meeting and say, chief, i met the nicest officer the other night. he stopped me because i was speeding. in this particular case, the one lady who had a big smile on her face. i said, that's great. it sounds like you didn't get a ticket. so i'm glad you had a good experience. she said, oh no, i got a ticket, but i deserved it, but he was the nicest officer. and to have that kind of change. we experienced that over and over again. again, going back to the unrest in a lot of cities in 14, 15, and 16. during that time, my officers would come to me at the end of their shift and said we went to eat at a certain restaurant and when we went up to pay, someone paid for it. that is the rule and the exception that the community was

engaged in taking care of their officers. and that was another thing that we experienced when we started sounding the officers to particular neighborhoods on shifts, they took on the shift of their neighborhood. the community took ownership of the officers and started to refer to their officers and sergeants as our sargeants, our officers, my officer. we got along that way. you can hear anecdotally those comments across the community. one last thing i will tell you, it didn't just stop at the police department and the police officers and employees. we had in one case i had a captain one night who was working the nice shift and pulled into chick-fill-a and we know they had a line around the building. she wanted it to go and she was

about the 12 or 15th car. as she pulled up to the window, she made her order and went up to the window and the cashier said, no, your food has been paid by the car in front of you. she was shocked by that and she said i'm going to pay for the car behind me. i went to talk to the manager and she said that went 40 cars deep including your captain, put 40 cars before somebody finally broke the chain. those were the kind of things that were happening in the community. again, i can't take the credit. my officers can't take the credit for that, but during the time there was a lot of mistrust across our country in the police departments, we didn't experience that in fayeteville.

our police officers had some drastic changes and we had changes for our swat teams. we determined the slogan was go slow. slow it down. when we had that volatile situation, our motto was slow the action down. we are going to give that person time to think through this problem. that worked for us on traffic stops and worked for us on very volatile, very dangerous situations. >> great. thank you so much, chief. i want to thank you again for your service for the people of north carolina, and thank you for presenting to the commission today and sharing your expertise and your experience. i will defer to my fellow commissioners who have questions. >> thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. i'm going to turn it to my chief

for questions and comments for you before i ask mine. i think commissioner carter oberstone took most of my questions. >> thank you, i will put my name in the request. thank you for this presentation. actually we know some of the same people that you worked with in fayeteville. they speak very highly of you. thank you for doing this. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> i do have a couple of questions. i actually have read a lot about what you and your department were doing in fayeteville. your past and my past are somewhat similar that we both went to new departments and my understanding when you were in the midst of making a lot of changes, you created a

reform initiative which is what we are in as well. one of my questions is this: we have done a lot of research about your work, and definitely we appreciate your talent and your successes as well, but as far as the collaborative reform initiative that you brought in to fayeteville, how did that work with this body of work because i know you all had a number of recommendations that got to a lot of the issues that you were able to improve while you were there and probably after you left there, but how did all this work together, because that's in and of itself a lot of challenges and divides your resources. that's my first question and want to hear your insight on that. >> that's a great question. i actually secured the collaborative reform by chasing the cops ron carter down at a meeting in san francisco.

so, thank you folks. i will tell you that was critical to the success. we were able to bring in a group of experts from across the country, both data experts and policing experts. and what happened there as a result of that no. 1 was our folks started to realize that i was not crazy because as they started to ask the questions during their research phase of the collaborative reform, a lot of the questions they asked were really introspective to my commanders and to my officers. so it was critical. the other thing we did, chief, and i can't recommend it highly enough. but as they developed,

as they were asking these questions and developing their recommendations, what i did was take my command staff because most of the departments when i assign it to one person, i make sure that my command staff always responsible for sections of what we do is coming. i had captains who were responsible for preparing for how we are going to address the recommendations, but we started that early in the process, and really then i put those folks in front of the collaborative reform and they became responsible for it. they took ownership of it and then they brought in their lieutenants and sergeants who would be the most relevant to that particular section of the collaborative reform recommendations, and made them part of their team. so what we did was spread that collaborative reform project or requirements throughout the department right off the bat. and there was a lot of

resistance for that because you are now asking captains and majors and assistant chiefs who really weren't used to doing a lot. i'm speaking of the fayeteville police department and putting them in charge of a project that had to be addressed. and we got a lot of bias from that and more importantly became very familiar with that process. several recommendations by the time the team and the officers came back and announced these recommendations, we had already addressed 35 of the 72 recommendations. if you have an opportunity, that would be a great thing for your department. we did one other thing and that was which was part of the work that dj officers from the

diagnostic center. they worked with us in helping us develop a community outreach, public affairs, public information and then how we would meet our community through social media. it was invaluable to us. >> thank you for that. and we are also in the midst of at the tail end, i hope, of our collaborative reform initiative. very good. that's good insight. my next question, also we have read some reports and i don't know if you sanctioned them or done after your time there as chief, but there was some academic statistical down in the weeds research about your data, and i believe i read that one of the things that you were committed was tracking the data and really tying the data to its impact, your traffic stops and what you were doing to the

impact. you talked about some of that, but can you tell us or tell me some of your challenges with collecting that data or getting the infrastructure to collect the data? that's what we have to do in our initiative. i want to hear a little bit about what you did in fayeteville? >> north carolina implemented a traffic stop report 20 years ago. 20 million or so, probably now 25 million traffic stops had been reported where the officers have to fill out this report and sent to the shop of the sbi. the departments across the state rarely use it, rarely refer to it. i simply pulled that data down and started to look at it. it's amazing but it's done by officers. you can start to, in my case, i was able to start is to spot the trends and officers

that might be outliers, and then also to look at the most common areas where traffic stops were being made. interestingly, traffic stops weren't being made where traffic crashes were occurring. so we had a lot of work being done, but it wasn't being done in the right place. so with the blue lights going off, a lot of people being inconvenienced by stops, but at the end of the day, we had many people being killed. so i used those data. the other thing i did was really just tell my folks with our i.t. department and then with my real time crime center to start collecting that information internally. the response was, chief, we don't have the database to do that. and i said do one of excel

spread sheets on our computers and the young lady in charge said yeah and i said do that. i didn't know anything else to do but to do that. so what that allowed us to do was get a more personal look at what was going on. what we found with that was that we had what i called porchers, we had officers assigned to an area of the city where it was predominantly wealthy and white. what i found were those officers weren't making traffic stops in those neighborhoods. they were going across down and making traffic stops in predominantly middle-class and predominantly african american neighborhoods. no one had caught that. no one had checked that, or if they had, my supervisors, my mid-level commanders and district commanders, no one said

anything about it because this guy was very productive. he just wasn't doing the right thing. as it turns out, he did a couple of really bad things and we were able to help him find employment elsewhere, not in the police profession. but we recognized that and were able to take action on that. so what i would say if you don't have these data that are collected through the state, start really counting it yourself, and now there are some programs that you can use. i have got to tell you probably some of the research that i looked at was through a fellow named frank bump gardener at chapel hill. he is brilliant but not well liked in north carolina because he calls it when he see's it. he calls me and says, you want to look at this. it was

one more thing that i had to be able to say that i'm looking at this now from a different perspective and we really do have a problem in fayeteville. find a researcher, university that is really willing to donate their time. we think if we give it to a university to do it as a part of a project to help, that we are giving control away and we are not. at the end of the day, the data that we collect, the information we collect doesn't belong to the police department anyway, at least in my mind. it belongs to the community and behind every one of those data points is a human being. we need to be careful if we are doing the right thing with those data as we collect it and then we are able to act on it. >> thank you, chief. it's good to meet you. >> thank you. >> thank you. chief, i have two questions for you. you talked a lot about

getting officer buy in and the public on board with the transition and the policy decisions you made. so i have one question. how did you deal with the false narrative that were out there in order to get the public to come around and really see the benefit to the program and policy decisions you made. that's question one. question two, how did you get buy in from the city leaders and the people you report to in order to push the policy and your strategy forward? >> to question one, great question. i went directly to the people that were voicing those concerns or those groups that were voicing those concerns. you can't imagine who i met with. but primarily some of the wealthier neighborhoods that really weren't experiencing crime, some of the predominantly white neighborhoods.

folks, let me tell you, i'm a cop, i just have to speak in white, black and brown and it is what it is. in those neighborhoods that didn't experience crime, didn't experience a lot of traffic stops, i made sure i was there at those community watch meetings, at those neighborhood meetings. at those coffee classes in the afternoon and i went to a late afternoon gathering in a neighborhood, i did drink, but i certainly took the opportunity to address those concerns. i faced them straight on, and asked them to just give us an opportunity, give us a chance. i did the same thing with those folks that were really kind of pose -- opposed to this in the community. within the first week that i arrived in fayeteville.

they presented me with a list of complaints about the fayeteville police department. i said just give me a chance. you know what they did, they gave me a chance not only that, but they became great partners, great constructive criticizeers of the things i did. they were helpers to all that we did in the department. i didn't treat the wealthy white folks any different than i treated the leadership at the naacp. i just asked for a chance to make it work. to your second question and you will have to refresh my memory on that. >> how did you get buy in from the city leaders or the people that you report to? >> the city manager, when he hired me simply said this. chief, take this problem off my back. he was a new city manager to fayeteville at the time, but now he's moved on. he had these

problems that he was facing and he said take it off my back. at the time in 13, 14, 15, and 16, most of the city council meetings were consumed by complaints from the community. so the work we started to do essentially removed those problems from city council and they became for the most part, they became great supporters. they were also critics, positive critics. we were moving fast in some cases and briefed them on the back end because they only met a couple times a month. but any council person that had a question or concern had my phone number. heck, everybody in fayeteville had my phone number. everybody in fayeteville still has my phone number. i haven't changed it. so when i met with the community group, i would give that out. when i met my

officers, i would give them my cell. the only thing i asked folks to do was not call me after 9 p.m. or before 5 a.m. but i have an open policy for my critics. i met with the ministerial alliances in fayeteville and they responded to the congregations to all colors of all denominations. we did those things, but for the most part from 13 to the time i left, i had great support from city council, and in many cases, they became great attendees at the community watch and community groups that i met with because they wanted to be part of that positivity. >> thank you for being here.

i will turn it to commissioner byrne. >> commissioner jim byrne: thank you. chief, is there a question with race and racial disparity in these stops? >> there was, absolutely. >> do you know what the percentage was? >> i don't have the exact figures, but i will tell you where you can find that. it's in the fayeteville police department open report. we started it as part of the initiative. i think you folks were doing that too. the white house on initiative data. we started in 15 or 16. we went back to 2010. there were disparities in stops, in consent searches, there were disparities and arrests out of those traffic stops. and fayeteville is very

close to being very even with white and african american and also with latino and native-americans. >> when the stops go down, did the disparities go down, the percentages go down? >> yes, not to the point that we wanted them to but they were trimming down all the way through the end of 2016 and really after i left into the majority of 2017. so we became much more even in the folks that we were stopping. i need to add this too. one of the challenges to the stops, speeding, stop signs and reckless driving and dwi, those

were skills for officers to know when violations occurred. if you are looking at the violation, rarely can they see the race or the gender of the driver. they are looking at the vehicle or stoplight or stop sign violation and the line that separates where the car enters the intersection. they may be looking at speed through lightar or reckless or stoplight or stop sign or speeding. it is very difficult to tell the race or age of the driver. >> just two more questions. i had an opportunity to look at the scorecard for the fayeteville police department. it indicates that there is still a huge problem with drug arrests

and racial disparities. i know you are no longer the chief, but for adopting this policy in san francisco is to deal with the unacceptable racial disparity and arresting people. so, at least according to the scorecard that i'm looking at, it's still a problem. the other problem that i find very disturbing and i know you are no longer the chief, is killing by the fayeteville police department are at a higher rate than 80% of the u.s. police departments. so, i don't know as you said, sir, i know you are no longer the chief, but at least from what i saw, there appears to be a problem with racial disparities in fayeteville and clearly a problem that we in san francisco want to avoid which is unlawful killings by our police department. thank you.

