236 cases that have been open. we have also closed 236 exact cases. we still have cases that are pending, 274 is on the open docket right now. that's the current case load at d.p.a. 21 cases is here. we have mediated seven cases so far this year. we have 32 cases who's investigations have gone beyond nine months. of those 32 cases that we have, 22 of those cases meaning legal issues associated with those cases. there's a pretty high number of cases tolled. they have joseph lapped with --

overlapped with ongoing cases. we have 11 cases pends with the police commission and seven cases pending with the chief. in terms of weekly trend from the last meeting that we had, there are 13 new cases have come in, 33% of those cases, highest percentage were for an officer to failing to take required action. the second highest allegation, 22% was an officer behaved and spoke inappropriately. you can see a breakdown every percentage of ilallegations. in terms of the district and break down of various precincts. the largest drop -- let me start

off with that -- the largest drop, this one was pretty dramatic. the largest drop that we had in central station for allegations of officers using unnecessary force on a complainant. previous number of cases was nine and now there's one. that's a big drop. i know you guys liking to know what the trends are. highest allegations have come from two stations, northern and richmond stations. three each. northern station the allegations were officers failing to make an arrest and for failure to respond to a complainant's call. in richmond, affirm officer failing to report issueses with

cause and threatening to falsify records with that complainant. these are allegations that came in but trying to give folks a since -- we did see police department 18 month status update on the use of force audit. and d.p.a.'s 27 open recommendations. in addition to that, the d.p.a. and the office of controller are reviewing those responses to determine if additional recommendations can be closed. in terms of outreach, may 3rd we did an outreach at the bayview station community meeting and also for tonight's meeting. senior investigator candace

carpenter is on this call and is available in case anything comes up. folks like to get in contact with the agency, they can do so online at sfgovtv.org/dpa. that concludes my report. you will hear from d.p.a. with five agenda items scheduled. i'm not going to -- [ indiscernible ] there's other information filed on the consent calendar with updates on 1421 and various administrative trackings. many of these tracking that are reporting weekly and monthly

will all be summarized. we're getting close issuing the next annual report. we'll also do a comparison that i think will be helpful to the public. that concludes my report. >> vice president elias: quick question for you. we asked this couple of weeks ago. i think you were out. i think you addressed it tonight about the high number of cases passing the 240 day mark. >> i missed everything until 2

just said told. i couldn't hear what you were saying. >> vice president elias: you said that the number of cases passed 240 day mark are high. i'm trying to understand why. especially the ones -- you said there were 10 that aren't told. >> yeah. when i say the number is high, number of told cases are high. for any reason cases can go past the nine month mark. the real issue is the 3304 deadline of a year. i never missed that deadline since i taken over at the agency. the number that i was referencing is a high number.

cases can be delayed for even administrative reasons like an officer going on vacation or being unavailable to answer or for us to collect questions on an individual case. the ten number is not a significant number. i was referencing the fact that having 32 cases and 22 of them being told is a pretty high number. we're starting at 22 for cases that d.p.a. does not control who's cases are paused and or suspended because of ongoing investigations from the district attorney's office or ongoing investigation or litigation associated with the city attorney's office. i don't know if that answers the

question. >> vice president elias: sort of. the 22 that are tolled, those ones to be that concerned about because there's a reason. i guess there's a 10. >> specifically for the ten, tomorrow, i have -- tomorrow we have staff and those ten are on the agenda. that number is actually pretty -- [ indiscernible ] those cases are flagged and reveal challenges or issues that come up that need to be

resolved. say something needs to be subpoenaed or we can't get access to a body-worn camera. many cases get resolved when they come to this level of the individual review in the group. many of those cases get resolved with e-mails typically from myself andth rest of the department to get responses on things that are delayed, lost or the guidance. then we troubleshoot individually. that's the best i can tell you. >> vice president elias: you said there was a drop in number of cases. do we know why? >> it's hard to gauge why. what i'm measuring are folks coming in and what they are saying. i typically don't report on the drops. i typically just tell you what the highest numbers are.

this drop was so significant, i thought it was worth mentioning. i wanted to at least report and share information that would indicate something positive is being done. i can't actually authenticate that. >> vice president elias: great. second, can we do public comment? >> sergeant youngblood: if you like to make public comment please press star 3 now.

there's no public comment. >> vice president elias: can we move to the next item. >> sergeant youngblood: item 5, commission reports. commission reports will be limited to brief description of activities and announcements. >> vice president elias: anythin g to report? commissioner yanez. >> commissioner yanez: thank you vice president. welcome commissioner benedicto. it's great to have you on board. chief scott, i'm glad you are available after such an intense last week. the majority of my report will

focus on our trip out to the project, tour of the civil rights sites and some really deep conversations about the road that those systemic justices and jim crow era south that continues to circle in different ways in our current institutions. i thank and commend the chief for his leadership on this. it really was an eye opening experience for me. it's one thing to learn and read about history and dive deep into that history independent of

being exposed the site, the location where this history happened. to meet some folks that were part of that social justice struggle 50 years ago and continue to engage community to understand the long standing impacts of those injustices is really invaluable. the feedback that i have, if we will continue to invest in such an important project, there are a lot of -- it was an intense five days. 12 to 14 hour days of both content and then diving deep into some conversations about how community can partner with

the police department to improve our relationship, to improve the communication. i think it's an important first step in that direction. some of the feedback that i fielded from the community was focused on continuing this conversation. to make sure that these aren't isolated efforts where we expose our officers and our commissioners and our board of supervisors members and community members that joined these trips to talk about the inherent biases that exist at some institutions and dive deeper into the conversations to dismantle what it is that we now can do to begin to really deconstruct those institutional biases and be proactive about

addressing these issues when they surface. it is a long-term goal. i know that the chief is invested in making sure that the department has this analysis. it's a major investment. i do want to follow-up with the chief so we can talk about how to frame this in a manner where we can benefit the most from it. obviously, it's a major investment and it's an exhausting investment of time and energy but well worth the effort. one other thing i like to share about that, it really gave me an opportunity to engage with the leadership of the department and a really dynamic form to have these conversations that are

normally set up in spaces such as this commission. a space where oftentimes we had an adversarial kind of approach to resolving the challenges that we have. it was a positive experience to step away from our road, our badges our positions and leadership. really speak heart-to-heart about what motivates people to take the position that they do. if i walked away with one major gain, it was an increase respect for the work that the officers do on a day-to-day basis. the utmost respect that i have for the chief embarking on this very challenging effort to

really address and reconcile these disparities that we experience in our department and in our city when it comes to the over representation of minority community and contact with the police department. i'm walking away with lot of hope that we have long leadership. we have members invested in the safety of our community. we need to create more spaces for this dialogue to continue to happen and for the feedback that community provides to also be incorporated into the way we venture moving forward into community policing. with that, i do want to once again thank al and all the folks that spent so much time and

energy. the last thing i would say about this, another walk away that i have, the last few months, we talked and i heard the word morale and the issue of morale come up and resurface. i know we're going to talk about it again today. i won't spend too much on that. i like us to reframe how we look at these challenges that continue to surface and to

really think about the fact that with a short staff department in addition to the potential morale issues, there are some severe burnout issues that our department is experiencing. i think it impacts the perception of both people who may cause an interface with the department and those of us who are responsible for the oversight and accountability of this department. i wanted to name that because that was very clear to me the folks that are out there working really hard. they are putting their best foot forward. i want to thank you for the opportunity to go on the trip and learn more about what is challenging our officers and commend them for putting up with the multiple challenges given

covid and staffing challenges and given the environment that we continue to face. i think it's unfortunate because the avenues where it's coming from. i'm on board with making sure that we continue to have these conversations and i want to support us investing in these types of efforts moving forward. one thing i will remind us, i want to agendize for future reference the community policing d.g.o. will be a space to have forums to give feedback.

