>> president cohen: welcome to the regularly scheduled police commission meeting. it's wednesday, 5:36 on june 16th, 2021 and we are excited and fired up and ready to go to do our job. we have a full house of commissioners and we've got a full agenda. with that said, please, sergeant, call the roll. [roll call] you have a quorum.

we have chief william scott and director paul henderson from the department of police accountability. >> president cohen: all right. we've got a quorum and the police department and dph started. >> clerk: line item 1, general public comment. at this time, the public is now welcome to address the commission for up two minutes not on tonight's agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the police commission. under rules of order during public department, neither police or dpa are required to respond to questions by the public but may provide a brief response. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment are available calling (415)655-0001 and entering 187 839 7529. press pound and then pound again. dial star 3 if you wish to make a comment. you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. e-mail the secretary of the police commission at sfpd.commission at sfgov.org or

written comments may be september via u.s. postal service at 1245 third street, san francisco, california, 94158. >> good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: my name is susan buckman and i am with the core team of wealth and disparities in the black communities founded by felicia jones. tonight, the police department will discuss officer joel babs. throw years ago, we did a press conference and press release regarding officer babs. who filed a complaint against sfpd and the police commission in 20717 after he witnessed numerous racist incidents at sfpd and recorded them.

babs' story can be found on the san francisco superior course website cgc-17-561687 filed october 3rd, 2017. here is just one of the allegations. many of which were substantiated by dhr. per officer babs 2017 complaint. a sergeant tom says to officer babs, regarding a 15-year-old black girl without an identification. quote, deal with your people. end quote, she's getting all ghetto. officer babs stated he objected to and took offense at these comments and sergeant tomorrow'm reported him and racist action are named in the complaint. the thoughts and actions by these quote -- anti black

policing in terms of per-capita arrest and use of force. are we to believe this is a problem with individuals and not a systemic one when we already know the latter to be the case. are we then not supposed to be disgusted and alarmed that we've heard nothing about follow-up on the complaints by joel babs about the violent racism in the department and yet we are now hearing and the whistleblower. >> thank you, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello, my name is defend and and in san francisco police department report tonight, sfpd will tell us about progress against the department of justice's community oriented policing services or dha recommendations they have been

work under these recommendations for five years for three different mayors and under federal and state attorney general oversight. sfpd seems to have a little to know urgency in completing these measures. and state doj deadline for 230 of the 272 recommendations to be substantially compliant. sfpd missed that deadline having missed 175 recommendations substantially compliant as of that date. where are the consequence force that? what is the police commission going to do about that? last week in the presentation, community perspectives on policing disparities, the presenters talked about consequences and where are the consequences for sfpd when it fails to do what it's supposed to do? tonight, sfpd has 187 substantially compliant recommendations still fall short of the total. the city of san francisco government promised san franceance the commissioner of

all these recommendations, recently chief scott suggested it could now go into 2023 or even 2024 and require more money for analysis and research. research was done back in 2016. and there's been research before that and faced by black san franciscans. when will the sfpd be held accountable for doing what it's supposed to be doing. another the hands of sfpd. when will the police commission do it's job and holding them accountability. justice delayed is justice denied. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, my name is (inaudible) and i'm with wealth and disparities for black communities founded by felicia jones. the police commission will be discussing officer joel babs and back in 2017 we did a press

conference with officer babs to the black officer who was with sfpd for 25 years at the time. officer babs filed a complaint against sfpd and the police commission in 2017 after babs witnesses racist accidents at sfpd and reported them and then experienced retaliation. when he shared something alarming and allegations and officer babs' original 2017 complaint which came during time and the justice had just come into investigate years of racism and killings and primarily plaque and brown people. for babs 2017 complaint, one officer remarked about yeah, she's got a great body. she's the only black woman i'd do unquote. it describes babs was told about chases and beatings by police of (inaudible) and such as one tale told by lie tenant pain and chasing black citizens including with his car on duty in the

bayview and bragged about punch a woman in the face breaking her finger like a twig unphotographic. this is only a small sample. tonight we demand status of police commissions investigations and to the rampant racism noted in officer back's 2017 complaint. before the demand these allegations, many of found justified and accurate is officially noted in the complaint and be considered crucial findings. on going systemic antiblack racism within the department of the type required by officer babs victimizes the population. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> good evening, this is ms. brown and i'm calling concerning my son who was murdered august 14th, 2006. still to this day, his case isn't solved. i recently met with mike

philpott and tiffany sutton concerning the digital farm i've been asking for for some years now about getting a venue and loved one in the uninvolved homicide. and we finished the digital form already and the person that mike philpott got and so we e-mailed your secretary chief scott and trying set up a date so that we can meet with you and to talk about the digital form that is outright now and so we can get that done to get the digital form out there and for the unsolved homicides.

i would just wonder what was going on with that i appreciate if you -- i know your secretary said something about july that you are pretty busy but i would just wondering if we can hurry up and do something about it. my son's anniversary is coming up on the 14th. i'm feeling some type of way. i hope you would consider meeting with us to get the digital form out there and they're going to give me the thing for my healing circle we have every second and fourth thursday so mothers and fathers know their loved ones pictures out there and it won't bring closure but it will bring a sense of comfort that they know the police department is caring about their loved ones. >> members of the public that have any knowledge regarding the homicide of aubry call the 24/7

hotline at (415)575-4444. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: president cohen, commissioners, chief scott, this is zack from the public defenders office. it was refreshing to hear the presentation about the open police commission and the community police for new agencies feature projects. i hope this commission can work together to come up with an agenda or plan for the next year. every week in the commissioner reports i hope to hearing what is being worked on but i usually hear an event the commissioner attended or which officers welcomed them to visit the station. also last week we heard fantastic ideas about what can be done and changes that would have an immediate effect on the long standing disparity in the way people of color are policed. this list is an answer to the question that chief scott posed two weeks ago in his presentation on the report when we set said police data shows disparities but there's no

proven solution. we've all agreed on the problems and we have a pool of possible solutions and it's time to try something new rather than wait for other departments across the country to take bold steps to prove a solution works. the chief continues a list outlines a list of noteworthy or high-profile cases each week and how about a weekly breakdown of traffic stops? a tally of the number of uses of force in a week or modifications to tactics to try and directly address the disparity so we can start to see what works and what doesn't. thank you. >> thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello, my name is jean bridges and i'm an original member of the core team of wealth and disparities in the black community founded by felicia jones. tonight on the commission agenda is officer joel babs and back in 2017, we did a press conference and a press release with officer babs who a black veteran of the

sfpd. officer babs filed a complaint against sfpd in the police commission in 2017 after retaliation he experienced from reporting racist incidents at sfpd. we want to share some of the alarming and in many cases officially substantiated allegations in that original 2017 babs complaint which is on the sf superior website. filed october 3rd, 2017. per that complaint, regarding the doj cops report we are discussing tonight lieutenant pain told officers during an october 2016 morning lineup, per page 8, quote, the doj cannot say the police are racist. they have to acknowledge the problems in the african american communities. also, quote, you are saying cops are racist but maybe plaques are out of control. they are murdering people at a higher rate. unquote. and quote, african american people commit more crimes unquote. this is a small sample of racist

remarks reported. during that time warning a sergeant tom allegedly said quote, the black people you are stopping are doing something wrong. unquote. and quote, the problem is those people draw attention to themselves. unquote. babs' complaints cites dhr findings that retaliation and the dhr found that lieutenant pain and an officer subjected babs to racist behavior in the workplace and in other words, the dhr found that babs' complaints were valid and so where is the action on the part of sfpd and the police commission on babs' complaints to root out the racist in the department or are they more interested in allegations against babs rather than the 2017 whistleblower report which is already been in many respect- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: yes, this is yolanda williams i'm sure you are aware of who i am and i'm the president of the officers for justice peace association and i

have been a whistleblower known to this police department. i can attest to the fact that there has been consistent acts of systemic racism, racist and homophobic behavior and it doesn't surprise me that retaliation occurs when a whistleblower speaks out. it has to stop. it needs to stop now. and i tell you that if we don't see some change, ofj will be entering into a lawsuit again with the san francisco police department very similar to what we did back in 1973 and i'm sure we will win. thank you. >> thank you, caller. and president cohen that, is the end of public comment. i appreciate hearing you and your concerns.

sergeant, please call the next item? >> line item 2, concept calender. receive and file action. sfbd first quarter 2021 sfpd monthly sb14-21 report. dpasb14-21 report. items are routine and for information purposes only. if any commissioner would like to discuss the items under the consent calendars please add voice president cohen that you would like to place them on a future agenda for presentation and discussion. tonight there's no discussion or presentations on these items. >> president cohen: there's a reason you want to talk about on the consent calender? all right. seeing none. let's take public comment on the consent and we'll take an action item and we'll move this item. >> clerk: members of the public, that would like to make public comment regarding line item 2, press star 3 now.

press cohen, there's no public comment. >> president cohen: great. thank you, very much. may i have a motion on this item? >> motion. >> motion made by commissioner elias. is there a second. >> second. >> president cohen: thank you. second heard hamasaki. please call the roll on this item. >> clerk: on the motion to accept consent calender items -- [roll call vote] >> clerk: you have five yeses. >> president cohen: this motion passes unanimously. please, call the next item. >> clerk: line item 3, reports to the commission discussion. chief's report.

