, that are open on the substantial compliance we should know about that and i also wanted to follow-up with what you just talked about. i mean, in a few short months it will be five years. to keep moving forward with these recommendations so i'm looking forward to when you will say compliance but we should have clarifications what substantial means and that's my two cents.

>> thank you, commission for that and thank you for bringing it up. if i can take a second to explain and compliance and to substantial compliance of standards and some of commission may remember, when we were working with the us doj we did not have really any codified standards of what compliance looked like. so basically, at that time, they took the recommendations we did and whatever works and we saw as necessary and appropriate and we submitted to the us doj, without any really standards of what general or otherwise, and there

was no real set standards on substantial compliance or what compliance was, period. so it was the us doj look at our recommendation and saying ok, we can go with this and we think, yeah. it was that type of thing. it was frustrating for us and i think it was frustrating for the public because there was this in between world where we didn't really know where the goalpost and the finish line was. when we see engage with the california doj, we the department asks for them and hillard heinz to work with us to develop compliance standards. so, each one of the 272 recommendations has specific compliance standards that we have to meet in order to be found in substantial compliance and they're not all the same.

to see whether or not we're still sustaining the work which is really important. so they were put in at our request and each one has each recommendation as a different set of standards for those stands ar are kotarot codified and in writeing and we know where the bar is. we have recommendations and

either hillard heinz or california doj or the both of them and say we don't think your continuous improvements will meet the mark so they kick it back and send it back and we have to revise and come up with a better protocol or better way of that continuous improvement loop. so, all of them are in writing in terms of what the compliance measures are and 272 recommendations and each one has at least three, some six compliance measures and that is how we're measured. and it's reviewed independently by the california doj so so that's how the presses work. i hope that explanation helps. >> thank you. >> ok. you are welcome.

>> thank you. next line item. >> clerk: presentation regarding data-driven prevention and intervention strategies. >> good evening. may i start. >> good evening, commissioners, chief scott, director, commissioners, staff, and the public as well. my name is tiffany sutton and i'm the director of (inaudible) san francisco police department. tonight, i will be giving a presentation on our community strategies as it relates to gun violence and homicides in the city. this presentation will look at our strategies through a community land and a data-driven approach. next slide.

every week our crime analysis unit runs a gun violence report. the crime annalist unit sunday the client extra gee division ex they produce this report and ternal reports to our command staff, it gives amounts of what our gun violence looks like during the week and when you look at gun violence and the shootings so the shootings of victims are represented in blue in comparison and last year we were at 80. (inaudible) and it's a steady trend farce our gun violence is concerned. when you look at our homicides and firearms, unfortunately we

are up from last year and then when you look at our homicides for year to date, we are also up. -- last year we did very, very well. but still, one homicide in our city is too many. so there's still work to be done. next slide. when we lock at data and trying to think about our strategies, we look at the districts as well. and so, i have the annalist run our numbers as it related to our district where the shootings. as you can see, bayview has 37% of our shootings that occurred

in the city with ingleside and tenderloin at 17% and mission at nine. i remember last, i believe it was last week, commissioner taylor asked and these are all districts of community of color and what are we doing about this? and so i think it's important that first, i talk about the strategies that we're looking at as far as the police department is concerned as it relates to our community engagement and i'll talk about the districts, what some of the districts are doing and then last i'll end this presentation with what investigations are doing all around our community strategies. next slide. strategy through data-driven

approach to improve public safety with respect. >> our crime strategies, we approach our strategies two-pronged. go to the next. it helps us think about our strategies going to be. our crime annalist unit run operational data and they provide reports to our internal staffing which includes our command staff, our district. also i always ask them to run data to help me to think about some of the strategies around how are we going to engage with the community? what's our best focus and taking this data and he had kateing the

community on the data and they can help with strategies too. next slide. recently, as we looked at our data, and we thought about how is it that we can really focus our strategies with the leadership of chief scott we sat down and we really thought about, ok what's is it that we want to accomplish as it relates to tackling our violence relate today our shootings and soldiers and we saw ok, let's create look at this. how are we going to look at enforcement, our community strategies, and how are we going to get the community involved. so we recently developed a strategic response team. with our strategic response team, i want to first highlight we looked in the department and

said what programs do we have internally that focuses son our at risk students? and i want to say california has a term where we no longer call our students at risk it's promise. we looked into the department and we thought ok, what program do we have that really focuses on working with people or our youth in our communities of color? so we identify operations genesis as one of those internal programs that really worked with the students in bayview hunters point, students in sunny dale, work with students just throughout the city but the main focus is the bayview hunters point. one thing officer johnathan is doing currently, was he build a program in conjunction with sbip called neighborhoods united. and that was an intervention

program where they saw a few neighborhoods together individuals from those neighborhoods. and brought them to the table during the summer and talked about ways in which they can bring peace in the community through restorative justice model. during that summer pren program, they also paid the students stipended and end touchdown with a two-day retreat, with social distances, where they took the students or took these young men out of the community and took them to napa and let them explore and talk about the ways which they would engage each other and bring is it back to their community. we have our street violence response teams. this is one of our efforts where this is a coordinated

service-driven model for victims of shootings and homicides. and this is a really important strategic strategy that we have because it looks at our shooting victims and our homicide victims and it focuses on both individuals' needs and how is it that we can wrap around services and around the individuals and what is will you enforcement going to do around retaliation and and going out and making

sure they're talking and van asking the area to make sure we can quell any type of violence or dispute that may come up. how is this process working, our sbrt program is three components. notification, activation, and coming to the table to discuss this and when a shooting and we send that notification out and inform department of public-health as well as to svip which is the street violence intervention program and when we send that notification out, it let's me know the shooting or a homicide occurred within the city and then they go out and they make sure that through a community-driven less they're talking to the families saying what are the immediate services the families needed at this time

and in every wednesday, we come to the table and we have our partners there at the table and we talk about, ok, who is taking the lead, is it going to be the d.a.'s office? the vph who are is going to reach out to the families and see what the needs are and we go around the table and discuss the next plan of action is. if can you go to the next slide. as can you see through this slide, it represents all of our partners who are at the stable which includes, as i stated, the department of public-health, the death penality victim witness advocate services, the school district, housing, and also enclouds our law enforcement which san francisco police and juvenile probation department, adult probation and we have our community based organizations which is svip and then also have our faith-based at the table as well. so there we all talk and discuss

how we are going to meet the needs of the victims of the shootings or homicide incidents. at the end of the month, sbrt, who led by lilly romero who is under the strategy mission, she gives this report to chief scott as well as myself and assistant chief redman and we say this report right here recrates a metric for us to know how many people have we served, how many families have we served? and it also looks at the number of meetings we've had and the number of incidents we have. this kind of helps us to gage the families that we serve.

we have partner for partnership safe communities. this is a consulting firm who is experts aren't violence intervention and how do we reduce violence in different jurisdiction. it has worked with stockton, new mexico and various city agencies around looking at how it is that the department is looking at our gun violence and homicides. they're looking at our meetings and how we engage with the communities and they're working with this to help us create better strategies on how we work with the community, our service intervention partners and our internally how many meetings are we having and what's the focus of our meetings and if our meetings are going well. so they just come in and give a

whole look at the strategies around gun violence. next i want to highlight -- i'm not sure if you are familiar but last year in 2019, in october, the strategy division to have our first gun violence summit in collaboration with sbip and we also with our community engagement and we brought together individuals from the bayview communities take holders that worked with those and were involved in gun violence and we talked about different ways in which we could as a community and law enforcement will -- we brought a panel into talk about various gun violence strategies and resources and we had one

panelist talk about (inaudible). various cities and community organization that's we're looking at effect the strategies around gun violence and homicide so during that gun violence summit, when we talked about the police department made a commitment that we would at least look into pursuing that grant. we didn't know if we were going to be able to but through the leadership of chief scott and redmond we sat down with california partnership, svip and we sat down in the collaborative effort and decided were goin weg to pursue this grant. i'd like to highlight to the commissioners that we just recently found out we were awarded the grants of $1.5 million which those funds

are going to be going back to the community and as well as those funds are going to come back to our efforts around evaluations and looking at our data and -- >> is anyone else having trouble hearing director sutton? >> >> it's strong but you cut out for a little bit. you might be having connection issues. you are back on cam are now so

try it. >> can you hear me? >> you are back. >> ok. >> great. >> next slide. so, i'd also like to highlight our community engagement positions so before i move onto the community engagement division those were just some of the strategic efforts that we're looking at as far as supporting the community and looking at finding resources and bringing partners to the table to see how we can work together to reduce gun violence and homicides and all the districts city wide. i want to highlight our community engagement division. because, the strategies division is a little different in that we decided to look and focus on the violence piece that would have

been the department and how we can be focused and intentional about how we're engaging the community around violence. our community engagement division they do the same although they have a broader lens where they focus a lot on our community trust and building trust and they are our focal point of our community engagement strategies and they do a host of different programs and they have youth-related programs, community safety education programs and our school resource officers and we're still looking at that and in lyft everything that happened over the course of the month and they engage and hosting national and unfortunately with the covid-19 we're being creative. our community engagement division is creative how we will

continue the programming in light of the social distancing and having to have a lot of our activities and stuff being in zoom they looked at that data and they decide how they will use their data around the community strategies and as well as their enforcement, deployment, and how they're going to put their plan together to keep their district safe. recently, in working with captain dangerfield, as you can see from the slide that was previously presented, we ran data and we know bayview

district has a largest percentage of shootings and incidents and homicides so they asked our crime annalist unit to run data around our shootings and when we thought how can we be strategic in using that datao work with the community. we ran that report. i provided the report. we looked at the hotspots within bayview and then we thought about ok, how can we get the community involved, right. so, what we're going to do, coming up for the holidays, is we want to put together a public campaign. a note where we can create a no-violence campaign. we're already identifying stakeholders to bring to the table to think about, ok, what things do we want to have around this no-violence as we get ready to hit the holidays?

we want to look at, you know, what areas are we going to focus on and make sure that we get out there and we talk to residents? we want the community to build (inaudible) to talk about what does it mean to be safe to you? it means, not hanging out in your cars and watch your neighbor's back. we want the community to really make the effort. [please stand by]

and last i want to focus on our investigation, and again, this is also ruled a community -- and i'm looking at our community strategy, our investigations minute, we have three major units in our general funds, our major [indiscernible] and our investigation unit is [indiscernible] to try to find out as much information as they can as they are building their cases. you know, they talk to as many witnesses as they can as they are building their cases to understand that we have the help of the community witnesses that are not going to be able to hold