>> vice president elias: commiss ioner byrne? >> commissioner byrne: thank you. that's friday i had the opportunity to spend the evening and early morning in the tenderloin district. with three officers. the officers impressed me. i was informed -- [ indiscernible ] there were approximately 12 officers. that was considered a full compliment. unlike the daytime, there was huge amount of alleged drug dealers at seventh and market street. more than i seen in a group than any of the times i went in the daytime. we also noticed across the

street from hastings on goldengate. two cars were disbursed about i understand the department is under staffed. for all the work that has been done to take over the day, children were in the streets. it was very depressing. i know it's going to come up in june. we'll agendize the issue in june. aknow number of people from the tenderloin want to speak.

>> vice president elias: thank you. anyone else? seeing none. commissioner benedicto? >> commissioner benedicto: thank you. i wanted to say that along with commissioner yanez today, we both appeared at the virtual press conversation with the coalition and bias stops. which is a broad coalition. they are very eager to be involved in the process.

there was real energy there and happy that commissioner yanez was able to attend. hopefully we can continue to channel that energy. >> vice president elias: can we go to public comment? >> sergeant youngblood: at this time the public is welcome to make public comment. please press star 3 now. there is no public comment. >> vice president elias: at this time, i'm going to ask to move -- take item 6 off calendar and bring that back in a few weeks for the department to present a presentation on. i'm going to ask to move line

item 11 up to the first item. call item 11. >> sergeant youngblood: discussi on regarding department general order 9.01. comments maybe e-mailed to sfgovtv.org or commission will calendar this item after june 11, 2022. >> vice president elias: i'm very excited to have this on the agenda. i'm excited to turn this over to commissioner carter-oberstone who has been working diligently on this. d.g.o. with community partners. this is obviously a step in the right direction and addressing

troubling available disparity within our city. i'm so excited. additionally there was a time the article offered by commissioner carter-oberstone which also discusses the d.g.o. i would encourage everyone to take a look at that. commissioner carter-oberstone? >> commissioner carter-oberstont hank you vice president elias. before getting into the substance of the agenda item, i want to emphasize that this was really the product of collaboration, intense collaboration with the department and with d.p.a. we met every week for quite some time to exchange our ideas and work together on this draft. this draft policy is really a product of that joint effort. i think we may be starting in different places. we really listen to each other

and we all learn from each other. the department and d.p.a. contributed meaningfully to this draft that i'm happy to present to the public today. couple of things i want to cover is briefly explain what the problem is and why we're doing this and how this draft tends to resolve the problem. lastly, just lay out next steps in terms of the public process. as we all know, as we've discussed many times on this commission, there are fairly significant racial disparities in the departments stop and search data. just to give up a quick

snapshot, for example, black people are 10.3 times more likely to be stopped for vehicle violation. all the things academic say are red flags form implicit bias. whereas, the potential race neutral reasons that can be driving disparities are not supported by the data. i do want to respond to a couple of things that you might hear from folks explaining a way disparities. sometimes you'll hear it's driven by neighborhood enforcement that we put more police in neighborhoods that are higher in critical. those neighborhoods happen have to be more black people living there. that's not supported by the data. we discussed it in detail on february 2nd. another thing that you hear is

that, black people are committing more traffic violations. it's natural they'll be pulled over more. i will point people to the c.p.e. report. found that black people did not violate traffic laws. black people are the most likely to be stopped without any citation with any racial group. finally, you will hear sometimes in some quarters chaste driving this disparity, there's black people coming from outside of san francisco. that's really just skewing the data. that somehow there's that army of black people that descend on the city every day. there's way more black people than you thought based on the resident numbers. i will point people to the

c.p.e. report. they took into account commuting traffic flows in their numbers and found that the disparities were persistent. we got disparities where implicit bias is at least one driving factor likely. this is obviously not a good thing. it creates friction between the department and the communities that it serves. we're not fulfilling our obligation to grant every resident of this city equal justice under the law which is one of our highest and most important obligations as a city. i make no secret that the reason i'm interested in this policy is because of the race inequities. i think there's a lot of other really good reasons to be in favor of this policy even if

racial justice is not a motivating factor for you. one reason that i want to highlight is that these low level stops, are not making us safer. our own data shows that we uncover contraband at incredibly low rates. in 2019, we made tens of thousands of these stops. we are not getting a return on investment. you hear lot of people saying that we should focus on quality of life issues. if you're one of those people, you should be in favor of this policy. if we phase out the tremendous amount of resources we put into making these stops, all of those resources can be redirected to policies and practices that are proven to stop and prevent crime. somebody who wants better response time, more focus on property crime, improving our --

[ indiscernible ] rates. those are great reasons to support this policy. finally the issue of officer safety. most traffic stops will be routine. you never know when a routine traffic stop will turn dangerous. why would we risk the safety of officers to carry out a policy that is not delivering any public safety benefit. that's another really good reason to support this policy. how does the policy work? i think it's that two main problems. first way is to ban stops for certain low level offenses that don't possess a -- pose a

threat. taking those off the table. i want to be clear here. this will be banning stops, it will not be banning enforcement. you can still issue a ticket to unoccupied parked car. this is about stops. it's not about enforcement. there are many several hundreds of code violations in our traffic code. banning stops for 15 or so violations won't totally solve the problem. the next important part is to limit what officers can do once they make a stop. limiting the use of consent searches. limiting the use of investigatory questions. these are things that --

[ indiscernible ] officers won't have a way to make it more difficult search a car when you don't have probable cause or reasonable suspension. finally, data collection, supervisory review and reporting. if this policy were to be enacted, we want to monitor our stop to see how it's affecting law enforcement. this policy will require officers to final incident reports in certain situations. we'll be able to track that. finally, there's an element of supervisory review. that when officers -- there's an exception for making stops for crimes when there's evidence to suspect that the driver is involved in a serious crime.

that's what the d.g.o. does. in terms of the process going forward, the thing that i would stress the most that transparency is really paramount here. that's why we're starting by showing the public our first rough draft. i want to make this -- i said this to department and d.p.a. and everyone i speak with. i want this to be the most publicly transparent d.g.o. process that we've had. i think there will be three main avenues for public participation. the first is just writing in letters with specific suggestions or changes, comments, critiques. the agenda says we'll be

accepting public comment for 30 days. i want to be clear we'll be accepting public comment beyond that time. there's no strict time limit. obviously earlier is better. the second avenue for public participation will be working groups. folks and organizations who are really invested in this process and want to get in with the policy and crafting the language, will participate in working groups. if you're one of those people or organizations, please write into the commission and express your interest in participating in the working group. i'm hoping we can start them next month. finally for folks who don't have the time or inclination to write in or do the working groups, we will be doing community listening sessions where we will go out to the people in the

community and provide them with an opportunity to give us feedback directly on the policies and their experiences. lastly, i thank the d.p.a. and the department. i need to thank the coalition to end bias stops. who have been working on this issue long before i joined the commission. i want to thank them. i met with them on many occasions. they made some substantial contributions. i don't know if the chief wants to say a few words on this or if any commissioners have any comments or questions?

