francisco to join and lead the way for other jurisdictions to follow. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. i just want to-commissioner benedicto did a really excellent job responding to a lot of issues raised. a lot of valid issues raised by my colleagues. just a couple things that i wanted to address that commission benedicto didn't get to, which is commissioner byrne's statement that we need to be honest with the public about what this is about reducing stops or reducing race disparities and i want to be honest this is about reducing race disparities. the virginia example that commissioner byrne gave and i think it is important to look at what happened in other jurisdictions certainly, but virginia has a very different policy then the policy that is before this commission now. i actually this morning

printed out the virginia policy and it banned stops for about 10 ish, 12 ish offenses and that is all it does. if that polk all you do then that's not going to stop race disparities because there are thousands upon thousands infractions someone could be stopped for. that is why our policy puts restrictions on investigative questions and consent searches because that's often the incentive to stop someone in the first instance. cp did cite the lack of reduction in race disparities but if you read that is why it says we need to be more aggressive then what we are proposing. cpe criticize our policy because it didn't go far enough in their view. i don't think virginia dispels the notion that putting in these type of restrictions

will reduce disparities, just the opposite. we have overwhelming evidence these type of approaches reduce disparities . in nashville showed it did. in oakland their policy drastically reduced disparities. i'm forgetting--in connecticut jurisdictions have good data on this and their efforts at tackage pretext stops reduced disparities so think the evidence is strong when done in a comprehensive way rather then a piece meal way the way virginia did it does reduce disparities dramatically. i'll make one last point and commissioner benedicto did cover this again. i

think we need to be thinking about all the other great things that our officers can be doing if they are not making these stops. a gentleman no longer here today but commented earlier about being attacked. i would love to see the hours spent on these stops redirected to more foot patrol to protect people like him. i love to see faster response times to call for service. i love to see improve our clearance rates for violent crime which lag other law enforcement agencies in california. i think there is so many things that our officers have proven they are great at and if given the opportunity could yield result for the people of the city. i'll stop there and turn it over to director henderson. >> thank you. i was going to say that because of

the significance of this and importance of this i think maybe in the future one thing we might want to consider is just having a special meeting for it. we still have so much agenda to go through but because we have done so much getting up to this point my 2 cents it may warrant a special meeting in the future for similar type projects. i wanted to say because i know so many people have done so much already in talking about pretext stops, and so many penal have come to the table, community police officers the chief myself all of the commissioners hrc has all been participating all across the pipeline to get to this point where we are now leading up to this discussion about the pretext stops. i just wanted to remind folks that

the pretext stops itself are the root cause of racially disparate polices and what we really want is a data driven approach that is implemented. specifically talking about the data that we have concerns and we want to make sure that the department in addressing the data that the stop data we are collecting is going to be both accurate and readily available not just to the commission but to dpa and the public as well where it is necessary so we can measure the impact of whatever our next steps are going to be as it refers to pretext stops. i think commissioner benedicto referenced it as well on having a data driven policy that was evidence based and i agree that completely and totally. i just

remind folks we raised the issue back in 2020 having a evidence based policy similar to the program and the policy that is already been adopted in oakland. i want to make sure that we-it is two years later and we are still here and still having these discussions and i know you just referenced the efficacy and efficiency from the oakland project that is already in existence. i think the city deserves to move forward. i think the city deserves to have a policy and program and again, i think that the best one will be based on both data driven policy and one that is evidence based. i want to say that. i will not repeat all the arguments but i wanted to weigh in at least from the perspective of dpa that sees

reviews looks at and involved intimately and the race complaints that come into our office dealing with this issue. that's it. i just wanted to say that. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you. i just will make quick points because we have a lot of public comment. i appreciate all the time effort energy and due diligence on the commission part on this effort. i know there are many opinions how (inaudible) it has been a comprehensive as anything i have seen on behalf of this commission so i commend you all for that. and i just want to similar to commissioner

benedicto was mentioning, that one reference about one jurisdiction in the country (inaudible) i believe the presentation from the policing equity indicated none of the jurisdictions that have begun to reduce or limit pretext stops had seen increase in any unsafe outcomes so keep that in mind when we cite one study that there many studies that demonstrated this does not have adverse effect on public safety. b, i do want to you know-looking for the study just referenced from san diego, but glad you commissioner benedicto mentioned the 1/3 of times spent and lost on pretext stops that didn't yield anything. if we were to apply that percentage to san

francisco, that is about $200 million in staff time that could have been used in some other way shape or form. we are not san diego but we can extrapolate and come to conclusions based on the information so we are taking a very data driven informed approach. that's for the general kind of conversation happening right now. my questions are just a little more specific to just clarification about in the dgo it doesn't necessarily-doesn't indicate what the procedure and expectation for officers to mail out citations would be which is something i think we should think about because whether it happens on the training end or from the very outset it would be helpful for people to understand there still is a procedure

to hold folks accountable when they have expired license tag or have a broken turn signal. there is a administrative approach to that. what we are try toog do is reduce the (inaudible) i agree with the direction we are taking and need to continue to field feedback but i am very very strongly you know, happy with the process so far and i think we are pretty much ready to move forward and it will not sacrifice or compromise san francisco public safety outcomes. that's just one note around how to add language to clarify the mailing citation element. the other question i would have, we don't

need to spend too much time, we can maybe post a answer to this. i would like to know because there was a caller earlier talking about what is the difference between this carveout for commercial vehicles and how we came to that conclusion? that would be something that would be public interest because that is just a question i had in that area. those are really my only points and clarification questions for the commission. for the chief i have a question in general for the department. there is just two new laws coming into play starting in january (inaudible) around (inaudible) banning loitering and (inaudible) 2147 banning jaywalking. we could easily say some of these

things will lead to improved outcomes or less policing and they could be included maybe in this dgo. what is the process that the department undertakes when new laws come out that impact our ability to police or the manner in which we police? >> commissioner, we have a process for legislative updates and when laws change that require us to change our policies we have-we put out notice. if that policy requires the commission to act on the dgo or if the change in legislation has to come to the commission but dgo3.01 is written currently, it gives us the ability if the change needs to be made immediately to do that and bring that to the commission for approval for the dgo change. there is a process

for that. and the laws for the right to walk legislation i believe is 13 citations that are no longer enforceable unless there's certain conditions met, so we'll abide by the law on those. i believe some of the language in the current draft reflects language in the law. for the police department,-a lot of what is said here, there is hesitancy on my side of this conversation as far as the ban and understand the issue. understand it very clear. pretext stops, i don't-we are there on that, but that's where we have been asked to or i have been asked to go back and vet out the discussion and get something back to the commission very quickly on alternative language then what is presented by the commission or if we have

opposition i will make that known but we will do that and do that with our best efforts and then we'll get back to the commission on that. >> commissioner just to chime in, item 9 on the ban list does implement ab2147. >> that is a incorporated already. would we be able to incorporate more language? that is my ultimately i know the list is much longer when it first started, and i hope we can revisit after we enact the policy look at data and then think what else we can include in a policy that will hopefully curtail the over representation of minority communities in contact with the police department. thank you. >> thank you.