>> i'm just going to be honest with you, sir. so, when i decided to retire, i made a recommendation to the current city manager. one of my assistant chiefs to become the police chief through the process, but certainly to become the police chief. that young man was not selected and an outsider was brought in much like i was and many of the policies, many of the directions that we had in place were reversed, and you are right. i left at the end of 2016, close to 2017. with those number of years, i can't begin to tell you how discouraging it is because i also know the complaints against the police

department are out there and a level of mistrust that has increased and i had great hopes in the new chief that was sworn in who will bring some of the work back. there are plenty of officers there that are now leaders that can step up to reinstitute many of the practices and the beliefs we had. so that's my hope. and then to your concern, you have a good man there in chief scott. and my hope would be that you as the police commission and he as the police chief are bringing up folks that can step into his role when he finally does decide

to retire and continue in the work that he is doing and has done. it really is about succession and really shouldn't occur when a chief makes an announcement when he or she is going to retire. >> thank you, chief. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner yanez in >> commissioner jesus yanez.. thank you, president elias. thank you, chief. it's really helpful to see the impact that a policy had while you were there from something that struck me was that you stated that there was a change almost in the culture of the department after some initial resistance or --

reticent to adopting this. what would you say changed to have an impact on your community. >> thank you. what i will share is as we made the change in traffic stops the way we conducted them, i reorganized the department and we reorganized the department and the officers and the lieutenants and the district commanders. we assigned officers, we worked permanent shifts and assigned officers to specific neighborhoods for that shift. so every shift had officers that day in and day out worked the same neighborhoods. so if you have somebody that works during the day, they wouldn't see that officer but would see the second shift when they got off work. my intention was that the officers

would spend more time in neighborhoods, would engage with the community. one of the things i told him was, get out of your car. if you see somebody washing their car or cutting the grass or see grandma sitting on the porch, go down to talk to them or talk to the guy washing his car and get to know them and let them get to know you. when we started to do that and this all took place in 13 as we changed in doing traffic stops because i wanted to free up more of their time of their work of engaging the community. as we started to do that, the officers took ownership of their neighborhoods and the neighbors took ownership of the officers. so at the end of the shifts, instead of having officers come in to turn in their gear and paperwork in with sour looks on

their faces, a lot of times they came in with that smile that they came in that morning or at the beginning of their shift. that was a change for us that officers knew weren't going to be moved from one city to the next. they knew at the end of the day where they were going to work and they knew their responsibilities and when they were off they told people when they covered that neighborhood to watch out for grandma because she fell last week and she's having trouble getting around. officers started to give the community their personal cellphone numbers which is a little bit dangerous because then they wanted me to pay for them and we didn't budget for them. but at the end of the day, we had people that were actually calling officers for non-911 needs that they had at one time bothering 911 for. that was a real culture shift for us.

our national night out celebrations every august, those neighborhoods really came out in celebration with our officers. finally, when we had those officers, lieutenants, that were promoted to the next level, we had community members coming to their promotion ceremony to say chief, we are glad officer so and so is now our sergeant but you are taking away our officer. that is huge and anecdotally that happened many many times as we started to see that change. it was a real culture change for us. listen, we had some heart aches. specifically i remember one officer saying, chief, this will never work for me because everybody hates me. he said heck

even my mother and my father hate me. i said, i will tell you something, we are going to work on that together. but if your mom and daddy hate you, you really don't have a place here if you don't decide to change. you know the young man did. he really started to come around. he wasn't one of those hug kind of guys but he really did come around and wasn't a great resister at the end of it and still working there as a police officer. i want to go back to the commission to tell you that the use of force has gone up in fayeteville. again, it's a change in philosophy, change in policy, change in direction from the chief who is now retiring. >> thank you for that thorough

explanation of impact and powerful community policing is what i'm really sensing. the last thing i would ask for is training, is there anything specific that you would recommend that helped improve the outcomes once you implemented the policy and training and something you enacted before the policy on that end. >> the two classes or blocks of instructions that were most instrumental for us at the department was the deescalation of training conducted by a retired cop and we paid for that for him to come in to give that training to every person in our department including me. the other was the bias based police training presented by dr. louis

furredel out of florida. the agreement before she came in she said chief, you have to sit through the first block of instruction like every officer and employee. we did not just do it for officers but every employee. you have to sit for the first block of instruction. i said laurie, i'm not biased. she said i understand that but you still need to sit through that first block of instruction. at the end of the first block of instruction, i brought in my most constructive critics and said i want you to audit this class and both of those guys said, i'm not biased. this training should be for policemen, i will come because i want to be sure you are trained right. i said that's fine. i just want you to be there. as we started through that class on

the first day, about two hours into it, i'm thinking i have to find a way to get out of this and go back to work. for about two hours into it, dr. furredel said something and struck me and i said, heck, i am carrying some biases and i noticed these two guys at the beginning of the class sitting at the back, not part of it. their arms were crossed and they were leaned back against the wall. as it hit me, i noticed that both of these guys now had their elbows on their knees and leaning into the conversation. before the end of the day, all three were as engaged in that training as every fayeteville employee. that was probably the most meaningful training understanding hidden

biases that we carry around. that was huge for me at that time and at 56 years old. it really set the course for us. the deescalation training, we are going to slowdown and deescalate and take our time. there is another shift coming in to take the calls for service. we have other people in the city that come and handle those calls if we get backed up. those really helped us to really start to rethink how we did the business. i can't tell you the number of times that we had officers that they really came to the realization of hidden biases. it really helped in that first session that we really came to invite the community and after our trainings, we invited the community to come to those trainings that we did and we

actually did a block for our training for our recruit classes and university students we have had young university students that want to be cops going through this training together. it was phenomenal the things that came out of that and the things we learned and the way we started to again change the way we did business there in fayeteville. >> thank you. >> commissioner kevin benedicto: thank you. i wanted to thank you so much for coming in. i think what should be clear to all the commissioners and members of the public from your presentation is the culture matters and the leadership matters, and the bold action that is backed by data can yield tremendous positive

results for officers, for the community, for everyone. i know throughout this process, my fellow commissioners asked to hear from jurisdictions that have tried this and through many presentations and i think it was really tremendous to hear from you. thank you again. it's my hope that tonight san francisco can join fayeteville and other jurisdictions in being leaders in this area. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner yee? >> commissioner larry yee: thank you, madam president. i want to ask chief, thank you for your hard work for the work you had done in north carolina. i just wanted to ask whether the data for your stops, your past versus the current data on racial disparity. i guess the trend is probably going down in the right

direction, but also i want to note in san francisco, in 2021, we had over 100,000 stops, and we have now reduced it down to 27,000. that's a substantial stops. would that be an impact to the racial disparity stop in comparison to your city, chief? >> commissioner, it's tough for me to answer that question. here is what i will tell you to get a plugin. i think my experience is that if you are stopping vehicles for the right reasons, it's really traffic safety which is weird traffic stops to begin

with, but keeping people alive. i know san francisco is a great walking city, also very congested. i don't know what your traffic fatality rate is or numbers every year. i don't know what your pedestrians injured from vehicle crashes are and by the way, there is no such thing as a vehicle accident or crashes. that's just the way it is, but i think it really comes down to if those stops are really making a difference and the violation stops on the pretext of consent searches or searches in general, but certainly consent searches, what are you getting out of it? what's the yield. if your data did not show that you are having a significant impact in

contraband recovery, and then good prosecutions, then is it really worth your while. i wouldn't put a stop to traffic stops if i knew that my traffic fatality rate and injury rate in san francisco was going down because then they are making an impact on traffic safety, pedestrian safety in your city. >> one more question. i guess the cameras in fayeteville, i guess there are no cameras on there for traffic stops as well. do they have cameras in your city? >> well, north carolina is kind of interesting. we have a legislature that decided that that was probably not such a good idea several years ago. we

did have them in charlotte and also the speed cameras in charlotte while i was in charlotte, mecklenburg police and both of those went away. i'm a big believer in the corridor cameras on the high impact locations and tells a great story and again being able to send out a nice citation with a tag number attached to it that says we appreciate you visiting our city, but we are sending you something to remember us by. i think it's very helpful in folks understanding that they can't run stoplights, they can't run stop signs and speed. i'm a big believer and the technology in allowing the officers to better engage in the things that are most important in crime fighting in a city.

>> thank you very much, chief. >> do you have anymore questions? >> thank you, chief. i'm recoverying from knee surgery myself. thank you very much for this information. i want clarification that your deprioritizing a stop or not moving violations, they were strictly mechanical, is that correct? >> you are correct, commissioner. but i would tell you that instead of deprioritizing i wanted to concentrate on those things that would keep people alive. you know, it's important for me to continue to, it's crazy, i have

convinced myself, but it really is that whole idea of we are going to focus on the right things, we are going to concentrate on the right things. >> i mean i ask that question and i think of some of the concerns i have. i want to just support what you were talking about building meetings and doing this as a partnership with the officers and the community who are i'm sure even more resistant there than some are here. that the other commissioners asked fe focusing on doing outreach and making sure those concerns are heard. we do have an increase in pedestrian death. we just had one at 16th in mission here where somebody took a left turn

in a crosswalk and killed an 80 year old woman. i think it's important to look at the data and the mechanical issues. and did other agency pick up the slack. you said that cameras were not working in north carolina, but whatever the highway patrol or somebody else taking care about letting people know about registration lapses and found enough, only one license plate, those types of things. did anyone pick up that slack? >> they really didn't. the north carolina highway patrol, they scare me.

they are great. but truly their focus, their mission is speeding and safe driving, and they operate on the major thoroughfares, the interest -- interstates and routes. we had a sheriff's office that patrolled in the county. they didn't operate in the city. one thing i will tell you and you brought up something interesting. i faced a lot of resistance from my peer chiefs in the region and across the state because it wasn't intentional that i would find myself talking to san francisco and other areas. it put pressure in other cities, raleigh, charlotte, all the way

back to charlotte and greenville and all of these cities and why couldn't we do that in our city? so i did face some heat from friends of mine who were chiefs in other cities. >> i'm sure. i think of the issue of how to deal with these violations that could become problems but not by pulling people over is really an interesting one. i have been looking a lot too at the alternatives to cameras and there are issues with that, but one of the things we don't have a lot of data on and our suggested protocol include moving violations. one of the things that i'm really concerned about is that and having the

data of what it does to traffic crashes, pedestrian crashes. that's the kind of thing that, those are the things that i get really concerned about. do you have that data, maybe you didn't have that much involved? >> we actually pulled from our records management system. we were able to pull that traffic crash data for years and really determine where those occurred. once we determined we were going to do that, we were able to locate the data to help us with that. commissioner, i should probably say this too. we didn't necessarily stop writing for equipment violation and registration violations. generally our drivers who don't

have driver's license or registrations, if they were stopped and found not to have insurance or license, the officers were free to cite them for those during that traffic stop. there were a lot of add on violations but at the end of it, the violator knew if they weren't going to be arrested for the traffic violation, they were free to go. it's also interesting and i will share with you when we found an equipment violation, you don't find anymore. whether it's a light, you usually have the officers who would help them fix it. if they wouldn't let you go

in the trunk, we didn't have probable cause. but those were the things that officers were doing during a traffic stop. >> thank you for that. >> good luck with the knee. >> chief, thank you again so much. we know you are on the east coast and we appreciate your time and for providing us with this information. we wish you a very fast and speedy recovery. >> thank you so much. chief, if you need help, don't hesitate to call. >> thank you, chief. >> all right. at this point i'm going to continue this matter. sergeant, if we can resume the regularly scheduled program. >> all right. going on to line item 2.