crime trends and offenses occurring in san francisco. major significant incidents, provide a summary of planned activities comments. this will include a brief overview of unplanned events and tiffany's san francisco having a impact on police station safety. and will be limited to determining whether to calender for a future meeting. >> good evening, president cohen, voice president elias and commission and i don't see executive and the evening. >> he is waiting. >> he is there. >> thank you. press. i i will get into some of the details of what happened this past week. we have a 8% year to date and a of difference a little less than 200 crimes and homicides are as of friday would a negative and

we did have one since then and so we are actually even with where we are were this time last year and rates and rates and robberies are down and double digit and we are still up in bug lar he's and to a 7% and over this time last year and stats are up 9% and arson suppose 15% and larceny and thefts are down 14%. which is a difference of almost 2,000 crimes fewer than this time last year. and in terms of our homicides, we've solved half of them, eight of the cases or nine of the

cases year to date have been involved but we've also solved previous year cases so our clearance rate is 100%. gun violence is up significantly at 119% increase and again, that's declining from where we were earlier in the year but we still have a ways to go on our gun violence and getting a handle on that. out of our gun violence we've had 9 total incidents with 103 victims total. 12 of those victims were homicide victims and 91 were non fatal shooting victims. if you look at the five-year trends, from 2016 to 2020, we actually trended downward on our gun violence and year to date and then this year we have a pretty significant spike and it's consistent with shootings. our year to date station report, as far as our gun violence, we

have increases in seven of the 10 stations in terms of gun violence incidents and bayview, mission, northern park and tenderloin are all up. the most significant in terms of percentages is mission and richmond and even with where they were and this time last year richmond has zero and shooting incidents and year to date and the rest of the months are up with the exception of year to date june which were down from where we were this time last year in june. june was a pretty challenging month last year after civil unrest across the country and we hope we can keep things down and moving through this summer. as for the specific incidents,

we had a homicide on 6/10/21 at market and jones. our tenderloin units, deployed in the area, actually shots were fired and they chased the subject and were not able to app re end them at that time. our victim was located and suffered from multiple gunshot wounds and even though life saving measures were performed, on the victims, he was transported and was pronounced at the hospital at san francisco general hospital. crime alert was created and we've actually taken a suspect into custody on that case and those charges have been filed by our district attorney's office. june 10th, 2021 we had a significant narcotics arrest at eighth and albert street. the suspect was active on parole for the california department of corrections for manslaughter. a homicide investigators

developed enough cause to arrest him and our suspect was later booked for 187 p.c. record that was our suspect from our homicide that i reported so narcotics was involved in that incident. on june 14th, just a couple days ago, we also had a homicide that was outside of the reporting per idea and it was significant so i will report it. officers responded to the area of willow and franklin and located a victim, a hispanic male 60-years-old inside of a tent. he had gunshot wounds to his head area and witnesses confirmed that they believe the shooting occurred apparently about 20 minutes prior to the officers' arrival. we do not have the suspect identified in this case, as of yet. our reporting person and reporting people actually were

interviewed and that investigation is ongoing. if any witnesses saw anything that might lead to an identity of the suspect in this particular homicide, please call (415)575-4444. and again, that investigation is ongoing. there are two other shooting incidents that i would like to report on june 12th, at 8:24p.m., on magnum street in the tenderloin. officers responded to a shot and per witnesses located young ladies were yelling at each other and one of the women took out a firearm and opened fire. the women got in a vehicle and fled. the suspects got in a vehicle and fled and as they were driving off, say woman with the gun fired at the vehicle and fled in another vehicle. our dispatch and a victim walked into mount zion and was

transferred. that case is on going as well and we do believe where following up on that particular case. on june 13th, at 4:07a.m., officers responded to a shooting at golden gate and the tenderloin. they were located on hyde street and the first victim suffered from a single gunshot wound to the head and the second victim was identified and suffered from a gunshot wound to the upper body and lower body. the third gunshot victim was located near the corner of mcallister street and hyde and uc hastings and that victim was also shot in the upper body. so witness statements a group of about 15 to 20 people were at the location when an unknown suspect within that group fired one shot at the victim from

several feet away. the suspect then stepped into the street and fired five additional shots towards the group and striking the second victim. the suspect then chased another person southbound on i street to mack i will is ter and fired three or four more shots in the middle of the street and the suspect fled in an unknown direction from mcallister street. there were no observed fights, conflicts or arguments within the groups prior to the shooting. our unit responded and is investigating and we are all following up on evidence on that case so we hope that we can bring that case to a resolution as well. this was at 4:00 in the morning. an individual shooting into a crowd that apparently was unprovoked. strategies, our officers have been signed to our business corridors and will be continuing to engage with our merchants and residents about crime in the area and their concerns.

the presence we hope will serve to decrease some of the crime that happened in those business corridors. our foot beats are deployed from irving corridor from 7:00 to 24 during our daytime hours. two officers are deployed daily. officers, one officer is deployed on westportal and from ulloa to sloat and they watch officers will work that beat in the 6:00 p.m. daily and from ocean and lee to 19th avenue, our day watch officers will be working that beat, two officers until 6:00 p.m. daily and again, this deployment is about engagement and trying to prevent crimes from occurring and being visible. if we see a crime in progress, officers will take action on those particular types of incidents. and the mission district, our

outreach team has been contacting residents and fostering relationships with individuals experiencing homelessness to ensure they have access to city services. so, we are actually are trying to engage to help people in need of help and work with our community members and doing so and also on the mission, our foot beats are deployed and the cast tree from 6:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. two officers on each of those shifts and then 24th street corridor day catch up until 9:00 p.m. we have an officer deployed on foot, 16th and mission, we also have officers deployed and up until 9:00 p.m. and we actually are able to adjust our deployment outside of those hours as appropriate and again it's about prevention and deterrens and presence to cut down on the street crimes occurring in those areas and to engage with the public. in the park district, officers

have been conducted burglary hotspots and our auto car break in hotspots because we have seen an unboost in car break ins and. officers also deploy rates and everyday and we are four officers in total and at least two officers are working everyday and sometimes more. and we will continue to do that to address some of the issues including in our and general and they are distributing burglary prevention information to community members sf safe also did a garage door lock initiative that people can walk

out of and they've been a target and those lots will help to deter some of that so, can you contact and either home and section or a lock which you can get at no cost. our guns this year still continues over last week's pace and we've had 164 ghost guns seized this year compared to 77 this time last year and if you look back to 2016, it's grown almost doubled or more than doubled each year and with the exception of 2018 to 2019. so that is still a focus of our attention trying to get those doses off the streets and we will continue to focus on that through our crime gun intelligence center and oir investigators that are investigating or gun related crimes. just a few other incidents and

we had a victim in the bayview station that reported that the car was broken into, a rental car, and the rear passenger window was broken. and a large amount of currency, watches, computer equipment, passports and other items were taken and the resulting loss valued over $200,000 that the victim reported. so that was significant and again, please, reminder to the public, do everything you can to not leave valuables in your car if you can avoid it. if you have to leave them in the car, please lock them in a locked trunk because unfortunately, some people, when they see property in a car, they will break into cars and take it. so, we can hopefully continue to working with the public on trying to prevent these crimes from occurring but not making it

easy to be a victim. we had an and taylor in the tenderloin. officers were called out to a location to assist with a person with an improvised weapon. and they swung a bottle and the struggle ensued down the hall of the reception area and the receipt department was able to subdue the suspect long enough to place her in the bobbie on her back in the log' and get on the elevator and escape. the officer sustained a

laceration to her right, middle finger and they took them into the ground without further incident and the officer is expected to recover fully. other significant incidents. aggravated assault at the 100 block of heroine' way and officers suspected to trying to punch the victim and they made contact with the suspect and handcuffed him and noted that the suspect was not taking medications for mental diagnosis and the victim was an 81-year-old man who was located in the area and he had facial injuries and complaining of pains to his face and the victim located reported that he was just in the area bird watching with his wife when the suspect walked towards him and without provocation, lunched him if the face and a by cinder helped him until officers arrived and took the suspect into viewed. the victim and suspect were transported to a local hospital. the suspect was released from

the hospital and booked at the county jail for assaulting the victims and these victims this was a case that was unprovoked the the suspect was in crisis that led to this crime occurring or this incident occurring. the other significant incidents we had the arrest of the serial wanted burglar this was on june 7th. this is at the southern station offices on june tenth at 6:02. they found a southern station and sixth and laura street and recognize our suspect who was a 39-year-old san francisco receipt department and placed the suspect under arrest and he was booked at the county jail on several warrants and we think it

was a high-end arrest and we have our investigation as led to this suspect is involved in a number of burglar he's in our city and so we will be working with the district attorney office on this particular case there was an incident all over the news in the last couple of days and this was a shoplift and wall greens at the 300 block of go street and the and it happened at 8:18a.m. and the suspect entered a wall greens store on a bicycle and with a large, black garbage-type bag, our suspect placed several products and items and medicines in his bag and then left the store without paying. he is well-known to officers and he is burglarized this store on numerous is occasions from our investigators and investigate processes we know that the suspect has committed similar

acts in that store and he has been identified and we are looking for the suspect who we believe to be local in the city so we'll continue to search for this particular individual and hopefully take him in custody and work with the district attorney office as he as been involved in several incidents involving threats out of these types of businesses. there was side show event. there was a event at 1:09. 200 vehicles caravaned into the city and they began their activity at barnville and mckinnon and bayview. police officers in the vehicles was closed in by participants vehicles and was unable to move. they threw bottles at the officer and he got out of that

encirclement through dispersion techniques by other officers who arrived at the scene to assist. the event was disband and broken up and they reformed at 13th and south van ness. at this location, they participants and there were displays of commercial fireworks while the side show was going on and the stunt driving event was going on. officers responded to that location and disbursed the group and the group retreated back to the bayview to moran and illinois. officers responded from our stunt driving response unit. they disbursed the crowds and the participants fled to mission and randall before another response caused them to leave the city and go back towards oakland. this happens between the hours of 1:09:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. so

those four incidents that i described, every time the officers moved into break these efforts up, they moved. we move in and they moved to another location and they finally left across the bridge and left the city. we are investigating and conducting follow-up investigations on these cases and if we have enough evidence to legally be able to take action against either the owner of the vehicle or persons we identified who have been identified involved in this dangerous driving, we are following up with both car sees seizures and criminal charges being pursued. the rest of my report our june teen celebrations will tick off this week and they're starting tomorrow at city hall at 12:00 p.m. and they're also events at the embarcadero at the ferry terminal plaza on

june 19th and also in the fill more at and then sf june event will be on june 20th at gilman park from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and our officers will be engaged and celebrate as a community. fourth of july, the department is participating in the planning efforts for the upcoming fourth of july celebration. we have have satisfying and and it draws very large crowds and i'm sure this year it will be no different.

and participating in these events include a movie night this past weekend. the giants will be in town until 6-20 and the philadelphia phillys and at chase center right now but concerts season will be starting in a couple of months. and that is it from our report and thank you for allowing me a few extra minutes to be descriptive of everything that happened this past week. >> president cohen: thank you, very much, chief for that turo report out. colleagues, do you have any questions for the chief? anything? chief, did you talk about the public safety night with sf safe? >> the meeting that we just had this week? >> yeah. >> i did not. i can stay a little bit more. >> you can share something on that too? >> thank you, president cohen.

yes, we actually two nights ago, we held a public safety really a public discussion about the working together and face the challenges we face in the city. this is actually a continuation of meeting that we started just before the verdict of former officer or convicted officer deric chauvin where we tried to work with the community to be prepared for what might happen in our city. it's been a very good dialogue. there's about 43 community members. we break into break out sessions and talk about topics that are e and how we solve topics and it's been a good dialogue and we've had some action items put on the table and we'll top follow-up on.

follow-up on. what we found with the meeting that we put together for anticipation of the verdicts for the chauvin trial is that we shouldn't be waiting an emergency to engage on a city wide level. i know our directing captains had meetings at their stations not a regular basis but we wanted to have a higher level meeting with command staff and it i am includes the captains and make it a city wide meeting with stakeholders from the diverse communities in our cities so it was a good meeting and well attended and we'll continue those meetings moving forward. >> president cohen: thank you. colleagues, any other questions for the chief? >> just briefly, thank you president cohen, chief, i appreciate the thoroughness of the report but i wonder if there's a way that -- i mean that was about an half an hour

and we have a long agenda and an actual disciplinary hearing. i think it's useful information but i wonder if there might be a way to create a document of it so you don't have to sit here and read for 30 minutes and then you can distribute it through e-mail and twitter and facebook, snap chat, where ever people may be. this is not a criticism at all of you but i guess to have that long of a recitation of crimes. i want to understand there's a point but for all the commissioners here, we have had a long week of materials and i wonder if there's a more efficient way to do it. you do need to respond.