commissioner yee. >> thank you again vice president carter oberstone. in regards to i guess many of these pretext stops, as i stated probably about a year and a half ago i was told (inaudible) shouldn't consider it, but what we should have done maybe in the past is go to the state legislators making sure when vehicles are getting small annually or biannually, make sure that-or when they get their oil change mandate it in the state legislation that the shops need to check the break lights making sure all the lights are functional. if not, then it doesn't pass and it-making sure we in the police

department do not have to police this and can avoid many of these pretext stops that did arise from it. that will be my first thing i want to say. regarding parking and i know commissioner benedicto says it is also in regards to any (inaudible) i think it needs to be in context when they are sleeping (inaudible) sleeping in the car-i'm going on. you say that won't happen. it does happen. they interpret it different way or bring it out and they say they can look at a coin, it is either heads or tail, right? the other one is in regards to traffic

tags expiration tags. as you know now many-some of the vehicles that come to the city have paper tags. some are real and some of them aren't. i dont know where they get it from but if you look they don't have expiration dates on some and what does the officer do? whether that person is i guess doing maybe committing crimes or not. and you can't get description on the vehicle. the vehicle is-what is the license plate? it is a paper tag. we need to have some rules and regulations we need to follow and make sure that you don't perpetuate

more of these-paper tags. i'll go home and draw a tag put it out there and says paper tag or print it out. we need to make sure that we keep it safer in our city, and have these enforcement making sure people comply. getting their vehicle checked out. you say it isn't a big thing, could be a big thing when it breaks down in the middle of the freeway or on a major street. we need to make sure people that drive in our city comply with some of the regulations. this is why it was enacted in the state level for the vehicles. regards to i guess on page 4 item 3, on there it says, or any other felony where the risk of death

or life threatening injury is imminent if the suspect is not immediately apre-handed. sometimes the word felony gets in the way. while it isn't a felony which commissioner byrne says, maybe i don't stop the person. i think you maybe add in there and bodily injury. it could be little fight or big fight but sometime a little fight can be (inaudible) once he hits the ground. we just want to make sure that the police there is clarity on there. that's what i want to see for our members making sure the second guess. if they do enforcement dpa will be knocking on the door calling them up and then the members how they feel. do the

safest way. don't pull back. our citizens residents will not seem safe. that is where i'm coming from. i'll end it there. thank you. >> thank you commissioner yee. just two quick clarifications. you points about paper license plates and not having license plates on the car just want to be very clear, if you put a fake license plate on it car paper plate you could make a stop for that under this regulation. also this regulation requires everyone to have a rear plate that is clearly visible and are properly mounted, so that would be a stop so your other example of driving around with no plates that is fair game under this policy. just very briefly your last point on clarity i think whether you like the policy or hate the policy it is

clear. the department is a fan of a different approach similar to what is done in los angeles that still-creates a lot of gray area when a stop is permitted or not. here we outline 9 stops, you are not allowed to make them, everything else you can make. that is clear. you may not agree with the policy but it does provide clear direction to officers in the field which i think is a important obligation to the commission when we make any policy. >> you want me to respond? okay. so, i asked the question when will the car-when will a officer pull over if there is no expired tag, a year, a month, 5 years? >> as commissioner benedicto pointed out that is still a offense you can receive a ticket for so that

will continue to be enforced that way. also note there is 4 jurisdictions that have done this philadelphia, pittsburgh seattle and west hollywood have this among banned stops. there -if you want to park your car or leave san francisco where you could be stopped or if you want to sell your car because it is very difficult to do that if you have payments in arrears at the dmv. other jurisdictions have implemented this without any type of catastroph consequence and it is enforceable when the car is parked or pulled over for another offense as well. >> there is-i guess the question is when does an officer pull them over? sees it on the road and wont pull them over whether it is a year

or 5 years or month, right? i want to be clear. is that correct? >> if i understand your question yes it is on the list of banned offenses, cannot make a stop specifically for that offense. you can ticket the person if they are parked and you can ticket if you pulled them over for a different offense. >> if you can ticket them for parking why wouldn't you ticket for driving? >> i think this gets back to the commissioner with commissioner byrne. this policy isn't about reducing enforcement it is reducing stops. we don't have a issue with enforcement of anything on the banned list. that is why we continue to allow for avenues for enforcement. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. seeing nobody else in the

queue please take us to public comment. >> those that like to make public comment approach the podium or press star 3. >> thank you. i do want to (inaudible) [unable to hear speaker] >> commissioner benedicto and president elias meeting with me and having dialogue. i would have two specific amendments to offer and general comment if i have the time. with respect to number 7, a7 the failure to signal while turning. i recommend that be deleted for the reasons that i set forth in my december 5 memorandum. but if we can't see fit to do that if that pulled out of the station what i recommend addition of clause at

the end that reads unless there is risk of harm to person or property. unless there is a imminent risk of harm to person or property. i think that does a better job reconciling it goals you are trying to manage. in subsection 9, my friends at the cycling friends found a good safe harbor because as this is worded, there could be a stop if there is imminent danger will crash into a vehicle but not if the pedestrian or cyclist crashes into a pedestrian. the obvious fix (inaudible) the easiest fix is in the 4th line before the word moving put in the words pedestrian or a. i bum barded the commission with scores of

pages so won't repeat arguments and don't have time anyway. i don't agree with the process. i think despite the best efforts including the hrc it is determine istic. with that mr. vice president may i--(inaudible) >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening commissioner, director henderson , chief scott (inaudible) glide is a proud member of (inaudible) representing over hundred organizations united in the goal to end pretext stops in

san francisco. traffic stops are most common way people come into contact with law enforcement. san francisco is especially egregious in over-policing communities of color (inaudible) which lead to police misconduct and use of force and banned in other jurisdictions. many complaints the department of police accountability stem from pretext stops reducing the stops reduce complaints and reduce backlog of complaints sfpd failed to address in a timely fashion. based on data and stories related (inaudible) we need ban the stops that produce these results and very thoughtful about exceptions the policies allow. (inaudible) the needs to move quickly is reinforced by the june 2022 report that found san francisco rates the worst in state with (inaudible) black residents. some commissioners explained,

this policy will not negatively impact public safety and benefit the community because pretext stops are causing damage and harming safety of community members. proceed to address these harms which (inaudible) any pretext stop has support of the community and leadership. thank you. >> thank you commissioners. i feel laws are to keep people safe and insure civilized society so completely against limiting the police ability to enforce laws. i think all people should be treated fail laer and equally and law levied equitably. pr venting the police stopping from infractions does legalize them. i with don't think these fractions are miner