>> adoption of minutes for december 7th and 14. >> i will make the motion to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> public comment. >> public speaker: hi. i'm uncle to mark anthony who was brutally murdered in your city. >> i'm sorry, this is public comment regarding the adoption of the minutes. >>

>> do you have a public comment on the minutes? >> i don't have a public comment on the minutes. i just wanted to see justice for mark. >> that will be another line item later on. >> yes, sir. thank you. >> as a reminder for the public, press star 3 or have your hand raised. this is for the adoption of the minutes. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> otherwise there is no public comment. >> great. take the vote, please. >> [roll call]

>> you have seven yeses. >> next item. >> be consent calendar - police commission report of disciplinary actions, 4th quarter 2022 - dgo 11.02 “secondary employment” annual report 2022 - sfpd safe streets for all 3rd quarter report 2022 - sfpd 3rd quarter bias audit report 2022 - fdrb 3rd quarter report: no meeting >> make a motion to receive and file. >> second. >> to the members of the public, please press star 3 or hand raised. >> no public comment. >> [roll call] >> you have seven yeses.

>> thank you, next item. >> chief's report (discussion) - weekly crime trends and public safety concerns (provide an overview of offenses, incidents, or events occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting.) chief scott? >> thank you, sergeant youngblood. good evening, president elias and commissioners. >> i'm going to condense my report to much less than ten minutes because i know we have some very involved items on the agenda tonight. i'm going to start with crime trends and will give this advice at the beginning of the year and we can't read too much on the percentage changes early this year because they are very

wildly and the numbers are low and can be the difference of one or two of less victims or more victims. overall the violent crime is 18% reduction from 20 crimes fewer. i will take that over an increase. property crimes are down, 350 crimes fewer than this time last year. the serious overall crime is down 36%. in terms of the breakdown of violent and property crimes, we had two homicides and that is 100% increase different from last year. rapes, robberies, assaults are down. these are fairly small numbers. human trafficking, no

change. homicides, two year to date. one this time last year. i will talk about one in particular. in terms of our gun violence, we had a total of eight gun violence relate, eight shootings year to date. we will have the year-end figures on fentanyl sei seizing

cease -- and our goal is to take them off the street. one of the homicides was a homicide on january 4, 2023. 5:07 p.m. on webster street at the japantown center mall. unfortunately a security guard employed to enhance the safety of that shopping plaza was shot and killed. even more tragic, the person that shot and killed him was a 15 year old child. tragic all the way around. two arrests have been made and with this being a juvenile, i cannot release any information. i and members of the command staff along with captain derek jackson at the northern district

attended a community meeting and merchants that were there when it happened and the people who live there in that community. this is shocking and upsetting and i know there are people in this room who have lost loved ones including ms. brown who lost her young son to homicide. one of the things we plan to do in order to at least temporarily make people feel calmer is captain jack has increased deployment of police presence around the mall community and work with departments around that mall. what they have standard police department for in addition to be sure we do

everything we can to continue to work this case even though an arrest has been made is to continue to have increased patrol and one of the reasons we were able to arrest the individuals involved within two hours is because the officers knew the people in the community. once we had a lead on who may have done this, the officers knew the people in the community and that led to a quick arrest in this case. it's tragic nonetheless all the way around because this person is 15 years old. i will keep you abreast to what is happening in that community but that is this situation now. we had another homicide on 16th street and this involved someone

losing their life and three people being shot. we have uncovered some very good leads in that case. i know the captain is here and will present in a second but they are working very hard on that matter as well. thank you for your team's work on that. >> i will end my report. >> >> commissioner kevin benedicto: thank you, chief. just one question. would you mind update the data on the d. a.? >> we have met with the d. a.'s office on some of the language, and based on the discussion of the commission, we brought that last version of the mou. we have revised the language and also met with the mediator in this case, judge walker. we do need to meet again. the judge is on vacation. we sent the commission

a correspondence today to ask for an extension. we may need to go back to go over the recommendations and i believe we'll have it resolved. we have received that recommendation from the judge. we need to ensure the current mou stay in place and the d. a. and i have agreed on that until we get a new mou. >> thank you very much, chief. >> are you going to extend it to 30 days. >> probably 30 days. it's extended to the end of this month, we don't want to extend it too long because we want to get this done, so probably 30 days. >> how about the d. a.? >> there are some revisions that we are going to offer up to dpa. the plan is once we meet with

the judge and the d. a.'s office and have an agreement on this language, we will have it in draft form as directed by the commission. >> great. >> >> commissioner larry yee: chief, thank you for your report. i know that you have essentially cut down or increased the arrest from issues with fentanyl from 2021 to 2022. out of curiosity, is there a correlation of overdose from 2021 to 2022? >> overdoses, 2022 from were fewer deaths to last year. i'm not going to attribute that alone to seizure of fentanyl and there are reversals to many

people in the community that were not available. president elias pushed forward to have this in the hands of officers. the seizures are helpful and until someone convinces us otherwise, we are going to continue in that direction. >> in regards to gun violence in the city and especially january 4th, the youth having a firearm. in 2022, i'm looking at your report, you have over 961 guns seized. just curious if we have shared information with the city attorney to see if we can go back to the manufacturer and file a lawsuit where they were illegally distributed in the

city and hoping we can cut down on the amount of guns in our city. one death is too many. >> thank you. i do know there is collaboration across the board with our city attorney, district attorney and that's longstanding particularly the private manufacturer of those guns. i am not aware of a case, well, we have had arrests and prosecutions in progress of people that are manufacturing guns federally and state charges. as far as the d. a.'s office, we are working with them to see if there is any action taken by the city attorney on that. >> thank you very much, chief. >> any other questions? >> >> commissioner jim byrne: thank you, chief. i have a question. in regards to the homeless lady that a hose was put on her? is there a comment or on going investigation?

>> yes. >> what's happening. >> yes, i have it in my notes. that is an issue with great public interest. on january 9th, officers responded to a call on montgomery street. basically what they found out when they got there was there was a person involved. the person identified as him. i'm going to refer to him as him because that's how he identified who had been in a dispute with a person on the block and it resulted in the person spraying him with the water hose. this was captured by witnesses cellphone, i believe.

the following day that video was posted and received millions of hits. people are outraged about what happened. the look of it. our officers did respond and they did an on scene investigation. there was not an arrest made at the scene. the person involved at that time did not want to pursue an arrest. the report was taken and investigation is happening in addition to looking for other witnesses. we are going to proceed with that case to the district attorney's office. at that time, it's all i can report because it's all i have to report. definitely keeping the public informed. i'm sure the public wants to be aware of that. >> so you are going to turn the matter over to the d. a.? >> we will turn it over, with

these types of cases, they are a misdemeanor and what typically happens is a prosecution and a warrant and arrest based on that warrant. i'm not committing to what the district attorney will do. >> the police department is not arresting the gentleman for that? >> not without a warrant. >> will that person be presented with a warrant? >> that will be evaluated. >> will you let us know? >> i definitely will. >> my second question is while we were on break, a magistrate judge in the northern district of california issued an injunction against the city of san francisco for arresting

homeless people and according to the junction, to the police report i read that arrests were done. i wonder what is the state on that matter? >> there is litigation on that matter. i will limit my comments. i was not aware of a sweep. >> the press report was inaccurate. i didn't see it happen, i just read a press report. >> i believe it's inaccurate. >> i think the city attorney has some information. >> we can have that in closed session if you would like a briefing about that due to the active investigation on going. >> i think the chief is in agreement on that. thank you, chief. >> >> is there a time line for the

surveillance policy? >> yes, the next steps, the commission has asked for us to present on the tracking forms which we have a form. we have been in communication with commissioner elias and working on a form and we'll have one more conversation before that is presented to the commission. whenever she can get it on the agenda, we hope it's very soon to be able to present. >> thank you. there was another item around that i requested to see if we had an outreach plan or what the plan was to communicate to the community that they had an option to opt out when this was presented to them. is there any progress on that? >> we have not gone out with a formal outreach plan. it's been a topic of community meetings, absolutely. when it comes up, we answer questions and once we get forms done in the commission to

concur with us moving forward on this, then i think we are in a better place to really explain what we are doing, what we are tracking and how we are tracking, that is part of the process that we do need to engage and need the public support if this is going to be successful because it's their video and footage that if we do get permission to use it, it's within their footage. there has to be outreach on that so people know it's out there. we will do that. >> specifically with language access i'm going to recommend, thank you. >> thank you. commissioner walker, anything? >> i'm great for now, thank you. >> great. before we move on, chief, i'm going to allow you to introduce the newest member to your team to our 301 process, specifically our working group which we are very excited to start resuming the working

groups and getting those prioritized. >> thank you for the reminder. >> i would like to introduce everybody to ms. bearigan, our newest member and patty will be facilitating the community work groups. she brings to this work a ton of experience for the d. a.'s office doing this type of work. she also as a master's degree and phd in clinical psychology and brings a ton of experience to the table. what we said to the public and this commission is to make sure we

have consistency and really a professional facilitator in these work groups in policy discussion because it is really a key to us doing our work in this city and i strongly agree that patty will bring that to this process. with that, i will turn it over to patty. >> thank you. i will be brief. good evening president elias and commissioners and executive director henderson. again, i just want to reiterate this is ms. patty bearigan. she is coming in and we hope that patty in her leadership will be able to leverage in support moving forward working groups

and to be able to reach out to neighborhoods from all different types of backgrounds in order to engage in our policy development process and in the process of looking closely at the way of the role of working groups are conducted and working with president elias and the chief and accepting a lot of feedback. after tonight you will hear from patty and myself and will be following up to try to get individual meetings set up. >> good evening commissioners. i'm very excited about the work that is going to be done. i'm a san francisco native, mexican american. i spent a bulk of my career helping victims of crime across all crime types. when i left the district attorney's

office i was -- engaged in mental health outreach and pursued clinical psychology because i saw that crime that communities have. it's important to me to empower them. i'm currently the adjunct professor at university of san francisco and looking forward to the work that we can all do together. >> great. welcome to the team. tonight i will spare you from questions from my colleagues because i'm sure we'll have several of them at a later point. >> thank you so much. have a great evening. >> you too. thank you. >> can we do public comment? >> members of the public who would like to comment on the

chief's report, press star 3. public speaker: i was at the swearing in of brook jenkins. i still thank her for helping me get my son's headstone. 15 years without a headstone is hard enough. i know this is not about the presentation. this is my son

and we talk about gun violence on the streets that is still happening now. but still for mothers like myself with cases that are unsolved. i'm still doing this for 16 years, and i need justice and i want justice for my son. my 16 year old son. murdered on the streets of san francisco, shot down cold blooded. i have to go to the hospital to watch him die. so that still bothers me. he has nieces and nephews that will never see him again. he was my only son. i wouldn't wish this on the perpetrators. you have the people's name that murdered my son. they just

recently got out of prison. you have the names of the person that murdered my son. what else do we need to get the cases solved. how long do i keep coming? this is not going to get my son back. i just want something done. >> for members of the public who have information on the murder of aubrey abrakasa, please call -- >> public speaker: my name is -- my brother is mark anthony. sorry, good morning or afternoon. my brother is mark anthony, he was murdered in his home while

his son was there and my brother is a sheriff in the immediate county. he was there also. i'm interested in asking a couple of questions. i noticed in the report, chief scott, you state the report that the last time a report was used was 2013, i think. so i'm wondering if the rewards are even effective and what you might try to bring justice to families. my heart is broken and goes out to this woman who waited this long to get even a tombstone for her son. my mother has dementia and it's worrisome. you talk about

doing stops which is another issue in the black community when you should join this homicide case. i will be here every wednesday with this other woman to state my name and my case. thank you very much for listening. justice for mark. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> public speaker: my name is francisco decosta. i want to talk about this policy that -- i was listening today to some people from new york trying to introduce some models in san

francisco. and there was this officer and rocha was there trying to encourage this to have this model here in san francisco. let me say something, okay. san franciscans are very astute. we have this tendency to bring people from new york to then drive to -- something they don't know. san francisco is very unique. this young lady from usf, okay, she may have her phd, that's fine.