[indiscernible] accountable. victim-centered plan. and next slide. and then last i just want to focus on our victim-centered approach as it relates to our homicide unit. now prior to covid-19 happening, our homicide lieutenant, as well as the d.c., as well as chief scott and chief redman were all meeting with the families of homicide victims. the families were coming to the table, and they were telling law enforcement what it is that they felt and wanted to see going forward and how we can include our relationships with the victims of homicide as well as just working together, and i think it's important to highlight that during those meetings we heard from them. we heard from the victims'

families, and one of their concerns was it felt like some of their cases were falling through the cracks. they felt like they weren't being contacted, you know, as the case got cold, and so we heard what they said. and so as a result we created a notification system internally where every investigator, they will get a notification of the victims' anniversary date so that when the anniversary is approaching, that they will then be notified so that they can remember to call the victims. they can remember to just touch base. and we have this notification system set up for cold cases, not our active warm cases that we may not have leads at that point, but it's important that we continue to make contact with our victims' families and let them know that we are still working hard on their cases and

it's important. because one thing that we know as humans, sometimes you forget what people say, but you will never forget how people made you feel, and so if it's extremely important that we continue to reach out to our victims and [indiscernible] cases. i don't have anything else, i'll bring it to a conclusion. i thank you all for allowing me to come present around our community strategies. i was really excited to share some of the information that we're doing around working with the community and really being strategic about the focus that we need our data to drive our strategy. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you so much, and i wanted to thank you especially for the -- the whole presentation was a lot of the part of your presentation was really talking about victims because the truth is we, by we, i mean black and brown people, are unfortunately victims of crimes, and one of the things that is endlessly frustrating

for me is that we kind of get it on all sides, right? like not only are we over-policed, but we are disproportionately overrepresented in terms of being victims of violent -- both sexually violent and plain old violent crime, so we get it from all angles, and it's always a little frustrating because the messaging that comes to black people is, you know, one way or another the message is always that you're worthless, right? either you're worthless because you're over-policed or you're worthless because if something terrible happens to you, if your child is slaughtered, if you are raped, or if you witness that kind of crime, you're not supposed to snitch, so you don't get any justice, right? so when you suffer in one way but you suffer in all ways. that's the unfortunate reality of being black in america for so many people. it's one of the reasons that i was a prosecutor because i wanted to make sure that people

who grew up in my neighborhood and looked like me knew that they were just as entitled as some rich white lady in loren to justice. but it's a continual problem because we're always victims of crimes, and our crimes aren't valued in the same way that other people's crimes are valued, and so i do really want to commend you for talking about victims and talking about building those relationships with victims and within the community because, again, we suffer no matter what. on all sides. and so i'm going to ask you to come back because i want to see how these initiatives are working, right? because they are only really working if people like miss brown gets justice for her child who was slaughtered, right? that's how we know they work. and so i'm going to ask you to come back and present because these initiatives all sound great, but i want to see how, you know -- we still have a lot of murders. we still have a lot of crimes affecting black and brown people, so i will be asking you

to come back, and i thank you for your time. i don't see any other questions from commissioners unless commissioner jesus is trying to talk and it's not showing up. >> thank you. >> then thank you, director sutton, and we will go to the next item. >> next line item, dpa director's report, report on recent activities and announcements. dpa's report will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. the commission discretion will be determine -- future commission meetings. the presentation of the 2019 annual report. >> am i unmuted? can you hear me? >> yes. welcome. >> okay.

so i'm going to go to just the highlights of my regular report. a lot of the information is going to be contained in the annual report, and i know that's the longer presentation, so i won't dwell too much on things, but i'll answer questions in-between the current updates and the annual report in case there are issues that folks want to hear about. we are currently at 581 open cases this year. that is up significantly from last year. this time last year we were at 513 cases. in terms of cases that have been closed out this year in 2020, we're at 640 cases have been closed out. this time last year we were at 447. we have 383 pending cases, and this time last year we were at 370. we have a couple of new base productions, one new case, and this is a 1421 information, but

that one case was 3,030 pages of an officer-involved shooting file. we have updated the new web portal, so i would encourage people to review the new web portal that is online and active now at sfdpa.nextrequest.com. and as a reminder, the case file productions in the past are all on the new portal as well. so that means -- and this just launched last month. i think we may have talked about it in earlier meetings, but all of the case files in the past that have been produced are there and available now, and all of the case files are organized by category. so you can see the categories, answer your questions in real time about which cases have been released and what information is available. currently there's about just over 22,000 pages of information that has been previously released currently on the

website, and again that portal is active and available for anyone to check right now. in terms of outreach, there's a couple of new developments. the mediation division, the brochures are now available in other languages. it's taken a while to get that work done during covid. this was an initiative that started earlier. we wanted to make sure that the information about our mediation program was available to all communities as well, and it is now available in chinese, arabic and spanish, as well as the complaint form is now available in the arabic language. all of these are on the website and are displayed here in our office and will soon be available at all of the san francisco stations which is an obligation from earlier mandate. those materials will be available by the end of this week. on the 15th we hosted -- dpa

hosted a virtual session on police reform and community involvement involving a number of our staff, including commissioner brookter. on the 16th we hosted another informational session on our mediation division with our staff from mediation, and we planned to do two more mediation informational sessions a month to get to address community education about the division and respond to questions that have been raised in the past about how our mediation works. we're also hosting a virtual oversight agency panel discussion with cpccc on the 29th, so that's before the end of this month. and so unless i have questions of any of those updates, i want to dive into the actual annual

report. >> we are waiting for that to happen. >> okay. >> i'll just speak for myself. >> all right. >> i don't want to not risk reviewing it and people would be like you didn't get to that. the numbers will be in the annual report, but is the up-to-date numbers going to be in the annual report or is that maybe something that's in your numbers to report to us, and welcome back, by the way. >> thank you. one moment, please. there's no update on the numbers since the last commission. the numbers are the same. thank you.

yeah. okay. so anything else before i jump in? no? all right. so i want to mention a couple of things because obviously this is a virtual presentation. also there will be new numbers for those cases directed both to the commission and to the chief in october. so as this is a virtual presentation and folks may want to follow along at home, the report, all of this is available on the commission's website as well as dpa's website, sfgov.org/dpa. so if i can ask that it will flipped up and take over the screen, i think that's coming shortly. all right, i'm going to share

content. here we go. so there's a traditional table of contents. so if you're looking at this on a computer, there are bookmarks on the left side, so you can jump to the different sections as i talk about them. what i'm going to be doing during the presentation is referring to the page numbers in the black squares on the bottom left-hand corners of the pages. so if you're following along digitally, those are the pages that i'll be referencing. so we created a short presentation hopefully that aids in your view of the annual report, and we can start with just a general overview. we really worked hard to improve the report style, and as you remember in the past, these reports were typically hundreds of pages long with a lot of charts and graphs attached at the very end. we've always found that hard to decipher without a thorough explanation that was almost page

by page or line by line, and so one of the first priorities that i've had was to try and revamp those reports so that they are legible and readable and people can understand the information just by picking them up what's going on with the agency and what the work is that's being done here annually. and this year, again, we worked really hard to streamline the information that we have been presenting and that you see in front of you. so some of the graphs -- all of the graphs and charts that you see in the report appeared in context. so the graph showing the number of allegations, for example, we received is next to the actual description of what those allegations are. you don't have to guess or try and figure out what either the graph or the chart means. we provided a lot of plain language definitions this year, so you'll get both the technical terms and the legal terms associated with what we are talking about in these reports

along with our plain language definitions, so there's no ambiguity about what we're talking about or what it relates to. and we did some -- one of the things i think was important here, just as we start talking about this report, is we've done some benchmarking ourselves against our counterpart agencies in california as well, and by far our reports are the most transparent and give the most information. i think that's really important when we're talking about some oversight agencies. and so we are looking at when we looked at the comparison both the substantive content and how frequently those reports were issued. now i even had my audit team review this just to make sure that these were factual statements, and here is what they have said because, you know, this is an audit team, so it all has to be double checked and triple checked and everything. their preliminary findings confirm that dpa releases more consistently than many of our

california counterparts, and in releasing monthly and annual reports consistently. so this has been a lot of work in preparing this report, especially during covid, but we're confident that this is our most thorough and transparent report ever, and yes i did say that last year, but i think the report is better this year than last year, and every year i think we are able to include more information and more transparency to it so that more people can understand and follow along with the information that's been provided. obviously a large part of that is informed from the commission itself and the highlights and the feedback that i get from the public and the commission to make the report better. all right, so let's move on to page three, and these are the cases that have been opened -- that were opened in 2019. so as you can see, there are 773

new cases, 2,474 allegations that involved 1,815 officers. and if you look -- if you want to put that information -- or those numbers in context, they reflect a 54% increase in the number of complaints just over the past two years, or in the previous two years. and the culmination of that is 86 -- and i'll get to that later. there's more detail on that later on in the report. let's talk about some of the new terms that we've clarified for this report to make it more understandable for the broader public. this is on page 4 and 5. so one of the recommendations that we took from the d.o.j. recommendations, the department of justice recommendations, was to align our terms at d.p.a.

with the san francisco police department. and that had a couple of outcomes so that people could better understand what we were talking about and it wouldn't be a comparison of apples to oranges, and this would obviously reduce confusion and streamline the process. so we adopted sfpd's terms for allegations and findings. now some of those terms ended up staying the same, but a lot of those terms included things like conduct unbecoming instead of conduct reflecting discredit for allegation. now people might not have known what that meant, so we included a lot of these definitions, and conduct unbecoming is when an officer's rude or inappropriate behavior undermines public confidence or reflects poorly in the police department rather than having to guess as to what that meant when d.p.a. said it or what it meant when the police department said it, we have

blended those so that you can see, and made our terms consistent with the police department so that you can better track that information. improper conduct is classified in our report now instead of sustained for our findings, and the improper conduct finding means that evidence proved that an officer broke a rule or law by doing something improper or by failing to complete a required task. and there is a dozen of these subcategories here. and so what you see here are just the high-level changes to the category names, but just so we're clear, there are no allegations have disappeared. so we didn't eliminate -- in changing these classifications, we didn't eliminate or reduce any of the allegations. they are just re-named to match sfpd terms. you can see that on page 5 there's a chart that equates the old terms to the new terms.

so if you're familiar with the old terms, you can see what they have been re-named to and you can understand and track and follow how they correlate to the same allegations and the same definitions that the san francisco police department uses. next i want to talk about the info graphic here on page nine. we're just going to jump ahead for a second. because i want to highlight here this page because it shows our departure from the reports in the past. in the past we have used a lot of highly technical and legal terms, and many of our audiences still expect that information, so of course we included all of the information, but we want that information to be more accessible, and so we have included things like the infographics that you see here to explain, contract the information that we're talking about, so that there's no ambiguity. we try to provide a visual process map of a single complaint for teaching purposes so people can pick this up to

see how complaints travel through our system and investigations, and to give definitions so that people understand what the difference is, for example, between a complaint and an allegation. and so that's what's being shown here on the screen and in the report. so i want to talk now about the complaints and the allegation totals. this is on page 7 through 8, flip back one page, please. right here is great, and on page 7 you can see this is new, and this is a chart now on page 7 where we combined our complaints at d.p.a. and the allegations totals so that you can actually see what the trends are for yourself by district, and every district has its own markings here with the maps so that you can see it. and on page 8 for those of you that are a little more visual, there's an overlay map version that's the same chart just in a

different format if people find that easier to read or track when they are trying to get information. if we can go to page 10 of the demographics. so these are our complaints, and you can see the demographics by complaints, and again, i'm not going to walk through a line by line of all of the report, but i just want to point out some of the highlights here as i'm walking folks through how to read this report and what stands out. you can see that the complaints come from 46% of the complaints come from people of color, and 31% of the complaints are coming from a de-klain to state in terms of -- decline to state in terms of these graphics. i think that's something that we can work on and do better at, so one of the things we're working on right now is to digitalize some of that information, particularly as it comes in through the internet so it's