inconveniences. the bicycles on the sidewalk are quite dangerous. when crossing the street i try to engage and look in the driver eye before crossing. come across cars with tinted windows and can't see inside and see their intentions and i find it dangerous. also from a registration perspective i think if they don't have a current registration they likely don't have current insurance which is a danger to others as well. on a more personal basis, i got a 16 year old daughter. (inaudible) she was pulled over for not having her taillights on. strangely the car has a setting where you can have the day time running lights on, instrument dash lights but no taillights. the officer pulled her over, sized her up in her high school soccer gear, decided

he wasn't under influence or causing trouble gave her a safety lecture, got her to get her lights turned on properly and let her go. very respectful interaction and contrary to data i think it is very dangerous to be driving without taillights and actually glad as a parent i can't be there all the time. i'm glad she got pulled over. glad she was given the safety lecture and glad that was something hopefully will correct her behavior in the future. thank you. >> my name is (inaudible) hussain. i came for another matter but after

hearing the comments i wanted to chime in myself. i am just against taking the police ability to enforce the laws. it takes away in my opinion a tool that keeps us safe. growing up i never liked the police myself. when i was young probably when i got my license probably one of the biggest life changing insdants of my life when i got pulled over and it was a pretext stop. i am a minority. that officers probably changed my life had i not been stopped that day? instead of getting me in trouble or doing anything like that, he made me write a essay as to what i was doing or what i was doing was

wrong. i think that kind of policing creates better people. i'm sure i would have been a much different person today had not been for that stop in my view was a pretext stop but it changed my life. i respectively would like to request the commission take into consideration to give the police the tools they need to be able to keep us safe in the city. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) living in district 7. calling to oppose the december 14 revised draft of the general enforcement order 9.01. we are

losing enforcement of violation is not the way to eliminate bias in traffic stops. it is dangerous to public safety. it is not safe to drive a broken headlight or taillight especially in the fog. this will cause many accidents which will raise everyone insurance rates and cause injuries and death and we know criminals remove license plates (inaudible) while committing crimes. many criminals assault our community and (inaudible) would not benefit the police arresting these criminals. it is not safe to drive with broken-(inaudible) we want public safety not more deaths and injuries. (inaudible) you should not limit the ability of the police. the focus

should be on officer training and hiring. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> thank you. also for glide and coalition (inaudible) [speaker speaking very fast. difficulty understanding] presented a false narrative that banning pretext stops will impact public safety. sharing the information about the dgo and (inaudible) impacted by the policy when it is the harms that (inaudible) jeopardize public safety. pretext stops waste community resources and result in (inaudible) to

suggest otherwise diminish generational harms caused by racial profiling. this policy has always been about the safety and wellbeing of the community. reducing enforcement of pretext stops does not increase public danger and the policy will not diminish confidence in city government. if anything it demonstrates san francisco ability to make rational data inform decisions and recognize that it st. time to join the other cities counties and states that have already implemented similar effective policy. (inaudible) proven best practice does not require a pilot program. this is not how the commission (inaudible) no need to single dgo9.o1. the policy reduce the burden we place on police which increase officer availability. (inaudible) implemented this in all corners of the country and no adverse consequence. please adopt the most comprehensive version of the process to address racial

profiling and end pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> yes. my name is (inaudible) and i am calling in to talk about specifically the turn signaling. i'm not sure where you get your figures but society of automotive engineers conducted a study which indicating failing to signal accounts for 2 million accidents per year. that is nationally. i'm going to read a e-mail i received work for non profit that is focused on victim rights and public safety. the following is from a party. hello, i do not drive, i don't know the rules. for sure bicycles on sidewalk is danger for people

like me, legally blind disabled. bicycles usually do not stop to let me go when i cross the street. it takes longer for me to cross and still on the road when people start to run. it is really dangerous. should the light house for the blind become involved? thank you. (inaudible) thank you for my comments and police do not adopt general order 9.01 mpt thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> thank you commissioners lee and byrne for your cogent analysis of how poorly this has been drafted. i am concerned there is going to be no enforcement of expired registration. a car in san francisco can go for 5, 10, 15, 20 years with no car

registration which means no insurance because you can't have insurance without registration and vice versa and can go years without a smog certification. me as a citizen is paying for all of them. if you do that why don't you assess further and say no enforcement of neighborhood parking permits or disabled parking. commissioner benedicto i find it ironic you say don't do it on the road but police officers have all the time in the world to ticket a parked car when they are supposed to be investigating more serious crimes, right? also section 3 of commissioner byrne pointed out (inaudible) the car turns the corner and a police officer sees that,x there isn't a felony that is life threatening because he or she does not know the felony reaches the $950

limit. (inaudible) all are so many issues with this clearly (inaudible) i think what has to happen is a refacing how we look at crime versus safety versus enforcement. i find that you're not making san francisco any safer, why we have the highest (inaudible) of any city. the slowest return rate of tourist because we are creating a dangerous city. as a example how poorly this is written as many pointed out-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) i amazing with the amount of misinformation circulated about this policy. this isn't going to prevent officers

from investigating crimes from enforcing the-it doesn't legalize these low level crimes. what it does is limits the interaction between police officers and the community by eliminating the stops based solely on low level crimes. i don't think somebody should be stopped because they have something hanging from the rearview mirror. the fact you have such a large number of folks who are african american being stopped compared to the amount of people living in the city is concerning (inaudible) 28 percent of the stops from them and (inaudible) this makes it clear to me these are bias stopped. we want to work to

eliminate this. we want to make sure our community is protected. (inaudible) such as are you-do you have a felony, do you have-or people held at gun point for something ridiculous as the other members mentioned at the hrc hearing. this is what this ordinance is trying to prevent and we want to create safety in our community. again, it frees-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening commissioners. (inaudible) we urge you to adopt the strongest possible version of this

policy. sfpd found black san francisco (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality]

>> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening. carolyn (inaudible) a mother of 2 and long time san francisco city employee and resident. also part of the coalition to end pretext stops and amazing seeing individuals from every community in san francisco come together in support of