policies that are made mostly from feedback from the community. and we are not doing that. we have a tendency to get attached to some -- and i commend them but i do not want to name them but they are in my block. the tenderloin center. >> good evening caller. you have two minutes. public speaker: hi, i'm calling in regarding to the level of gun violence in our city and how easy it is to purchase a gun. i'm curious has there been a discussion for the city doing a

buyback program and not just during the holidays to start removing guns from our streets. i was listening to the school board and they talked about an incident in the last two years of a child bringing a begin to school. my son has been a victim of gun violence, and i keep asking what do we have to do to remove them from the street and connect it to services, connect it to education or job program. we need something. to hear that a 15 year old killed somebody is heartbreaking. we need to do more in san francisco. in the holidays, i saw the flyer. holidays turn a gun in for a free -- that is not

enough. we need to get these guns off our streets, for our kids to not have access and you need to track where they are coming from. i hope you talk about this more. thank you. >> that is tend of public comment. >> skip dpa director's report (discussion) - report on recent dpa activities, and announcements (dpa's report will be limited to a brief description of dpa activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting.) >> i will give you my stats. this year so far we have opened six new cases. at this time last year we had opened 13. we haven't closed any cases so far this year. this is obviously the second week of the year. we currently have 277 open cases that are pending investigations

and conclusions by the agency. we've sustained no cases so far this year, nor have we mediated these cases. some investigations have gone beyond nine months. a reminder of those 30 cases, 21 of those cases are told. there are currently nine cases still pending conclusion with the commission, and there are 91 cases that are still pending conclusions with the chief. just in the last week, we received 52 cases that came into the office. the top two allegations again, these are allegations, not actual charges and these are preinvestigations were for an officer behaving and speaking inappropriately, and for an officer failing to take required action were the top two

charges. for the list of the complete charges, they are on our website. we have been analyzing where the complaints are coming from the public. the top two this weeker mission with nine allegations and bayview with 8 allegations. the allegations related to police reports for failure to take police reports and making inaccurate police reports are the allegations. again, these are allegations of cases that are coming into dpa, preinvestigation. in terms of outreach, we have started our internship program for the spring. again, it's a mixture of both undergraduates and grads and i will be talking to you about this over the semester. what i wanted to engage and talk about is at the end of the year

december 30th, dpa issued to the commission for san francisco's alliance as part of 2021. as part of that report, we followed up on the recommendations made previously by dpa and previous year's audit. this report also resulted in three new findings as well as new recommendations to sf p.d. if anyone wants to know more of that, it's available on the dpa website. in terms of operations, we have one case that will be on today's agenda and closed session. also present with me today to help with these issues is senior investigator chris, and also my chief of staff sarah hawkins. that's it.

>> thank you, director henderson. i don't see any questions in the queue. commissioner walker? >> i'm good. >> thank you, sergeant. >> for members of the public who would like to make public comment on line item 5, dpa's report, press star 3. there is no public comment. >> thank you, next item. >> commission reports (action) (commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting.) >> - commission president's report - commissioners' reports - commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings (action) >> thank you. commissioner benedicto? >> commissioner kevin benedicto: thank you, i want to offer my congratulations on your reappointment to another term of board of supervisors and it's

been an honor to serve with you. congratulations. >> thank you, i appreciate it.. >> vice-president carter oberstone? >> commissioner max carter-oberstone: thank you, president elias. for me, last month i did a ride along with two officers, roger moore and michael caas. i saw a lot of really excellent police work that day. i was just incredibly impressed to see up close, the information sharing, the coordination, the decision making that has to happen under intense time pressure and all types of pressure. so i just want to thank them both for allowing me to intrude on their workday and thank you for your service of this city.

at the last meeting i raised the issue of dto h 10 and first time activities and the department's failure to set out and details with that policy and happy to learn we are back on track but necessary for the commission to understand what exactly happened because it does appear so the department not only didn't comply with the deadline but also didn't see an extension. so i think the commission needs more about this and would like to agendaize this and would like the dpa and the department to furnish the commission with relevant communications around

the department's response to dpa stage one recommendation grid, and i would like commander to be available to answer questions on the matter. >> thank you. >> >> commissioner jesus yanez.. thank you. president elias, congratulations and i look forward to be working with you for a couple more years. i will do this quick. i did a ride along in the tenderloin the last week of december. things were pretty mellow for a wednesday in the middle of the day. i do want to do another ride along at some point, but it was a good experience, hearing from officers directly working in one of the neighborhoods, the challenges they face. some of

the obstacles they encounter and i saw some good work taking place. i want to schedule one on a friday evening when there will be a lot more fireworks and i don't mean that literally, i hope. but that is in the works. the thing i wanted to agendaize is i know that the ripa report and the best practices came out and i started to read through that and i would love to have at the beginning of the year good kind of focused conversations on how we can advance some of those recommendations and areas here on the commission. that is my report. thank you very much. >> thank you, i appreciate it. commissioner yee? >> commissioner larry yee: first of all, congratulations on your reappointment. welcome back. before you hear, i guess for the

chinese community, chinese new year is coming up january 22nd. first of all happy new year, stay safe. i'm working with the chinese community on their issue with some of the merchants and the residents that will be reaching out to not only the chinatown community but will go out to the ingleside and also visitation. i will be talking to the chief to see when we can schedule a town hall meeting. again, stay safe and have a great year. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner walker? >> yes. it looks like the

tenderloin was busy with ride alongs over our break. i did a ride along in the course of three hours, there were two actual arrests involving fentanyl seizing and walked through that with all the officers who brought the items in. it's challenging out there, and i really appreciate the attention we are all giving it in the tenderloin. commissioner yanez, i would love to go on a nighttime ride with you. i'm nervous about you but it would be great to do it with you. i think it's really a challenge in speaking with the officers of

them being able to do what they need to do to take these drugs off the street and really focus on these crimes that are actually killing people on our streets. i think it behooves us to support what they are doing. also speaking about these leaders and talking about doing privacy security and how to

better coordinate and really helps and for the people to know what's going on and really helps what they need because they are there and being able to work with all of these groups to just better the safety in our streets. i think it's really important. i really appreciate, chief, your willingness to talk to all of us about it. i think we have an opportunity to take advantage of some of the programs out there involving community groups, community individuals who are doing work and a security firm for how to make this work. i also got information from or

dga groups and got 601 and bsu issue in the future to help those move forward. thank you. that's all for me now. >> thank you, commissioner walker. >> just a few things to report. one, i really want to thank those people who supported and reached out during my reappointment process. i really appreciate all of the support. it was a very humbling experience for me, but you stuck with me for four years. that's the good news. bad news is that we are really going to get some stuff done so buckle up. during the break, i assigned the remaining dgo's that had no commissioners assigned so the staff sent in a new list for the commissioners they are responsible for and we sent out a list for dgo 101 and we are working to get the groups running now that we have patty.

so look for communication in respect to that. we also have a new commissioner to go over the items and the staff will go over the procedures with that and we did work on the surveillance form and we will have that for the commission and the public. that's all i have to report. >> members of the public that would like to make a comment regarding line item 6, commissioners report, press star 3. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. public speaker: i want to talk about what i learned at city hall. i'm happy that you have a

check and monitor policy issues. this policy thing that it comes to our drugs is we need to do a very very deep assessment about the cartels, the cartels and the areas and homes in the east bay and in san francisco. if we do not have an idea of how they operate, and we get some fluffy like the budget and finances whatever they talk and bringing for now behavioral department, people from new york who don't know diddly about san francisco. and then listening to some people who do not know what's happening on the street now, but to violence

intervention program. i brought them into my office. i have 3,000 square feet, and i -- i work with law enforcement. i want the commissioners, please, don't get into the politics. up lift one another to go to a better place, but you cannot do it unless your hearts are in the right place. thank you very much. >> that is the end of public comment. >> next item, please. >> presentation on homicide unit: rewards for information (discussion) presentation will include what local ordinance allows for the reward, how we establish the reward, how many rewards there are, how many are actively being investigated. police commission

>> thank you. >> >> one moment while i bring up the slide deck. >> okay. >> >> good evening president elias, commissioners, director henderson, chief scott, members

of the public. my name is patrick young, chief financial officer for the san francisco police department. i'm joined by captain harens. we'll go over the reward fund. i want to begin with an overview for how rewards are issued from the p.d.'s office. we investigate for how homicides rewards are fund. it is not a replacement for what is in place. to give an analogy, if i have a checking account and i create a savings account, it's complimentary. having another

reward fund gives us an additional funding source when a reward is issued, and that was what was established. sf p.d. created 1701 to comply with the fund guidelines. the current slide provides some of the details that established the reward fund. i won't go into the specific details but the administrative code describes the guidelines on how the fund will be used. while there hasn't been any activity in the reward fund, it does not nullify anything existing with the reward and if the reward is issued, it would be sourced separately. i want to pass off to captain hearns to discuss the

process and how we issue the rewards. >> good evening. so, this is how we establish rewards for the homicide unit. the lead investigator can request the reward when all investigative leads have been exhausted including any viable leads to identify the suspect. the chief determines the starting amount which can be increased to the maximum allowable amount of $250,000. this slide is the current reward that we have posted online. there are 17 cases highlighted with 19 victims. you heard from two of the victims families earlier today. they are noted here, ms. rhoades and ms. brown are here. i'm sure there is going to be some callers. the graphics also note the breakdown on the reward amount and then the demographics for

the victims. that information we found on our website. the next slide is the rewards that are currently online. there is one notations here that is different. mark's reward was increased by $300,000, noted by his sister present. every information we get to prove to unprove the information. if it's substantiated it remains in the case file, if it's unsubstantiated, then the pay out would be maid -- made. the

last one was paid in 2013. it was for 2006 homicide of willie allen and there is a list of previous pay outs from 2001 to 2013 ranging from $5,000 to $213,000. i would express for anyone with information for homicide to call the anonymous tip line. or text the tip to tip 411 to begin with sf p.d. i know that family members want the first question on their mind before i open it up. it brings the homicides back into the view for the reward and the media and let's the family members know that we are still trying to reach the public to get