it's more of an observation. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president cohen: any other questions or comments? chief, thank you. we'll continue. >> thank you. >> president cohen: sergeant, please call the next item. >> clerk: dpa director report. resent dpa activities and announcement and the report will be limited to a brief description of dpa activities and announcement and limited to determining whether to caller did the issues raised for future commission meetings. >> anyone here? >> president cohen: yes. >> good evening. i will run -- >> president cohen: you need to speak louder. it's hard to hear you and you sound muffled. >> let me see if i can raise it

closer. how is that? >> president cohen: is that better? >> can you hear me now. >> president cohen: yes. >> ok. so, let me just share with you where we are in terms of the numbers and it's a blend from the new approach with the data and numbers as well as some of the information that we've had previously. so, this week we received 13 new cases with the total of 20 allegations or reminders these are allegations. 46% of them involve officers who spoke to or behaved inappropriately with the public. 15% of those cases were involved officers who failed to provide their star number. 15% of the allegations are officers who failed to take required actions and another 15% of them involved referrals that go to other agencies and this is a frequent thing that we get. where folks are contacting our

agency about incidents that don't necessarily involve either the sheriff office or the police department. and we give that information out when folks call in. so far this year we've opened 355 cases and we've closed 436 cases this year. we've sustained 27 cases this year and this time last year we sun taped 18 cases and we have mediated 17 cases which is the same number of cases that we mediated this time last year and we've had a number of outreach if most of our outreach events are livestream and they can be seen on our website and our summer programs started we have

three high school students, three college students and four law students. 70% of that class are people of color and we have a number of events for them and they come every week and get a presentation at d.p.a. and they have various assignments as well. there's a number of other things we've done this week since last week and this week and i'll run through a few of those. on the tenth we hosted a virtual audit community overview that presentation was done by our director of audit, steve flagger tee and on the 15th, we hosted

a 1421 overview presentation with one of the dpa attorneys, sarah monitor. and on the 15th, we were involved with presentations with bayview hunters point mobilization for adolescent growth in our community. addressing public engagement to learn more about dpa and services provided including opportunities for training and answering questions for community as well. we have one case in closed session tonight that i don't think involves litigation. there's a couple of things on the agenda upcoming that we will have input and specifically i point out agenda item number 6 which is a d. r.b. presentation that my chief-of-staff will be

presenting. and present tonight is senior investigator candice carpenter who is available in case there are issues that need to be addressed from d.p.a. and and if more questions or questions they will contact us directly at our website and sfgov.org/dpa or we can contact the agency 24 hours at (415)241-7711. and that concludes my sum ari of our cases and caseloads for the week. i'm available if there are any questions. >> president cohen: thank you, very much, dr. henderson many of questions for the director? feedback?

i have questions for you, i'm sorry i'm just getting to my notes. bear with me. >> ok. >> president cohen: all right. so the question, so the mayor recently released her budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2023. how has the budget conversations been going for d.p.a.? >> um, they are ok. i mean, it's a little bit tricky. we just went over and we had a meeting about it today. i talked to the mayor's office today and i started preparing for our hearing. those are in front of the board. it's constantly kind of moving but we're not losing the

position that we were initially targeted to lose because of the cutbacks that every department was asked to take. >> president cohen: are you talking about the five ftes? >> yes, right. and so, what we did was shift those, i'll just tell you, that most of that shift was allowed to be protected for our dpa augusting about the need for 1421 because that's where the hits will come. we have to, so many of the other responsibilities are in our charter mission that we can't shift too many more resources but we don't want to loose any of the momentum that we have and it was one of the showers that folks call in regularly, demanding more and broader transparency and we believe that there is legislation and the pipeline fiscal to expand that even further. now is not the time to roll back the commitment that the city has

or the dpa has with their bodies and so, those have been most of the conversations back and fourth and it looks like we're moving towards not losing any of those budget items and maybe those ftes at the latest. that's the main part of the conversation right now. there's a couple of issues we're talking about. technology expansions, as the department shifts to be able to share and receive information from new developments with the department and to be able it share that with the public as well. it's on the issue. some of the audit requirements and the mandates that aren't diminishing or going anywhere and in fact they're being ramped up, those are on going expenses and these are the main conversations at a high level.

>> they'll want to know what the specific numbers are for the 1421 and how does it correlate per person? have we considered technology advances saving us money and are we double checking our output to make sure we're not wasting expenses [please stand by]

>> president cohen: have you had any interviews lately? >> no interviews. i did have a statement and thank you for that invitation to member of the public. my comment really goes to when we invite individuals to present to the commission and to the body, that folks are respectable and i don't think that this is a form or platform for individuals during presentations to be

disrespectful to any member on the commission. there were comments from last week's presentation. the presentations are great but there are statements that i absolutely did not grow with and especially being an african american male. i don't believe that we utilize this platform to tear down one another. it's been heavy on my mind and my heart because we invite individuals to present and that's what it's for. to present and have dialogue but there's a decorum in the way we dialogue and work with each other as colleagues and we save some of the other comments for public comment. that's the area for that. >> president cohen: i stand in agreement. there was things i heard too that were mean and personal and let's keep keep everything

professional. any reports out? i know commissioner elias has been doing a lot of work. share with us. >> thank you, president cohen. a couple things. i have asked the department and the department head agreed to have the field training, field tactics, ftfo, field training field operations. the ftfo department that is under the direction of lieutenant nevin to comment the commission and let the public know what that unit is doing. it's my understanding that unit is being used as a model nation wood on all the great work they're doing so they'll be coming to the commission to present their great work and we've been hearing about how

they will be incorporated in our dpos and how they will be doing risk assessment and reviews after incidents to on how to handle situations better so i'm looking forward that and with respect to the rentation of internal affairs and cases i'm told that they're still working on the presentation and it's anticipated that it should before come the commission in august when they will be ready to present the new reporting style were in that they report more information with respect to the cases similar to the level of transparency that d.p.a. has been providing and the public has been appreciating. so those are the two things that are noteworthy today. >> thank you. director henderson did submit the matrix as a follow-up to

last week's commission meeting with the great suggestions and ideas and or not how to handle racial disparity and the staff has it now so we'll looking at it and incorporating some of the departments' suggestions as well and then president cohen you can agenized when we deal with the matrix and the progress of that at a later time. yes. we'll work on together as far as the agenda. >> i forgot the draft that you guys had, i have a more resent draft and i think the draft thaw guys didn't have all the of the suggestions that have come the public and the groups that had presented it yesterday. i reincorporate that into it and i'll send it over to you as well. i wanted to have everything so you all have in front of you the suggestions that came in that were presented last week. >> thank you, the matrix you did

provide was very thorough and i think it's going to be a great working document for us so thank you for your efforts. >> president cohen: that's right. it was thorough and i appreciate that. let's see, commissioner hamasaki. anyone? the floor is yours. >> yes, thank you, president cohen. a few things i wanted to follow-up on, i know park was going to present in front of us and i believe that the alternative -- >> compassionate alternative relief? car low is going to present for us and this is raised a few months ago and i know they've been meeting with the chief. and so, i would like to get that on calender so we can hear from them. i'm sure president cohen is working on this and i can tell. i just see that i've been out of

the loop on that one so, that is popped into my mind. the other thing is i would like to hear from the department regarding homeless sweeps. i thought that that was a practice that the department has stopped participating in and that was d.p.w. doing that and there was a video that was published on social media and it showed six officers approximately participating in sweeps and i don't know where that is. i know there's a lot of transition but i was hopeful that was not no longer something that we were doing as a department but hopefully we can get a report out on that in the next chief's report. i know it's probably not a long

presentation. i'm hoping we can get an update on bias and where we are with dr. everhart and i will say that maybe i'm miss the outside on this and i know that part of the open session disciplinary case does have some whistleblower allegations but there was a civil suit and sustained findings and i am curious about that and it says that i think some of the incidents were recorded and in 2017 which with everything this department has gone through, around let's be frank. there's just a lot of racist conduct.

i would like to know a bit more about what happened with that to the degree that we can discuss that publicly and of what steps have been made to continue to or begin to do whatever we have to do to root out that bias, that hate that extremism within the department. that's all i have. president cohen wanted to respond on the card because you have been scheduling that. >> president cohen: i wanted to comment on asking dr. everhart to come to the commission and i wanted to work with you on that specific request. he is busy and i want to be sure what we want her to talk about. to do with bias and so you know, love your input on that, chief's input on it as well and i'll pivot as well to start to think

about what we can do and how we can bring this expert into present and increase our knowledge and understanding. i don't have anything else to report on or any updates for you. >> thank you. >> president cohen: so i think we can keep on moving seeing there are no other reports out there and make sure we're not looking. in the tenderloin lately, how are things looking? >> as the chief reported there's been those shootings incidents there. one on golden gate that the chief mentioned. two blocks of golden gate where i saw and police acknowledged there was a lot of open air. that was curtailed. it appears to have moved up a block to turk street. they have a briefing every morning at 11:15 and i intend to

attend one of those and another one so they give an update because the police work with other agencies and voluntary agencies trying to deal with the problem there and it would be nice to see what is happening on golden gate spread to a few more streets so the area gets a better quality of life. >> president cohen: i'm glad you are giving a voice and targeting this part of the tenderloin. this is great and i know the department was grateful for your energy moving this forward. so these weekly updates are helpful and it's good to have a good watchel eye. thank you for the update. keep it up. please. >> this is one of the reasons i wanted to be on the commission. >> i'm really glad to hear that. all right, chief, you have a partner over here in

commissioner byrnes. so we're going to keep moving forward. please call the next item. >> clerk: public comment. at this time the public is now welcome to make public comment regarding line item 3, reports to the commission. if you would like to make public comment, please press star 3 now. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: commissioners, when the chief of police gives his report, and it addresses quality of life issues that is what we at san franciscans want to hear. so, let the chief freely discuss whatever is happening because quality of life issues have been compromised in san francisco. the commissioners show the focus on policy making but they like

to gossip. and revive it and that nonsense won't stop. we have to have standards. and with this pandemic, people are dying. they're not getting killed, but they're slowly dying from toxic stress which hasn't been mentioned once by the commissioners. so, i am monitoring y'all. and i need to monitor y'all because i need to write about y'all. then something good happens. we don't need too many guests coming and telling us what happened in oakland and what happens on the planet and we have stuff astute people here who can address it and make changes in san francisco.