(inaudible) including the city leading traffic safety and pedestrian advocate who strongly supports the new proposed policy. we are all united around thes because this is data and evidence driven policy aimed to reduce violence and increase (inaudible). what some folks seem to be forgetting is traffic stops discussed are not used to pull over and harass people who look like me has a chinese and white person. it is black and brown folks in certain neighborhoods of the city stopped and harassed due to race under (inaudible) spoke in front of you about her experience. you have seen the data. the is outrageous. pretext stops do not make reduction in criminal activity, do nothing to support public safety and high time san francisco put a end to the

problematic and racially bias tactic. thank you and urge you to support the policy to prohibit racially bias stops. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. this is jennifer friedenbalk coalition on homelessness and i am calling about the pretext stops. 2018sfpd stopped black people 6 times the rate of white people. (inaudible) and at least 12 times more likely to use force on black people then white people. this is really about sexual racism that needs to be separated out from individual bias or racism. with

individual racism bias can be addressed through developing trust and having deeper relationships but with structural racism there needs to be a change in policy and practice and that is what this policy is all about. it does not impact negative way public safety. i think the has been a lot of misinformation put out there. it also should not be read as anti-police. there is also a of work done to get rid of racial discrimination on (inaudible) that doesn't mean folks are anti-supportive housing providers or housing providers. there is a lot of work done to address disparities in health care, that doesn't mean people are anti(inaudible) so it shouldn't drive a bunch of folks out in response to that. this is really evidence based scientific and needs to be supported. thank you

very much. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. i'm flo kelly and work with coalition on homelessness. i am calling because it is really important that we not continue with pretextual stops. they are not making our streets any safer for people who walk bike or drive. in fact these stops are a waste of resources when we should focus on very dangerous things like speeding and running red lights and not stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk. for sure this policy is data

driven. san francisco (inaudible) communities of color (inaudible) in 2021sfpd conducted 27.500 stops that resulted in 6,000 searches. black people make up 5 percent of the population in san francisco but accounted for 26 percent of all stops and 36 percent of all searches. my goodness, it is embarrassing to say when a police car is behind me and not sure what they are daing doing and if they are following me, i feel myself, at least i'm white and have white hair to show my age and it probably won't stop me. i know if i was a different

person with darker skin then i would likely be stopped-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) born and raised in the tenderloin and building manager at the san francisco bike coalition and proud members (inaudible) we urge to you adopt the policy that requires data transparency and put end to pretext stops in san francisco. we join the coalition because (inaudible) there is nothing safe about pretext stops as a tool to over police black and brown communities and nothing safe (inaudible) most of the streets (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due

to audio quality] there are 5 specific behaviors that lead to serious and collisions on the kwreets we are barely enforcing now. none of the 5 behaviors included on the pretext stops. (inaudible) what the policy does is limit what happens after a stop is made and reduce the burden placed on police so they don't enforce dmv regulation (inaudible) allow them to do real police work. the data shows pretext stops are not making our (inaudible) comprehensive and data driven and focus on public safety. thank you so much for your

time. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) i would urge you to either not adopt this or make modifications. i think it is well intentioned but don't get (inaudible) i can see about the registration. it is easy to steal a license plate and put it on a car and the officer-(inaudible) the other thing i'm very concerned about, i can't tell how many times i walked oen the sidewalk and someone barely missing me on a bicycle. for a police officer not have to the ability i wish i was young enough it didn't matter if i was hit by a bicycle. unfortunately, the best way to describe

it, i like (inaudible) i don't have to use their services. i really urge you to either look at this differently or and make modifications, or quite frankly to (inaudible) i think it is well intentioned. i don't think it is well (inaudible) thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. my name is (inaudible) and i live in district 7 and work at community resource initiatives and community resource initiativeicize a member of the coalition to end pretext stops and urge the commission to adopt a comprehensive policy that puts a end to pretext

stops. (inaudible) never have i seen a police intervene in the middle of a traffic (inaudible) there is no changes to public safety and we have seen the use of pretext stops made streets more dangerous. from 2016 to 2021 nationally police officers (inaudible) who were not under (inaudible) were killed by police after pretext stops. many of it stops started with common traffic violations. black drivers are over represented among those killed. ending pretext stops would not make the city unsafe , it will make the city safer

(inaudible) i just want to be clear this policy should be beginning. the racial disparities seen (inaudible) throughout all the interaction of people. i urge the commission to (inaudible) >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hello, my name is (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] and ends pretext stops in san francisco. the human right commission (inaudible) have the worst record in the state solving (inaudible)

>> caller you have 2 minutes. >> this is kristen evans small business owner. it is late for me so i'll make my remarks brief. i organize with council district merchants association and (inaudible) but i'm calling today on behalf of myself a small business owner. i urge you to focus on policing hours

on issues impacting small businesses and not wasting resources on pretextual stops which are not resulting in safety for our community. i am going to mention when i was a younger person i (inaudible) that insisted long hours in the office and have to say there were a couple times i pulled my car over to take a nap and i knew the people that are in their vehicles that are getting shut eye are often working multiple jobs as many small business employees have to do to make ends meet and very expensive city. i feel like it is urgent that we let people get rest because when they pull over they need the sleep and it is in their interest and public safety to get that sleep

they can operate their vehicle with safe (inaudible) i also want to say that i have seen how policing can impact communities of color disproportionate in san francisco and i have real concern that the data shows that inspite of talking about inherent racial bias the sfpd is so slow in addressing those inequities. this is a point that we- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) a criminal justice student organizing (inaudible) watching my dad pulled over questioned if he did not belong in the car country or earth a foreign being (inaudible)

confused i sat in the back of the car as any 6 year old would (inaudible) sfpd tormented (inaudible) just listen to everything they say puts your hands comply or you will die. the word my father and (inaudible) this is a dire consequence of pretext stops. as a 16 year old learning how to drive (inaudible) who imagine sat at the scene powerless confused and (inaudible) last time they will see their loved one. 6 year old relieved i got to go home with my dad

(inaudible) could have happen to me. no one should face death for a broken taillight. (inaudible) driving while black. pretext stops increase my community chances of death more then they alleviate crime. (inaudible) insure we have comprehensive public safety the police commission should adopt a dgo focused on public safety not fishing expositions by implementing a policy to eliminate pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening. my name is javier and live in excelsior and urge you to adopt a comprehensive policy to end pretext stops. (inaudible) do little to improve public safety. too long officers have

been incentivized by (inaudible) pretext stops provide to investigate those who officers deem suspicious based on subjective fears or biases. there are deep institutional problems. it isn't a matter which training curriculum sfpd implements or new officers they hire we must move bias discretion from the point of harm. to the police commission should adopt the dgo that focus on public safety. racial profiling and generationling harms caused by bias policing need to be confronted with this policy. i'm urging you to adopt this policy and end pretext stops in san francisco for the good of our community. thank you very much.