information. pay outs are very difficult. one, it has to lead to the arrest, prosecution and conviction to pay out. that's a high standard for a homicide. that is one barrier to overcome. i will open up to questions. >> >> thank you, captain, and director young for that. one question for me on that very last point you made about the high bar for pay out and you did show the list of pay outs that had occurred. if you can give us a sense for the universe of cases that are higher up in the fund. for example, substantiated but didn't lead to an arrest, substantiated but no prosecution. is the number vastly bigger or about the same as the number that are ultimately paid out? i'm just

curious how many for example substantiated coming in the door that might be helpful but didn't get paid out because it didn't meet all of those barriers? >> it allows for a lot of unsubstantiated tips and may remain anonymous but every tip is investigated. if we saw one homicide from 100 bulletins. ms. brown, they are going to be here every wednesday. it's good for the public to see that and they know that they can help some family, some measure of solace to know that their family member

would know that their murderer has been brought to justice. >> do we keep a list on how many were substantiated and do we have data to track that? >> i'm not sure. i know that our community engagement keeps track of the anonymous tip line. but on the bulletin people can call the inspector, that might not be tracked. >> thank you. if you can get that information that would be great. >> i will check on the tip line. >> i think it's a really good point. captain a haren and i have been working on this tip

line and upgrading the record keeping. as part of moving into a new records management system, what i would like to do is go back to director and ask him that question. i know we don't have it right now in terms of any type of formal database, but while we are reconstructing the records management system is definitely a good thing to see if we can do that. so i will follow up on that and whatever that answer is, i can bring back because it is an excellent point. >> thanks, chief. >> commissioner benedicto. >> commissioner kevin benedicto: thank you for the information. i want to ask a question. i know you said you don't know, but could you ascertain what is the reward pay out structure would be different if the bar were lower, if it would just lead to

an arrest, for example. if you can go back and look at the 17 of the current ones that are online that have not yet been eligible. have an arrest been made on those cases that have not led to a conviction? >> let me look at the list. well the bar is set by the ordinance, but i think we could lower the bar that we are checking with anonymous tips. some other areas like new york use anonymous tips to help solve and the pay out is much lower, but then the public response is much higher. so they might pay $3500 tip. you have seen crime stoppers. we are looking to that

through our community investigation team. that would lower the bar and get more tips and still remain anonymous. >> to directors point, it could be something supplementary and also anonymous tip lines with more bars and they don't have to be exclusive from one another, correct? >> yes. the one thing i would add in homicide rewards is that for the issuance of it, if there is a reward pay out, how its ultimately sourced is circumstantial. it depends on the characteristics. if the pay out is $5,000, we would pay out of our general fund. if it's

$250,000. we don't have $250,000 and in that instance, we would work with the mayor's office and controller's office and will go out of the city's general fund. >> how do you react to that. it's a long time which seems like a much more regular -- >> i was looking at the numbers and there has been some positives. the positives have been that we have gone down to 56 homicides in the last two years and we have been down to 49 in the last five. from 2000 to 2010, we were averaging close to 100 homicides. we had a lot

more reward bulletins at that time and seeking the public's assistance a lot more. i believe we have a larger narcotics unit which is more informants and information coming that way. that could have contributed to this and covid, trials, there is no trials, no conviction, no pay out. i'm not saying that we are going to be paying out soon, but i would anticipate paying out on one case when it's adjudicated that i know of. >> all right. do you think that, you talk about how even if you saw one it's effective, we talked about other programs like the third party anonymous tips. do you think the community would be served if we had another pool that maybe had a lower bar to pay out, to pay out often. would

that be a good tool? >> yeah, any tool. the number one in crime for me in terms of homicides, if we can solve one or two cases out of 100, that's a benefits. yes, if there was a lower bar. to your question back now that i'm thinking about it for people on the reward bulletin, there have been no arrests made. >> thank you. >> do you know how san francisco compares to other jurisdictions in terms of this cadence or in terms of rewards as a body compared to other jurisdictions to see how we are doing? >> i would like to see the community come forward without being paid out of public service or concern for family members to do the right thing. i looked at other agencies and some agencies

just issue a blanket, a lower amount of a reward on a set timeline. i don't know how effective that is. i don't have their statistic. but i don't know if that answers your question. if there is anyone on the board that has information on it? >> one thing i will say is the characteristics of the case, the characteristics of the community also comes into play. i have a background in investigating gang related homicides and it's very difficult. even with reward there is the threat and fear of retaliation when you participate in a case. even with the enticement of $200,000, people don't want to lose their lives. if you don't have this dynamic. just what i know generally, you

tend to get more calls and more people come forward if there is a reward or not. that is a factor in this equation. i know it's been a while since we paid out, i think it's worth it including letting the families know that we haven't forgotten about their cases and we are going to continue to pursue it. >> thank you. >> thank you, just one question. you say the chief determines how much is going to be rewarding. i'm sure it's difficult for the families to see that.

>> the first thing i rely on is the information from the chief investigator from the unit. when the case goes where the lead has been exhausted, typically it starts and $25,000 and typically the increments are $100,000 increases but it's not hard and fast because in recent cases, we met with the family and investigators believe there is some solvablity factor and i have approved a higher increase and ms. brown and family for her son, that is maximum. honestly i wish we can go higher. it starts at $25,000. if there are multi-victim homicides, it may

start higher. so i rely on what is on the memo that i get and i go from there. >> got it, thank you. i will underscore something you said earlier. the value of the relationship with the community is one of those elements that will really contribute to people coming forward when there isn't that that fear of retaliation and having an actual connection and having a good relationship in the community that are being policed is going to lead to some of these solved crimes. as we create new policies, this will improve. i think the chief really demonstrated how it contributed to their improvement and outcomes. thank you. >> commissioner walker,

anything? >> thank you for your presentation. >> congratulations on your reelection. thank you. >> >> can we do public comment? >> members of the public who would like to comment on this item, police address the podium or press star 3. >> >> thank you for that presentation. even before the mayor decided what she did, i already had my $250,000. so if that does anything about how i get paid if somebody comes forth for my son and i do like what they said about being

anonymous because people are really scared about coming forth. one of them told me that's not enough money to get my whole family out of here. i asked that question. i said there is a $250,000 reward and i was told that. so what other way can we fix, and also they also said something about who comes forth. if you come forth and he had a criminal record, does he still get paid. i can understand him not having anything to do with the crime, and if there is a family member that knows about what happened, do they get paid? so it's a point of who gets paid and who don't get paid. how are our cases going to get solved if they choose who is going to get paid and who is not. there is all of the other homicides which i thought i brought.

>> anyway, this is my son's murder with his in a casket. i hope we have more of a talk because this presentation has a lot of things that i need to say. if the two presenters can make themselves available to ms. brown outside. ms. brown, that way you can have all of your questions answered.

i'm sorry, i don't think i'm getting my questions answered. my brother's case needs to be solved and there are more objectives to do so. i am in constant contact with sergeant and i speak to him every week. there is not enough resources and every time another person and property -- person dies, my son goes down on the list. i'm

just feeling a little concerned about where we are putting our energy and this is the form where we are doing that, but i really really want you guys to do something different to support our police agencies and chief scott, i agree. there needs to be more of a community outreach especially in the communities that are underserved. i hope this new psychologist comes up with some stuff. thank you. >> i will say that this is the first time this has been agendaized and the beginning of the conversation, not the end. we saw the article, we heard the community's concerns and that's why this presentation was agendaized. i would encourage you to take advantage of the two presenters right now to ask your questions and we can have them back in a couple months and they can address your question then or other questions that would be prevalent to the community at

large, i think definitely we should have that. >> i would just like to add, echoing a question that commissioner benedicto asked about getting a hand on what other jurisdictions are doing and there is other approaches and other places that may yield better results and we need to see what is working elsewhere and see what needs to be done differently here. i will speak directly to ms. brown because you are the reason really that we had this presentation today because you come here every week, and you speak so compellingly about your own son and the pain that you feel. i was born less than two weeks from when your son was born, and now i have a son of my own, and i really can't imagine the pain that you are experiencing, but just wanted to

say thank you for keeping this issue in the public's view, in the commission's view, and thank you for the advocacy that you put forward not only on behalf of your son but of all victims of unsolved homicides. i just wanted to recognize you and say thank you. >> that is the end of public comment. >> parental leave policy (discussion & possible action) (the board of supervisors adopted an ordinance last year establishing a parental leave policy for members of appointive >>

>> line item 7. >> sorry. line item 8. >> discussion and possible action to approve draft dgo 9.07, “curtailing the use of pretext stops" for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the effected bargaining units as required by law (discussion & possible action). >> gotcha. >> all right. we had our presentation. i thought it was really helpful. i'm going to open up the floor to discussion, and then possible action. >> >> commissioner max carter-oberstone: thank you. this has been a long process. i remember when i first sat down with chief to talk about this issue in february. i remember it was february 14th because my wife was not happy that i was going to be late to valentine's day. i told her it was important.

this policy has come a long way since it was introduced in may and that is large in part to many many dozens of individuals and organizations that have worked so hard to make this policy what it is today and to make it as good a policy as it can possibly be and something that our city can be proud of. i want to start by thanking a number of people. first i want to thank my fellow commissioners, cindy elias and kevin benedicto for partnering with me on this and the leadership throughout the process. i want to also thank the commission staff. through the earliest time i thought this would be a commission led dgo and this is a lot of additional burden on our very lean but mighty staff. they were there organizing and staffing and

helping to run all of our community working group sessions and taking in hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails and uploading them to the website, and basically doing all of the things mostly outside the public's view but that are actually vital to make this process work. i just want to thank them for the significant increase burden that this process was and thank them for the way they handled it's so flawlessly. i want to thank also the coalition for working on this issue for a very very long time, long before i was on this police commission and in the many hundreds of organizations that are part of that coalition and

thank many of the individuals that are part of the working group and from the public defenders office and aclu, julie troung, and tatiana lewis, the bicycle coalition, sergeant monte single ton, trace i mccrey, i asked her if she would participate in the working group and she said she would and tracy showed up to each one which i appreciate. i want to thank chief scott for working on this process. and many dozens of hours that we worked on. i want to thank jacob denny and the

black community. i want to thank dpa, department of policing accountability and the leadership and janelle caywood and germane jones who were valuable throughout the process to lend subject matter expertise. and every policy and revision that this commission considers is just incredibly impressive in the quality of work she turns out and no different from this dgo. special thanks to janelle. also want to recognize former police commissioner haggasaki. i also want to give a shout out to officer christian jones who

leads our traffic company who is in the house today. christian was a member of the working group, but christian was also scripted by me who had many many questions and also incredibly generous of his time. christian's knowledge of the traffic codes is encyclopedic and the feedback he gave was incredibly invaluable and many of his comments are reflected in the final version that we all see today. one other thing i will say about christian is i think that many officers, he had some concerns about these policies especially in its original version, but christian would always, he would say something like i don't like this particular provision but if you are doing it anyway, here is a few ways to make it better. i just want to call it out

because i especially appreciate that. christian was always less concerned with getting his way with making his policy work in real life and making this a real policy as good as it can be. i think that's a true public servant mind-set. i also want to thank ricardo from sf mta who reached out and provided extremely helpful data as it relates to traffic crashes and injuries and helped to make sure that the stops that we are curtailing will not have any negative impact as it relates to traffic safety. also damien brown from the department of justice from his entire team who gave feedback on the policy. finally the human rights commission and director davis for running the most exhaustive community outreach

process that we've ever seen at this commission, and for all of the people in the community who showed up to those events and who provided their feedback on all sides of the issue. this policy is going to allow our city to accomplish two vital goals. the first thing it's going to allow us to do is to use data and evidence to make the most of our scarce public safety resources. there are a cluster of low level traffic stops that are not yielding any public safety benefit for the city. they are not resulting in discovery of contraband like guns and drugs. they are not leading to arrests. they are not causing carnage on our roadways in the form of injuries and death. but they do take up a lot of time and they do cost a lot of

money, and by curtailing those stops we can reallocate all of those law enforcement resources to other strategies that we know are effective and we know are keeping our people safer. things like investigating serious violent crimes, things like making more traffic stops for the offenses that are true dangers like running red lights. the second policy is for the more constitutional obligation to make people equal under the law regardless of background. right now it turns out that the same level of stops are disproportionately carried out against people of color and that is simply unacceptable especially considering again that they are just not making anyone safer.