>> vice president elias: one other thing, what i like to let people know, if they want to e-mail in, they should e-mail sfpd.commissionsfgovtv.org. we received some. i would encourage department members to participate in this process. we have received some comments from actual department members which is very beneficial to us when we create these policies. you can e-mail us at that website or it's going to be published on the police commission website for people to respond. with that, i'll turn it over to the chief. >> thank you vice president elias. thank you commissioner carter-oberstone and also thank you to d.p.a. and particularly

to janell kaywood. i want to go deeper into the department's involvement and our commitment and open to move forward our work to reduce the disparities in our city. just very briefly, we started as commissioner yanez talked about earlier, whole series of discussions on disparities and race and reconciliation of these issues. it started over a year ago to start really setting the stage to really have these intense discussions so we can get to the right frame of mind to even move these issues forward. i want to thank some of the members from our department.

definitely, the department is a willing partner to move this forward as commissioner said, there's been some really good and deep discussions and points of view that i think have moved us forward. we still have a ways with to go. there's some things that i'm really looking forward to hearing from the public and members of the department. thank you vice president elias for highlighting that. we do want the members of the department to weigh in and have input. that's one of the things i'll talk about when we get to our discussion on morale. that's one of the pieces of feedback that i will continue to give and that's really important as well. we want to be collaborative. we're open to change. we want a policy that both addresses this issue but also allows our officers to do the

job they need to do to address some of the challenges and the crime in our city and other issues that have been raised in this hearing in terms of criminal matters that our residents and community members have really asked us to help resolve. at the end of all this, with all that input, what we're hoping for is to have a policy that hopefully hit both of those things. i do believe we can reach a balance. i'm open as well. i want to look forward and invite members of the public to be engaged in this process. we're all in this together. thank you. ms. kaywood? >> good evening. i'm the director of policy at the department of police accountability. we are so proud of the work that's going into this first draft.

we're glad it's ground swell public support to end racially biased stops. we've seen this several presentations about stop disparities. i won't belabor what's already been said. i want to highlight the high social cost of stops. these stops can often be dehumanizing and make people feel harassed and demean. someone is is stopped for failure for license plate or jaywalking, they don't go home and say i got lucky tonight. they are angry and upset and feeling they were unfairly targeted because of their race. we hear these complaints from d.p.a. so often. it's important to remember that pretext stops compromise public safety because they create mistrust between the police and communities of color.

the consequence of this mistrust people who have been on the receiving end don't want to talk to the police and assist them in solving problems. some people argue that stops are essential but as commissioner carter-oberstone just mentioned, the data shows this is true. the d.p.a. spent the last year meeting with subject matter experts. it's our belief that any policy

must include a ban on asking for consent to search, ban on askings about probation, a ban asking questions about unrelated crimes during routine traffic stop. questions is the hallmark of pretext stop. if they are banned, then the police will be disincentivized for pulling people over for minor infractions. banning these questions will build in important accountability measures so we can make sure routine traffic stops do not turn into speculative fishing expedition. this is a point upon which the commission and chief scott has agreed. we really want to acknowledge that for the first time in our history, we have a police chief who's open to this idea and agreeing with us on it.

i'm looking forward to the commission and working group so we can create a smart pretext stop policy that ends racial bias and does not compromise public safety. we heard folks are interested in rolling up their sleever -- sleeved and do the work. i want to thank commissioner carter-oberstone for his patience. his willingness to dig into the details and do the work. he's met with d.p.a. for many months and listened to our concerns and discussed our recommendations. i want to thank chief scott. >> vice president elias: i wanted to thank the public

defenders office for their contribution. they have participated in some of the discussions and called to get input on the draft. i see commissioner yanez? >> commissioner yanez: thank you. i really appreciate your due diligence on this issue commissioner max oberstone especially the framing you gave to the public. the more we think about public safety and policing as a responsibility as a whole of san francisco, the better we will be at generating the support not only to address racial disparities but as we think about what happens when if we are demanding that officers don't engage in this type of

behavior any longer and has been alluded to reaching for the low hanging fruit, it will free up our officers to dive deeper into those real challenging cases that have to do with public safety issues. i think given the short staffing challenges that we have and the fact that moving forward, there is a foreseeable challenge with recruitment. not necessarily solely because the man in which san francisco police is. we know that the pool is getting smaller because of how difficult it is to be on the front line. i really find lot of encouragement in the broad support that is for this revised d.g.o. i know that there will be a lot of ongoing conversations about

what things need to be introduce so there are safeguards and so that both the department and the community feel that this is the best direction to take. i really -- i'm really grateful for this being prioritized at this time. thank you, chief for your leadership and devoting the resources that are necessary to get to the right place. as i have said before, i think this is one of those things that will be tangible outcomes and results immediately. i can't wait for this to continue and for us to field as much public comment as possible. >> vice president elias: any other commissioners? commissioner benedicto? >> commissioner benedicto: thank you. i want to add and thank

commissioner carter-oberstone and chief for doing their work on this. i am eager for this process to be transparent and to be inclusive. i think part of the success was the transparency of the process listening sessions and the tenderloin. i'm glad to see we're using some of the same approaches. i'm looking forward to listening sessions. i believe we're collaborating with the human rights commission and exciting to see that

collaboration. any members of the community watching really encourage you to get involved. if you find yourself frustrated, there's a chance to affect positive change. i want to echo what vice president elias said about officers. really encourage officers to participate. [ please stand by ]

>> thank you thank you, commissioner yee. >> vice president i want to thank commissioner carter-oberstone for ending the

disparity in our community between people of color. you're going through it and i can see all the other people being stopped for a minor violation and it isn't fair what they gothrough . i guess this is the 21st century policing we're looking forward to and i think the chief and miss harcourt and everybody else that put forward onthis . i'm looking forward to this new policing policy we can work on andthank you to everyone in the city . thank you very much, commissioner carter-oberstone. thank you chief and everybody else. >> thank you commissioner yee. before turning it over topublic comments, director henderson . >> i'll try not to repeat the

comment but i do want to in addition to thanking everybody, especially the chief and the department right now. i just don't want it lost on folks on how groundbreaking and significant this policy is likely to be forthis city . it really is going to put the city of san francisco at the forefront of the conversation both for reform and accountability and i say both because reform and policy is important but it's only as relevant as the accountability we build into the system to make sure we can enforcethese great policies that are about to be dumped on us and it's not a small thing . as a fourth-generation san franciscan, as someone who has been stopped, detained, arrested numerous times for pretextual stops and those

practices have been common experiences for my community. i grew up in the haight but for people who look like me working inpublic safety , it's groundbreaking that we're havingthis conversation today . it's groundbreaking the leadership that participated and the culmination of this policy and i just don't want that lost on the public or anyone else how significant an groundbreaking this could be for san francisco . this is a very big deal and the mayor should be proud ofthe work that we'redoing . that's it . >> iq director henderson. sergeant, public comment? >> at this time the public is no way to welcome to make public comments regarding dg 0901. if you'd like to make public comment press áthree.