thank you, very much. >> clerk: thank you, caller. >> there was one announcement that wasn't made, president of the officers for justice and i'm happy to report that the officers for justice has partner up with the african american cultural center and dr. yu and the japanese community and we have joined and sol dar tease and on 6/19/21 at 12:00 p.m. we will leave from 762 full ton treat and go through all the of the communities and our theme for this june-teenth we are unity in our community and we have a wonderful song that has been written by mice row rissard owe sales of san francisco and it's called "we are one" and you are hear myself speaking and other african americans as well as our japanese and chinese

partners and we hope you will support us. thank you, if she can provide the flyer and information for the event to commissioner staff so we can post it it sounds like a very interesting and great event that i think people should be made aware of. >> clerk: i will reach out to her, voice president elias. >> president cohen: thank you. >> clerk: members of the public, just as housekeeping, line item

11-1 and rescheduled. line item 4, discuss and possible agency panel recommendationment discussion and possible action. who would like to take this one off? >> while out, incompetenter inch

community and thank you to dejesus and myself doing our due diligence to really go through looking at if officers had open cases and to look at actual medals themselves to see what was done in order for them to be and after the due till against with the chief and rachel killshaw and and you receive those awards. >> thank you, very much. >> president cohen: chief, is there any comment for you on this item? >> i echo the process is a very

thorough process and this is one that the department and the commission worked for a long time to get a vetting process and for getting us down the road and retired sergeant killshaw who put a lot of work for this policy and is still working so thank you. >> president cohen: i don't have any other questions. take public comment? >> clerk: members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 4, the award have the indication panel recommendations, please press star 3 now. >> caller: i missed the opportunity to call in before

and i just wanted to say that it's absolutely a disgrace that that president of the osj was able to come to work at the hall of justice and use her handicapped placard and use a city handicapped space as she went to work. that's a disgrace. >> clerk: thank you, caller. president cohen, that is the end of public comment. >> president cohen: all right. that's great. thank you. let's go ahead and take a motion for the awards certification. is there a motion? >> i motion. >> president cohen: is there a second? i can't hear you, speak up. >> second. >> president cohen: second by brookter. please, call the roll. >> clerk: on the motion to a accept the awards the panel

recommendations -- [roll call vote] >> clerk: you have five yeses. >> president cohen: thank you, i appreciate that and i'm glad we have unanimous support on that. i think it's important we honor brave folks for their actions under extreme pressure. so, this is our way of affirming and appreciating their bravery and exceptional service. please call item 5. >> clerk: line item 5. discussion and possible action to adopt draft resolution prescribing menthol discussion and possible action. >> president cohen: all right. all right. let's see here.

so just as a way of background, voters passed proposition e in november of 2020, which removed minimum police staffing requirements from the charter and also set the target number of officers on the finding of a by annual staffing study and proposition e requires the commission to provide oversight and on its menthol des used in conducting the study and so the resolution before us today for our consideration is meant to comply with that legislation. also i want to note, there was a deadline that is set as of july 1, for the commission to take action. so, the resolution of the staffing task force, which included input from commissioners, to approve the following methodology from the staffing report, non scalable and fixed house so the

resolution creates several analytic requirements for the department to consider in its study. and those requirements are four of them, they include the impact of street crisis response teams on the disposition of sworn staff and the impact on department of transferring primary response duties for priority c call to other city agencies and the third one is relationship between foot beat and vehicular patrols and improved public safety outcomes and finally, important one, opportunities to expand professional staff at the department level. so, this resolution also asks for the chief to provide an update on the department's progress by the end of august. and i want to recognize commissioner hamasaki for his input on this draft. i will pivot to commissioner

hamasaki to see if he has any other comments. >> thank you. thank you president cohen. i don't really have any comments at this time. this is the culmination of a long process that began with supervisor yee setting staffing levels and the appropriate staffing levels and we had gone through a series of processes including the matrix report received earlier this year or late last year. and so all this resolution does is sets fourth some general, fixable and methodology for the department to use in determining what they believe to be their adequate staffing levels. i had been talking with phil lowhouse about some background materials that i have been reviewing earlier this process. we didn't get quite through it

in time for the deadline regarding filing this resolution. so, i think this resolution, as it stands, is a good starting place. if there's any other input that comes as a result of the process, i'm sure that the department will be open here and happy to consider it. with that i will move to adopt it. >> before we take the motion, are there any call tears want to speak on this item. seeing none, let's take public comment. >> the public is welcome to make public comment on-line items 5. if you would like to make public comment, please press star 3 now. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. caller, you have two minutes.

>> is that me? >> yes. >> >> caller: good. i mentioned before, about the first report that was done some years ago. two weeks ago you would have given an opportunity to have one or two town hall meetings for the citizens to give an input on how are we going to have our place. for the long of the time, we did not know how many police officers were needed. now we know more or less. and as we know more or less, we have attrition.

how will the civilian or the lay men or the layperson if the data is not made to them. that's what the commissioners do. not all of y'all but some of y'all. y'all talk about mundane stuff rather than that is what pertains to the citizens. we the citizens pay the money. we the citizens pay our taxes. we the citizens need to have quality of life issues addressed. thank you, very much. >> clerk: thank you, caller. president cohen, that's the end of public comment. >> president cohen: thank you. all right. now i'll entertain a motion to accept. >> so moved.

>> second. >> president cohen: motion made by commissioner hamasaki second by commissioner brookter. please, call the roll. [roll call vote] >> clerk: you have five yeses. >> president cohen: thank you, i appreciate that. the item passes unanimously and next item, please. >> clerk: line item 6. presentation of the disciplinary review board d.r.b. findings and recommendations and first quarter 2021 discussion. >> thank you, very much. let's hear from our presenter. >> good evening, president cohen, voice president elias members of the commission and

anderson chief scott and members of the public. i am assistant chief and i will be co presenting tonight with chief-of-staff for the department of police accountability. tonight, we'll be presenting on the san francisco police department disciplinary review board most recent meeting, covering the first quarter of 2021. and stacey, if you can advance the slide for me, please. next slide, please. ok, the first quarter meeting was held on friday, march 19th. the panel was consisted of the voting members seen on the slide. which is myself, deputy chief greg and greg yee and also present were voice president elias and chief-of-staff sarah hawkins. with that, i'll turn this next

slide over to chief-of-staff sarah hawkins to talk about some of the aggregate trends identified by the d.p.n., sarah -- stacey, is sarah on? >> let me check, chief. >> i was muted. [please stand by]

>> we found duties of patrol officers. we had two cases presented were members failed to properly investigate an incident or failed to properly take an

incident report. next slide. the next two slides deal with policy failures and training failures. iad did not identify or have any cases during this quarter that dealt with policy or training failures, however d.p.a. did. i will turn the next two slides over to the chief of staff. >> thank you. if we can go back to the previous slide, please. the first failure that i want to discuss involves an incident where it was an officer involved shooting in which the suspect was barricaded inside of a recreational vehicle. based on review of the incident, they recommended that the incident be updated to include policy for incidents one a barricade is suspect and shoots at officers.

one of the things i updated at the meeting was that this d. geo revision was already underway, which incorporated recommendations that d.p.a. made. this commission actually voted on sending it as revised to meet and confer on may 6th. this is a really good example of the parallel work that is happening in the disciplinary review board as well as the department and other areas revising the d.g.o., and of the presentation before the commission in helping to update and keep track of the recommendations and discussions that we are having. next slide, please. the training and policy finding involved in voss his -- officers called to the scene of persons under the influence of hallucinogenic his. this individual was standing in the middle-of-the-road, exhibiting aggression and

delayed speech. medics on scene assisted the person determine they were oriented and off to decline medical treatment. this didn't leave officers with a lot of options. so officers placed a 3150 hold on the individual. d.p.a. found that the training and guidance failed to help officers identify when an individual's intoxication level may be equivalent to a mental health disorder. we recommend the policy be updated to provide guidance to deal with a situation like this. >> okay. as part of the displayed it -- disciplinary review board, we have recommendations that come out of each meeting. this particular d.r. be we have five recommendations that came out of it.

our first one relates to d.p.a. i will have sarah go ahead and talk about that one. >> the recommendation was that we provide quarterly and annual d.p.a. complaint trend reports to the station captains and the captain of the training division so that they can be aware of what the trends are that d.p.a. is seeing. for example, we have our upcoming annual report, which is on the agenda before the commission in july. so that will be sent specifically by myself to the station captain and the captain of the training division so they can talk with their teen about the trends that are being seen with d.p.a.'s investigation. >> thanks, sarah. our second recommendation was to provide the p.o.a. with the report that details all the training that we are putting out regarding body worn cameras that members received. this is an ongoing conversation regarding some of the trends that we see in terms of failing to activate body worn cameras.

it's really meant to provide and educate the members on the importance of keeping their cameras on and keeping that narrative being pushed both on the department level and the p.o.a.'s level. the second -- the third recommendation was to create a component of the police commission meeting where in commissioners could address officers and require officers on certain training days to watch the commission as part of training regarding whatever relevant talk -- topic the commission wanted to address. the whole idea of that was to have a direct component of the police commission in which the commission could have an agenda item that speaks directly to officers and possibly link that to an actual training day for officers. next slide. the fourth recommendation was to create a roll call specific training to sfpd supervisors to

assist -- assist them with their duties. it's really driven on the complaints that we see and the trends that we see. some of those that we have identified, both in this presentation and the previous presentations is body worn cameras and fourth amendment issues. obviously this is related to give supervisors the education and training in these complaints and how the supervisors -- we have been working towards creating roll call training. as a matter of fact, one of the training initiatives that the department is currently working on is in regards to fourth amendment training. that will go beyond roll call training, but to have a more comprehensive training regarding fourth amendment issues. sarah? >> i just want to speak a little bit about the training that is happening. one of the things that i have heard in the d.r. b. and as well

as other conversations that i have been having, was a lack of communication from d.p.a. to the officers and all of the officers about what to expect from d.p.a. and the interview process and how our investigative process works. one of the things that the commission had d.p.a. do is they did a presentation at commission about our process. and then in one of my meetings with the unit and with jack hart who runs the academy, we had more conversations and decided that it would be a worthwhile endeavour to create a video. so captain heart, the lieutenant and i recorded a video about d.p.a.'s process. and we had a question and answer session geared towards helping, hopefully, the membership understand what d.p.a.'s role is, what the process is, and what our expectations are for

officers when they come to conduct these interviews. we've got some positive feedback. it was a video webinar that was recorded and e-mailed out to the membership. so i think these sorts of trainings and opportunities really have been coming out of these conversations. i just wanted to let the commission and the public know about that. now i will talk about recommendation five which relates to the case i was talking about a few slides ago, which is that sfpd revise the policy to provide more guidance to officers on how to determine whether a subject intoxication level requires a 5150 detention. >> and our scheduled d.r. b. meeting will be held on july 12th, 2021. that will cover data from -- it will be the second quarter,

excuse me, of 2021 disciplinary review board and will cover data from the first quarter of 2021. with that, we will open it up to any questions that the commission may have. >> thank you for the presentation. commissioner how masaki, you have your name in the queue. >> thank you. my only question was regarding the body worn cameras violations. can you tell us, is there a general type or nature of these violations that we are having problems with? >> sure. i can speak to it and then i can turn it over to the chief of staff hawkins for the d.p.a. perspective. primarily what we are seeing is a failure to activate a camera

when required to do so. either a late activation or just a failure to activate at all. that is typically kind of what we are seeing over on our side. many of the cases we do get our referrals from d.p.a. because it involves on-duty -- allegations of on-duty misconduct. with that, i will turn it over to chief of staff hawkins. >> thank you. i do think the primary is either delayed or failure to activate. i do want to note that it is still the highest trend that we see in our cases, but it's getting slowly lower. i think that's why the recommendation about communication regarding training on these is so important. one of the issues that we here raised by individuals or the p.o.a. on these cases is the need for muscle memory training

with body worn cameras. whether or not that is true in all of the cases, i don't know, but it is important to ensure that that training is happening. the other issue that we see sometimes is muting when -- there are situations where muting is appropriate, but whether or not d.p.a. finds the situation to be appropriate is another category that we see with this activation. >> if i may add, one thing the chief of staff comments, the whole muscle memory issue did come up on our last d.r. b. meeting. since then, we have ensured that the academy is really incorporating that into their training to make sure that officers are actually physically getting the muscle memory when they are doing their training sessions as well. so making sure it is incorporated all across the board and our trainings.