>> go ahead, sir. >> hi. my name is frank (inaudible) speaking on behalf of stop crime sf. i think some callers and maybe commissioners are conflating pretext stops with traffic stops. i must say i also disagree with the chair's characterization of several items. first, i think there is a lack of relevant fact based evidence. some of the facts have been cherry picked. i am also shocked that we are using as good knmps oakland,er seattle, portland, places that have seen a huge rise in crime in the last 3 or 4 years. i don't think most residents of oakland would agree they are going in the right direction. we oppose the general order. we think that means more accidents

more crime and less public safety. on a couple items it looks like some commissioners didn't read it. we talked about--others have talked about the pedestrians on the sidewalk. i would like to say that racial discrimination should never be allowed. that is a important goal. driving while black is a real think but there are poor things in this order. a few examples, the failure to signal caused too 2 million accidents a year for left turns and changing lanes. bikes could drive in the middle of the street under this, and i also dispute that good traffic enforcement is a good

use of time. failure to signal-thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) the director of (inaudible) here to request you adopt comprehensive policy to prohibit racially bias traffic stops in san francisco. racial disparities have not changed in traffic stops and san francisco (inaudible) communities of color with pretextual stops. since 2018sfpd stopped [people 6 times the rate of white people (inaudible) 12 times more likely to use force on black people then white people. as a black man stopped by the police many times for

pretextual reasons the harmss of the stops are real and (inaudible) result in my death because a cop does not like it if i (inaudible) ask questions why i was stopped in the first place. i cannot overstate the danger of these stops. the danger present to my life and lives of many black people killed by the police with interactions that began with the stops like (inaudible) this is why the police commission should ban pretext stops. the police commission should adopt this policy the most comprehensive version of it that is focused on public safety and not fishing expeditions. racial profiling and generational harms caused by bias policing (inaudible) research shows enforcing pretextual infractions has little impact on reducing crime and (inaudible)

profiling of communities of color and waste of taxpayer resources. (inaudible) like myself and many other people part of our coalition testified before you tonight support this policy in a very strong policy-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) public defender office. many comments earlier tonight were focused on harms and (inaudible) commissioners carter oberstone and benedicto mentioned we dont need to deal in hypothetical (inaudible) passed a similar law in 2020 and the (inaudible) were down or the same the year before it

passed. des discussing harms (inaudible) reduce the real harms we heard so many callers discussing tonight and the calls (inaudible) her dad was pulled over is still with me and i (inaudible) are listening to these stories. i know you have responsibility tomorrow but appreciate the time you are giving this and hope you adopt policy (inaudible) already existing harm. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. good evening commissioners, my name is (inaudible) i am with the organization san francisco rising and i please urge you to

adopt a comprehensive policy that both requires more data and transparency and ends pretext stops in san francisco. june 2021 my partner and i was targeted in a pretext stop. we were stop under the context of tinted windows but what happened after we were stopped made it obvious (inaudible) from the moment we were stopped and pulled over the officers questioned both. they shouldn't questioning a passenger. asking where we are going where we live and why the license on the id was so far where i was. if we have prior convictions and felonys and gun (inaudible) in the vehicle. we were both afraid knowing the harsh realty what could happen if we answer in a (inaudible) my partner asked to exit the vehicle and did and

(inaudible) my mind began going a million places and in deep fear about what was going to happen somebody who experienced losing a loved one to police violence. i sat in the passenger seat and (inaudible) the moment my partner (inaudible) heard the police got a radio call about another incident going on. (inaudible) weapon against black and brown communities to instill fear because they (inaudible) ending pretext stops help insure public safety and limit the way black and brown communities are targeted by law enforcement. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. my name is lena young,

long time san franciscans and traumatized from a lot of the laws that have been going on. (inaudible) no longer prosecuted, because i always had my (inaudible) because of theft they are closed and i have to drive to go to walgreens. i used to walk to a neighborhood one. same thing for these seamingly small crimes or infractions. they could create big problems just like the $950 thing. (inaudible) once you stop doing it people will think it okay so becomes a big problem. i'm personally traumatized from having seen the problems with

the laws. so, as a parent i always-i have to expectation for my kids. very small things i try to correct them so they don't go to big problems. same thing, i think everyone is capable of having good expectations for good behavior, and small things if you stop it they will learn. any person that should be a good criteria to follow. with these pretext stops i can see the problems once you start it. it is not (inaudible) it creates havoc, so i don't have any comments-- >> caller you have 2 minutes.

>> i don't have any written down statement but a lot of callers called in. i don't work for glide or non profit or public defender, just a every day san franciscans that jumped on the call late. i urge you commissioner yanez to reject this general order or this opposition that is put forth to ban these pretextual stops. howmany pretextual stops take guns off the streets? drugs off the streets? i think this is a shame and waste of everyone's time. san franciscans was more policing, they want more enforcement. (inaudible) everyone is run on this to take (inaudible) commissioner yanez urge you to reject this proposal. this is ridiculous. all you non profits calling in probably half don't live in san francisco. i'm born

and raised here. i like to mention you should look up san francisco sfpd majority are people of color so all you accusing them of being bias and racist-- [audio cut out] >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hello. my name is susan huffman and live in district 6 and a member of wealth and disparities in the black community. we heard public comment from many people tonight who believe this dgo will lead to lawlessness and (inaudible) they all seem to have been given the same incorrect information about the dgo. it makes me believe there is (inaudible) [audio cutting in and out] they are being used

but can't (inaudible) what they don't understand is they haven't been told by the people is that for certain people the city is already a dangerous and frightening place. that is a fact. not a hypothetical or what if. ending pretext stops for these people black and brown citizens our neighbors safer. safety for not (inaudible) please adault the policy eliminating pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening commissioners. brian (inaudible) speaking on behalf of (inaudible) civil liberty group that works mostly in the bay area and california to oppose the state of [audio cut out]

no citations issued in a larjs number of these cases. there was no crimes and (inaudible) for making new stops. like san francisco, the oakland police department says they are short staffed and (inaudible) 94 percent of opd time is presently spent responding to non threatening non violent situations. (inaudible) is not help the people of san francisco nor address the violent crimes happening in the city of scarce resources (inaudible) the chronicle cites the san francisco bay

area is the second most dangerous place in the country for black folks to interact with police. only the dallas fort forth metro area. (inaudible) which frequency of officer involved shootings, racist text message and racial profile (inaudible) san francisco is getting worse as the attorney general annual report shows not better. please support ending such harmful practices. thank you for listening. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> this is julie (inaudible) district 8 resident and calling on behalf of the bar association and think as many know we have been working hand in hand with the police department prior to the time the department of justice became involved. we worked hard to reduce racial disparities. we have one of had best general orders on bias. i attended 3 full days

in bias training with the police department. we worked hard and yet it isn't enough. this is the logical next step and i appreciate and respect the commission for working with the center for policing equity, the department of justice, the mta and human rights commission to bring us good evidence based policy. ment i think there is a lot of misinformation and confusion and perhaps want to consider a faq. it is clear to commissioner yee's questions and commissioner byrne, question if a officer believes a driver committed a crime there is nothing that is going to stop the officer from stopping that vehicle. we are simply using evidence based data to eliminate certain (inaudible) for stopping vehicles for low level infractions that are

not producing evidence. so, i really appreciate the hard work that has gone into this. it is long coming. perhaps we should have done it earlier and thank you for getting blessing of department of justice and other organizations dedicated to doing this work and hope this (inaudible) pay attention to the data as it comes in and tweak it as we go. thank you very much. >> caller you have 2 minutes. caller you have 2 minutes. caller you have 2 minutes. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> hi. my name is barbara atard. i worked in the sober site for 40 years. (inaudible)