>> speaker: good evening president lis and commissioners, i'm also calling on behalf of mrs. martin can't make it. she is senior government relations corridor for the council on american islamic relations in the san francisco bay area. glide and care are proud members of the community driven coalition to end traffic stops which has been mentioned this evening and we are now representing fixed the local organizations united in article 2 and priest text stops in san francisco so thank you department of police accountability and chief scott for prioritizing this conversation regarding dgo 9.01. traffic stops are the most common way people come into contact with law enforcement

and san francisco has led the nation in over policing communities ofcolor which can lead to misconduct and use of force and they thought already been banned in other jurisdictions . these rates of stops though they've not change significantly since sfpd again collecting the data, because of that we should be aggressive in our approach to addressing thesearms which has left a known and lasting impact in our community . we believe based on the stories related to us by impacted community members we need to comprehensively band stops and any policy should articulate a data capture to evaluate how anyexceptions are used so this is an important first step. we're looking forward to the next steps of engaging with the commission and thank you again or prioritizing this discussion . >> thank you caller you have two minutes. >> speaker: good evening vice

president lis and commissioner . thank you to the commission, department of police accountability and chief scott for being responsive and recognizing that it's finally time to end pre-text stops. pretextual stops are not making our streets safer for people who bike, walk or drive in san francisco. many of my clients have been harmed bypretext stops and repeated harassment . these stops further alienate some of ourmarginalized neighbors and make them feel as though they are not welcome in their own community . by reducing our city's reliance on this tactic we will reduce entry into the incarceration system. to remove biased officer discretion from point of harm and ensure we protect community members from all pretext stops

the coalition would like to see more codes included on the list for whichsfpd cannot stop drivers and pedestrians community advocates have been speaking out on the harm caused communities of color by pretext stops for some timeand san francisco is ready to be a national leader and stop the pretext . thank you. >> thank you caller good evening caller, you have 2 minutes . >> good evening police commissioners. my name is clara and i'm a senior community organizer at the san francisco bike coalition born and raised in the tenderloin and have worked on street safety campaigns downtown for the last six years. where part of the coalition to end biased stops and our work recall surrounding streets safer for peoplewalking, biking and rolling so no one loses their life . since 2014 we've added traffic fatalities and the state has a reliance on police traffic laws is not only ineffective in preventing traffic collisions but also negatively harms communities of color.

pretextual stops are one example ofover policing methods that harm black and brown communities . when i was 16 years old i watched three of my cousins all of them younger than me racially profiled for a crime they had nothing to do with because they were listening to loud music and hanging out. we've heard so many similar stories from community members about police stopping them for jaywalking andleading to interest for something completely different . the list we have on the agenda is a great starting point but we'd like to see a more comprehensive list that includes all pretextual violations. so many people who are biking and scooter and may not feel comfortable in the street let alone know they have to be on the rightside of it . and i'm certain corridors with fast-moving trafficand no designated lanes i would want to list risk my life in that situation either . i know so many people who cannot afford a good home for

$120 to four their bicycles to stop them for such is not only communities but a waste of time that can be spent onmore serious life-threatening crimes. we appreciate this issue being raisedand look forward to working with you all on a comprehensive list that ends pretextual stopsonce and for all. i you for your time . >> iq color. you have 2 minutes . >> hello acting president lis and commissioners . i am among the voters in san francisco this proposal does not go far enough .we're deeply concerned about working with groups for intimidation to sow confusion to delay progress to these very communities and may result in the misrepresentation of civic commissions aboutthe progress and the lack thereof. the working groups on the process , i urge these commissions that you need to haveaggressive oversight . thank you.

>> thank youcaller. good evening caller you have to minutes . >> my name is carolyn. i am a policy advocate with the public defender's office and also a member of the livestock coalition. we're very glad to see this item getting discussed and introduced in a robust way and i thank everyone who has been willing to engage and move forward. this coalition has been meeting nearly a year ago by police commissioners, dta, board supervisor members and community leaders across the city to ensure that a city that we are focusing attention on this critical issue. one that has plagued san francisco for fartoo long.

pretext stops on community relations and far too often cause those already fearful of law enforcement to flee causing more unnecessary violence . we note san francisco mirrors the state and nation in over policing communities of color particularly black communities and in 2021 sfpd conducted 27,000 stops which resulted in 6000 searches. this is a critical issue and it's also a life-and-death issue we have seen many times and it's time for san francisco to changeour policies and change these blatantly racially biased stops and put an end to them . >> thank you caller. goodevening you have to minutes . >> this is the public defender's office and coalition to end violence stops.it was a year ago this commission heard community perspectives o policing disparities and the public defender's office , wealth disparities in theblack community and don k king and

officers for justice . ending pretext stops with the most recommended change in apartment should make . thank you to the commission for taking this on and to commissioner carter-oberstone for introducing the ddo. i would expect opponents to say pretext stops are just a tool but there's a lot of tools law enforcement can use. lying to minors during interrogation is a tool. scanning crowds with facial recognition is a tool. jurisdictions routinely reevaluate and uselaw enforcement tools in the community precisely because of the impact and collateral consequences . i'm optimistic working group will bestarting to draft ddo that doesn't weigh the usefulness of pretext stops but instead recognizes the harm it creates and itsfar-reaching and deeply entrenched. i vote on strengthening the

proposed ddo with the commission . >> thank you caller. good evening caller, you have 2 minutes . you have to minutes. good evening caller, you have to minutes. >> my name is angelachan. good evening commissioners. i'm chief of policy at the san francisco public defender's office . i appreciate commissioner carter-oberstone for appreciating and introducing the ddo and your leadership in addressing pretextual stops. thank you to the commissioners spoken out in support of ending these racially biased stops. as you know this morning from the community press conference the campaign to end pretextual stops is strongly supported by a large diverse and vocal coalition of organizations serving sanfranciscans . we've organized and are ready to make sure our strong policy is adopted but it's a model for

the rest of the country. one of the points that hit the heart of theissue made this morning is that ending the practice of targeting harassing and stopping black and brown communities for driving bicycling and walking will improve public safety . turning violence that's criminalized generations of communities of color is about protecting the physical safety and mental health of our communities . it's also about protecting black and brown lives from unnecessarycontact with law enforcement and into many cases unnecessary escalation . the coalition will be pushing for a comprehensive policy to protect against always communities of color can be stopped by police .the list includes a starting point but it is not enough. whileinsisting on a policy where theexceptions do not follow the rule and i look forward to working with all of you to make this happen and to monitorimplementation . a few commissioners .>> thanked the caller. good evening, you have to

minutes . >> my name is todd, i'm a member with the black community. i know you're trying to follow public policy but never forget to recognize the policies first and foremost as commissioner carter-oberstonesaid so clearly about ending anti-black bias and policing overall. we should not be apologetic about addressing a serious problem and the need for action on this issue . please don't forget to recognize felicia jones for the work she's been doing on this issuefor years all as an unpaid volunteer. she's been calling for this change since 2016 is continuously ignored . finally i hope this policy builds a meaningful consequence for officers to engage in bias. this is not been the case at all for any other policies and i don't take it for granted unless it is centers in this conversation going forward.