>> great. >> thank you. is this mainly happening on current members of the department? >> i honestly don't know the answer to that. i am happy to look into that and report back at the next presentation or our next commission meeting because i don't have that statistic in front of me. >> i know that the d.g.o. -- the muni -- the d.g.o. is up for revision sometime soon. were there any changes coming out of this recommendation that you folks thought would be appropriate? is there any way to help ensure compliance? because, you know, the issue is,

it raises questions about, you know, the integrity of what may or may not have happens. or they didn't turn their camera on, maybe they were doing something bad and they knew it. it just seems like it adds a lot of comfort to the idea that, you know, everything has been recorded. >> if i can answer that. a couple of things that come to mind. one thing i would say is, again, the video i recorded with the academy, the number one thing i said to members is, do yourself a favor and turn on your camera. it is imperative and it actually helps you as much as you think that it might not. definitely i think messaging that is important. in terms of -- i don't believe that we, in this group have yet discussed any specific recommendations related to 10.11. i know d.p.a. has a list of recommendations related to 10.11

involving a variety of issues including plain clothes and what not, but the specific issues that we are seeing are more generic about just activation and muting at this stage. >> okay. what i mean, the only thing is it's kind of generic until it's not. >> of course,. >> and then there's activations that arise out of that. okay. i won't take up any more time. thank you. >> i have a question here. pardon the camera being off. for what reason do we just not create a policy and say, hey, whenever your camera is not turned on and we find out about it, we will fine you? i know it's probably very controversial and i'm sure my friend tony on the p.o.a. would probably be up in arms about it,

but in terms of finding a way to motivate people to the right -- to apply it, i don't understand why we don't just find them? >> one concern about that, i am not opposed to creative solutions ever. i know that historically, as long as i have been a d.p.a. and as far as records go back that i have reviewed, we have not used finds as part of discipline. i think it would have to be fêted through the city's disciplinary process in terms of progressive discipline. that said, i am open to having conversations with whomever about the feasibility of something like that. >> if i could just add, a sustained complaint for and in activation of a body worn camera is typically, that is to -- that is typically a discipline case. it does result in discipline. typically first offences on

those are written reprimand level. % -- for subsequent violations under the spirit of progressive discipline, that could lead to a suspension. and a suspension is, in fact, it is a loss of pay for a day or what have you. whatever number of days that are attached to it. so that is how the discipline system is set up now and how body worn camera violations are treated. >> i'm sorry, can i add in one thing? don't we have, in the d.g.o., don't we have -- didn't the p.o.a. given amendment in there that prevents us from reviewing body worn cameras for discipline? does that still exist? >> if i recall correctly, the way the d.g.o. is written is that the body worn cameras, if

we are reviewing them as part of a case, we can review them for discipline issues. the way it's worded is that we don't -- supervisors don't fish for violations, you know, targeting a certain individual officer just to go look through body worn cameras until they find some sort of a violation. but we can look at and we do regularly look at body worn cameras when they are related to any kind of cases or allegations. >> right. so basically, unless something is raised right now, and i think this will be number one on my list of things to amend to the d.g.o., we are prohibited from reviewing body worn cameras for discipline outside of the scope of an ordinary case. i understand 2016 was a very different time, but we have a very different commission now. that is absurd to me.

>> if i can also clarify, with respect to the discipline matrix, when it was revised, the finds were in the matrix before but were modified during the revision. additionally, this ban on body worn cameras does start out with a written reprimand and can go up to suspension. just so the public is aware, the first offences does not automatically warrant a written reprimand if there are certain factors that are present. the chief or d.p.a. has the ability to request more discipline. it doesn't necessarily start out with a ribbon -- written reprimand. there are other factors to be considered. >> thank you. okay. let's keep moving forward. thank you for your presentation. it is very enlightening. >> thank you. >> public comment, please. >> at this time, the public can

make public comment regarding line item six, the disciplinary review board. if you'd like to make public comment, crestor three now. it appears there is no public comment. >> thank you very much. this is just a report, so no action taken. please call the next item. >> seven is presentation of the monthly collaborative reform initiative. update and discussion. >> thank you. commission, executive director, kathy mcguire will do the report tonight. executive director mcguire, you can start. >> that evening, commissioners. -- good evening, commissioners. i'm executive director of the strategic management bureau. sergeant youngblood, you mind

bringing up the presentation, please? >> yes. >> thank you. this month we will be presenting on progress to date with respect to the shift from recommendations that have gone into substantial compliance essentially. we can go to the next side. in april and may we had from for a -- we had four and 11 recommendations go into compliance. meaning they were in the external review or validation phase in the prior month that we reported. and now they are in substantial compliance for a total of 1807. our partners are swiftly reviewing all of the recommendations that we have submitted. next slide. i will just kind of role through these pretty quickly on the screen. you can see each of the categories of cri where

recommendations sit. they are either with the california department of justice or in review. next slide, please. as you can see, again, all of the right machinations, we have 1807 in substantial compliance for 69%. another 14% and 10% in external validation and review and 19 in progress. next slide, please. on the screen you can see the general status for use of force. no recommendations shifted to substantial compliance, but there are seven in external review or validation. next slide, please. we did have two recommendations go into compliance and those are related to reviewing old forms.

there is one recommendation that is related to reviewing old forms and training curriculum, policy for archaic -- archaic language. we have created style guides for policy and use the human rights commission guidance on best language for a variety of things, but we have incorporated that into written directives process. next slide, please. and community policing -- policing hack for recommendations were shifted over to substantial compliance. one of which was a recommendation surrounding command staff taking a more active role in community engagement and another recommendation surrounding implementing -- reengaging and reinvigorating the officer of the month programme. next slide, please. and accountability. we had five recommendations go over to substantial compliance. some of those recommendations were the district level tracking of complaints. you heard a report earlier about d.p.a. providing the information

directly to captains and so that will further make us compliant with that recommendation and then also a review of d.p.a. complaints and trends at the district level and otherwise. this again is the quarterly report and quarterly meeting that the assistant chief and the chief of staff hawkins were discussing tonight. next slide, please. and again, the final slide shows how recruitment hiring and retention has all recommendations in and nine of those recommendations are in for review with d.o.j. final slide, please. so we thought we would spend a little bit of time tonight talking about the 19 recommendations that are outstanding. as you can see we have done enough review and review of

those outstanding recommendations to attach a timeline. those really represent, you know, about six recommendations that we expect will be completed within 12 months, including demographic reports surrounding discipline and really reinvigorating the chief's advisory forum meetings and getting those on calendar and happening now that covid is kind of on the back burner. within 18 months, we have about seven recommendations, including aligning all of the various strategic plans that have been born out of this process, and then also use of force data collection and analysis. we are in the process of collecting, or we will be collecting more data on use of force and we have now found a

way, and incorporated a technology solution into the collection of that data to attach the use of force advisory -- the use of force supervisory evaluation form into the crime data warehouse and attached to incident reporting. within two years, we expect additional recommendations to be completed. those are additional and enhanced use of force data collection plans and implementation. we have recommendations surrounding a really thorough data review by the centre for policing equity and we will be using that as our baseline for ensuring we are collecting the right data points for use of force. and then it is implementation of that, the analysis, and then the improvement. that is why that will take about two years. it is the improvement loop that is then showing we are making those improvements in the second

year. and then in four years, these last three recommendations have to do with making sure that arrest data is thoroughly captured and also consistent with the sheriff's department. so we have, as you all may well know, we are implementing a new records management system. it will just take a little bit of time. we have to make sure we have the budget and the proper planning. we have to do that right or not only will officers not really utilize the system as best as they can, we just -- also if we don't do it right, it won't get used right. so we have to make sure that the data is captured well, the system is friendly, and that it

integrates across platforms, including our own platforms, but also city platforms. that one is a bit longer of a process. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to take any questions. >> thank you. i don't see any names in the chat. i'm sure people have questions. no questions? great. okay. no questions. i guess you are off easy today. let me double check my notes and let me see if i have any. >> who will verify that this work has been completed? will be verified internally or

externally? >> we are currently in conversations with d.o.j. and heinz to continue the relationship. i hope that we will have an announcement soon. chiefs, do you want to speak to this a little bit? >> maybe you can speak about why each one will require a little bit more time and speak to how will the technology funding that you have requested from the city enhance your ability to meet these deadlines. >> catherine, go ahead and then i will speak to comment on the d.o.j. piece. >> thank you. so the reason i can high-level for the items within 12 months, those generally are items that we just have to -- for instance, the demographic report for discipline, that is drafted, we just have to finalize it an

issue it. a lot of these things are well underway, there in the final stages of demonstrating that we have published or conducted meetings and taking minutes and done improvements. it's like completing an improvement loop. it's not too difficult to do. within 18 months, some of those things -- a lot of these are all underway and this is true of the two years as well. we are in the process of finalizing the improved use of force data collection. the data collection has to happen for about a year or so to then analyse it, and then approve -- improve upon it. that is sort of the thinking with those use of force data collection recommendations. there's about three or four of those. there's also performance evaluations that need to -- we have to have a broader planning process and that will take a

little bit of time. we also want to make sure that those performance evaluations, metrics and information is all reflective and incorporated into this solution that we are deploying from benchmark analytics as well. they have a performance evaluation piece, or module in their system. and then finally, again, back to the technology piece, now having that money and having a contract in place, we are able to really move for boron those recommendations. and then finally, again as i mentioned with the rms implementation, we do have a grant to begin that work. we are okay right now, but we do have to do the planning. the planning will take probably a year, and then issuing an r.f.p. and the like. the planning will take less than

a year. issuing an r.f.p. and getting into a contract with the vendors that have an off the shelf -- off the shelf system, that will take another six months or so and then we can implement that system. we want to make sure we have ample time for it and ensure we engage the right folks to have input to that implementation as well. >> okay. thank you. i have no other questions. >> president cohen, i was going to add, as part of the record management system, coordination is actually lining this up with our department of emergency management, a replacement of the confederation -- invigorated dispatch system. they need to be able to talk to each other and be compatible. it doesn't make sense to do these things in silo. they are working on that. i think they are probably further along then we are. we have input on that.

it's really important we coordinate this work and work on this at the same time so these systems are compatible. >> okay. all right. i don't have any other questions. thank you. colleagues? >> i just have one question. >> go ahead, please. >> i may have missed this when it was referred to, but i know that we have talked about the final reports on all of this. do we have a final day that we can expect that? >> there is a phase three report due in august. i believe we will have that timeline and i believe we will be having a collaborative conference again, that will be a little bit later this summer.