as we heard earlier today, we are not the first jurisdiction to adopt policy to limit stops. we just heard from retired chief mattlock today in his policy in fayeteville. this policy has been adopted in conservative jurisdiction like fayeteville and nashville and jurisdictions like seattle and philadelphia and pittsburgh. we have seen a lot of success in all of those jurisdictions. this policy is also supported by numerous non-partisan think tanks including spur, including policies in california, including students equity and

including the penal code. there has been a lot of burden placed on the proponents of this policy from the beginning. i think correctedly placed on the proponents to show what data supports the changes we want to make. i think we have met that burden again and again by showing that we are discovering guns at a tiny fraction of percentage of these stops are yielding guns and arrests. and again, we've shown the data that these low level stops are not causing crashes. but i will say there hasn't been the same level of scrutiny for the other side, the folks that are urging us to maintain the status quo. at this point, there really isn't any evidence supporting the concerns that we hear. i will just give a couple of examples. last month, a

commissioner asked a presenter who is doing a data presentation asked if any of the stops that we are showing causing any deaths and the respondent said no and the response was maybe the data is wrong. they suggested that the policy led to many deaths on our roadways and not backed by any data whatsoever. i think it's pausing to ask why so many people are so invested in maintaining the status quo when they are not

able to show evidence. it's worth asking what interest groups benefit from this status quo. i will say that i think the people of this city deserve a better debate from its public officials. both sides should be marshalling evidences on both sides. so today i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this policy. and to be judgment not based on politics but evidence which has been unequivocal put before this commission to only make our city safer. with that, i urge my colleagues to support the measure.

>> >> commissioner kevin benedicto: we are here discussing this policy because the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. first, the status quo does not produce public safety benefits. sf p.d. conducts tens of thousands of traffic stops for low level offenses we have identified in our policy and few of one of these stops recover no guns and violations. that is unacceptable. as we see and hear everyday this department is short staffed and

taken up resources and would like to see those resources reallocated higher level for traffic safety andconcerns. third, the unacceptable outcomes. we have heard it black san franciscans are six times more likely to be stopped, ten times more likely to be searched and 12 times more likely to uses of force. we know the individual strategies behind that data. fernando castillo, sleeping in his car, air freshener and all three were shot and killed due to these stops. what can we do about this? in the san francisco charter,

says the police commission is empowered to prescribe and enforce reasonable rules and regulations that it deems in is to provide for the efficiency of the department. that's exactly what we have done. we've spent the last eight months, longer than that, coming up with what we think and many outside groups characterized and supported with reasonable rules and regulations to provide for the efficiency of this department. this policy, department general order, 9.07 has undergone more than reasonable public outreach and produced more than a reasonable policy. i would like to take a moment to summarize the process you have under taken. by far the most exhaustive exclusive investigation of this body. in may of 2022, my first police commission meeting. adopt policy submitted by this commission and one that was met and exceeded.

the commission received testimony from the public policy institute of california, the center for policing equity t human rights commission, spur and tonight retired chief mattlock and matches the best practices and the dozens of jurisdictions who have seen stops and racial disparities and not seen an decrease in crime or public safety. the commission conducted 14 public meets and presented a comprehensive report and on going online comments for the duration of that time. the commission had an email solicitation for that entire period and we received hundreds of comments and feedback and met with government groups and agencies as well as town halls with sfpd officers. no request for meeting with the commission was denied. sfpd was involved in

every step. i would like to thank the department for that. we worked with the department every step of the way to make sure the policy is as effective as it can be. if you are one of the members of the public who are watching who employed a comment, spoke at a town hall, sent us an email, know that you are the reason we are here today and we owe the members of the public a debt moe for making this policy what it is. in addition to being this outreach reasonable, it's also reasonable in its outcome. i would challenge anyone to make that policy draft and say that we have not taken public input into consideration. the bar of san francisco characterized this policy as thoughtful and balanced and describe the approach of this general order as moderate and supported by

research. contrary to some of the information out there, this policy does not end enforcement of all traffic laws. in fact it does not end enforcement of any single traffic law. simply changes the way we handle traffic enforcement. this policy has also been endorsed by over 100 organizations against the coalition of stops. i would like to add when i was appointed to this commission, one big reason i wanted to be on it was because of the rise of anti-asian hate and i was so pleased this week to see several prominent asian organizations, the asian law caucus, the bar association of the greater bay area, chinese association and affirmative action on a joint letter to back the proposals to share solidarity with other communities of color. some say that a good compromise leaves everyone a little bit

unhappy and i think we have succeeded in this policy. look at the example of the offenses and i believe those who believe the list shouldn't exist at all and i have friends that say it should have been 25 offenses or even more. we took eight months to target and focus nine offenses and we have exhaustively researched for the impact on racial disparities, investigative values and public safety value. i know the commissioner spoke about pilots. if i'm wrong, i will be the first to remove them and to add some, i'm be on there too. this is a starting point. we also have taken the approach of the dozens who have tried

this and approaches that seem to be working which we heard from chief mattlock tonight which the sky is not falling. i would like to talk about an important piece of our follow up votes tonight. for those who have read the agenda will see if we pass this tonight, it will go through the process with the san francisco police officers association. i would direct and commend my fellow commissioners to review the second of two, but the thorough and comprehensiveively researched analysis by the bar association of san francisco and their subject matter regarding the meet and confer obligations. it's not as long as it looks, i promise. san francisco will remain a friendly city, put we have seen from time to time the delay to implementation of key reforms. indeed, the u.s. department of justice collaborative reform

initiative report said in its report that a key policy on the use of force was not implemented because of the collective bargaining agreement practices and the sf p.d. and the commission expedite the process in the future for future development. there has been some progress. i stayed here last year and we talked about use of force. with that being said, the bar association's letter concludes unequivocally from the litany of cases which we already know which is the sfed is not required to meet and confer over the policy decision and only

under the scope of the law. given the importance of this order and department of justice request to demand for the process to future policy, i will ask this commission to specific bargaining provisions which i will note in a moment. the san francisco police department has been a model in police reform and i have been proud to be part of that work. i believe that we can continue to be a model on this policy as well and we have a responsibility as vice-president carter job -- said. chief, you have led this mantra. it's a

core evaluation of the process. we are failing to provide sufficient safety and respect. i believe that this policy will help us improve on both those fronts and provide more safety to the community and more respect to the community. with that, i'm honored to make a motion to pass draft general order to meet an confer with the san francisco police officer association with three specific instructions. first, the commission direct sfpd and the department of human resources to not meet and confer on any part that would constitute matters unto collective bargaining agreement under california law and the department of human resources to set clear

boundaries on the meet and confer process, and third the commission appoint and deputize janelle caywood, policy director of the police accountability as a subject matter expert and allow ms. caywood to attend bargaining sessions and subject matter expertise. i think this is unanimous in respect for ms. day wood's work and i know she will perform this task admirably. and when the department of general order was passed and the president to play the same role. i yield. >> commissioner yee? >> commissioner larry yee: thank you very much president cindy elias. i just want to say from my

meeting in the community, chinese community. as they called in previous meetings. yes, there is ati that sign on, the mainstream non-profits that you asked and they have agreed to sign on. but the chinese benevolent association, he never heard about the stop. for years, the chinese company has been an advocate for civil rights, social justice, they fought for birth rights to be born here in the united states. you are a citizen.

they fought for all of these things. if you are an immigrant and you ask for political asylum, it came throughout there through the 1906 war that they had with mexico that the chinese immigrant asked to come to america because it was subject to violence after the united states army, so general took them along. that's what we believe in and absolutely there is racial disparity on the stops of blacks. i do not disagree with that. i totally support this. you need to reach out to our community. that's all i'm saying, and talk to us about it. we don't know what's going to happen to the chinese merchants out there. would it be more unsafe driving in our community. how do you find a driver if it does not

have a valid registration. will they just come into our city? those are some that i think. then we are now dropping our stop rate of car stops from 100,000 to 27,000. so we are now short 500 officers and we will have less stops there. i agree with you, but i would like to see where you have the data. as far as the data, we would like to see the contract

if you get it by, that's fine, but i would hate to see a lawsuit. that would be my position. >> thank you. i'm going to insert myself into the queue. i don't want to repeat what the fellow commissioners said but i want to address some of the concerns you read and i want to take the opportunity to thank the people that haven't been named but did work with us in the process and important to recognize the individuals because they did provide invaluable input to us and guided us through this process. we met with district patrol unit, the traffic, narcotics, tactical and air born and

district captain and field tactic options lieutenant harvey, sergeant john and officer jones. i want to thank them for their participation because it did really guide us during drafting of this policy. we also met with the mayor's office on disability nicole bond who was instrumental in making the last adjustments to the policy and we met with neighboring groups. at this point even though vice-president carter wants to take credit for it, we want to thank the staff because we received more than a thousand e-mails and correspondence with respect to this process, and all of that was managed, handled by the commission staff. every time we asked something to be placed on our website so the public was

aware in real time of any updates or documents or anything we had, the commission staff took care of that and made sure it was there. for me the policy was important and i really wanted to focus, i think it focuses on two important things. i really want to dispel the false narratives out there because we received hundreds of e-mails and you can tell from these e-mails that it appeared people didn't read the policy because the things they were concerned about on the e-mails didn't have anything to do with the policy. obviously it's important to address racial bias and the disparities in this city. it has been an issue, an important issue of mine since i joined this commission in 2018 and raised this issue with the report. it's been a continued

issue and we haven't had any success on making any impacts on the racial disparities of this city and this policy is a step in the right direction. just because this policy is here and doesn't mean the conversation ends because there are many more conversations including with respect to any revisions or anything with this policy that do need to happen. and will continue to. the second part is the fact that we are in a situation that we just don't have the staffing. we have a shortage of our department, and we hear articles and stories and complaints about the fact that our traffic division isn't able to meet their traffic enforcement goals, they aren't able to meet the vision zero goals and that traffic enforcement in this city is really non-existent. and this dg o does not in anyway

prohibit officers from pulling someone over who runs a red light, who runs a stoplight or creating unsafe driving conditions. this allows an officer to prioritize those offenses which is making people unsafe and which the community is complaining about and allowing them to do their job. the top complaints we get from ia and dpa specifically within the last probably six months to a year have been complaints regarding officers not investigating, not taking reports, and we are in a situation where if an officer, this policy when played out, if an officer is there and he see's someone running a red light and he also see's someone that doesn't have a front license plate, we as a community, what do we want the officer to do? mind you the officer has 10-15 calls in the queue that he still has to clear. do we want our