easier for people to answer these questions, and maybe they just don't feel comfortable or don't want to give that information, but i want to make sure that i'm making it as easy as possible for people to provide us with as much information as possible so that i can make it more transparent for the rest of the audiences going through our information. these are our findings, the completed investigations, and you can see from the chart that we closed 664 cases and so those are the number of cases that were closed in 2019, and on page 12, the next page, you can see i'm just explaining how it works, that these are the cases that are closed in 2019, regardless of the year opened. so it's frequently the case that investigations began or complaints come in say in 2018, at the end of 2018, but they

don't close until 2019, and so what we tracked here in this annual report are the cases that closed during 2019, and obviously on the back end of that, that means that complaints that came in late in 2019 may end up being closed or may have been closed in 2020. but i just want to frame it so that people understand what these findings actually collect or reflect. you can see in these findings here that proper conduct was the most frequent end of those closed cases or closed completed investigations. improper conduct means that the officer's actions complied with police rules, training and applicable laws. and just as a reminder, we take all cases. so we don't and cannot decline any cases that come in to us, so for example, if someone comes in and says that the officer wrote

me a ticket, if that ticket was in policy, then that is proper conduct. but we would still do the investigation. we would still look into that case, and so but keep in mind that that proper conduct finding is also mean that there is a policy failure. so someone could be found in proper conduct but also result in this agency making a recommendation for a policy failure. so for instance, there might be six proper conduct findings in one particular case, but there's one policy failure that makes all of the difference. so those six officers might not be able to be held accountable for a specific allegation, but the policy failure in and of itself and that recommendation can change the entire way that that case would take place or unfold in the future. so that's a really important distinction for people to understand, which is why we're

spending time on it and i'm explaining so much about what these findings fully mean. the policy recommendations and the policy failures i think are crucial to talking about reform initiatives, and those policy cases can be found on page 22. i'm just giving them context and explaining to everyone as much as i can why they're important. and there's a couple of examples, those cases on page 7 as well in terms of how that process works. i want to move next to page 14 which are the improper conduct and sustained findings. and this summary shows that there are 86 sustained findings of improper conduct, and from that you can see in there that

we actually sustained 185 full allegations. so this means that during that year there were 130 officer investigations and nine of those had multiple complaints. we report it as 130 because there were 130 investigations to track the entire process and 130 opportunities to follow up for discipline. if we can move up to page 15 for the discipline study, this is something new, well newish because we did it for the first time last year and we made it more thorough and robust last year. we published our first ever

discipline study at the d.p.a. last year, and it was a huge undertaking. even this year it was a huge undertaking. we were reviewing predating our case management system. everything had to be compiled and cross-referenced manually while folks have not been in the office due to covid, so this was a huge undertaking, and it involved multiple requests for documents and records internally and externally, and this year's study expanded to a span of 31 months, so that was 165 cases and involved 260 officers. so we provided all of the updates in cases from the 2018 annual reports as well as some of the cases contained information that was sustained

in 2019 as well. and some of this information has just been updated too and is available. again, if you're following on the website, you have all of this updated information as well. and if you want to understand a little bit more, you can see through following the disciplines, the d.p.a. makes discipline recommendations, and i think this is obviously information that most people already know, but just in case, the department of police accountability makes the discipline recommendations and only the chief or the commission can actually impose the discipline, and so some of the main notification issues are, and the numbers have gone down, but we still haven't fixed it yet, and i think this is reflected, you can see it here, where i think 15% of the information is still unavailable to some of these cases.

we have brought that number down. it used to be a rate that's as high as 29%. it's now down to 15%. this is an ongoing issue that we are aware of and working on this with sfpd legal department both to streamline the flow of information and the documentation that are provided to the d.p.a. again, those documentations are happening now as a result of the issues identified in this study that we started with last year, and we are optimistic to find the direct solution to find the access to get the information more readily to bring that number down to zero. >> while you're on this page, can i just push you to talk a little bit more about the actual substance of the report, which i think is what everyone is really interested in?

>> sure. when you say the actual substance of the report, could you be more specific, though? >> i mean the process is interesting, but so we're looking at a page that says things. not to interrupt your flow, but i don't want you to leave this page, for example, without getting into more of what that is actually on this page. >> oh, yeah. okay. >> you're muted. >> well, somebody muted me. i was trying to go -- >> it wasn't me. >> so that people understood what the process was rather than do a line-by-line analysis because people have that for themselves. i was going to be able to answer specific questions, both me and my team are here and available. so back to -- you said you wanted to know more about the discipline study. you can see here that it shows

not just the information that's collected but what the chief's findings were as reported to d.p.a. both when he agreed or departed from the recommendations from d.p.a. as was turned over to him. you can also see from this page the cases that were turned over or sent to commission for discipline, and you can track the actual discipline imposed upon the officers, and that's exactly why we did the chart both in this way with an info graphic and with the numbers as well as with percentages, so people can track it in however way they want to track it. i think the thing that stood out, which i was focusing here on, is the number of unknown, which is just unacceptable. we have to have the information in order to make it transparent and to turn it over, and that's why i was focusing on that area, because the conversations are taking place right now with

leadership both in my office and in sfpd to make sure that they get the -- that we get the information that we need. >> i have questions but i'll hold them to the end. >> okay. >> you can get through all these numbers. >> [indiscernible] and then we'll ask. >> i have questions too. i don't know if it's showing up there. >> it isn't, but now i got you. okay. >> and just to we're clear, i've got the whole team here so we're ready to answer all your questions about everything as we go through, but i'm almost done. i just wanted to go over the overview of what we're looking at before we get into the weeds. the cases there, they are in the appendix.

and again, i can't discuss individual cases in any more detail than what appears in the appendix. they are provided for context so that you have a sense and the public has a sense of how our cases are resolved and the work that goes into tracking each officer involved in an investigation. so for police officer bill of rights restrictions, we can't talk about the individual cases beyond what's in those reports. in terms of the policy stuff, this is on page 18. we had a concentration on youth focus in 2019 where we did a lot with the know your rights campaign and we did the brochures. we did the interrogation of rights and made some really strong recommendations about the sfpd updating their policies to make clear the youth have a

non-waivable right before speaking with an attorney before giving the miranda waiver. we gave the recommendation about officers being required to inform you that they can have an adult with them during questioning. some of the work that we did in terms of the youth rights involved the agency making actual recommendations and working with the san francisco unified school district for their new m.o.u. with san francisco police department. they made recommendations and made policy around biassed policing. we made recommendations and policy around incident reports to domestic violence and sexual assault survivors, policies around deaf and hard of hearing, that djo was the culmination of those recommendations, and a lot of those policy failure cases you can find as well with the specifics on page 22.

just from a couple of examples were some of the cases involving transgressions with victims coming to the s.v.u. unit resulting in folks having, because of policy failures, having to be interviewed multiple times unnecessarily, and there are examples of that in there for you to see. i just want to stress why i think the policy stuff is so important and continues to drive a lot of the changes that we're seeing being made and a lot of the reforms are being defined by the policy as well. if we can go to page 23. this is the 1421 work and the public records. there's a whole section in there about the foundational work. a lot of the work done for that was in 2019, which just set us up for 2020, and again we just launched our new sb21 portal, so people can see the results of

the work that's in the past and even the current work as things are released that are available in that portal. in terms of -- i was going to the next one which is mediation on page 24. there were 38 cases that were mediated, that's 15 more cases than mediated in 2018. going up to page 28, that is the audit. the audit is finished, and it is being published by the end of this month, and i think we have it scheduled already for one of the commission meetings in october, so i know a lot of people are looking forward to that, and there will be plenty of information contained in the

audit as well. let's go on to the sheriff cases, at the request of sheriff hennessy and the mayor d.p.a. was brought to the table to provide for the oversight and independent investigation to complaints that were made about the sheriff's office from the san francisco public defender's office. what began as 19 complaints turned into 36 actual complaints and 36 separate investigations involving 36 separate deputies. currently there is an l.o.a. that is in meeting confer that amends and codifies a lot of the working relationship between d.p.a., the city and the sheriff's department in terms of what that work will look like and could look like in the future, and again that's in

meeting confer right now and going through that process. page 34, i'll close out with this. this is the internship program as well in summary during the summer, we had nine over the summer, 15 throughout the year, and we started the julius term and fellow where we have recent graduates that come and work with our agency, working on police reform and civilian oversight. and that concludes my overall recommendation of what the report is and how to navigate through it, and i now take your questions to answer whatever you may need to know. i will bring in at this time one of my senior team members, sarah monder, who should be available, because this would be a bad time for her to disappear.

>> miss monder? >> i'm here. >> hi. >> i will hold my questions. i'm sure my fellow commissioners will get to most of them. i know commissioner elias has been waiting for a while. >> thank you. i actually have a couple questions for you, director henderson. i'll start with -- the report, i think that you have made significant strides in revamping the report so it is more digestible and understandable. >> thank you. >> on page 2 you talk about bias policing cases. i know i've asked you a couple times to report to the public and the commission what training your staff receives regarding detecting bias, because it's been clear in the 1421 numbers that there are no bias cases or very few bias cases, and i wanted to have that addressed

because my concern was that perhaps your staff isn't trained to recognize these kind of cases, especially now that we are made more aware of the category of services. >> my office participates in the bias training, and that's a city-wide program, but i will point out there was a bias sustained case which was the first in the history of this agency just recently, and so we are ramping up, but i just don't want to leave -- i don't want to leave it with the impression that we are not focused on bias and that we are not standing our bias including the [indiscernible] that has been fielded to d.p.a. of developing [indiscernible] practice investigation. all of that is cased on bias. so that's going to include a lot

more training and a lot -- and a broader expansion of the bias work. >> that's great, because as you know, i'm sure, the city training is in my mind not be sufficient enough, especially for your team who is investigating these kind of offences. there's a particular type of training that would be needed to identify and handle these kind of case, so i'm glad to know that you are on it, and if you can report back to the commission on that, i think that would be helpful. if i could turn your attention to page 3, i'm trying to understand these numbers, and i think that's what commissioner taylor was trying to get at, about some of these numbers. my first question is you indicate that over the past year or the previous two years there's been a 53% increase in the number of complaints the d.p.a. has received. and my question is: has the number of sustained cases also risen given this 53% increase?