>> you have to minutes. >> c8 on advocacymanager for social justice . we urge you today to enjoy and stops in san francisco by limiting sfpd officers ability for certain low-level traffic stops . these stops harm waste resources and far too often cause thecommunity to be fearful of law enforcement . know that 11 of every 1000 may be stopped as compared to roughly 1 in 1000

>> eeo complaints, civil suits.

the list is in front of you but i want to mention there's also a substantial list, robust lifts list of associated factors so not only in theaters but we look at how muchovertime . whether or not there are criminal cases dismissed. a pattern of sick time, we're looking at many factors. next slide let's talk about what the thresholds are. in that time period these are the essentials. any officer involved shooting or officer involved discharge of a firearm three or more uses of force in three-month period, three or more department of policeaccountability complaints

in asix-month period . any five or more indicators in a six-month period , four or more dba complaints and any six indicators in a 12 month period. next slide. it's a slide about trends and in this corner there were no significant spikes . very much from quarter to quarter there are changes so we will move onto the next slide . >> eis alert by type. in the third quarter 2021 were no officer involved shootings. one officer involved discharge. the overwhelming majority were use of force within three months. those totaled 30 out of a total of71 . there's a pie chart for visualization. will move on tothe next slide . how many members are receiving

alerts? specifically in the third quarter 2021. 37 members receive one alert in that time. 11 members receivedtwo alerts . and for members received three alerts for a totalof 71 . next slide. we have a lot ofrobust data so we're going to look at alerts by station . i'll point out a few things on this chart. so mission has the most alerts. of the 18 alerts that they had, 10 of them were three or more in atime period . and then there were 67 and a half alerts in this time period by station. the other two and half were from special which is actually the next. there were 71 total alerts for

the third quarter of 2021 which is a station breakdown. for specialized units in our product report, the airport had one. the unknown from a complaint that we haven'tidentified the number . okay, next slide. what happens with these alerts? in the third quarter 33 were sent to their captains for review. they receive these pretty regularly. the system is itgoes to the member's direct supervisor . they review a number of documents . i'm sorry, whatever police reports, use of force, dba complaints and those are discussed, reviewed by the supervisor and discussed with the member. during that quarter eight were

processed administratively by our team and 20 were merged. next slide. so we also look at points by station so not only the alerts but actualindicator points . we'll just look at the extreme and hidden points for the station during this quarter. we had the newest with 21. i'm going to go down to the total row use of force. there were 276. that by far was the number one indicator. number two was 158 from dbh for a total of 488 points in the third quarter of 2020. the next slide is a bar graph of the same information so i

want to move forward. we also look for correlations when we are reviewing our data and one of those or calls for service by stations and this is calls for service in a 12 month period. will also look at extremes so all mission station had 20 point percent of the alerts, they had 60 percent of the total calls for service by the department. in the middle of the road with bayview 6.8 percent, 13 percent are the indicator points. they took care of 13.2 percent of the calls for service for thedepartment . what was a little bit of an anomaly was one station had 14.6 percent. only 3.4 percent of the indicator points and they had one percent of the calls for

service for the department during that time. very few indicator points for northern station for the amount ofcalls for service .next slide. more correlations. part one violent crimes in the last 12 months.we looked at crimes for each station and then if there was any correlation we've indicated that point. mission station had 730. not the most, actually 10 below had the most part one violent crime 762. theyhad 281 indicator points . close second is mission station 730 part one violent crimes they had 822 indicator points. i'll point out northern again they had a large amount of violent crimes 653 but only 652 indicators so i'mnot drawing

any conclusions . just correlations that we hear to see if there's anything that we should be doing. next slide. so actual interventions in core three there was one intervention basedon the medications between a cabinet and the supervisor . and then engagements outside of eis there was 61. informal counseling sessions based on eis. for formal counseling sessions and two officers were put on performance improvement plans. so once again this is kind of to preempt this. if we seeindicators we tried to take preemptive action . and then our last slide and i'll conclude the presentation. it talked about the changes that were really in the middle

of. so the system has been in existence for a long time. we have contracted with the companies for all benchmarks and the system called first sign that kicked off in october 2021. we are on track for testing. the testingphase in july . full production of readiness is scheduled for december this year contingent upon approval of the policy but also working on developing a new policy with first sign based on improvements andchanges we've made . so use of force and internal affairs data being validated in the process with our it division. working on gathering a service department, creating service group for benchmark management

systems. so this is a big project. right now i know that a lot of work is being done without it division and benchmarks to make sure our medications or our tech systems are committing properly and that that transition goes over smoothly. at the same time we're kicking off, looking at our policy. we have set dates or are going to arrange dates with benchmarks to any commissioners that want to assist in this project, in this process along with dba so that you can hear directly on benchmarks and then from there we will have an internal working group to develop policy. we are doing that simultaneously with it working on the communication of our

data. somany moving parts , a lot of work that's been done. a lot more work to do. those are very aggressive timelines so we are working diligently to try to get this up and running with a new system advocacyandnotjustth resholds.thenonelastpointis withthe new5.01useofforcepolicy thatisuponuswearehyp erawareofchanges thatwilltrigger whatwebelieve willbemore eisawards. andit'smuchtooearlytodraw theconclusions although youknow,wewillhaveto reviewourthresholds potentiall . wewillmaintain

andanalyzethedataasereceiveit . andwejustmighthavetoreachout withthesystembasedon thechangesin5.01 .justverypreliminarily we know physicalhasgoneup .we arereadytocomment ontheexact trendandwe'vegotnumb ersbutjustmypointisthat wearegetting lotsofanecdotalfeedback andouranalysts aregoingto evaluatethissowecani dentifythetrends andtaketheappropriat eactions.asitrelate tooureisystems.sotha twearehyperaware . thankyou. >> thankyou.ijusthadtwo questions.oneis onlysofarbehin

?thisisfromthirdquar teroflastyear soweareayearbehind. >> reporting?ácustomáwe 'regradingyourrepor ingbuti'mnotsurether ecordingisinrealtime . howdoesithelp ustoseethedata that'sa-year-oldalready? >> iactuallyfeelthesameway .weprobablyshouldmoveup thequarters andiknowthelasttimei reportedireportedon thesequarters. thatwasalittlechallenging butourlatestquarteri sthethirdquarter2021so i'llseeifwecanmovet osetimelinesup . ibelievethisparticul arpresentation wastoblames butibelievethatdoesn 'taccountforoneyear andwewillseewhatweca ndoaboutthat.