officers focusing on the person who ran a red light on do we want the officer to focus on the person that doesn't have a front license plate. to me i want him to focus on the person running the red light and placing danger and maybe causing a fatality. this allows officers to focus on those kinds of offenses that are creating unsafe conditions on our roads. because if they are not pulling people over for a broken taillight and they are focusing only on the traffic conditions and unsafe driving conditions, then i think we get to make progress. i think what's really important is what commissioner benedicto said which is we are open to making changes, we are opening to suggestions to say hey, if this doesn't work, what do we do. i think we have demonstrated that

throughout this process by responding to anyone and everyone who has reached out. there hasn't been someone who has reached out or sent us an email and asked to meet with them. we have said contact us, email us, go to the commission website. every person that did that, got a response. so, again, i want to thank our partners and the people that have really participated in this process. i really do appreciate your work. and with that, i'm going the turn it over to the next speaker in the queue. >> commissioner max carter-oberstone: thank you. i just want to say, commissioner you pointed out echoing the same talking points that we heard

earlier that there are only 27,000 stops in 2021. i'm not sure what that is supposed to show one way or the other, but i think as all of our presenters is that drop was due to the pandemic and doesn't say one thing or another about what our policy should look like. i think if anything our policy should work during normal times and prior to the pandemic, stops have been historically been below six figures in this department. with that, i wanted to make a motion to make some very small non-substantive amendments to the dgo and i want to thank janelle caywood and officer jones for catching some last minute miss. my motion is to make the following five

non-substantive amendments. >> you are making a motion to the amendment. >> yes. >> i should have read robert's rules of order for today. >> i think you can make an amendment to the motion and someone can second that. >> great. i will second commissioner benedicto's motion to adopt and confer and make the following amendment which will consist of five non-substantive changes to the dgo. the first is section 4 a 4, insert the words "that is" after the word vehicle. the second edit in the last

sentence strike the word "sun down" replace with the word quote darkness ". the third, strike the period at the end of the sentence, replace with a semi colon, space and the word for. >> and the first sentence, strike the word more and replace with less. the fifth and final edit section 6b, strike the s at the end of the capitalized word stops. >> i will second the amendment. >>

>> commissioner jesus yanez.. i'm also confused with where we are in the order. i'm not going to repeat. you have done a great job. the status quo is unacceptable. as a result of that, they have led the process of taking this feedback and conversation at the table and most of the conversations outside of these spaces as to inform these decisions for the policy. it's not a radical policy when you look at the fact that this is happening outside of the jurisdictions. the 22 california committee on the penal code that racial profiling have disturbing racial

disparities and for officers for things that have more to do with public safety issues. the commission recommended that these stops be removed. license, registration, five of the items that are on our policy and recommendation. so it's impossible for me to feel comfortable accepting the narrative that is out there in the community about this prescription drug epidemic created by pharmaceuticals that are leading to the challenges we are seeing in the communities in general in san francisco and to say those are the results of our policies, those are our efforts to reform and transform and hold people accountable to do their best job possible and to improve and raise the bar for how we do

our work in san francisco. i don't want to have this city start slipping down that road and further traumatize people and never provide resources to provide treatment first and foremost. we have a treatment on demand policy but we do not have treatment beds for those individuals that are out there suffering. and i don't want to see children walking to school having to walk around after these circumstances and these situations so it behooves us to better use our resources to focus and emphasize our efforts in the areas where we need more support around public safety. the numbers when i looked at the san francisco police department

dashboard and we are actually in a better place than we were five years ago when it comes to violent crime. the narrative in the community, the narrative in the media, it's hyping this city as if it's out of control and in reality the 22 numbers, sorry i have these weird glasses on that i'm getting used to. in 53,000 violent crimes. i'm sorry, there were 57 violent crimes. there has been a reduction in violent crimes with 500 fewer officers. if we were to emphasize the fewer officers that we have and have them work

on keeping our streets safe, i think we will make an impact on reducing those racial disparities that are continuing to disrupt the livelihoods of the black and brown communities. i thank you for the diligent work you put into this and i really believe we need to move forward to collect the data for the one thing that this policy will help us inform the direction that we want to take the department for better transparency and to hold our officers to a higher standard and to improve the outcomes of safety in san francisco for all. i will leave it with that. i do not want to walk away not stating that as a person of

color, as an immigrant, that story that i heard from someone at a previous meeting, a young lady who spoke out about being in the backseat of a vehicle while her father is being pulled over. i was in that situation many times. and the mistrust, the lack of confidence that it created in my outlook on the world when it comes to interfacing with the police department, this is probably which drove me into this work and why i'm on this commission. and i believe the chief has done this with his best intentions with the resources he had and especially during this covid pandemic. i believe it's time we move forward with policy and i don't see how we can preserve this status quo and feel good about it. i am comfortable

moving forward i think considering the language that has been introduced, the modifications that have been made. i thank you for your time. >> thank you, commissioner yanez. commissioner walker? >> thank you and again thank you for all the work done on this. i really recognize the changes that have come about in the conversations that we have all had together, that we've heard from the public. i know the chief had some input on the latest revision. a lot of the issues and i know that just in responding to some of the issues that i heard from the other commissioners about questioning data, even the presentation today it had very different

criteria in terms of what they are proposing and does not include violations and in a city and how structured much smaller. i'm concerned on the effect of solving other crimes but also concerned on the sharing of public space, traffic crashes, pedestrian death, and of which increased in san francisco. my concern about moving violations is regarding that. i still have those concerns. i would also like to hear from the chief if we could. i'm assuming that a lot of your input was included in this last version.

i do care about including the union representative and hearing from the officers and hearing from the command staff about how this is going to work. if we heard nothing else from this chief from fayeteville today, it was really important to bring the department along. we do this more effectively when we work together. we all have an interest and i know that i do and from people that don't support all of these included in here and really understand that we need to change our system to stop the racial bias and i heard the system is hurting people on a daily basis.

i appreciate the responses we have been getting and really appreciate sf mta and clarifying and president elias to look at the documents and look at and see data and change when necessary. it's got to work or there is no point in doing it. can i ask the chief to weigh in on sort of what his sense is of this version? >> he's in the queue. okay, i really appreciate the changes that have been made. i want to be able to work on this together to really move this along and not have it solved and not having this conversation two years from now. it would be nice to be doing something. thank

you. >> thank you, commissioner walker. >> chief scott? >> thank you very much. >> first of all, let me begin with this, and i'm going to not be long winded in this. i do want the public to know a little bit of history of how we got here. i'm not arguing with the data. we know that disparities are a real issues in this city and we have to address them. i want to start by thanking president elias for your leadership and congratulations on your appointment and vice-president carter oberstone for your leadership and the passion that you put into this work. the department started this conversation long before this actually got to the commission. i want everybody to understand that because we do

take this seriously. i have to give credit to where the credit is due. i think this moves faster with the commission oversight on it than it probably otherwise would have and i do appreciate that. i want everybody to understand the parts of this policy that i think are significant. i think are cutting edge in terms of what we are trying to do and also what i the chief of police agreed and what i didn't agree with and thank you for listening to some of the input and the recommendations that were offered to them by me. not all of them were accepted, but many of them were, or the gist of what they were were.

so let me break this down so it's clear to everybody. there is two components to this policy. there is pretext stop and the offenses that the data has shown through the research that really push us in the wrong direction with disparities. those are listed in this policy. i do have conversations and many in the media issues feel that this is inflated. i know that many in this department get it. we are agreeable to curtailing stops. i want to be clear, this is a change for policing. many of us particularly people like me who have been in this profession for half of my adult life, this is the way policing has been in my entire year.

pretext stop is a huge part of police station, but we are not interested in the status quo. this department led the discussion about pretext stops and i'm glad we have people in this commission and people supporting this part of the policy. the other part of the policy is ban offenses and there is an evolution and thank you for that. for those that have been in the workgroup meetings, the listening sessions i have had some issues with banningen enforcement of the vehicle section code. the ban has been from this policy and i do appreciate for me anyway and for many members of the our

department. there was language in here that if it were left up to me wouldn't be in here but i want to work with this commission because as you heard from this commission and from me, the officers who have to do this work matter, and we need to get the officers to understand this policy, to understand at a they can still do their jobs and understand why we are doing this and it matters. now, i see a lot of head shaking. for me, to get this organization to change, i have to work with the department and to this be sure that it is understandable. that is the

narrative that's out there and whether it's grounded in facts or data or not, it's the narrative that we all to have deal with. so with that, the modification in this policy has gone a long way. as said, it does not ban the vehicle code. it does limit. i have addressed commissioner walker's questions after this is posted in two sections. i asked for consideration that that be considered to be included because part of it is really focusing on the language of deprioritization of those low levels offenses that have caused the majority of our disparity problem and the wording

deprioritization, i would like to see in this policy in a more permanent way. the other part of the language is really spelling out that even though these violations that are in this policy of the traffic code violations that are limiting and there are still circumstances where officers can enforce the law, for example, the way the policy is written in the evolution of the language in this policy, if there is a more serious offense of a moving violation of running a red light and there is an unregistered vehicle, that is one of modifications that i appreciate in this policy. i would ask the commission to consider the language that i have offered since the posting of this before this policy is finally adopted.

and as a police officer, i believe that it is clear to me, and i think will be clear to our officers of what they can do, and also to make prominent in this policy that deprioritization means that we do need to focus on those moving violations that tend to cause crashes, fatalities and injury collisions and deprioritize some of these administrative violations that don't. i would like to see that in a more permanent way. the wording of deprioritization, i know it is in the policy. i would truly ask the commission to consider what i have offered in terms of the recommendation and is only in two sections and i know what the rules are on that but that is where i stand on this policy. and i want to also in addition to everybody, many people in this room who have on a uniform, they get it, they are not into

the the status quo and we do want to make progress on this issue. so that is my comments on this issue. >> thank you, chief. commissioner yanez. >> >> commissioner jesus yanez.. chief, where exactly are you advising the language, deprioritization language, where would that be helpful? >> section 907a. even if tweaked, i really ask if we would emphasize that deprioritization and emphasize what the officers are being asked to do not just what they are not allowed to do because that is important from a leadership perspective. it's important to get buy in as pointed out. section 9.07.04a.