>> i have to do a number crunch to answer that definitively. i don't want to just be talking just to tell you anything unless sarah knows offhand, i don't want to commit to anything that i haven't crunched the numbers specifically. sarah? >> yes, the rate of sustained cases has increased. i don't happen to remember the rate last year, but i believe it was closer to 9%, and this year -- so it has increased over time. >> i'm sorry, 9%. what was it this year? when you say last year, are you saying 2019 last year? >> excuse me, 2018. >> and in 2019, what was the rate? >> now i have -- 19%. >> okay. and then my other question, director henderson -- >> but before we move on, though, can i just give context to that, because typically nationwide the number is 5 to 6%, so i want to give context to

what those numbers mean as we're talking about them. but yeah. >> and my other -- i think my other question is when we look at the closed case position, the one thing i want to say first before i get into the numbers is the second category where you lump everything together with proper conduct, unfounded, insufficient and it totals 451 cases, which is equal to 68%, i think we can break those out, because it's a huge lump. a lot of categories are lumped together, and that's a significant amount, that's more than half of the cases positions, so i think you should probably break that down so that the public understands what's proper conduct, what's unfounded, what's insufficient evidence. that leads me to my second question, which is i'm trying to understand the discrepancy and the total cases closed versus those that have -- that you have investigated and found improper conduct. where you have 664 cases and

only 86 are deemed to have been improper conduct, that's only 13%, so why is the sustained rate so low compared to the total amount of cases? is it because of how the investigations are being handled? or is it because the nature of the complaints are just unfounded? i'm trying to understand. are you understanding that there's a huge discrepancy between, you know, when you -- out of 100%, only 13% are resulting in sustained cases. >> i can answer that. the sustained rate is calculated out of the total number of investigated complaints, and so we take out -- we subtract from the number of closed cases all of the mediated cases, the referrals to other agencies and the purely informational cases and the withdrawn cases. and so we really look at the -- for the denominator, we look at

the number of cases that were closed that received full investigations, and so that's why the reason for the difference between the 13% and the 19% that we arrived at. >> so what would be the percentage of sustained cases if you take out the mediated, the referred and the withdrawn? because 10 minus 79 minus the 38 gives you 537. i mean, it's still 16%. >> okay, well, i -- i can crunch the numbers and get those exact figures to you and show you how the cases all added up, how we counted the withdrawals and the mediations. >> i guess what i'm -- what i'd like to understand and i'm sure the public would like to understand is one of the allegations that i think that is constantly being levied against your agency is the fact that people make complaints and d.p.a. does nothing about them. and when you see numbers like this, it is alarming because

it's like, okay, well, why are these numbers so low? and i don't believe that the agency is doing nothing. and i think that they -- you know, your agency is working really hard at this, so i would like you to explain to the public why there is this huge discrepancy when we look at the total number of -- or complaints that are brought to d.p.a. and after investigating d.p.a. only is finding that 13 or 16% amount of the cases resulted in proper conduct. there needs to be an explanation. whether it's, well, most of the complaints are meritless, that's fine, but i think that explanation needs to be given to the public so that they can better understand why these numbers are what they are. and the other thing is i really appreciate on page 7 the complaint and allegation totals. i think that that's really a great visual in terms of breaking it down into stations.

but i would also suggest that perhaps next time you actually [indiscernible] rates in these, based on the district stations as well to give it a little more context. >> i'm not sure what you mean by that. >> meaning, you know, on page 7 where you see that there are 58 complaints and there are 256 allegations, i think showing us, okay, out of those 58 complaints or the 256 allegations how many resulted in sustained complaints, how many were unfounded, how many were, you know, mediated, you know. so that we know -- you give us a total, but you don't break it down into district stations, so that we know out of the bayview, out of the 58 complaints, how many of those resulted in sustained findings? >> yep. >> does that make sense? >> yes. yes. >> okay. you know, because if there's a lot of allegations in a certain district that are unfounded, i

mean, i think that's important to know. the other question that i had is on page 15 where we see the study scope and it breaks down the months, cases, chiefs, commission splits. is this for the year 2019 or is this over the two-year period? >> that covers the two-year period. >> okay. so the two-year period only 11 cases came before the commission, which means that the d.p.a. [indiscernible] is that right? >> yes. 11, actually 12 d.p.a. cases came to the commission and one was split between the chief and the commission. >> okay. and on page 16, which is some of

the numbers, i want to make sure that i'm reading this correctly. i do appreciate you focusing on the fact that the unknown percentage has gone down and that it will continue to go down based on the continued conversations that are happening between d.p.a. and the [indiscernible] accurately before. one of the things that i've tried to understand is that -- and i want to make sure that i'm understanding this correctly, that the chief agreed with d.p.a.'s sustained findings half the time, and out of the half the time the chief agreed, half of that time he ordered discipline, meaning a quarter of the total he ordered discipline in those cases. am i understanding that correctly? >> that's correct. >> yes. >> and i guess i'm trying to understand why there's such a

huge discrepancy with that. >> are you asking us why there's a discrepancy in those decisions? >> well, i think it's also the question is probably directed at the chief as well, because it's my understanding that those -- you know, when you have cases, you then meet with the chief and you go talk about the cases, you talk about the allegations and you talk about the discipline. and so i'm trying to understand when those conversations happened why there's such a divergence of him agreeing with you or not agreeing with you. i think it's simple, right, like, whether there is in fact a sustained finding and then what the amount of discipline is. >> from our perspective, if we recommend discipline, if it's under ten days, we make the decisions based on the totality of the circumstances of the cases, the officer's disciplinary history, the facts

of the case. and so if we feel that it's a case that merits a one-day suspension or a written reprimand, then we like to stick with that discipline recommendation and not try to appeal it to the commission. so really anything under -- that we believe merits under a ten-day suspension falls within the chief's jurisdiction for discipline. >> okay. and i guess i'm just trying to understand whether it's, you know, the chief feels that the cases that you're bringing aren't worthy of finding -- having a sustained finding or they should be disciplined in that matter. i guess that's where i'm trying to understand where the disconnect is. >> it's probably a case-by-case analysis. i can't speak for the chief, but obviously his leadership and his analysis, his understanding of the work that he's doing based on our recommendation is

informed by his own staffing and experience, and these are essentially his employees as well. i don't know why -- i can imagine that it would be a case-by-case analysis, but i think you would -- should ask him about that difference beyond just the recommendations that we are making. my goal in this, and our role in d.p.a., is trying to present as much transparency and clarity about the process as possible so that there's no ambiguity about what goes on at this agency when someone comes in to make a complaint, and i just want to go back for a minute, because you raised an issue that i didn't get a chance to respond to about the impression that d.p.a. doesn't do anything and people make allegations and nothing happens. not only is that not the case, but the whole point of this report is to show everyone what happens with each and every case with all of the numbers so that you can see how many of the

complaints that come in translate into allegations, translate into independent investigations and translate into discipline and sustained cases as well. all of that is exactly what this report is, and so i just -- it could not -- well, obviously it could be clearer because we have questions, and i'm not trying to be defensive about it. i'm just trying to explain what it is, and all of the information is in this report. and obviously every year we try and get better and these conversations inform us in terms of how we approach sharing the information so that it's more clear, so that people can pick it up and see that when a complaint gets made to this agency that something is happening. >> you missed the part from the beginning, this is a great report, you made great strides, and i really do mean that. i think that's why when i ask these questions about the allegations levied against your

agency, giving you the opportunity to explain them, that's the whole purpose, right? i don't think that they are true and i'm seeing the numbers and i'm just saying these numbers, just explain them a little, the two numbers. you do a great job of explaining all the other parts, and i appreciate that. >> and i wasn't challenging you on that. it was when you raised it earlier about what people say, i didn't get a chance to respond to say and explain exactly what the report is. i want to speak to folks that may feel or may have said in the past the d.p.a. isn't doing anything, and it's just the opposite. i don't know how to make it more clear -- obviously there are ambiguities, and that's why we're having these conversations, but the report is designed and intended just for that, and you know, i give a weekly report every week about the number of cases that come in, the number of cases that are closed, the number of investigations that we are reviewing, and what happens at

the end of that pipeline in the analysis and with the commission and the chief. >> right, but you can understand when somebody hears we have 500 open cases and 13 of them are with the commission and, you know, 10 are -- or 15 are with the police chief, people are going to be, all right, let's add that number together. what's happening to the other 400 and something. that's what i'm saying. i'm saying just explain that, because there probably is a logical explanation, but when we hear numbers and we add them up and we say, okay, well, there's the other 400 and something that i'm using -- >> [indiscernible]. >> that's the theory or logic that i assume people would ask, and that's why i asked for you to give me context when you give me these numbers. >> right. >> the other question i had is am i correct that the audit is going to be released and is the audit for the calendar year 2017?

>> hmm . . . >> because on page 28 you say focusing on account of 2017 [reading from report]. >> that is correct. that's correct. >> so the audit is going to -- the audit covers data from three years ago? >> that is 100% correct, and as a reminder, this was an audit that was ordered that was not -- it hadn't been begun. so this was a lot of work in getting this audit together, and certainly the expectation is that you will continue to receive regular updates on the audit, but yes, that is correct. this was voter mandated -- >> in 2016. so four years later we get an audit that's three years old. when will we get an audit that's reflective of more current times? >> oh, keep in mind this has to be a closed data set, and as i've explained in the past, the

audit is a finite issue that is scientifically defined independent of just a typical review. but the audit isn't even begin until 2018 for a number of other reasons, and it had to be a closed data set. >> so 2019 is a closed year, so i'm sure we can get a closed data set for 2019 and get more accurate numbers, right? >> are you sure about that? i mean, it means having the information to do the evaluation. it's a whole process. it's not just that there's a definitive period of time, although that is a big part of it. >> while i'm working on getting the department to give you the data you need that's mandated by the charter, that's mandated by the 96a code. >> correct. >> i'm working on it. so hopefully we'll have that and hopefully we'll have, you know, an audit. the other two things that i'm

going to stop asking questions is, one, thank you for the [indiscernible] most of the cases are or we are referenced in your last annual report, so because of that i think it would be helpful if you put the date of the cases on the appendix so that we understand when it came from, because it's not just 2019. these cases -- some of these cases are actually from 201 and 2017. >> correct. >> that would be helpful. and the other thing that i am going to ask is given the numbers when it comes to the ratios in which people of color are stopped and searched and the atonishing numbers of the fact that when they are search no contraband or anything is found on them, i think it would be helpful for d.p.a. to start categorizing or delineating the 4th amendment violations it finds so that we can be apprised of that category of violations

as well. >> okay. i'll just say that just to speak to what you had raised that we have already started scoping the work for the future audits that are taking place, and so the future audits aren't going to take as long as this one took, and part of the delay in this one, independent of the work that we were doing, was the litigation that we needed to engage in to get some of those records, specifically the juvenile records that had to be included in the audit to make sure that it was accurate. so i just wanted to articulate that. i know we're going to be talking about the audit more when it comes out later on month, but i just wanted to frame it. it wasn't as though we were sitting around or dragging our feet. it didn't even get started until 2018, and i think we've done a really good job, as you will see, in the next month, of collecting this information. and this is the most important point, i think we've done a really good job of analyzing the information, which is part of

the disconnect from data collection that i think is the biggest criticism that i have, not just for my own agency but for other agencies as well. >> and thank you, director henderson. i really appreciate that. i will turn it over to my fellow commissioners, but i think that we -- i would like for the chief to answer that question, which is why -- and he doesn't have to do it now because i think i want the other commissioners should obviously ask their questions, but i think it is something that the chief should address as to why he only agreed with d.p.a.50% of the time regarding the sustained findings, and after agreeing only less than half the time, half of that time, which was a quarter of the whole, he ordered discipline. >> to put a fine point on it, i do think the chief and i think commissioner dejesus's questions as well, but i do have one question, and director henderson, i want to say that i agree, your sustained rate is

two times the national average. the idea that you're sitting around doing nothing is just wrong. this is the most transparent agency of your type in the country, and i think there is just no argument there on that. i did have before the chief [indiscernible] i have questions about both the unknown category and the chief declined discipline categories. there's a disconnect here that i'm not sure i understand, so i'm on page 23 looking at your report. i'm not sure where it is on the short one. yes, sorry about that, but on page 23 it says the chief agreed with 49% of the improper conduct findings and disciplined officers 45% of the time. and then on page 24 it says the chief declined discipline 31% of the time. i'm just trying to understand, like, what -- between that 45% and the 31%, what's happening there? like, what am i not getting? >> right.