for 15 years, city berkeley and city san jose. i urge you to adopt dgo9.1. there are serious reasons many callers discussed for cutting down on racial disparities in san francisco. this will free officers to deal with more serious issues. there are serious wreckless driving in san francisco. drivers are blowing red lights and stop signs. officers should deal with these kinds of driving issues. one section of the order that i think should be clarified is regarding bicycles and moterized vehicles on sidewalks. i nearly been hit walking down the sidewalk. officers should deal with these issues as well. hopefully you will pass this order

and hopefully you will be able to help the board of supervisors deal with the policy on killer robots. thank you for your attention. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) resident of district 1 and lived in san francisco 30 years. for the callers and commissioner concern with impacting public safety. the dgo has no impact on police able to protect seniors from violence or stopping attack. it is not a slippery slope to lawlessness. read the policy and don't read on e-mail campaign making (inaudible) after reading the latest draft it seems the voice of sfpd had more influence on the policy then community input (inaudible) working group meetings. significantly watered down. i like to see many elements from the initial draft reinserted. community

input is necessary and police commission (inaudible) the community engagement and outreach is meaningless if the communities most impacted are ignored. what is the explanation not adopted vast majority of recommendation provided by various community groups? speaking specifically about recommendation from wealth and disparities thin [community. there is no representation to vast majority of recommendations by the group a work working on policing justice and (inaudible) past 7 years. this includes recommendation that exist in other cities. the elimination of bias in policing significantly (inaudible) in the draft the reason the purpose of the dgo is first sentence, it goal of the general order is reduce racial bias enforcement of the traffic laws and curtail pretext stops. that sentence is

removed. it is the reason (inaudible) was to reduce race disparities. why don't have to courage to say up front and make it clear to the police force? thank you. >> that is the end of public comment. >> that's all? okay. thank you sergeant. we will take item 9 off tonight. it was put on at ms. brown's request and she's not here tonight so we will call item number 11. >> presentation of dpa key issue report. officer misconduct and discipline. discussion. >> mr. flaherty, thank you for your patience.

>> i can find it, but it isn't letting me access it.

>> good evening. my name is steve ferity director of audit for department of police accountability. here to present on key issue report on the san francisco police department public reporting on officer misconduct. issued the report on november 21 this year. prior to the report issuance we presented findings on october 26 and draft of the report on november 10 and asked them to bring to the

attention any errors with the report content. before discussing the key iges as the next two slides will go over high level why we did the report and scope and objectives. city charter requires audit the san francisco police (inaudible) key issue report is interim deliverable as overall audit. the intent is bring to the attention of the police commission and sfpd issues needing actions so both parties can take action before the full report is issued. the requirement we evaluated exist to help the police commission insure sfpd cooperating with dpa to prevent dismissing sustained cases and provide public with transparency on officer bias. we identified public reporting requirements and compared to publicly available reports on misconduct and discipline for

period of 2019-2021. the image oon the secrete is fromthexective summary page 1. for the purpose of presentation we will focus on the administrative code and police commission resolution reporting requirements. the reporting requirements for sfpd electronic community found internal affairs unit order 18-02 will be discussed in greater detail in the next key issue report. high level there for 4 issues in the reporting requirement. and 4 key issue discussing alignment with best practice for reporting data. with key issue 1, compliance with reporting requirements, the image oen the screen is exhibit win in the report on page 2. first code 96

passed october 2003 is titled coordination between the police department and department of police accountability. this code chapter required sfpd provide monthly reports on status of dpa sustained cases sent for discipline determination. we found did not publish any information required by code chapter 96. november 2004 the police commission adopted resolution 97-04. there were no provisions to report sustained cases investigated and responsibility of the police commission to oversee and maintain public confidence in sfpd accountability system. this resolution requires quourtly and monthly reporting. did not produce the quarterly reports which is also supposed to send to the bord of supervisors. also found published reports for cases with discipline determinations but not pending the

chief discipline decision. these do not have the level of detail. lastly internal affairs 18-02 is policy establishing protocols for monitoring member communications like text messages and e-mails for derogatory words. this policy requires sfpd to produce quarterly and year end report. while published quarterly reports these reports did not include required information on outcomes and investigation resulting from the monitoring and did not issue year end report as required by the policy. for issue 2 this goes into the reporting requirements of code chapter 96. the code requires sfpd publish monthly reports for discipline decision and police commission to discuss cases with the chief of police if not decided on discipline within 45 days. this requires the

police commission to hold quarterly public hearings [speaker speaking very fast] on this slide we analyzed 83dpa sustained cases sent for discipline determination. these cases reported between january 2019 and july 2021 and sent between december 2021. of the 83 cases, made a discipline determination on time for 27 or 33 percent. remaining 56 cases sfpd was late in determining discipline. the visual screen is in exhibit 2 of the report and show the age of cases not decided in 45 days. the time it took to make a decision for the 83 cases was 59 days and

the overall range is 7-288 days. because did not provide the reports the commission did not have the information necessary (inaudible) issue 3 discussing compliance with police commission resolution 97-04. we found sfpd issued reports internal affair division cases but not in (inaudible) showed sustained internal affairs cases, did not publish the reports monthly and did not include (inaudible) which is required by the resolution. also these reports did not have the required level of detail of the misconduct and

use broad categories. this image is from exhibit 3 in the report which is page 4 and it contrast how the police department is supposed to summarize complaint allegations required in the resolution with the descriptions used in the reports. more detailed descriptions of the alleged misconduct (inaudible) benefit the command staff and personnel. example we found was guidance published by the united states department of justice in a publication put out about the virginia beach police department. the virginia beach police department distribute monthly report to police personnel (inaudible) protecting identity of the involved members. the goal of this practice is to provide transparency to the department members and prioritize the opportunity for observational learning over absolute protections on the information. the last

issue the report discusses is over alignment of misconduct information with best practice for reporting data. this image is exhibit 4 in the report page 5 and evaluate reports (inaudible) improve the information it does provide by aligning with best (inaudible) public and members of the department understand key issues key trends and identify relationships between data points. on the next 2 slides i slow examples what this looks like in practice in other jurisdictions. on this slide we found examples from other jurisdictions that find ways to present data so readers can more easily understand the information and are drawings. as shown on the slide we have examples from the los angeles police department which organize the monthly misconduct reports by allegation type and

penalties. organize information like this can help users identify consistency of discipline determinations. also on the slide we have example from the albuquerque police department to provide definitions of categories so the information can be easily understood by user without a background in law enforcement. two more examples. las vegas police department. (inaudible) new york police department which present data visually to show trends over time and compare misconduct and discipline across different groups of employees. so, there are challenges and opportunities we like to go over. we recognize that police misconduct is a issue about which is especially important to inform the public and (inaudible) significant challenges. however we believe addressing the issues in the report present the police commission and police department with opportunities to streamline reporting