>> myotherquestionisint ermsofhowyouknowthes ystemisworking, canyou collectdata fromthedisciplinecas esandseeoutofallthed isciplinecases howmanyoftheofficers hadeisintervention ?maybethatwouldallowustosee orquantify or giveussomemarker toseeifthissystemiseallyworking . because it'snotgearedtowards disciplinebutit'sgearedtowards intervening earlier sothatitdoesn'tleadt odisciplinesoitwould beinterestingtoseeifyoucould collectthedatabecaus eiknowwehaven't onthedisciplinecases thatwe'vehadoverthel astfiveyears .howmanyofficersrece ivedeisintervention. >>

>> i agree with you. i can tell you anecdotally that from being at the station as a supervisor in many supervisor rolesthat i thought it was very effective . it's a robust system. it actually takes a lot of time to receive new alerts to review

all the materials but it causes a communicationchannel that may not happen . i'm going to say anecdotally i know that it does work but to your point can it be better? that's why removing to benchmark and wedo want a better product . i don't have the data toback that up so that's something i'll talk to the team about . the station level i felt it was effective but i agree with you. maybe it can be more effective and we should validate whether or not what our successes would be.>> thank you and i'm going to turn it over to themission or benedicto . >> i think you answered most of my questions which is why we're a year behind and it defeats the purpose of the commission finding out about it year later.

i think in addition i appreciate the amount of work that goes into having these reports and that requires significant time and effort and that you're going to try to expedite the next quarter to get us back on track but i think if there is alarger issue here that we're not equipped to get them out on time , otherwise you'll always be trying to scramble and maybe there needs to be a broader discussion about ways in which this process can be streamlined so that it can be regularly submitted on time. hopefully we can shorten the lag time but if not, how can we help ensure we get them on time? >> thank you commissioner.

>> i just have two questions. i was reading the ddo that guides this. very cumbersome.i can see why thereports take solong to generate . there are layers upon layers of reviews . so honestly i think the process will just generate more real-time data and that seems to be already on your list of things to work towards. i'm interested in finding out what tools and resources are provided when someone meets that threshold because if this has been in place for as long as it has been and yet it has not necessarily improved or reduced the disparities. you know, what tools are being used and how successful are those tools at improving these disparities? >> so when work gets to the

station to thecaptain the captain has a conversation with lieutenant and the surrogate . and as i said earlier the packet is provided to the captain of every report, every indicator and supporting documents. so let me answeryour question first . every resource available to any department member will be provided to members whether it's the behavioral science unit, if there's somethinggoing on outside of the workplace for that number we will provide that . we will look at the supervisor shouldlook at the peopleworking , what their work patterns are . but if that's taking a toll on them. there's many things for times

sake but that's a great question. my answer is every tool that we can get in thisdepartment whetherit's training, counseling, just having a conversation , referrals to other resources . but it also goes back to answer the question that the audience alerts sparks those conversations and it starts that whole in-depth process of what's going on here thatcaused the threshold to be met. and what can we do about it that's the whole point . >> the threshold from what i understand at least in the summary that you provided there were four members with three alerts three alerts in most workplace environments i would assume leads to a proponent improvement plan and yet you summarize there was only one performance improvement plan yet there were at least four members with three alerts.

i don't know the content of thosealerts or the gravity of those alerts . so two questions. are the alerts tracked independent of the members that engage in these behaviors and be, how is it that a member with that many alerts, how is it there are four members with that many alerts in one quarter and yet we only have one member who has a written plan as a result of these three admonishments? >> i will speak directly because i don't have direct knowledge of what those interventions or engagements were. but i do know from the many that i have reviewed that they are very individual meeting that to your point the other one could be substantially different so i don't know the

specifics of what happened in those particular groups but i can tell you in general when i looked at them they very dramatically so i can't give you a general answer ofwhat happened . i believe sergeant dufault is on the line so it would be a great segue to introduce him. he's a supervisor of the eis team and maybe he can answer your question about the actual how does one singleofficer get three alerts ? what happened inthe specific case ?>> hello. good evening commissioners. this is sergeant arnold in charge of eis. in regards to those four members who received three alerts, what i want to stress is when a member generally sends an alert it doesn't

necessarily mean that member has done anything wrong. an alert is basically a measurement of direct city. so when a member generates an alert it could just mean they may have used, may have had enough use of force incidences to generate an alert but when a supervisor reviews those use of forceincidences , they will see that all of them were within policy and do not reflect a possible pattern ofrisk behavior . that is one of the jobs of the supervisor is to review each indicator point on alert and see as a total if there is a

pattern of risk behavior . so just because a member generates an alert does not necessarily indicate that there is a pattern of at risk behavior. >> i guess the clarifying question would be is the behavior assessed based on a potential liability or is it assessed based on we deem this behavior concerning enough to go into a prevention or performance improvement plan based on allegations because allegations don't surface in a vacuum . allegations whether they're substantiated or not surface because of actions and whether their perceived actions, there's some truth to the allegation .

each situation is different but i'd love to understand how we can get to the point to activate those in improvement plans even based on allegations because we know the process for actually for dba tosubstantiate thoseallegations as lengthy . it's challenging . that is the question i guess. how do we create indicators that we can consistently rely on to lead to you know, whether it's behavior modification, counseling or actual resources and training via a performance improvement plan that they could be held to for the next

three months for the next year cause i also notice that in the procedure there are very timel , limited parameters that i believe need to also be reevaluated because if we're already looking at snapshots of behavior and not the totality of a person's career i believe we are missing data points that really can impact on improving ourdisproportionate contact there . >> yes commissioners you're absolutely right. you bring up a lot of great points and that is one of the main reasons why the eis unit sends a majority of the alerts back to the station because we highly rely on the street sergeants who are working side-by-side with the officers

who are generating these alerts and no one knows the officers better than thesupervising sergeant . so we rely highly on their eyes. werely highly on their input . and we rely on their ability to communicate with their officer . their ability to see if there is a possible at risk behavior potential but we also encourage street sergeants, patrol sergeants to initiate performanceimprovement plans on their own as well . that is independent of eis. performance improvement plans do not need to be initiated by

eis. they can be initiated by a patrol sergeant if they feel or deem it necessary so i understand your concerns and we can definitely look into how maybe we could just some of our review process to get a little more in depth into our alerts. >> okay. >> do you mind if i say something quick? >> definitely. >> commissioner yanez prior to coming to the police commission iran and eis unit. just to frame that better to answer your question considering an example of what happens when we were there. there was an officer who they're going through a divorce

or they been insome type of traumatic events in their life . you start seeing that in their work life whether their failure to appear in court, sleeping in, you see a depression where maybe they're getting more complaints because of their attitude or demeanor is a little bit more rusty. you start seeing these come in and that's when you open up the pipeline with a supervisor who will sit with an officer and say look at what's going on. you have three complaints, a failure to appear and there's something going on and you want to talk about it. you've opened up a line of communication with that officer and now you've got to see is it something you want to improve on and is it something you can get that officer to see the problem , how are we going to improve this and layout and performance improvement plan if it's a point where it's not able to bring it back in where that officer is like i see it and you start opening up the performance improvement plans

but when you look at what's happening that's causing those disproportionate things to be there.for some of the items you see let's say an officer had a failure to appear and the next day he went up and he had a use of force and now he's got to alerts and he goes to another call and get another use of force and he's got three alerts. at that time you get multiple alerts stacked up on one officer because of multiple runs, multiple things happening so the eis unit is there to facilitate the sergeant sitting down, opening that line of communication where we can talk to that officer and i'm solving problems before they happen by just opening up communication between thesupervisor wouldn't happen if the eis unit didn't sendalert to the station . i hope that explains a little bit better .>> thank you sergeant youngblood. thatis helpful .

obviously i think damaging people isan art form almost and people get better at it the longer they do it .and the more we stigmatize and give language and not allow for as much interpretation i guess makes it easier to create a constant , consistent message to folks that are doing thework . i hope these conversations continue to happen about how to improve this process because there is something to be said for us to take into consideration what is impactin behavior . behavior comes from a place and the fact that you are looking at the totality of an officer's life is important. we want a healthy workforce.