>> which is it? ? and then i do want the answers from the chief, but i want something from the director or sarah about what's going on here with those percentages. >> yes, and i apologize because we did issue a correction after the first printing. so would it be declined to discipline number that we were looking at? >> yeah, i just don't know how that squares with -- is it -- if page 23 is right and the chief disciplined officers 45% of the time and we are just backtracking from 100, would that mean that he didn't discipline 55% of the time? do i factor in the unknown, maybe some other percent? i'm just trying to figure out what the right number is here of the decline of discipline. >> for the 45%, the chief agreed with our findings, 45% of the

time, but findings are [indiscernible] per allegation. so an officer may be facing five allegations that we sustained, but there would only be one opportunity to discipline that officer per case. so the 45% represents how often the chief agreed with our decisions on each individual allegation, not necessarily if our recommended discipline matched the chief's discipline. >> got it, okay. that makes sense. okay, so then now to the chief, and commissioner dejesus, would you have questions before i ask? >> [indiscernible]. >> i want to ask the chief about the meaning of the declined discipline numbers and the discipline unknown numbers. did you have questions for either director henderson or the chief? >> yeah, i do. >> do you want to ask them first? >> if you don't mind, i'd like to turn to director henderson because there will be follow-up questions for the chief after i talk to director henderson.

>> sure, go ahead. >> okay. >> sorry, chief. >> so you may have -- you have mentioned some of these things before. we have heard pieces of these issues that are raised, but when you see this 31-month report put together, some of the things in here are very alarming. and we get -- you get a better picture of kind of what's going on and what's unacceptable. so i don't want you to get defensive. i just want to talk about it now that you can see it in this light. and the idea, the idea over a 31-month period that the d.p.a. received final orders and declamation orders from the department for only 27% of the officers, that was on page 17, that's alarming. that means 73% of the information you weren't provided by the department. and the department has a legal

duty to cooperate with the d.p.a., and they've had that duty for over 38 years, and we have heard [indiscernible] that there's some issues about getting the information, and working on it. but over a 31-month period, that work has got to conclude. you know, there has to be some finalization, and if you and the chief can't really come to some kind of understanding, maybe the commission needs to mediate, because it's unacceptable to continue to say we're not getting the information but we're working on it. we're trying to come to some kind of compromise on what we're going to get the information when you have a legal right to that information and they have to provide that information. so this was alarming to see it in this light, and the fact this is a 31-month period and only 27% of the information was really provided in that you, the d.p.a., had to go back and try to paste the information together to put the report together is alarming.

so that's one of the statements that i have. >> can i just say thank you for pointing that out, because the whole point of having the report like this, and including this section, is so that we can have conversations like this and make improvements and make changes. and because honestly we can't fix what we don't talk about. and we can't talk about what we don't know, and so the gap in-between the information that would fall through the cracks or that wasn't being provided, for whatever reason, was much greater in past years. it has started going down, and we are now coming up with new solutions, and i agree with everything that you've said, so i think part of the solution is having conversations like this and part of the solution is having information and reports like this that show where the gaps are so that we know where to focus and where help is needed or where action is necessary. >> i agree. but you know, when you get to the footnote four on page 15

[indiscernible] records from the department, it's an ongoing problem, and i know you mentioned before, but i think this is something that should be up in front every single meeting. not only should we know how many cases you've closed, how many cases are going on, how many investigators you hired, and we're still not getting the information from the department, we're still trying to negotiate with the department. the department -- every single week we should know whether the department is complying with giving you information or not, because you have a legal right to that, and unless you sound the alarm and force us to act on it in some way, it's going to slip through the cracks, and obviously it has here, and all i can say is it's alarming to see it in this fashion. so i would say it should be included in your report every single week to us, how many cases are being reported, how many are not being reported and what you perceive the issue is, and perhaps as a commission waeb we want to mediate between the two departments because this is unacceptable. >> yeah. i get what you're saying. it's hard for me to respond to

say why individual information may be missing other than the requests that are made and the information that is provided to me. >> okay. and you can also talk about, you know, we're not getting access to the files that we're trying to recreate files and it's been very difficult. just tell us what's going on, okay? we can deal with it. the other thing that was very alarming is allowing access to the state punishments, allowing -- the idea that four times the d.p.a. case was complete the chief's letter were completed within the statute of limitations period but no discipline was served. that means statute of limitations are being blown, totally unacceptable, and no excuse. you can see one time, maybe. second time, i don't know, one time shame on you, second time shame on me, but four times, and forgive my alarm like this, but it seems like blowing the

statute of limitation is absolutely negligence on i assume the department's behalf, or wilful. >> i will clarify, that was not d.p.a. so now you're talking about things that -- >> the department not imposing discipline is either negligence or wilful negligence or, you know, deliberate. it's very -- that was most concerning to me. and i think we'll have to talk to the chief about that, but that's the thing that should be brought [indiscernible] too. when the statute of limitation is blown, we should know about that, and how many times it was blown, we need to keep count of that, because that's not an error. that's something that's profoundly wrong. the real question is who was in charge from the department perspective, or what department within the police department was in charge of implementing the discipline and why wasn't it

implemented. those are the kinds of questions we need to know, and it's something we should have known about before this report came up. so that's that one. it was very alarming. that was very alarming to me, and that's something the chief is probably going to have to address. that's something else you should keep in there. if there's any statute of limitations that are blown, we need to know front and center. >> just so we're clear, commissioner, these are some of the reports that i report from my own agency every single week, the cases that are over nine months. it's well before, and as you are aware, i have not blown a single deadline since i've been in this position for the past three years, but i do report on that information. but to the point that you are making earlier about the information sharing and the challenges about getting information back and forth, we are working now in a group with commissioner elias and we'll have a presentation for the commission in october on exactly that issue and a lot of the

other issues that are being raised. >> let me be clear. in your report it says four times where everyone has agreed on discipline, the statute of limitations ran out and no discipline was served. did i read that right? >> you read that correctly, an that was not d.p.a. >> correct. that's the department, and that's a question the chief is going to have to address. who within his department is failing to mete out the discipline, and why? is it wilful? but statute of limitations running is not acceptable, and i know it's not d.p.a. i'm just making my statement, and the chief will come back and ask that, but that's something that you can report on to us where you have reached on agreement, everything is complete, but the discipline was not served, that's certainly something you can let us know because that's within your records. right? >> thank you, yes. >> and then i got to say,

admonishment, there's -- we talk about people being admonished, and it's in your chart, whether they are admonished or not. and i know we have a new disciplinary guidelines that are in the meet and confer process. so the guidelines that really are in effect are the 1994 guidelines, and admonishment is not there. and when you look at your report and when you've added up the disciplinary matrix, i guess that's what it's called, when you look at the u.s. doj, they pointed out to us that admonishment is not discipline, and it really shouldn't be in the discipline matrix, because it's not discipline, it's not in the record, it doesn't count against them at all if they get in trouble, and i believe in the new matrix that we set up it specifically says it's not a punishment. >> that's correct. >> kind of like the first -- it's like the first dogfight is free, you know, and some of

these people who are being admonished for not turning on their body worn cameras, things like that, which are really important kind of infractions, so to speak, and i'm not sure -- i'm not sure whether on admonishment isn't -- the way i understand it, it isn't any form of discipline in any police department, so i'm wondering if we need to revisit that in terms of the discipline nature. i'm wondering if we need to delete that, unless the department is going to agree that admonishment does count as the first offence, so to speak. it does stay on the record and that we can be aware of it if a second disciplinary case comes up. i think it's something we need to go back and revisit. there's no legal -- there's -- admonishment is like a freebie. it doesn't count. it's not on the record, and some of the things that people are being admonished for are maybe things that should be placed in the file and if something else happens we can go back to think

about. it's something the commission needs to go back. it's not in the 1994 matrix, and i wasn't on the -- and don't get me wrong, but i need to ask that question, why isn't it being included in the new matrix, something as a commission we should perhaps visit and delete. those might be all of my issues. i just want to look through my notes because i scribble all over here. if you give me a moment. i think that's it. i think we need to revisit admonishment. i don't think that's an appropriate disciplinary legal avenue. it's just it doesn't count, it really has no basis being in the matrix. i guess that's it. >> thank you. chief, you have a number of questions here to address. the first is from what i have, the number in the report, the declining discipline, the emphasis where discipline is

unknown, the allegation that d.p.a. is not able to get information from you in it sounds like a substantial amount of majority of cases. the statute of limitations issue with the statute running out without discipline being served, and then your approach and views on admonishment. that's a lot. but let's start with the numbers. you're on mute. >> thank you, commissioner. with the first question, as far as the unknowns category, so we tracked the requests that we received. we received a request on february 14 from d.p.a. [indiscernible] cases is where dispositions that had not yet been forwarded to d.p.a. we responded to that request, and as a part of that response,

some of those cases were still open. some of them at that point had not been presented to me. some of them were pending appeal, so they were not resolved yet. that information with the cases that were resolved was sent to d.p.a. by our staff, one of our staff attorneys. as far as our records show, we did not receive another request since just very recently, so i . . . i'm open to hearing whether there were other requests that are beyond my knowledge, but we responded to the request that i received in february. so there's -- i mean, the bottom line on this is i totally agree, the department agrees that we have a responsibility to provide the information to work with d.p.a., and we are doing that, but we have pulled all the emails and requests and all the documents and the only response that we saw before the last one, which was about two, three weeks

ago, two weeks ago i think, was february 14, valentine's day. there was a request with a list of cases. we responded with the data that we had at that time and everything was open. there was no discipline to report. we are not against providing the information. we get a request, we respond. that's what i found in our research. >> so if i can respond to that because . . . >> you're on mute. >> there were more requests than those that were given, and again, this is information that should be provided within 30 days of the disposition anyway, and many of the cases here, the requests were made up to five times each for these cases. at the end of the day, we just don't have the information. we're not getting the

information, you know. this is just something that we have to get fixed. this is -- >> i agree, and if the request was made five times, that is not information that i have. as a matter of fact, i had researched these requests, and that's what i've been given. >> but i think in all fairness, though, chief, the obligation is on you because the charter mandates that the department provide that information within a certain period of time, so i think the onus -- the fact that they -- d.p.a. shouldn't have to request this from you. i think the onus should be on the department to provide this information to d.p.a. so that, you know, they can get moving on it. but you know, i think that's why we are all sitting down and having a conversation, so that we can iron out these details so that it isn't a situation where d.p.a. has to request it and that we are creating a system so that the department provides this stuff in a timely manner so that we can comply with the

mandate. >> correct. so i'll dig further into this, because the information that i have is that we have supplied the information, other than the cases that are open. cases that were facing appeal, so i will get further into this and report back to the commission. if director henderson is saying that those requests were multiple, understanding commissioner elias's point, i will dig back further into this and make sure that i report back further to the commission. if we dropped the ball on it or fulfill obligations, that is on us, and that is my responsibility. nobody to point to except for me. >> okay, and what about the declining discipline? can you talk to us about the 31% in this report? >> sure, the process on discipline is -- and we do this religiously now, if there's a agreement on a case, if d.p.a. makes a recommendation, what we do, in writing now, is send a