>> so the phase three, was that the window that was put off before, last year? >> that's correct. we extended phase three to april 30th for submission of documentation. so no they are in the review process and in the report writing process. that is where this april 30th to august timeline is. that is what they are busy doing so then they can issue a report in august. >> is that on -- were they not able to make the deadline? >> no, we decided collaboratively. it looks like the chief of say something here. >> they allowed us to submit the work that we had not process. we were able to complete the stations, which you all saw the work that we completed in the last six to nine months.

and that work will be captured in this report that will be coming out later this summer. it was a collaborative decision. it's about -- we want to get the work done and get it completed. that was a collaborative decision. >> okay. i enjoy starting our meetings with general public comment but we are always reminded of the status of the collaborative reform project by our friends in the wealth and disparities committee organization. so, i guess we have a hard date in august. we can expect it then. we will go from there. >> that sounds right. >> okay. thank you, everybody. >> thank you. >> all right. that is great. let's keep moving on. sergeant youngblood?

>> public comment. for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item seven, please press start three now. >> it appears we have no public comment. >> thank you. please call the next item. >> line item eight is trial and commission deliberation in a disciplinary case. we have a court reporter on for this. catherine, are you ready? >> hi, yes. i am present and ready. thank you. >> thank you. continuing on. trial and commission deliberation regarding officer jewel babs. pursuant to rule 12 of the

police commission rules governing trial and disciplinary cases. the commission will consider evidence taken on the charges filed in this case and deliberate on whether to sustain or dismiss charges on whether to impose penalties for any charges sustained or take other action. officer babs has waived his right to a confidential closed session during the hearing on this item. discussion and possible action. as a housekeeping item, if i could remind both parties that we do have a court reporter, to speak slowly and not talk over each other. thank you. >> thank you, sergeant youngblood. if i may, since this is my case? >> absolutely. >> thank you. tonight we are here for the trial and deliberation in case

number 201-9017, the police department versus officer jewel babs. attending the hearing virtually our stephen bedford from the department, deputy city attorney john gartner, as well as officer babs himself. officer babs, can you see and hear me clearly? >> yes. >> okay. if at any time during the proceeding you cannot, let the commission secretary no, okay? >> okay. >> because this is a disciplinary proceeding, it is governed by the rules for trial of disciplinary review -- proceedings. under these rules and undercurrent -- the california penal code, disciplinary charges and proceedings are normally held confidential and held in

closed session. however, an officer has the right and option of waiving that confidentiality and having the commission here the charges in open session. if that confidentiality is waived and the matter is held in open session, anything discussed during the proceeding will be public, including the nature of the charges filed against the officer, the evidence and testimony presented, in the commission's decisions on the charges and any penalty imposed. officer babs, you previously waived -- you have previously waived confidentiality and you've previously signed a waiver of confidentiality which has been filed with the commission. so we are proceeding in open session today based on this proceeding. you understand that correct? >> yes. >> and you also have the right to be represented by council throughout this process. however, you've indicated you will be representing yourself as you did in the hearing.

is that correct? >> yes. >> the ordinance requires we take public comment on this item. after both sides have presented their case, i will ask the public -- i will ask for public comment on all matters pertaining to this item. there will be a separate line item asking for public comment on whether the commission should hold deliberations in closed session and whether it should disclose any or all of our discussion of the items held in closed session. because this is a due process proceeding involving the rights of officer babs, it is important to note the public comment is not evidence. it is not to be considered as evidenced by the commission. the commission must base its decision on the evidence in the records. that includes the transcripts and other materials presented during the hearing. as i mentioned, we are here for a trial and deliberation in this case and we are here because off of -- officer babs has requested

this matter be held in open session rather than in closed session as customarily done. the matter began with the department filing a complaint against officer babs in august of 2020, alleging for charges. also known as a specification. specification one. charges officer babs with sexual harassment and battery. specification two is a charge for spreading false rumours in the workplace. specification three is a charge for false statements during an administrative interview and specification for is a charge for retaliation. under the commission's procedural rules, after the case was filed, it was assigned to a commissioner to serve as the hearing officer in this matter. it was assigned to me by then commission president. i was designated as a hearing officer in this matter and i have served in that role. after discovering in this case that they could do some

exchanges of information relating to allegations of the complaint, i presided over the hearing, which was conducted on may 7th. during the hearing, the department and officer babs had the opportunity to present evidence including live witness testimony and documentary evidence and exhibits. they also had the opportunity to subpoena witnesses to attend the hearing and testify on their behalf. both officer babs and the department made opening statements, examined witnesses, presented exhibits and documentary evidence and submitted closing arguments in the form of written briefs. all of the evidence presented during the hearing has been provided to each of the commissioners and to the commission and each commission has had a chance to review the evidentiary record. we are now at the trial and deliberation stage, which is rule 12 of the procedural rules. tonight, i have allotted each

bucket 10 minutes to make their presentations to the commission as is customarily done and the commissioners will have the opportunity to ask either party questions regarding evidence or their arguments. some of the evidence in this case is in the case of privacy of two witnesses, given the nature of the allegations. to protect the privacy of the witnesses, we redacted their names. i request that officer babs and the department's representative and the commissioners refrain from using the names of those witnesses or revealing information that would disclose their identities. instead, please refer to them as witness one for the female witness whose identity is protected and witnessed two for the mail witness whose identity is being protected. officer babs, do you understand that you may not identify these witnesses during the public hearing? >> yes. >> do you also understand that? >> i do. >> thank you. >> after the parties make their presentations and commissioners have an opportunity to ask

questions, the commission will discuss the evidence and deliberate in closed session. this is similar to when a jury, in a jury trial does in a courtroom setting. at the end of the deliberation, if the commission finds the department has presented sufficient evidence seen any of the charges, the commission will vote accordingly and notify both parties of their decision. if the department has not presented sufficient evidence to sustain any of the charges, the commission will dismiss those charges. after the deliberations, if there is insufficient evidence, if there is a finding of sufficient evidence to stay the charge, the commission will deliberate over the appropriate penalty for that violation. once the commission receives -- reaches a decision, it will announce the decision in open session. officer babs, you understand the purpose of the proceedings tonight and the procedure for

the commission to discuss the evidence and deliberate? >> yes. >> at this time, i will allow each side to present 10 minutes for their remarks to the commission. usually we begin with the department since they are the moving party. i want to remind everyone that to protect the privacy and the interest of the witnesses in this matter, refrain from using any identifying information refer to them as witness one and witness to. was there a question? >> i wanted to, vice president, if you could confirm -- we cannot see you. i wanted to make sure that was intentional. >> yes. >> i think we need to have this procedurally -- or is it required that he be on camera since this is his trial? i think if we were all present he would be physically present in the room. city attorney?

>> hi, commissioners. deputy city attorney john given her. officer babs is not legally required to appear by video if he chooses to leave the screen blank. >> okay. thank you. you are choosing not to appear on video, audio. is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. great. any other questions from the commissioners before i allow the parties to proceed? seeing none, we will begin with the department. sergeant youngblood will have a timer. when the timer goes off, he will notify you. >> thank you, vice president. members of the commission, officer babs, members of the public watching from home, good evening. this case is very

straightforward. officer babs is accused of very serious misconduct, namely series of six sexual batteries that occurred in the workplace over the course of four days in may of 2019. officer babs deny the allegations, however there is sufficient cooperation, as well as the credibility of witness one that heavily favours this case. and i think it mandates the commission into coming -- a sustained finding of all the allegations. i will start with the corroboration issue. witness one told other persons about what was happening to her. this was well before she even entertained making a formal complaint. namely, she told p.s.a. one, i will confirm to everyone with a confidential lane. she confirmed -- she referred to p.s.a. one, another coworker in the office early on when this was happening. witness one claimed it was on may 2nd.

p.s.a. one cannot remember exactly what day, but the bottom line is both witnesses confirmed that this conversation happened back that a report of the battery happened earlier on while they were occurring. this just so his, at the time, witness one was sufficiently concerned about what was happening to her that she was telling persons in the office about what was going on. in addition to this conversation, p.s.a. one had a conversation with officer babs. according to p.s.a. one, officer babs admitted to the misconduct. she normally works the graveyard shift. she worked in overtime shift with officer babs during the daytime. this is unusual for her, but this conversation happened during this overtime shift. according to p.s.a. one, officer babs approached her, struck up a conversation about witness one and that led to a discussion where the batteries came up, and

according to p.s.a. one, officer babs admitted to them. officer babs denied that he had this conversation, but what i think is important to look at to confirm p.s.a. one's veracity is the timeline. she could remember exactly what day it happened but she couldn't remember that it happened on the daytime overtime shift. we were able to check the scheduling records and it showed there was only one day when they were working together. that is officer babs and p.s.a. one. it was on may 31st, 2019. that date is important because the batteries occurred on may 1st, may seconds, may third, in the final one happened on ma. on that day, on the 30th, witness when confronted officer babs and demanded that she -- that he no longer touch her. so it makes sense that officer babs would have this discussion on his mind leading into the next day when he sees a coworker

of witness one and attempts to dissuade the situation with her. in addition to these conversations that corroborate the allegations, there is also the credibility issue here. witness one is an extremely credible witness. officer babs is not. witness one told her story on three different occasions. she reported it to her sergeant, she reported it to the internal affairs division, and she testified about it under oath at an evidentiary hearing. she testified to six different batteries. she testified that it happened on four different days. it happened in different places at different times and she was exactly consistent every single time on every single telling, on every single incident, a reasonable time that she talked about what happened to her. the reason why she is consistent is because it did happen to her. she is clearly able to

articulate what happened to her. this is a sign of a credible witness. additionally, false complaints happen, but they normally originate in some kind of motivation from the person making the complaint. the problem here for officer babs is witness one does not have a motivation to live. she testified that she had no problems with officer babs before the batteries occurred. she had a normal working relationship with him and officer babs, his testimony does not contravene that in any way until this complaint came up. officer babs knows, and he knew it was a problem for him. this is leading into the other allegation. he decided to take an emotive issue into his own hands and creative one -- create one because one did not exist. he created this tall tale of how witness one and witness two were engaged in an on-duty sexual affair and somehow the story

goes there involved in an affair, officer babs found out about it, somehow witness one and witness to were concerned that he would report it, his in order to head that off, they made up a salacious complaint against him, even though that ultimately it resulted in officer babs coming forward with this complaint. and if none of this makes sense, it doesn't because it is not true. officer babs made it up. there is zero corroborating evidence for what officer babs is saying, not a single witness in the office where they work said they heard of a rumour about this, unless it came from officer babs. there's no witness to any kind of conduct because -- between the two witnesses and they both deny it. there's nothing to corroborate this story. it only came to light after officer babs was aware that witness one was confronting him and sharing what was happening to her with other people in the office about it. you don't need to weigh witness one against officer babs.