there's a saying in mental health, hurt people hurt people and i know this isthe intention of this process . and obviously we are a work in progress so i thank you for your work and your commitment to continue to give all this and i will look forward to the next presentation and hopefully i will follow up in that department to get better working knowledge of how that works differently in each station because it does seem to be depending on the personnel and hopefully we can get to a point where there is a consistent messaging at every station and itdoesn't , and it isn't influenced by who happens to be the supervisor of a particular individual if that makes sense. but thank you for your work on this . >> thank you for your explanation sergeant.

can we go to public comment? >> this time the public is welcome to make public, comment regardingeis units . please press star 3 now. vice president there is no publiccomment . >> next item. >> next item is line item 9, action to issue to do 045, the campaign to support mental health awareness month may2022. temporary modification dto 10.021 . discussion and possible action. >> thank you sergeant youngblood. can you hear me okay? >> yes i can. >> vice president, commissioners, executive directorhenderson . good evening, my name is robert

o'sullivan with the administration bureau and i'm here to ask your approval in supporting us to acknowledge mental health awareness month. may every year is recognized a mental health awareness . last year myself and terry bashir's who is a wellness manager with wellness service system appeared before this commission asking for your approval to where a pin during the month of may as we would be modifying or really adding to the uniform for a period of time. we're obligatedunder general order 10.01 to come before you and ask for your approval to do so . san francisco has a service system we looked at a couple of years ago and the need for support to the forefront. we're all well aware of the facts that the pandemic has exacerbated issues of mental

health over the last couple of years and we feel very strongly that we can do our part in bringing awareness to this issue by a very simple act of wearing a green pin. with thatvery short presentation i'm happy to take any of your questions .we did submit a draft department notice you should have received last week that essentially recaps what i'vestated . >> any of my fellow commissioners have any questions? can i get a motion? >> i will move to adopt. >> i will second. >> public comment. >> at this time the public is welcome to make public comment. if you'd like to make a public

comment press star 3 now. commissioner elias there is no public comment. >> on the motion commissioner benedicto. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] you have six aye's. line item 10, presentation of firearm discharge finding and recommendations . 2021 report discussion, and the rv reviews discharges to ensure the department is continually

dealing with training policy andprocedures on circumstances with firearm discharges by members and to determine if the discharges were on property . >> president: who's presenting on this>> i am vice president. >> great because you have 16 slides in 10 minutes . >> i came tonight with the intent of asking you commissionerbecause i know you don't like being read to . that being said in all seriousness i'mhappy to recap and summarize these incidents . would you prefer i can read quicklyif you want me to read a more detailed approach i'm happy to do that . >> we've all done our homework, we'vealready so a brief summary would be helpful and i open it up for questions . >> that you commissioner. as i mentioned on rob o'sullivan, deputy administrationbureau. the deputy chief within the

administration bureau serves as the chair for the firearm discharge review board . i know that i welcome the commissioner to be police commissioner and really for your edification and for the watching public the board as sergeant youngblood mentioned service to offer opinion and to decide whether or not an officer's action is within policy as it relates to the use of deadly force whether that's related to an officer involved shooting or in custody death andwe meet on a quarterly basis so this evening i'm here to provide a recap for the fourth quarter of 2021 . it was abusy quarter as far as cases go. there were three officer involved shootings, 18 002 , 20 003. the 18 and 20 referred to the year and after the-the number of years to the second ois within the calendar year. omb's involved officer

discharges. they worked a bit differently. the number comes 001 21 and then the second one that we reviewed or that the rv did in the fourth quarter was 002 21. so our first officer involved shooting which occurred in 2018 . it's 18 002 included the mission district on street. on march 6 at approximately 10:30 in the evening. there were officers patrolling in the district when they were flagged down a couple of spanish-speaking community members. the motion to the officers they repeated the term pistol and according to an individual was running down the street. that individual jumped into a parked vehicle which droveaway . the officers who were in a

patrol car followed thevehicle , attempted to do a traffic stop. the vehicle did not initially stop. it did subsequently and at that time the officers were made aware that the individual who had been running down the street was now in the trunk of the car so there were a total of three individuals in the car. the driver of a female passenger who was not known to the officers until later in the incident and the individual in the trunk of the car. the officers established a perimeter, orders were given to the driver toexit the vehicle . the driver did comply with the officers and the officers only opinion was the individual may be non-english speaking so commands were given to the individual in both english and spanish. after a period of time of

issuing commands to exit the trunk, one of theofficers discharged what we call an er iw, extended range impact weapon . that one discharge struck the individual in the leg and it was at that time that the individual a young gentleman in the trunk produced a handgun with his left hand. the officers up till this point were unaware that the driver had not yet seen the firearm. at that time he yelled an expletive. as you can see in the recap there at the officers and then he himself fired one shot at the officers. the officers returned fire. the exchange of gunfire the individual in the trunk was struck . at that time they approached the vehicle and rendered first aid at the scene and unfortunately he succumbed to hisinjuries .

the case obviously was investigated by administratively speaking by the internal affairs division and was presented to the firearm dischargereview board in the fourth quarter . the finding of the investigation and the board concurred with their findings was the use of firearm by the officers wasin policy however , the investigation did reveal some of the tactical positioning of the officers at the scene was outof policy . so i'll pause there. commissioners if there's any questions i will continue on if youwant to do the questions later . >> if you wouldcontinue . >> it's his summary. >> i'll speed it up. officer involved shooting 20 002. many will remember this is an

incident that involved the memorial church in the tenderloin. this incident began actually at 5:40 jones street in an apartment there. the individual who entered the apartment building matched the description of someone who had been involved in a series of assaults and robberies and burglaries in the central districtwhich was removed from the tenderloin district . the gentleman in this case entered the lobby of the hotel. he barricaded himself within the front desk area. it was protected by plexiglas as well as 2 doors oneither side of the front office . he began to destroy the inside of the office. he had a large two byfour and he was hitting the walls and counters and plexiglas with the piece of wood .

over the course of an hour officers as well as a paramedic as well as a caseworker who was assigned to the building all attempted to get him to put the piece of wood down and exit the office and explained to him. there to provide them assistance. after about an hour the supervisors on the scene or related a plan that they were going to then enter into the office space. the first group of officers entered from the office space nearest the street.it was at that time the individual began to swing the board. the board was taken from him. pepper spray was used as well as the extended range impact weapon and it did not have the desired effect to de-escalate the situation. at that time the individual had a screwdriver. he approached the officers

through the now open door which led to a second office and he charged the officers with the screwdriver. one of the officers retreated . he slipped on the sidewalk outside so now they were 1045 jones street . he regained his composure, stood up and the individual chased him into thestreet while brandishing the screwdriver at him . the officer as a consequence of being chased withthe screwdriver discharged his firearm . and at that time the suspect was not hit. he continued to run on south bend and jones street and entered into the church where there was a ratherlengthy standoff . the investigation determined and the board concurred the use of the firearm waswithin policy. the use of twc was in policy . i will mention i was listening

a week or two ago that ied did a presentation with their findings of other cases fromthe prior quarter .the issue of the tactics and decision-making at the scene were addressed in a bifurcated case and it was deemed that some of the decisions were out of policy. [please stand by]

determined that this was out of policy, and the board obviously agreed. the second officer-involved discharge involved a tactical officer. he had gone to some training and came back to our tactical

facility, where there's an isolated room that's used for cleaning of their firearms. he was having an issue or had an issue with the bolt carrier on his rifle. he similarly removed a magazine from the rifle and went to a second room where they stored the firearms. he was on call for a period of time and wanted to be confident that the firearm was working correctly. he pulled the trigger, as well, forgetting that he had chambered a round, and discharged a round into a cinder block wall. this finding was this was out of policy, and the board concurred. and finally, we have, on page 17 of the presentation, this is a recap, i'm very pleased to

say -- o.i.s. 24.004, commissioner elias, you joined me for that presentation. for give me if it's the first part of may, but that was presented, as well. there was a determination made, and our findings were forwarded to chief scott. the next three officer involved shootings are all open.