response with what our disagreements are, allegation by allegation, and we request a meet and confer. most of the time we're able at least have a discussion. sometimes there's agreement, sometimes there's disagreement. more than often than not if it's the case where if i get a case and i review it and i don't believe that the evidence is there to sustain, disagreement with that. in terms of progressive discipline, part of what some of the disagreements are is we have a responsibility, in my opinion, to be consistent on cases. not every case is the same. we realize that. i realize that, but one thing about the consistency is i see every case. so if i give a punishment or disposition over here and we have a like case with similar circumstances with another officer, it's really not fair for the discipline process to

be -- have a wide variety of discipline on similar type of allegations with similar backgrounds. so i try to be consistent. now i know from hearing what sarah said in terms of how they view these cases, i don't know if the same people are looking at the cases every time. i know they all go through director henderson, but when we do have a disagreement, sometimes it's consistency. sometimes it's the evidence itself. it's whether or not i believe that there's enough to sustain, and sometimes there's been cases in this report where we've gone the other way, where we have -- i have decided that more discipline needs to be imposed. so it goes both ways. more often than not, there is a meet and confer process. i think one of the commissioners pointed it out, when we have a disagreement we confer, and sometimes that resolves. sometimes it doesn't. usually when there is a question about sustained versus not sustained or improper conduct versus proper conduct, those mostly are not resolved, and as

the charter reads, you know, i have the final r final authority on those matters. so let me -- i also want to point something out, though. just for the commission's knowledge, when my staff recommends discipline to me, because they come with a recommendation as well, so when d.p.a. has a case that's reviewed by staff, when that is presented to me, my staff also has a recommendation. i don't always agree with their recommendation, and sometimes i go with a different disciplinary decision which sometimes is hard sometimes it might be lower. but that's a part of the process, and it's no different than the recommendations that i make to the commission, which commission doesn't always agree. that is a part of the process, so i -- you know, to answer this question in terms of what i rely on, i rely on the evidence, and i rely on, as director henderson said, my experience, my look at the evidence of whether or not there's enough to sustain that

case and my experience on whether the recommended discipline, if it's found to be improper, is found to be appropriate for that particular case and is consistent. all the factors play in. but there is a process. i will say and can say and i hope, i believe director henderson agrees with this, that over the past year since he took over, the past couple of years, i believe we had less disagreements and i believe our processes as far as the meeting and confer is more consistent. it's more defined in terms of we always respond in writing so they know exactly what our disagreements are so we can discuss. we haven't always done that consistently. so i do think the processes are better. i think the working relationship is better, and i think the outcomes are better, to be quite frank with you. >> but chief, i'm still confused. this was my question. you say that it's gotten better, but i mean, this -- these numbers are from 2019, and you're saying in 2019 there's only half the time that you

agreed that the conduct was improper. so -- and according to your explanation, the evidence wasn't there to sustain it. i have seen the staff attorneys that director henderson has had, and i, you know, read their motions and look at their work and they seem very competent. so i'm still trying to understand why he's bringing you cases and out of all the cases he's bringing you only half the time you agree with him in terms of it being a case where there was improper conduct. so to me, in my mind i'm thinking, okay, so you're saying that half the time you don't agree with him and half the time you do. and i think that, you know, with staff attorneys do seem very competent, but i'm just trying to understand, when you say there's not enough evidence there half time, that just doesn't make sense to me. >> well, that's not what i said, commissioner.

i think it's a combination of both the actual allegations being found improper and a mixture of that and the mixture of my not agreeing with the level of discipline. >> right, there's two separate -- right, but they are two separate categories, and those were my two separate questions. i think that we shouldn't commingle them. the first box would have the numbers that he breaks down, which is did the chief agree with d.p.a.'s improper conduct sustained findings, meaning his department said out of the 339 cases that he brought to you, 171 of them, which is less than half, you agreed with him that there was improper conduct. the other half, 51%, you say either no or -- and maybe the agreement, your agreement rate is higher because of the unknown, but even assuming so, a majority -- you know, half the time you're not agreeing with him, and so that's one aspect that i just don't understand. and then after you answer that

or can clarify that, then i think you move on to when you do agree with him half the time, so 50%, we're at 50% now, out of that 50%, half of that you are ordering discipline that -- for the cases, and then the other half of the time you're either declining or unknown or [indiscernible] you think there's two different areas of analysis. one is why half the time you're not agreeing with his findings that these were improper conduct and then the second analysis is, okay, when you do agree half the time, you're only approving discipline half the time. i think they are two different things. >> commissioner, the discipline that's recommended, as i stated, is not, in my opinion, the level of discipline that needs to be

for that particular set of circumstances. and again, it has gone both ways. it has gone the other way as well. that's looked at my lens through the chief and my experience and handling cases in discipline for the past 15 years, so that's why it comes to the chief. it's not a matter of competence of the d.p.a. investigators, and i would never say it and won't say that it's a lack of competence. it's a matter of whether i believe there's enough there to sustain that allegation or to see that that allegation is improper conduct. it's not a matter of competence. and again, there are cases that my staff brings me that i don't bring with either. so that's a part of the process. i mean, it's all the way up to the commission level. i mean, you all look at evidence, and you don't always agree. no difference with us i can tell

you that some of the recommendations from my staff with the cases, whether it's an d.p.a. or an internal sfpd case, they don't always agree. that's a part of the disciplinary process. i hear all sides, and that's why we have the meet and confer, and then i make the final decision based on my authority to do so. but it's not a matter of competence, and if you look at the allegations, i mean, they are all important allegations because somebody's making a complaint. it's not a matter of being dismiss of anybody's allegations. this is a matter of what evidence i have in front of me and whether or not i think that that's proper conduct or improper conduct or somewhere in-between. so i think the only fair way to do this is to actually look at the case, look at the responses, and when we do disagree in terms of what the disagreement is and make that evaluation. that's really hard to do from this document. and in fairness to this process, you know, there is a meeting and

confer process, and we do let director henderson and staff know exactly [indiscernible] on every one of these cases particularly i said in the last year we do it religiously. so but that is the process, and i am trying to answer your question as best i can, but at the end of the day, i look at the evidence, i look at the case, and i make a decision based on what's in front of me. >> thanks, chief. i just want you to clarify, because i don't expect you and d.p.a. to agree all the time. no one does or should expect that. that's not what the process is about, because you know, human beings disagree with each other. we just do. on the commission we disagree with each other. but i wanted to make sure that i understand the numbers and i wanted -- when i got clarification between the 45% and 31%, it's 31%, right, where the chief is not imposing discipline. i was confused by that, page 24, or page 23.

we're not talking about half. we're still on the 31%. is that right, ms. monder? >> that's correct. >> okay. and what was there in the larger report? that was a typo that was corrected? okay. so chief, if you could go on now to this whole getting information to the d.p.a. issue, i know that you -- i think you had talked to this commission before, or maybe it was on a call with d.p.a. about the issue. [please stand by]

we're in close agreement generally. but, you know, one of the things that come up again and again is we're seeing thing that come to us that are serious cases. things that appear to be violent or felony conduct. we're getting what i, and other commissioners, i won't speak for anyone in particular, have discussed with you before, a slap on the wrist. and so, when we see these numbers with d.p.a., i think that it's enhancing the concerns for everybody that we're not as a department, enforcing discipline in a way and you and i have spoken about this before about the challenges and in sfpd

and you told me you row lion the discipline. because when people start to understand, certain things aren't allowed, they can decide to get with the program and not get with the program. so, you know, i don't know what the way to do this and i don't know when it's an audit of internal affairs or discussions between the commission and d.p.a. and the chief and internal affairs. i think, and i don't want to speak for anybody else, i really do think that we, as a department, as a commission, because ultimately, this is part of our overnight role. is discipline and whether or not discipline is being fairly and with the goal of not only punishing wrongdoing and correct bad behavior and this is just

another sign to me of the feeling that i think i have at least that we're not getting it done on discipline. i'd like to continue that conversation. >> can i respond to that? >> yes. >> so i just want to on commissioner hamasaki's comments and there are a number of cases

that have been sent to the commission for a termination. serious cases and a number of cases that are in front of the commission right now for termination. just like the commission, some don't have as the recommendation that's were sent and some of them do and i just want to make sure our respond to the for termination which is been quite a few of them and so i want to set record straight in terms of my take on discipline and the incendiary youization i'm going a slap on the wrist, there are a number of termination cases before this commission and our process is some of these cases end in settlement and no sets go

where they go but, there is a wheel to hold accountable when they commit misconduct by me and the department. i want to make sure that we put on the record what my record actually is. >> chief, respectfully, i know what i've experienced an and it wasn't intended as a criticism i'm sorry if you feel it came off that way. we've had these discussions in closed session and it's multiple cases and so, you know, obviously we can't discuss those cases right now by do think that we really need a commission and

a department as d.p.a. to really hold the line and ensure that we do have misconduct. >> thank you vice president taylor and i wanted to state i echo a lot of questions of my fellow commissioners and i really think i wanted to pull it back a little bit and just remember we talk about the d.p.a. report and i think some of the things that commissioner elias and brought up and dejesus are ways we can take to move forward and sometimes, when we get these reports, especially when they're an actually it's like their report card at the end of the year and we don't

have the progress reports building up to it, so if we take the opportunity i would love to work with commissioner elias on working on issues and troubles and trials and tribulations they have with the department. and also, commissioner de jesus brought up something phenomenal bring some of this information each week and it's culmination of together at end of the year because we can have a very robust discussion and conversation about what it is we're seeing but i would like to see it early on so that we can have those conversations and discussion along the way so the report is even more digestible than what it is. i think we did share a

phenomenal job with the report and there's just some things we need to clean up clarify we're hearing and if we can work to do that we can. so i just wanted to stay that. >> keep updating the commission and it leads me to the next point, which we were kind of talking about, our list here, which is the statute of limitations issue so this is kind of the first i'm hearing of this is an issue and so if we have cases and there's an agreement on discipline and no discipline gets imposed it's something we should know about before it happens and so that is something i'm going to ask the chief to to notify the commissioner. if these are on going we should notify them before the annual report. >> not only do i do that every single reporting that's the

whole point of the nine-month period. i flag all of these issues and i have a whole committee internally addressing those cases and just as a reminder, we have not had any of my cases, any of the dpa cases fall into, be blocked or prevented from being sustained or worked on because of these dead lines. it's were i report it. >> i don't even care who. i want to make sure it doesn't happen in the future and so i want the commission can be involved in that, i want regular reporting to the commission because we should know this is an issue that is happening. i'm glad it's not you but frankly, i don't care this isn't happen at all. >> i do think the chief should address it. >> y. i'm going to direct this to the chief.

i want you to respond to this, what is happening here and what we can do moving forward in terms of reporting to the commissioners. >> if they fell out of 32 and they are were four in that report that's ounce. and we have fixed those problems. as a matter of fact, they dealt with that issue and our internal affairs team that worked on that, that's one of the ones in review for completion and we have not had those recently because the systems have been fixed in terms of the internal infrastructure to make sure that the reminders are there and make sure nothing falls through the cracks, all those issues have been resolved so we should not have any of those cases, any in the future.