requirements, better response of police misconduct and build community trust. in terms of needs the police commission and police department identify reporting misconduct and discipline meet the needs of the commission for considering policy changes and overseeing sfpd and dpa as well as needs of city leaders considering changes to local law and needs of the public for transparency. lastly, the police commission and police department can work together to understand resolve barriers to reporting this information so sfpd can report quality information required by the reporting requirements to stakeholders timely. just last slide here go over what you expect coming forward. going forward. just next steps for the audit. we plan to continue to release information developed during the audit in interim reports so the police commission and police department can take immediate action on these

issues. the next report is on electronic communication for bias which we anticipate released in january 2023. as for the full report, it will combine all the information we presents in the reports and provide recommendations for the police department and police commission and anticipate this report released spring next year. with that, thank you for your time and happy to answer questions you have about the report. >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you very much vice president. thank you very much to there flaherty and audit team for the presentation. as the commissioners know i was asked to be the (inaudible) privilege working and meeting with (inaudible) we met earlier this week to discuss this so try to avoid repeating too much

here. i think-i want to thank the dpa team for structuring (inaudible) i think under the prior structure woo eare waiting a long period of time and too many issues to be digestible this is a significant improvement so thank you director henderson and your team on that. this interim report is troubling. when you look at the graphic there is a legend for 3 different color keys but it was (inaudible) i don't there was a single one green. you could have done partially not complied. i think when speaking with dpa earlier this week we talked importance making sure the data is out there. first because it is required by police commission resolution and by city law. p it is important to inform the public and these reports are not meeting those requirements. it is important to inform us as policy makers. we

spent the last long number hours talking about our evidence and data driven approach and when the data is insufficient that effects our ability to clearly make policy. another additional benefit that was discussed on the call is that especially when it comes to discipline cases, doj report on virginia beach showed good data also helped dispel rumor mills among the department about discipline instead of it being i heard so and so got this you have regular flows of data so critically important that these issues be remedied and the fact there isn't a fully complies in this report is really concerning. i don't think it would be-i'll open to chief to (inaudible) what i like to ask the chief, i love the department could

itself schedule some time after the holidays both a written response to each of the 4 issues and (inaudible) for the commission that is addressing the steps the department plans to take to approach compliance on each of the 4 issues that were noted in the report so i ask that of the chief and the chair and that's all i like to say. >> thank you commissioner benedicto. thank you. this audit is very concerning and troubleling. one thing that we have already done is we have to put full attention on this full time people and that will accept one of that is made. we have assigned a captain to be in charge of this issue to number one dig into it and two offer a plan to fix

it. there are things in this report that reference for instance lapd and that is something i know a little about being i was there 27 years and what we have to do to fix the issue is administrative infrastructure in the internal affairs unit like lapd. they have a unit that is all they do. they are not operational investigators, they are not lieutenants reading discipline reports all they do is administrative auditing functions like what is mentioned in the report so our first step is we assigned a captain not the regular captain but a captain just last month to be the spearhead of fixing these issues. it is is a serious issue and we take it seriously and commit the people to-we need look at

resolutions from decades ago to see if we are in compliance. sure there are resolutions out there we may not be in compliance on and that has to be a part of the process following our units orders and our policies, if is part system and part having the ability and making a commitment to audit on a regular basis when we have not done. there is work to be done. i offer no excuses. this is my responsibility as a chief of this department and will put the measures in place. step 1 was put in (inaudible) into that position and that will get the ball rolling on addressing some of the issues. >> director henderson. >> thank you. thank you so much steve. this is fantastic. i wanted to point out when i first came to this commission 5 years ago one of the

biggest priorities for the agency from occ transitioning into dpa was clarifying expanding and professionalizing the reporting practices of the agency. i have said since day 1 the based issue there needs to be a parody for the organization in terms of how the information is shared collected made transparent and analyzed and i always said it is very difficult to do that in a vacuum for dpa individually without a comparison or without the parody from the department as well. as those obligations increased, i don't think the has been a reporting period from the annual report to the quarterly report that there is any aspect of the reporting that is going on from dpa that has not been expanded over that time period and it is

really been challenging and frustrating that there has not been a parody in the same thing and again these are not obligations that are new obligations. these are administrative codes and resolutions that go back nearly 20 years. it is not-these are obligations that have gone on that preceded chief scott but have continued and obviously i think the audit is very clear still haven't been met. i'm glad the information is out. i appreciate the attention everybody has given to wait this long especially tonight given the volume on the agenda to get and address these very important issues. i am asking in light of the news from the audit, and in light of the seriousness of what needs to get done in order to have more

transparency in terms of what information needs to be revealed not just to the commission and dpa but the public as well. we can't fix what we dont talk about and we can't talk about what we don't know. we can't begin to move forward on these important issues unless we are addressing information that has to be given to everyone. my ask is that a commissioner be assigned to the responsive action. we have someone assigned within dpa on the audit process and that is ongoing and there are audits and more reports coming that will be regulatory in the future but i am asking for a commissioner to be assigned to these requirements or these suggestions as obligations for what needs to be done in terms

of moving into compliance for the reporting obligations. did that make sense? did i say it too long? make sense? that's it. >> thank you. commissioner walker. >> thank you. thank you dpa staff for this-it is troubleling for sure and one thing i remember having a conversation in the beginning when i was starting to look at the data that we are talking about around these-all these discipline cases is how many things were being put into one category and that i really want to see the specifics of these cases so we can really understand what they are.

sometimes people need to look at all of it. making sure we have all of it. in talking about the pretext stop issue, i don't think we have nearly enough data of the

consequences of things and we need them going forward. we need to be able to have it quickly so we can make adjustments if we need. if our goal is eliminating racial inequity and how we deliver our law enforcement, we need to know if what we are doing is achieving that and if we are doing several things which ones work best. so this is a important part and appreciate chief that you are assigning people because i think this is how i make decisions ultimately. we can have ideals and all that, but i want data on what we are doing, so i appreciate this. i support assigning somebody to it. not my call. >> i don't get to vote, but--i would if i could. >> maybe that is our

absent resident. that happened before when people are appointed to things. [multiple speakers] >> wanted to say thank you to dpa thank you steve for this outstanding report. and chief, i appreciate you owning this and frankness of your response. i think this is kind of a piece with dpa's presentation on the languishing dgo where it was important to shine a light on a issue that wasn't getting the attention it deserved and we can certainly say the department needs to do better but it is the commission responsibility to insure the department is complying with the obligations and we all as commissioners need to

do better as well. because it ultimately falls on us. i don't want to ask too many questions because i know you will give a presentation next year based on commissioner benedicto's request. i just wanted to ask how much of this was a surprise to the department? i know you mentioned there is maybe old resolutions that were not complied with but some of this is 96a and so wondering-imagine the department was aware of this before the report. >> some was definitely a surprise and not offering again an excuse because a resolution is resolution. we have to go back and make sure that we know what resolutions are active, what policies are still active and need to comply.