20-001 occurred at barney street and jack london alley. 20-002 was at 917 folsom street. still awaiting a decision, and o.i.s. 21-002 occurred at san francisco international airport, and that is being investigated by the california department of justice. finally, we did have an outstanding in-custody death. that is the only outstanding in-custody death that was in march out on treasure island, and that is an active presentation with the police department as well as the district attorney's office. that is my presentation.

>> vice president elias: thank you. i just had a question. i remember when d.a. boudin came to the commission to talk about some of these cases, and one of the things he had mentioned is that there was no reason why the administrative investigation should be told or stopped because of the criminal investigation, and i think the department agreed, so if that's the case, why are these cases that have pending criminal investigations, why are those not moving forward? >> so i would say that -- i can't say that they aren't, commissioner. i heard that same presentation, as a matter of fact, as part of that c.r.i. under the use of force component we drafted, and actually chief scott approved what we call a unit order within the risk management office, that we would move forward with administrative investigations in the sense that if we complete it, we'll

send it to the chief in those instances where the criminal investigation has not been completed. that being said, that's not an absolute for every case. certainly, while, you know, the d.a. boudin is correct in saying that, you know, it can move forward, by the same token, you know, we have to assess each case because there could be things in the criminal investigative case file that we would find important in coming to our conclusion with the administrative case. it is -- it's really a case-by-case basis. that would be the result of those 2017 cases. i know that chief scott is with us. chief, i don't know if you have those cases at this time or if there is something you would like to add at this time. >> chief scott: yes, thank you. with the issues that we're trying to work through with the

m.o.u., we had to think that, and once we resolved those issues, i think we'll have a much clearer picture of what we can move forward with and what we can't, but some issues that have already been made public about information, either that we need to complete our investigation, we need to resolve those issues, so that's about as much as i can say while we're going through these issues in the mediation process, but we did have to rethink that assessment. you know, we had signed a unit order, i had signed a unit order, we actually moved forward, and some of these issues arose. we have to rethink it, and hopefully -- not hopefully, we will work through it as we renegotiate. >> vice president elias: director henderson? >> director henderson: okay, thank you. so this is part of why this is a complicated issue, and this is part of why we can't have a

blanket policy and part of why the m.o.u. is so important. typically, as you know, there are three lanes of accountability. there's criminal, there's civil, and there's administrative. what we focus on is the administrative, and when there's an officer-involved shooting, someone is designated as the lead investigator. typically, that has been the criminal part of the investigation, and the district attorney's office, so not having access to the information from the lead investigator is what creates a problem, a slow-down, or a hindrance to having the other two tracks move independently of the other. and we often have that case in the civil context, but in the administrative context, it sometimes makes it difficult for the department to work

independently, and it makes it difficult for d.c.a. to move independently. it's important that the information is shared, which, again, highlights why between all three of the agencies, there should be a shared m.o.u. addressing each of the agency's roles in addressing this. but i also wanted to say in piggybacking on the presentation that we just had, in a couple of those instances, because d.p.a. does participate in the case, because of the information and facts shared with us during the information, it's not infrequent for d.p.a. to go out to the scene to initiate an investigation when incidents like this happen. that information is still translated into policy recommendations to make sure that our recommendations are

evidence and fact based, which has been the case in the cases that you just heard from from the department where d.p.a. did not have a case but we still used the information. so i just wanted to clarify those two points as we talk about the subject matter, but that's all i wanted to say. >> vice president elias: thank you. commissioner byrne? >> commissioner byrne: thank you, vice president elias. so if i understand the chief and director henderson correctly, even though the district attorney says that they can go forward, effectively, you can't go forward is what i'm getting the gist of what the two of you are

saying. the one in jack london alley, the department has sat on that a year, and you can't go forward with it as a result? >> director henderson: really, it's hard to make a blanket statement, but you can understand what the difficulties would be if the lead agency has difficulty in collecting information and coordinating information and interviews, and then, the other agencies that are conducting investigations have to make do or do without, you know, ultimate decision making evidence is not provided or is not available, so that's the

issue. >> director henderson: we want to make sure that we -- >> chief scott: we want to make sure that we have all the relevant information so we can go forward or not. there have been times, as you said, commissioner, that we were confident that we had everything, and we were confident with the i.d. or the district attorney's office even before the formal declaration that we were comfortable with going forward with. we have to be thorough because

there are times that we don't have everything that we need to make our assessment. >> commissioner byrne: thank you. >> vice president elias: thank you. sergeant, public comment? >> clerk: at this time, the public is now welcome to make public comment regarding line item 10, the firearm discharge review board. if you'd like to make public comment, press star, three now. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. speaking of case 20-003, the young man had a name. he was cesar vargas, and he was 24 years old, and i watched the footage of the town hall, and they used no deescalation whatsoever. they came at him yelling, and he never had a chance. he was having a mental health

crisis, but remember his name. he was cesar vargas, and he was having a mental health crisis. he was 21 years old, and now he's dead. >> clerk: thank you, caller. vice president elias? >> vice president elias: thank you. next item? >> motion to adjourn. >> second. >> vice president elias: we are adjourned. have a good night. [♪♪♪]

hi, sandy, how are you? >> hi, fine, thank you. how are you? >> good. i want to ask you what inspired you to be a paramedic? >> that's a good question. you know, i wanted to go into med school and after i found out how much time it took and all of that, i decided that that was going to be a little too much schooling, but i still wanted to figure out a way that i could provide medical care and doing that as an emt as well as a paramedic was a way to do that. >> can you give me a break down of a typical day for you? >> i come to work and sit at my

desk and then i respond to e-mails and try to figure out what are some of the issues we need to address. can we hire more people. what kinds of policies we want to try to create that will help us do our job as ems. >> what does it take to be a female paramedic? >> you know, it takes quite a bit of schooling, but also required somebody who's empathetic. it can be a very stressful job and so we want people to be able to hand that on a day-to-day basis. >> so what's your greatest satisfaction in your job? >> trying to make sure that the work that we provide and the services that we provide to the community is the best that we can in ems so that when we go out to see you if you call us for an emergency, that we'll be able to treat you in the best way possible and that you get the care as quickly and as effectively as possible. >> why is it important for young girls, women of color to see women in these roles? >> i think it really is

important for us to be able to get into these roles because we are effective, we are able to reach out to the community. we are able to do the job in a very effective manner and to be able to relate to the community and be able to do that is one of the best things that we can do. and people of color and as women of color, you know, we are in a great position to be able to do that.