from time to time we do. there are reminders to make sure officers are served in time for these not to run statute. the issue on those is the officers weren't served on time. and so that has been fixed. more than happy, we'll put it on our list of things to do to report to the commission on that. >> that would be great if you can report on that. i'm glad you fixed it but we need to know exactly how it went wrong. >> will do. >> the last thing that i had on my list was the issue of admonishment and i know that this is something that we have talked about kind of in this commission and various ways as we look into some cases and i know that progressive discipline is something you believe in, chief and it's something that we talked about in approaching the discipline and commissioner

elias worked on. talk to us about this idea of admonishment and i know that to your credit, chief, there are discipline cases where sfpd has recommended termination. i know that. i don't want to take anything away from anyone tonight. so, talk to us about admonishment. this is not a doj recommended punishment. why is admonishment that something that sfpd uses and it's something that you feel should be conditioned to be used? >> on a disciplinary matrix, there were two disciplinary matrix in the past. there's one that dpa used from the -- i think it was a '94 resolution and also the matrix where admonishment was

used in the progressive discipline model. now in terms of technical terms, admonishment is not discipline in the sense that it's on and off the record as imposed discipline. those, it is tracked and by former department and a low level in council written reprimand and termination. and that is progressive discipline so, in terms of what we're trying to do to correct behavior, i think some cases in the appropriate and whether or not it's -- whether or not that

officer has been disciplined before. what distinction is being made here? about what do you give someone an admonishment as another form of discipline? >> some departments have a category so sustain no penalty. it's proven. but there's no penalty so there's other corrective measures that are put no place. we don't have that either. the ability to correct behavior is really part of this process and if it's appropriate to correct bee a xavier, retraining which all of our admonishments,

but i do think there's a place for it and a discipline process. i believe so. and this department, it's not considered formal discipline. so i'm going to -- i think commissioner dejesus mentioned the body-worn camera and there was a time a couple years ago where some of those were admonishments and part of our work with d.p.a. and with the commission the lowest level towards body worn camera violation is a rep ro reprimand. others admonishment is the final disposition. a good example is an officer for getting or not doing stop information. when we had it. some of those is a first offense was admonishment and second was recommended and it went on from

there. it depends on the level of discipline, commissioner. with the old discipline process, it needs to be appropriate and it needs to be appropriate to the history of the officer who committed it and i do think there's a place for it. whether or not the commission wants to continue with that is a disciplinary nature, that was a joint decision between d.p.a., the commission and the police department. and i think it's appropriate for some cases. for some cases it's not. >> thank you. >> commissioner elias. >> a couple thing, one s. i've heard that admonishment was used to sort of (inaudible) discipline. an officer can be admonished and he can get it expunged and he would qualify for promotion. how do you address that sort of scenario or dichotomy and then the other thing that i would

like to say is with respect to your cases you bring for termination, that's true but there's also been instances where that's the recommendation but then, you know, it's a different viewpoint as it goes on. i think what is important is not only the allegations that are or the discipline that sounded the initial charging document but also, what exactly happened at the end of the day. because, you know, those two don't necessarily align all the time. especially in some of the discipline cases i've seen. and the other third thing that i just mentioned that sort of rubbed me the wrong say is the esaf situation. if i look at the appendix that epa did and some of the cases, there are several instances where dpa had brought up -- or had allegations against officers

who were failing to collect data and a majority of the time, and there were half a dozen or more and the chief of no discipline and that bothers me because the data is something that we rely upon when we lock at ripa and 96a or we're looking at how and who it s stopped by police officers. because, the numbers that we do have, which may not be accurate, show that people of color are stopped significantly more than other races. so the fac fact that that violan doesn't warrant some form of discipline is alarming. because we need this data and we rely on it and it's important. so, you know, sometimes they're

not consistent with the recommendation. there are times when i ask for follow-up information and times where evidence that is presented to me, including the officer's history and what is behind the misconduct, the in sight on that and the context on that that causes a disagreement. i think you and i are on the same point that when that evidence is thoroughly reviewed and looked upon by the reviewer who has to make the decision, sometimes it's not always like the recommendations that brought to me. i agree. that's the point that i'm trying to make here. as far as the admonishment and things like (inaudible) i always trotry to look at the context of

the violation. where if an officer has a valid reason for not doing, not a valid reason but for mitigating circumstances, and i do think in some cases, there are mitigating circumstances on any case and sometimes it's aggravating factors, as you know which is the disciplinary matrixes. on these cases where you have to or i have to make a decision between an admonishment and reprimand. for instance a officer neglect a duty of allegation. this would be a dpa recommendation but an officer loses a piece of equipment. the i.d. card. that's misconduct. now, to look at that case and determine the reason that it got lost and make the appropriate recommendation and make the appropriate finding, the point to this is they are is context

with any allegation and mitigating, aggravating factors makes a difference so i think admonishments are pro pro at for any discipline system because neither range of discipline and not everything is mirrors to reprimand but it does node to be addressed and it doesn't mean that it can't be addressed. >> can you define your terms here. most members of the public i'm sure don't know what you are talking about. >> it's a state mandated requirement and the fact they're not complying with a -- >> define your materials. most members of the public don't know, what is (inaudible). >> three years ago, we had what was the program we had an internal collection program of this traffic stop and the software and that was a

requirement per policy and it had to be done. since then, that information is migrated to the ripple report and that information is still reported to the california doj and that's how we get the data for the ripa report. if an officer fails to report like they're supposed to, it's misconduct. and what is looked at is the reason for what is willful and a lot of factors if that happened and officer got caught in an emergency and there are factors that mitigate that we look at, that i look at, when i make a decision on whether or not it's willful misconduct or something different. we do for fair discipline system, we talk about procedure of justice both internally and

there's more like six instances where charges were brought up for officers failing to report data and the results. there were written rep remands which is the lowest discipline. that's alarming. it's alarming because we need that data and (inaudible). and maybe this is a situation where you do node to see the pattern impacted. maybe it's a situation where after looking at the appendix and seeing the cases that are coming before you for these violations, maybe that is something that you should

consider the next time. >> well, commissioner, one thing to consider too is we don't get a lot of e.s.o. p violations anymore. so it was the first disposition and it's no longer the case. it starts a lot reprimand. and that is one of the things when the penalty guide is finalized, that can be set i'm open to what the appropriate level of discipline is. that says the lowest level of discipline for ddo1011 violation is a written reprimand, that can

be done for other offenses too if that's the desire from the department and the commission. so i don't disagree. what i'm saying is, for the first two years, the admonishment was the discipline at the first offense. part of that was the learning curve of implementing a new program as we did with body-corn cameras and learning curve with that and we under the ante on discipline when we weren't getting results. when we started not seeing violations. we're seeing less vinations because we under the atne on discipline. it's appropriate and it can be done. >> the public i'm sure has been waiting so i want to public comment as well. commissioner dejesus, did you have a question? >> i did, thank you. chief, i mean you hit the nail on the head.

i want to evaluate officers and all the circumstances and information. we want to know too. if the officer has been restrained, is the officer has been add monday fished on on issue or a issue that's similar and he is in front of the commission to discipline in the in new and matrix wore setting up and it has to be documented and we can and make informed decision and it's something we can talk about down the road but pointed out and it's not recorded and we won't know about it and i don't think it gives us the full picture so i just want to be fair t. >> it's recorded. it's not recorded with discipline but it's recorded and progressive discipline so, i understand your point though. >> i want to point out, i don't

know if the poa and the union allows the admonishment to be enclouded in discipline so it's something we need to look into. >> it's on the discipline matrix. let us know if that's something that is that something the department can track. >> it's on the matrix and non disciplinary. is that something the department contracts is. >> the question is whether or not they'll have certain rights if admonishment is counted as a disciplinary process is that's why it's not legally in the chief can track it i want to know it because if a case comes to us with someone who had two prior admonishments we should have that information is my

point. >> i agree, i just want to make sure and know if the union can stop us from looking at that information if they consider that. if they consider it discipline that you can't there's no administrative appeal routes on that and they can't take it to up to us. wore thrown a term there's no like back up for and we may not be able to use it legally. >> i want to move on at some point and going to public comment. >> i want to as well. i just wanted to add a comment that this is one of the reasons that we wanted to speak to dhr because there are terms of the past contracts that requires the destruction or ceiling of certain prior discipline matters so, dhr has negotiated a way our rights to use certain things as a commission in the disciplinary

procedures. so it may not be a question of them telling us what they're doing but maybe there's an opportunity for us to tell them well, we would like to see if there's a new contract that's going to be adopted. >> i would -- as you all know, i mean i wanted dhr up here before the commission so i would love ideas on this. if you want to discuss this? i don't know what we can do but i'm happy to talk about it. >> ok, so, i think we should move on so we can get to public comment unless there are any burning questions left. so let's tall the next line item. >> commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements and limited to determining whether to calender the issues raised for future commission meeting. items identified for consideration at future commissioner meeting action.

>> did you have something? >> yes, i did. so, i just wanted to make sure i public lopublicly the chief, alh command staff and just all of our stations for the unveiling of the black lives matter poster. commissioner dejesus brought up a great question or statement in terms of the resolution that was drafted. but i really want to applaud the chief and the department for actually taking that resolution and actually going above and beyond with what we felt we authored in the resolution. definitely happy to discuss in addition to that though commissioner did he jesus, i'm having a call next week with some folks that have been talking about a decal and i

would love to pull you in on that agreement. there can be in addition, to what we currently have but i think there's a lot of thought put into the -- they're not even posters. they're made out of metallic and we had an opportunity as a commission a couple weeks back where the chief actually unveiled to us and the public what they were going to look like. we were able to giffin put and give feedback. i can share when i was at the event, there were members of the public that were there. i do want to apologize to members of the public, just because of covid-19 protocols, we weren't allowed to have a multiple or a large gathering of individuals there and i know some folks reached out to me on social media asking why we didn't reach out or allow members of the public to actually attend. it was due to covid-19. and again i want to restate

because there was also that statement when we first came out witcame outwith the resolution s political. it wasn't and i think by all of the stations being able to share what black lives matters means to them on the poster really reiterates that so thank you to commissioner taylor for co authoring all of my fellow commissioner colleagues for unanimous vote to have them put up. i'm looking forward to the rest of them being put up in the rest of the stations and commissioner de jesus i want to have that commission about what we might be able to do in addition. >> i agree. >> ok. and i also want to share on tuesday big thank you t for in inviting me to speak on a panel where i got an opportunity to talk about many of the reforms and dgos that my fellow colleagues have been pushing

forward as we look atri form in our communities and how policing takes place in our community. i think if the panel was really fun. first and foremost but it's always great when we get an opportunity to talk to folks that are interning or in various positions that really want to get more in sight to the commission and actual work that our commission is doing. i was really happy and excited about that and wanted to shout those folks out. with that, i'll yield my time. >> thank you. >> next line item, please. >> clerk: next line item is public comment. the public is now welcome to make comments online item 1. for members of the public that would like comment dial (415)655-0001. for those on press star 3 now to

raise your hand we have four public comments. >> ok. first caller. >> you have two minutes. >> member of the police commissioner. i sent you an e-mail earlier today but i felt this is important enough for me to call in so others in the san francisco can understand your lack of concern for the men and women of the sfpd. you should all be ashamed of yourself for your anti police bias and total dis respect for members of your own department. on july 25th, 2020, 53 days ago, sergeant william bud clinton, a well respected member osfpd with service in our city was attacked. he was transported to the apartment where he received treatment for a stab wound to

his face. not one of you called him or his family to express your concerns or inquire about his condition. even after you were notified of the incident. please do not claim you were not notified. the story was in the newspapers and even the anti law enforcement district attorney tweeted best wishes for the sergeant's fast healing. i'm sure you still won't bother contacting him after being publicly called out. you didn't 53 days ago, what would be the point now. and today's anti police environment i'm sure you would rather call the suspect to make sure he was ok before you called sergeant clinton. it's clear by your inactions you don't care about the sfpd officers, the officers know it and their families know it and their friends know it and now the people of san francisco know it. your inaction demonstrates loud and clear your disrespect for

sfpd. it's a shame that my nephew a proud native san francisco, i would discourage anyone from joining the sfpd that's exactly what i have told him. the police commission does not support sfpd officers. you are a disgrace. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi, this is mimi clausener about the agenda again. i want to remind you a filed a complaint with the sunshine ordinance task force about how grouping the first throw items as one on the agenda restricts the public from commenting on each item. which is a violation of section 67.7 of the ordinance. commissioner taylor, you actually said during this meeting, can we have the next line item. which is exactly what we were saying. each of the three items.