you can weigh officer babs against officer babs. officer babs gave two different stories about what happened when he came into the internal affairs division to talk about witness one and what happened. he came in first as a witness officer about these rumours of the on-duty affair. he shared it. he said a journalist told me there was an affair happening and i actually saw them engaged in sexual activity in the hallway at work. sexual activity that no one saw but officer babs. but then he comes in a second time. now he is a subject officer and he is accused of spreading a false rumour and he disavows any knowledge of a sexual affair. officer babs' story is not internally consistent. he changes the narrative in the moment to benefit him. and from this flows the other allegations, the spreading of the rumour, the dishonesty and the retaliation against witness one. these charges should be

sustained. there is cooperation, there's a credibility issue that is inherent favor and not his, in these are very serious allegations which would lead us to penalty discussion. these are all so self-evidently prohibitive that any employee knows that they should and will be fired for it. there should be no discussion about that. i want to end on an anticipated defence for officer babs. there is an issue of him being a whistleblower. he is not a whistleblower as it relates to this case. a whistleblower is immune from retaliation if they make a complaint about something. they are not immune from other misconduct that they may commit in the workplace. if you complain of some misconduct that maybe a bona fide, it doesn't mean you can commit sexual battery in the workplace. there is no evidence that the chief of police or me or any other person involved has brought this case forward

because we are mad about officer babs complaining about something or bringing something to light five or six years ago. we are here because an employee reported that she was suffering abuse in the workplace and we beat -- we believe her. i will submit it on that. thank you. >> thank you. officer babs? >> yes. >> you have 10 minutes. sergeant youngblood will begin the timer and let you know. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. okay. can i continue? >> yes. >> thank you. thank you very much for hearing the case. the reason why i am here today is because of retaliation. constant retaliation over the last four years ever since the chief came to this department. he told me that he would get me out of here and he has done everything, falsified evidence,

retaliated in many ways. i've got my family and hiding because of this. i can't live a life. my wages are gone. let's stick to the evidence here. this case was a closed case. this case was adjudicated back when it was fresh and the mind, when it just happened, allegedly on september 5th of 2019. it happened, the alleged incident happened around the eighth month or may of that same year. i received confidence that an investigation is being done of me. i am conducting a confidential investigation in which you are the name subject. this investigation is criminal and is not administrated. therefore, it is not adhering to the parameters of d.o.j. -- gog

to .1, rule 21, corroboration with the investigation. this interview is not mandatory. there would be no administrative repercussions if you select not to be interviewed. same letter by the same investigator. nine-10 of 2019. same exact. same day. excuse me, 9-122019, that the case was closed. why was the case closed? he gave a call when he came down to the stables and you have that evidence. he gave him a call and they made sure that the case was closed, had been closed. if the case was closed due to a witness not cooperating with the investigation.

now the reason why he did not cooperate with the investigation, they failed to tell you, is they maintained a friendship for months on after. months on after where we walked up to whole foods every day from tuesday until friday. and then on thursday, we would go with jack thompson. there is no reason why he would make that allegation. we were friends. we talked about our families, we talked about sports with our kids, our three sons, we never talked about any of this stuff, only to think that she was put up to it by mike and she will have to do it someday. but he is keeping your black us there because he need to as a friend on his racist issue. i also sent you the same with my

police commission. you should have that, right? >> yes, officer babs. >> okay. i sent you that date. they were moving year-round. the chief was moving me around to help him testify to clear his name. so once i said that i'm not doing it, the next day this complaint was made. amy told me she is going to do it. we were friends. after the complaint was made, i was moved out, but i didn't correspond with mike. i didn't keep up contact with him. so amy, they turned the case on this date. >> i'm sorry to interrupt, i have caused your time. i will remind you, please do not mention the names of the witnesses. >> i'm sorry. >> the witness one was interviewed then as a suspect in a criminal incident where she was allegedly caught for lying.

my case was closed. i was called by a friend early in the month of february to attend his mom's awards ceremony. shelley tatum texted me to come on in and support his mom. [please stand by]

. >> no credibility, and you're white, wealth and disparities. i've got cnn on the line. cnn is watching this right now, and i've got ben crump coming. you guys are racist, and this is the only reason this is coming out. stop this right here. malia cohen, you said let's take care of the people's business in the open.

well, let's take care of it by far on these guys. i'm done. >> vice president elias: thank you, officer babbs. i also wants to note, for the record, officer babbs, we did receive the materials that you send today to the commission office, and those materials that you have been provided since the close of evidence on june 7 have been collected and disbursed to each of the members on behalf of the commission. >> thank you. >> vice president elias: so i just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. so at this time, what i want to do is open it up to my fellow colleagues and my fellow commissioners with any questions. i think you, commissioner hamasaki, are in the queue? >> commissioner hamasaki: i am in the queue, vice president

elias, and i'd like to start with officer babbs. can you clarify what the standing of the status of case was at that time? >> absolutely, commissioner. officer babbs is confusing a criminal case with a civil case. we did a sister or tandem criminal allegation because of the nature of these allegations are also criminal, and for a variety of reasons, that criminal case did not proceed, so that is what was closed. sergeant tiegren is a criminal investigator, not an administrative investigator. >> commissioner hamasaki: and why was the criminal case closed? >> due to the different burdens

of proof, the criminal investigators did not believe that a conviction could be made in this, but i would just remind everybody that a criminal case is a much lower burden of proof. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. so after the criminal case was closed, the administrative case was on going. >> that's correct. >> commissioner hamasaki: and mr. babbs, i have some questions for you, as well. don't worry. i'm going to go from one to the other, and you can clarify them as your understanding, as well. so mr. babbs, the issue that was raised -- mr. backes, the arguments that was raised by mr. babbs in his brief tonight

is this arises as a result of a workplace whistleblower case from 2017. were any of the people that were involved in the investigation as witnesses, as administrators within the department, they were involved in the whistleblower case? were they planted in any way in any of the decision making, in any of the -- basically, across the board, are there, you know, because we have to be pretty clear, because there was a sustained whistleblower case. i do understand there was some recorded incidents that were, you know, clearly highly problematic, and so i do have

concerns about retaliation. i don't know if they were sustained concerns. i know they were sustained there, but how are we to understand or how are we to address this case -- and let me ask you this: does officer babbs, did it come into history that he has a history of sexual battery or any other conduct that would be relevant to sexual battery in this case? >> sure. so as to the question about the whistleblower retaliation issue, to my knowledge, there was no -- there is no percipient party in that first issue or this one, as far as people who have complained about or even witnesses who were part of that and part of this case. as far as administrators, obviously, we have a review staff in the department. that command structure in that

time has been completely turned over since this then. i don't think anyone but the chief of police is involved in the decision making process, and for what it's worth, disciplinary -- corrective action was taken against other parties as a result of that incident, and i was the attorney that did it. i guess other people, you know, in support of officer babbs complained, so the idea that i or the chief is maybe out to get him is silly. it's my job to handle these complaints, but there's no -- i'm not involved in the decision making process. i'm given directives, this is a sustained case. you go forth and do it. but as far as the decision maker in the chief of police, there are no other witnesses other than officer babbs across them.

>> commissioner hamasaki: so i think the -- let me ask another question. [inaudible] one and two, was there or were there any -- so it can be the complainant, review her statements, witness one was the other p.s.a. that works at d.o.c. is that accurate? am i right on that? >> i think we're calling victim one the p.s.a. or person. witness one is a different p.s.a. that had the conversations. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. so witness one is the complainant, and then, t.s.a. one is the other individual that's working there as a p.s.a. >> correct. >> vice president elias: and there's also a p.s.a. who is

another witness, so there's two p.s.a.s in addition to witness one who is the alleged complainant. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. and then, there was the allegation that witness one and witness two, which is the male witness, were involved in some sort of sexual relationship. am i right in that? >> yes, you are. . >> commissioner hamasaki: and, you know, outside of these statements, were there any credibility issues that should be disclosed regarding any of those witnesses? >> no, none that i am aware of. witness two has a pending disciplinary case, which i don't think is appropriate for us to go to into in a public forum. it has nothing to do with this

case, and you asked me, officer babbs does not have any prior bad acts that would fit in with this. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. so one of the few things that i see here is an over arching issue that's been raised by officer babbs about racism and bias. when i hear about allegations from one of the other witnesses, does that have an element of racial bias in it? >> yes, it does. although i would also add, witness two is not a person that is accusing officer babbs of anything. witness one is, and officer babbs is trying to push this onto witness two, and the complainant is witness one, not witness two. >> commissioner hamasaki: i understand that, mr. betts.

this is not kind of one of our straightforward cases, and i want to give respect to each side positions, their claims, their defenses, their allegations. vice president elias led a pretty thorough evidentiary hearing, and officer babbs raised a number of concerns then that he's again raising tonight about the degree to which, you know, racial bias may have affected the latest case moves through the systems, so i'm just trying to get a look at that and what evidence that would support that, support the evidence itself, support the justifications or undermine any of them. so let me turn it over to

officer babbs. officer babbs, good evening. >> yes. >> commissioner hamasaki: so let me just -- i understand all the history in bringing forth discrimination and bias in this department. i understand that that has been a problem that has existed in this department for decades. i don't want to undermine that. i accept that as true and accurate, but i also want to really understand how do you tie that to this investigation? how do you have witness one -- what is her motivation for a case against you when she wasn't part of that whole

whistleblower suite? >> thank you, john, for bringing that question. mr. betts, he can discount everything i say but it's an illusion or anything, but let's go with the facts. the facts is a good investigator will start by all i made. they told me what to say in the meetings. the investigators told me what to say. my attorney told me what to say prior to that, to steer me this way to make it fit in this little box where he packaged it for you today. so let's start with all they have to do is give you the phones. they took my phone number. give you the two phones.