as far as 96a, little surprising some of the data pieces in terms of the recommendation of the fullness of the data. not surprising because that is a issue we are aware of and issue that there is structural issues with that in the way we enter our dispositions in the systems we have to recall that data. for instance, since la was mentioned, la allegations are not compounded. the allegations are very different from the way we enter allegations in the system so we have to fix the system in order to have more data or have to do it by hand. right now the way we pull data based on the fields entered in the system it makes data more complicated then meets the eye. that is a fix that will take time and thought and perhaps as we fix our systems and we get

benchmark on board it isn't in the scope of work but i think they understand what our challenges are and believe they will help that contract will help us get to a better place with that very issue. other things- >> can i ask one specific thing and this is is my last question because i know the hour is late. just like slide 7 issue 2. delays in deciding discipline. this isn't about dusting off a old resolution nobody looked at in a long time t. is 96a. i imagine the department knows that 2/3 of the cases-this is a question-not decided on time and imagine there is a reporting obligation under 96a. the pieces i find troubleling is the department is aware this is ongoing basis it is non compliance. it isn't

alerting the commission it isn't in compliance. i'm particularly disturbed about that. i understand how folks there is a lot of things the department has to comply with and maybe a old resolution falls through the cracks. i understand that might happen, but 96a it is little bit hard to understand how something like that could happen. it seems someone to make a decision that we are not going to compliant and also not go toog raise our hand and inform the public we are not in compliance. >> are you talking about slide 7 ? >> yeah. >> the delays on reporting discipline we find ourselves in a position to be focused on making sure we make the statute date. the 33 of 4 date and there is lot of things that factor in into that. the goal is to get these complaints done within a timely manner whether dpa complaint or department complaint. we try to do that within 6 months.

often times we are a month or 2 away from statute in terms of getting the cases signed off. the first priority and make sure we don't lose cases due to statute issues. i can just honesty i will say this, sometimes when you are behind the curve on these cases that becomes priority. even though we have statutory requirements to report by certain timelines when you are not meeting the timelines and haven't met them for years the priority becomes surviving and making sure we dont lose cases on statute issues which is discussion in this commission hearings before. it doesn't negate, it doesn't make excuse but we have to rethink that issue in terms how me meet this with the people we have available. i

will be frank, a lot of cases we are not getting done within that done but making the statute date and there probably isn't a week-every briefing i get with internal affairs the first thing on the case is when is the 3304 date or statute date to make sure we make that. we are not going to lose a case and not saying this isn't important but we are not go ing to lose a case for not reporting 45 days. we will lose a case for not making the statute date. some of staffing is and some we need to put into place better system jz people on those issues. operational lieutenant and captains and investigators do have a responsibility in terms of tracking when the cases are due but we have to improve the systems and improve internal oversight which is my

responsibility and that's what captain (inaudible) is tasked with doing. >> thanks chief. i'll leave it at that and say we assign a commissioner to this is well taken because i think we need to do a better job ourselves in holding up our end of the bargain. thank you so much. appreciate steve. thanks for doing this at the late hour. >> thank you for putting this all together. thank you commissioners for your time and attention on this. >> public comment. >> public comment approach the podium or press star 3. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> david aronson here. thank you to the dpa for this report and for presenting it. i just got to say this is really important information and to have it presented at

11:30 p.m. on wednesday to me does not present transparency to the public. i'm still on but just about to get off. we have been at this 6 hours. we are 5 and a half hours whatever it is. i heard executive director henderson state maybe we need to take a look at the agenda to do a reasonable amount of information during the time we have because this is really important and alarming information. i was shocked there were many members of the public that are still on. the fact the 96a report is one of the things in non compliance, the public and some groups i work with that look at the data is alarming. we do analysis on the data, we take it commissioner walker talked about the fact that needs to be presented in a way humans can read it. we do a lot of that work on our own and alarming the data may be incorrect or

incomplete. also just like the descriptions describing in slide 9, (inaudible) watered down and if we want to continue to establish trust with our public we have to be more transparent. when you make a mistake it has to be called out what it is, not watered down to something that doesn't look serious. dpa, thank you for raising this, thank you for bringing it up. sorry it is late and not get to focus on it it deserves. thank you. >> we can add it again to the next commission and do it again too. that is end of public comment. >> can we have item 12, please. >> discussion and possible action to approve department general order 2.01. general rule of conduct for department to use meeting conferring with san francisco police officer association required by law. discussion and

possible action. >> from the department standpoint i can provide comments on this. dgo2.01 is basically for the public is basically our conduct of officers dgo. it covers a lot of the rules of conduct. general rules of conduct that aren't covered under other specific dgo. many of our--it isn't a value based dgo but many values of the organization are rooted in general

order 2.o1. a lot of work went into this. there was great amount of input from department of police accountability and subject matter experts and many of the members of our department. what we wanted to do and hadn't been revised in a while is really address this dgo and make it relevant what we are facing today so there are significant changes from the last dgo. i think 2.o1 over the years had become somewhat a catch all the miscellaneous things that officers can find themselves being investigated for as far as general rule of conduct but we want to dial in on contemporary issues on the dgo so it is the extent of the rewrite. i urge and recommend this commission adopt this dgo to meet and confer because this is a very important dgo.

>> there are no questions for the chief or comments. is there a motion? >> i'll make a motion. this has come before us before. i make a motion to adopt revised department general order 2.01. >> second. >> this is on the agenda for meet and confer. >> to send to the poa. >> to approve the version to meet and confer. >> members who like to make public comment regarding line item 12 approach the podium or press star 3. there is no public comment. on the motion- [roll call]

you have 6 yeses. line item 13 public comment on all matters pertaining to 15 below closed session. public comment on 14 whether to hold 15 in closed session. if you like to make public comment regarding closed session approach the podium or press star 3. >> i'll try to keep it brief. (inaudible) i believe i am from district 2. worked in san francisco my entire life. done business in san francisco my whole life. i notice one of the cases recognize number from last year when you had a series

of cases for the vaccination policy to make it clear i'm not anti-vax but if that is in fact one of the matters you will be discussing i think we are at a stage in this whole pandemic where i don't think the vaccine is that mandatory. i don't know the facts of what is discussed, but if it is something vaccine related my request is let it go. we are short police officer in the city. i don't feel safe here. my family doesn't feel safe here. i try not to go to my own house. i haven't been there in days and request you make the right moves to retain the police officers especially those veteran police officers that have been here years. i appreciate it. thank

you. >> that is end of public comment. line item 14 vote on whether to hold item 15 in closed session. >> can i get a motion ? >> move to go into closed session. >> second. >> can we modify the motion to make it clear is to invoke attorney client privilege, please? attorney client privilege. >> so added. >> second. >> on the motion- [roll call] you have 6 yeses. we are going

i

d. aging services committee meeting wednesday, december 7 to order i'm martha knutzen this meeting is conducted pursubt to provisions of the brown act and