the reports from the chief, dpa director and the commission should be separated on the agenda allowing public comment on each item. i am now asking the commission to put this i ask you, why are you so afraid of an addition of four minutes of public comment per person? i don't know because you have yet to say why you are refusing to dis am big eight these three items. i see you are dig north your heels as part of the political theater that is the police commission. they are supposed to set policy and discipline misconduct but what you do, week after week, and no disrespect to any of you personally, is sit there, listening to chief scott give you misleading reports, violence in the city, praise for the

department for the few reforms it i amment and ignore the public input and as for discipline and cost, we just don't know whether you are doing anything at all unless something is leaked to the press because those decisions are made behind closes doors. are. >> due have accountability you create fascism in the department

and there's no way that murder is not agreeable. how can you not understand what that is? you have alex and louis, and mar row woods who were all killed during the reign of the chief force. they have no justice. all the case have been called in about count less times by their families and i don't know if the regardless of how long ago it was because wrong is wrong. every case should be brought outside of that department and if the chief doesn't know what right is from wrong. when negligent parents deny their faults the children are

never served. stop making excuses. fix the court issues. the court shoes are internal racism, low i.q.s, prior military training and trauma, in-- and power trips. it's the bolt bottom line. police officers have too much of it and they handle it. more peace officers, less weapons, dis panned the p.o.a. and the police department and listen to the people and please, reimagine public safety. i yield my time. >> thank you. next caller. >> you have two minutes. >> caller, are you there? we'll go to the next. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes.

>> caller: i'm calling the over all pieces of the report. when i want to comment is that these conversations are important to be had in public and the out coming renegotiation of a police contract to place that in private further limits our capability both your capability as a council and our capability as a population and having meaningful conversations about what police are supposed to do in our culture. and i disagree fundamentally that all of this should be had behind closed doors. i think the result of having the conversations behind closed doors has been a continuation of the politically oppressive and broughtal behavior of the sfpd. population is calling on you yet again to do your jobs and regulate the brutal auto control thugs wandering the streets that

you are supposed to be controlling. so, tonight, again it calls for a less beatings and a functional justice system, which the sfpd does not mean. >> thank you, next caller. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: my name is peter and i live in district 5. there's something one of the commissioners mentioned earlier about amending the p.o.a. contract with regard to improving accountability measures and particularly the discipline. i support that because we absolutely need more and more police accountability because when you have a badge and a begun, you should be held to a higher standard than anybody else. thank you. >> thank you, next caller.

>> good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> hello, this is zack dillon. thank you chief and lieutenant for the 1421 report earlier tonight. records identified and records released is important piece of information for the process of transparency. and hopefully that d.p.a. can follow suit and identify the same types of information. bottlenecks and log jams can be identified and dealt with by the commission. the two sexual assault cases shall identified. sometimes between june 23rd and july 31st but still yet to be released to the public. i would hope the commission would take note of that and the 14dbi cases and 66 shooting cases that identified the not yet released and perhaps advocate for riel occasion of resources. this law was signed two years ago and has been in effect for 22 months. december of last year our office presented here to the commission and showed the that d.p.a. produced responses on 14% of the sfpd officers and sfpd responses

on just five percent. 10 months later there's responses on 15% and 1% incres and sfpd has prod responses on 11% of officers. also in december we asked this commission to establish a deadline for completing these 1421 releasings and it has not happened in dpa and sfpd are on track to get all records from prior to 2018 released in 20 years. this commission has limited authority and it can exercise the power it has and district dpa and sfpd to prioritize compliance with these laws and help clear obstacles that are a parent when reviewing the data like the chief presents every month. after disappointment from the state legislature, and accountability, there's leadership on this front and our city can be an example of what can be done instead of another example of what should be done. >> next caller.

>> >> good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: my name is johnny quinn, district secon 5 and i'm demanding poa conduct open sessions. i don't believe the poa can be trusted and the public nodes to know what happens in these discussions and listening to what is happening and it's reflecting the long history of the p.o.a. attempting to strong arm the police commission interjecting transparency and accountability. they've attempted in the past legal action to reject policies like prohibiting officers from shooting at moving cars which is jessica williams and the use of the carriage restraint that killed eric garnier. they cited quote, meet and confer unquote so they can still kneel on the necks of san france after that same move killed george floyd. see what happens when p.o.a. operates unchecked while union workers are facing salary freezes and the pandemic the p.o.a. is still negotiating behind closed doors with the

mayor and resources to keep their are raises and prevent layoffs and lock in two more years of raises. that's ridiculous. i've heard members call for more transparency and all police accountability work and i asked that you live up to these proclamations and vote against holding a closed session. a vote to hold closed session is vote for the p.o.a. and against the people of san francisco and we need all discussions regarding the p.o.a. in open sessions, this is a matter of public safety for all of our communities. i yield my time. >> you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, i'm calling from district 9. like my neighbors i'm calling they conduct all negotiations and discussions regarding p.o.a. including today's, in open session. the p.o.a. cannot be trusted and the public needs to know what

happens in these discussions. the only thing preventing an open session is your desire to protect the p.o.a. ahead of the citizens of san francisco. there's broad consensus not just in san francisco but across the country that police contract negotiations must happen in public and organizations from the major cities, chief police association to the u.s. kong frens of may ors to the ncpp defense and education fund to the aclu have called for complete transparency for all law enforcement contracts proposals. for the sake of the common good. there's no law requiring the police commission to hold a closed session even assuming the brown act and the sunshine ordinance allowed but do not require a closed session. the sunshine ordinance states that elected officials, commissioners and council and other agencies of the city and county exist to conduct the

people's business. the people do not see to these entities the right to decide what the people should know about the operations of local governance. we have heard multiple members of this commission, several times tonight, call for more transparency and all police accountability work. we need you to live up to the proclamations and vote against holding a closed session. the poa cannot be trusted. despite numerous court rulings rejected the interpretation of meet and confer, they continue to spread misinformation through out the city government. s that the charter amendment was able to move forward. this is frankly unacceptable.

when p.o.a. operates in the shadows. we have union workers facing salaries. >> we have two callers left. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> >> chief scott and executive district and i'm with the public defender office. it's go ahead to see the 2019 annual report and learn what d.p.a. has done over the past year, by all accounts it's a solid report and it's the middle of department. why are we just seeing this nine months into the year i'm sure covid-19 has challenged the ability to put the. >> president obama: tation and last year report was reported to the commission in october. there was another pandemic. no one else is said it the public needs quicker transparency and open this report could be delayed. even when the reports are

published, they show little substance of discipline from what looks like serious misconduct in some cases. e.p.a. recommend just a written reprimand for officers when they conducted a traffic stop without pause or arrest a person that was just -- violating a person's constitutional rights in order to harass them is an abuse of their office. it's not the worse part of the story. the chief disagreed with dpa and recommended no discipline at all. how secretary public have any confidence in the process of such a serious case of misconduct dismissed by the chief. we just shrug our shoulders and a oh well. one thing i find missing is analysis of how long these investigations will take and general view of how many investigations were open and closed that year. the public and the commission should know how long investigations take to complete. they should be published because it's important. this information could be (inaudible) layer of transparency and if they can do

it and they should. the commission should demand more. thank you. >> good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> i already spoke. >> that is the end of public comment. >> ok. next line item. >> line item 2. discuss and possible general order 5.23 interactions with deaf and hard of hearing individuals. meet and confer draft and discussion and possible action. >> ok, this is on for adoption. do i have a motion? >> so moved. thes petra. >> second. >> ok. i need to take public comment.

>> members of the public who would like to public comment motion to adopt general order 5.23 interactions with the deaf and hard of hearing individuals. please press star 3 now. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi, i've been on the call for the last two hours and i had my hand raised for the last line item and i was not called upon. >> sorry about that. give your comment. >> yes, my name is yvonne and i live and work in san francisco. historical records inform us that police have been gifted time and financial resources for hundreds of years with lack of providing public safety for all and instead, are gifted our funds and our resources to

murder us without accountability and justice or dead lines to any investigation. as the last caller mentioned, nine months without transparency is unacceptable. using our public hard aren't tax dollars to pay for your crimes. a vote to hold p.o.a. related discussions in closed session snow squalls a votsessionsis a a vote against the people of san francisco. we need all discussions regarding the p.o.a. to happen in open sessions. it's a matter of public safety. they have cause and relative to keeping safe including the murders of black, indigenous and people of color in the united states and with no true accountability for murders and despite staggering evidence, suggesting that alternatives to responding to such matters of concern are available in well documented in accessible.

we see no change. we see the evidence and how they respond to matters when it comes to white house holds. this is a shame. the police system has failed. can you please reflect on this fact with admission and action? our hard earned tax dollars must be invested in true community evidence-based safety. it is time our city invests in and defends black, indigenous and people of color. defund the criminal-justice system. your police system. they catch babies, black and brown babies in san francisco and i have raised my baby in san francisco. >> thank you, caller. >> good evening, caller you have two minutes. >> i'm calling to demand the

police commission regarding the p.o.a. including today's in open session. the p.o.a. cannot be trusted and the public needs to know what happens in these discussions. my name is carry nix and i live in district 8. the p.o.a. has a long history of misleading and strong arm the police commission that is rejecting transparency and accountability and they've meet and confer clause in their contract to weasel out of or delay changes to try and reduce the number of san france sfpd kills. they attempted legal action to reject police policies like prohibiting officers from shooting at moving cars which is how sfpd murdered jessica williams and th that killed eric garnier. this june they set they could kneel on the next of sa san franciscoance. they delayed the policy the court ruled against the p.o.a. time and time again.

p.o.a. cannot be trusted. just like court rulings and meet and confer and spread misinformation and now city attorney office to with hold information from supervisor norman ia yee. it wasn't until sf attorney showed earl your court rulings that contra districted the p.o.a. that they were able to move forward. a vote to hold in closed session is a vote for tony montoya and a vote against the people of san francisco. we need all discussions regarding the p.o.a. to happen in open sex. thsession.it's a matter of publ. thank you. >> i'll take the next caller. this is public comment online item 2 only. good evening, caller. you have two minutes.

>> conduct all negotiations in discussions regarding the p.o.a. including today's in open session. >> this is public comment for line item 2. >> i have a previous opportunity to (inaudible) the chief's report. i had an interaction with the chief today. i asked him -- >> this is public comment

regarding online item 2 only. line item 2. 2. [please stand by]