it'll show a relationship. all i uncovered was a relationship. that's it, and they put all the other stuff up in there, and it coincides -- i'm sorry. i'm going to get to what you just said. it coincides with the timeline of the retaliation about race because he's involved. he doesn't want you to talk to witness number two because he wants to think that i'm putting it all on witness number two, but they're in collaboration, sir, with the phone, the relationships. so he triggered her to make this complaint against me. >> commissioner hamasaki: but how do we know that, officer babbs? how -- >> by the phone records. he never submitted any phone records. if that was me harassing her, you would have produced both of my phone records. that's number one. number two -- i didn't mean to cut you off, commissioner.

number two, you have the crime. the crime goes back almost a year later, when they started it again. take a look at the chronological. he tells you the case is open, but he tells you right here the case is closed. he wants to tell you that the case was on going. the case was not on going. nothing happened on this case, commissioner, until the third. >> commissioner hamasaki: and what is your position as to what -- i understand your position on the cron -- the short answer on the chronological investigations. >> yes, and why does this case, sir, have more legs than when i was there? how do you have more witnesses

on the criminal case? but now, on the administrative case, it's a stronger case, and i've been gone. >> commissioner hamasaki: you've been what? i'm sorry. >> i've been gone. the date was march 2, 2019. the case got legs, all these people came out. where were all of these people then? >> commissioner hamasaki: well, let me ask you this. >> okay. >> commissioner hamasaki: do you have a position why the whistleblower, the complainant, your co-worker -- like, i can say why there would be a lot of people in the department would have it out for you. i understand what you did with the whistle blowing. i think that was a good thing. we're probably all in

agreement, but how does this witness, witness one, why does she have it out for you? >> witness one? >> commissioner hamasaki: yeah. >> witness one is ain a romantic -- is in a romantic relationship with witness two. we walked several times -- i have the date in which she said, he's going to trigger me to do this because i backed out on representing him being his only black friend on the texting thing, so what mr. betts doesn't want to tell you, it's racial texts on witness number two. >> commissioner hamasaki: wait, wait, wait. let me understand this.

so witness number two, you allege that you were going to be a witness for his in his racist texting case? >> he wanted me to, and i backed out. >> commissioner hamasaki: what did he want you to testify to? >> say i couldn't have made those racist texts because i'm his black friend. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. say that's true. >> okay. >> commissioner hamasaki: why does he need to punish you? say he has a sexual relationship with this woman, because what mr. betts said in the presentation, there's no reason for these two people to fabricate a case against you, so i'm still -- okay. even if you are a co-worker of

the racist texter, and you're going to testify for him to say he's not that racist, he's my friend, you say no, you know what? actually, i can't say that, you're saying that's his motivation, [inaudible] for the girl he's sleeping with put a case onto you? >> are you done? no, no. it's okay. i just don't want to cut you off. so at the case of the chief, the chief -- >> commissioner hamasaki: so how do you prove that? how do you go with that? >> okay. so i prove that with nick buckley. >> okay. >> nick buckley is the chief's enforcer on me, and there was a

gun involved, do you know? >> commissioner hamasaki: i've read that the gun was, in some way, brandished at you? >> yes. >> commissioner hamasaki: who was present? >> the chief, bob mosier. >> commissioner hamasaki: wait. when you say the chief? >> chief scott. >> commissioner hamasaki: no. buckley brandished the gun that they made go away right here. take a look at kelvin sanders, one second. >> commissioner hamasaki: so i think that was in the materials that were sent over today. >> excuse me? >> commissioner hamasaki: vice president elias, about the gun incident? >> vice president elias: no, it was also mentioned in the correspondence he initially

submitted as well as the follow up ones. i think it was in the e-mail, right, officer babbs? >> yes. >> commissioner hamasaki: did i ask you, officer babbs, did you call any of these people as witnesses in your evidentiary hearing? >> no, i did not. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. so that's -- that's the thing, is, you know, we have to rely on evidence, you know? it's your words, and we can hear in this situation hearsay, which is statements out of court, but you're making some pretty strong statements, which

is buckley, in front of chief scott, had a gun. >> can you take a look at kelvin sanders, who made a mention of a gun, but i can't say what -- >> commissioner hamasaki: commissioner elias, do you have a page number -- >> what? >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm just asking what page i can find it. >> vice president elias: the pages were bates stamped after the hearing, and then, there was additional documents he sent to the commission after the hearing that were not indexed, but it was in a packet that was provided. >> commissioner hamasaki: but is this -- i read it in my

e-mail -- what i'm looking for is evidentiary support. a statement can be evidence, but because this is so complicated and contested and convoluted, you know, i'm trying to get to things we can rely on. >> yes. also, commissioner john, my case, anything that i say, anything i allege, it goes uninvestigated. someone asked about that earlier. my cases, anything i allege, and mr. betts can show you, they are not to be believed. they go uninvestigated. what happened in 2017, no one was charged with everything. they got promoted. that's what he doesn't tell you. but me, i got punished. i take home less now because he attacked my salary.

i take home less now than i did in 2003. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. >> due to the retaliation. >> commissioner hamasaki: so mr. babbs, i've been going for a while, and i want to turn it over to other commissioners to ask their lines, but i think i'll back up as for as mr. betts goes. outside of -- you know what? i'll let the other commissioners go. >> vice president elias: before i turn it over to the other commissioners, i just want to remind you, commissioner hamasaki, the e-mail that he submitted was after the closing arguments on may 7 until today. additionally, both parties had the opportunity to subpoena any witnesses they chose to be present at the hearing and

provide testimony and/or produce evidence with respect to this matter. >> commissioner hamasaki: that actually trips one other question that i was going to ask, and i was trying to decide if it was an appropriate question, and mr. babbs, officer babbs, you don't have to answer this. >> yes. >> commissioner hamasaki: but i notice you were -- you parted ways with your legal representation at a certain point. was that your decision. >> not at all. no, sir. >> commissioner hamasaki: how did that happen? >> well, because i continued to go on, and in my letter here, i sent you a letter from the p.o.a. and -- terminating me from representation from the o.d.f., and if you take a look

here, it says because i didn't take the bad advice of my counsel, i was being denied. they don't want me being here today because i'm telling the truth. it's everything, a lot more things that i'm alleging with their paperwork, sir, that they didn't want me to see this day. >> commissioner hamasaki: i thought the p.o.a., they represented their members -- you're saying they term -- i did see the letter. they terminated your legal representation because you didn't -- >> take bad advice -- go ahead. >> commissioner hamasaki: what was the bad advice? >> i also sent madam commissioner elias my text message with my then-counsel

once i switched them, and i fired him, chris shay, and i sent you a transmission, madam. >> vice president elias: yes, and that was also provided in the packet to each of the commissioners, commissioner hamasaki, so you should have it in your packet. >> yes, sir. it's there. it's self-explanatory why i was denied. >> vice president elias: all of those documents should be available. >> commissioner hamasaki: i understand, but you've never seen the p.o.a. terminate a client. >> well, i'm a black man fighting for my life, and they're racist. that's why. i'm a black man, and they're racist. i'm a black man, and i've been living as a black man for all of these years. that's why.

>> vice president elias: any other commissioners have any other questions? okay. at this point, since there are no other questions, i think we're going to go into closed session for deliberation with respect to the findings and the procedural posture of the case. >> clerk: vice president elias, we would normally take public comment now. is that what you would like to do? at this time, the public is welcome to take public comment regarding line item 8, disciplinary case number iad 2019-0172. members of the public who would like to make public comment, press star, three now. good evening, callers.

you have three minutes. >> commissioners, please pay careful attention to what i'm going to say. i have been a witness at other commission meetings representing or giving testimony on behalf of the police chief, police chair mandelmaner -- police commander, and other officers. i am perplexed, astounded, and confounded that only one commissioner has had the audacity to ask some questions, and even then in a very confused manner. so with all the talk of racial equity and whatever you all say, you all should be ashamed

of yourselves, and i'll tell you why. this commission is mandated to have on the commission a judge, not somebody who's an attorney in immigration law or something, a judge. now, if the judge had spoken, it would have given some credibility to this case, and as the brother is saying, he's black, and just because he's black, he shouldn't be suffering. i was born in africa, in nairobi, kenya. i speak african languages. you all should be ashamed of yourselves that y'all cannot adjudicate this case. you know why? because you're uneducated on

issues. thank you very much. you have done a lot of harm to san franciscans. >> pardon me. the speaker did not state his name for the record. could you state your name if you want it on the record, and spell it. >> i'm sorry, debbie. you do not need to takedown the public comment. >> oh, sorry. >> that's okay. >> good to know. thanks. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have three minutes. >> my name is susan buckman, and if our public comment does not matter, what's the point of public comment if it doesn't matter? i do think that public comment should be part of this record, and i would encourage you to not make a decision tonight. i think that this case is so complicated, as clearly the one person who showed any interest

in it was having trouble -- [inaudible] >> i would like you to do more claims of -- more investigation because of the claims of retaliation. it's more of a he said, she said. i know i'm just babbling, but i think you need to look into these allegations of officer babbs. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. and vice president elias, that is the end of public comment. >> vice president elias: thank you. so at this time, i think we -- unless there's any -- i don't see any names in the queue, so we'll go into closed session. >> clerk: before we go into

closed session, line item 9, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 11 below, closed session, including public comment on item 10, vote whether to hold item 11 in closed session. anyone wishing to make public comment, press star, three now. vice president elias, there's no public comment. >> clerk: item 10. vote on whether to hold item 11 in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10, action. >> vice president elias: can i get a motion? >> i'll make a motion.

>> i'll make a second. this is malia cohen. [roll call] >> clerk: you have five yeses. i will take us into closed session. >> stacey? >> clerk: yes, sir. >> can i say something real fast? >> clerk: vice president elias? >> vice president elias: we've closed argument, but is it real quick? >> yes, just real quick. i just wanted to let you know, 35 years, the only complaint i had is within the walls of the police department. i've never had a complaint with the public, only with the police department. the fabricated cases against joel babbs because i'm a black man is closed, and thank you. thank you. >> vice president elias: thank you, officer

>> july 14th. can i get a motion with respect to the disclosure? >> so moved. >> can i get a second? >> second. >> deputy city attorney just to confirm, commissioner cohen, the motion was not to disclose the closed session contents, correct? >> yes, thank you for that. >> sergeant youngblood, you're muted. >> online item 12 on the motion not to disclose... (roll call)

you have six yes's. line item 13, adjournment. action item. i'm sorry, we need to take public comment real quick. for members of the public who would like to make public comment regarding line item 12, please press star 3 now. we have no public comment. >> thank you very much. a motion to dismiss. >> motion. >> second. >> we can take that without objection. ladies and gentlemen, we are done. thank you.