>> so if an amendment was recommended to change the language added would it change this because i see the operator of a motorcycle solely based on more of the following -- does that sound amenable to you? >> what i offer was a paragraph of six sentences. it can be tweaked, but the gist of it is i really would urge that we make this about deprioritization and limiting those thoughts that are causing our disparity problems and again ban has been taken out and i really appreciate that and

thank you for doing that. that is my ask. >> i don't see an issue with the language. i don't know what the process would be to include it. i have another line or item that i would like to add also. i think in definition section c, reasonable suspicion. i would like to after the word specific, add the word articulate -- because i understand that will capture and convey to officers what the expectation is. that's my amendment based on this piece.

i will make a motion to amend articulate -- >> i would like to respond to what you said that nothing says that there is anything obscuring the labor laws. in organizing community and my intention is that in fact we strictly comply with the laws exactly as they have been written in cases the california with against this department. if you look at the letter, it details exactly how we can undergo this process

while complying with the law. we have great input there and a great city attorney and i'm confident that we will be on the right side of the law and if there is litigation that we are on the right side of the law. it is not anyone's intention to stray from the law but comply with them. to chief's comments, thank you for your comments. it's been very fruitful to being able to provide your revision and would like to continue working together. i think it might be open to look at some language. but i don't think anything about that should delay our vote tonight. i'm a big fan of saturday nightlife -- and

it's soon 11:30. it's time. nothing like this draft is just going to meet and confer, nothing in the commission rules or state law prevents us from updating the draft. if it turns out that we agree on language and we can go to that on a later date. >> in regard to the meet and confer, i'm sure the city

attorney will keep us on point. whether you bypass meet and confer, they will probably weigh in. i don't know because i am not a part of them. but working from the labor side, we always protect our members. regarding the deprioritization, allowing them to vote on those, that is my take. on the chinatown, we have over 300 organizations in chinatown. i know that signing on this is some of the non-profits. i don't

know if you know this, but their concern is public safety. i have met with them this monday and they have issues. they haven't heard about the pretext stop. i have asked them. chinese merchants citizens alliance. i

would like you to come to this meeting. i don't know that this has been passed. i'm just saying what's the timeline for this dgo to go through. the next question is the training involved for our members, how long would that take? if there is any other obstacle in the way and the final date. this policy, you are training 1200 officers thereabouts, more than that. i

guess the question is what is the end date and the policy changes. those are some of my concerns. >> commissioner cindy elias: thank you. i'm going to address this. i know you said at the december meeting you raised this concern with respect to these organizations the ones that you particularly deal with and frequent and go to their monthly meetings and a heavy participant in their organization. you had made raised the same concern of them being aware of this dgo. this is eight months in the making. did you show them the dgo because at the december 7th meeting we provided a red line

and current version of the dgo at that time. did you share the dgo with them? >> yes, i did. yes, i did. i asked them to come to this meeting. by the way, it was the christmas and new year's. i asked them about it and we met this sunday. and they want to know what they can do. if you ask 1/3 of the citizens of san francisco if you know anything about the pretext stop and so many merchants say why are we not enforcing the law? because the racial stops on the blacks

and we need to do somebody about that. let's reach out to the community. begin, january 2, 0678 >> i accept the invitation. i will be there. >> i know you will kevin benedicto. i raised it to some of them and they said, okay, let's do it, larry. we need to see the impact, what's going to happen to it. the business and residents. hopefully we all come together. that's the main thing of what i was all about asking for that. i guessworking together. as i said in a previous meeting, i asked to go to the boys and girls club

before and said on the commission meeting that i would attend. when i got there, i was told of the brown act. all that they could have done is larry, we have 3 commissioners and if you want to do more about it. >> we did do that, we laid out the rules prior to the working group being set up. additionally you had the opportunity to go to the listening session that commissioner walker took part of it it's a constant thing because the three of us are there establishing relationships and rapport and moving this policy along. we don't want to violate

the sunshine. we did update the working group and where we were in the progress and anytime we did changes to the dg o, we made the revision and talking to the chinese community in not being aware of what was happening. i think it's an unfair characterization to say the whole aapi community was not aware because as we saw there were several organizations within the aapi with the city not signed on to this that provided valuable feedback. we will go and talk to individuals. we also at every single meeting told people to call us, email us. send it to the commission staff. the people that did that,

that emailed us, contacted the commission staff, every single one of those people were answered and responded to. we have really been diligent in addressing and responding though every email. they are aware of this and once the dgo is finalized they will create other programs and will ask for a ninety day lead time so that they can get the training together and implement it. they are trained on the vehicle code and stops. so i'm not sure how much more training is going to be required but they are

definitely aware of it. okay. i'm going to turn to commissioner byrne. >> commissioner jim byrne: thank you, president elias. chief, if your amendment is added to the dgo, is it the position of the department that they are going to support it then? >> in summary, yes. so the answer is yes. >> yes, sorry, commissioner. i want to put some context into this. what i objected to was the ban list. as a police professional i had heart bun with that # from day one. and

this policy even as written allows for enforcement of those sections and it explains where that enforcement is allowable. i think that is significant, but i would like to see one other modification that i stated, and yes, definitely, i can get behind this. >> well me and the department. i can't speak for the 2,000 members of the department for how they feel about this, but as the leader of this department, i can get behind it and as a police officer, i believe that officers will have a better understanding of what they can and they can't do and what is also really important. >> it seems to me, with all due respect to michael's, i haven't

seen any of this language. i'm speaking for two other commissioners, we have not seen any of your proposed language yet. if the department or if the chief is behind the dgo, i mean, one of the most important things and i know the other commissioners have spoken about it, it's the necessity to educate both the department and all the citizens of san francisco, and people talk about misinformation and clearly there is misinformation out there. i think it's incumbent and to let this education go forward so there is less miss education. if the department is behind it, i

suggest you give us the language before friday so they can insert it so the entire public can read a dgo the department is behind and we can vote on that, as opposed to voting on something and then you are going to add the language and vote on it later. i have a second motion i would like to make after that and i don't know if anyone would second it but it would be nice to have the whole package so we know that we are voting on. >> there is already a motion on the floor. >> i will second that motion. >> hold on. there is already a motion on the floor. we'll deal with that motion before we deal with the

other motion. >> i have the language. >> look at you, multitasker. >> if we just include these two sentences at the beginning of 9.0704. limiting stops for low level offenses, a. deprioritizing certain categories of low level offenses and public and traffic safety issues and those violations that increase harm and traffic collision and except for as provided. those two sentences is what the point is to really set the tone rather than just go into the exception. deprioritizing certain

categories of low level offenses and those violations that increase the risk of harm and traffic collision. so that is the language that his current motion which i would second. >> vice-president carter oberstone? >> commissioner max carter-oberstone: thank you president elias. >> i said i had a second question. >> you were out of the queue. you made your motion. hold on. we let commissioner walker speak. the next person in the queue was vice-president carter oberstone. put your name in the queue and you can go after. >> okay. i think we should let the public in since they have been waiting the whole night. chief, thank

you for the information and this is a change in the department based on the talks. i want the public to know that we received the chief's language monday. we received the chief's language -- >> tuesday. >> so we received this yesterday. and state law requires us to post dgo's for ten days before we vote on them. while i should say i'm sympathetic to adding language that makes clear what this policy already does which is deprioritize certain steps, it is difficult to receive something like that the day before we are supposed to vote, especially given, we have had dozens of conversations during these meetings where it could

have been proposed. i don't think it's time to delay the policy because the email is sent before the vote. on the merits, i'm totally open to it. i agree, i think what the policy currently does which is deprioritize which is a nice way of describing it but i don't think it's the correct course the delay because there was also some other red lines that don't have to do with deprioritization and where you stand on those and the language provided and maybe there is some questions about how to taylor it and those conversations could be on going. i wouldn't support the vote to doing that. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. just for the record, there are more than the two sentences that commissioner walker read on the paragraph and other issues. >> the other language probably confused her like it did us.

>> it didn't confuse me but i wrote it. i didn't see that final draft until it was posted and there were some significant changes there from prior versions. so after it was posted, after president elias and i had the conversations was when i changed the language the next morning. i wanted to see some of that chronology because i did not see the changes until it was posted. >> we posted it december 28th. >> i understand that and there is significant reasons that i couldn't get it to you until the time that i did. >> fair enough. >> commissioner byrne? thank you, i apologize for the confusion. i remember i had two things. >> now is your turn. >> the second issue and i don't know because obviously i wasn't on the working group was given

the poa's position, why haven't we asked them publically to come to the meeting and let them talk in front of us? we are not frightened of them. let them come speak their mind. that's what democracy is all about so that we hear from them. publically, and at the same time we can ask them questions on working group. >> are you done? >> no. >> we'll go to the next queue. what's your third point >> >> my third point, i never got to see the email. i missed it. i have not seen any of what you have said. i think we should follow the rules ten day

posting. some post can wait eight more days after eight months considering we are getting buy in from the chief of police. >> most particularly if we are getting buy in. the idea is to bring as many san franciscans along with the policy. it is not to impose a policy on the significant group of san franciscans that for various reasons don't understand the policy or oppose it. the idea is to try to bring everybody along. i know that we are not going to be able to to do that. but we need to try. if the department even in the last moment is prepared to support the policy, post the policy, let's not do this stuff ad hoc. this is certainly in the top

five things or top two things since i have been on the commission that we have been confronted with. let us do it properly, let everybody see, let us try to convince more san franciscans of the merit of the policy. thank you. >> vice-president carter oberstone? >> commissioner max carter-oberstone: thank you, president elias, just two responses. the president of the poa attended all the working groups and she made many comments and participated actively in conversations and those are memorialized in the minutes. the poa's recommendations for specific recommendations for how to change the dgo are also memorialized on the website. if you are curious about the view,

there is memorialized in the situation. i appreciate commissioner byrne's maybe newfound view that we should wait to not have to red line anything live. it was just last meeting that commissioner byrne suggested that we red line dgo and that would have violated the establishment clause. this is something that this commission has routinely done and is appropriate here. finally while i appreciate the chief's comments i don't think the commission has the power to

change the dgo. this could have done with the major version. i'm hopeful that we can agree on this but it is not appropriate to delay this. >> to the poa's opinion, they were in the working group and received the comments and also

detailed in the record as well. i would also note commissioner byrne that you said if there is no opening on the police on board that we should take it. i don't disagree with you on that point. absolutely, if there is a way to get agreement on this position of language, i would be happy to update a draft that is to meet and confer. but after that justifies what is already publicly posted with the deadline with no other actor entity has the authority to delay it because of last minute comments. there is no reason with anyone sending their comments for the final version because we set a deadline and the requirements we set. i'm happy to discuss any prioritization language but i

think given the way the process works, it needs to be started so it can start and the negotiations can begin. i see no reason to delay on that account. >> commissioner cindy elias: i also understand that it's not fair. having that in mind, we set steps to include the commission that were unable to participate in the working group. we put it on the commission website and we included the matrix that had every person who participated in the working group, their recommendation. you had all of this material available to you to review prior to today. it's been agendaized several times before. it's not really fair to give a false representation that other commissioners beside the three of us haven't had an opportunity to review this dgo

as it's been a work in progress for the past eight months, on the commission website and provided in your packet every week to prepare for our weekly meetings. this information is provided and available to you for several months. with that point, commissioner byrne, you are in the queue. >> thank you. my request was to accommodate the sikh community. my understanding of 1st amendment law and mr. carter oberstone's understanding are different. with accommodating the sikh community with the public display would affect the 1st amendment as i understand it the accommodation is made but

reasonable minds can differ. i standby what i said as regards to the sikh community. icon -- i -- conceded now that it was inconsistent. it should be regarded to the poa's position and the people are watching and this crowd listening to have them come and defend their position publicly in the form where they can ask questions as opposed to the way it was done

before. this is the forum and the meeting and we need to discuss the merits of it and one way is to invite them in here and let them have at us and we have them. that's democracy and the way democracy works. with that, i yield. thank you. chief? >> the dgo presented had ban language in it and i disagreed with that language. the first dgo i saw where that language was removed was posted december 28th. i just want to clarify and clear up something to make it very clear. this is not the first time it has been

heard. when that language was removed it was a game changer in terms of me. i heard the comments of whatever was said. my first opportunity to see that significant change was when that was posted. it was already posted. yeah, i got it to the commissioners yesterday. i want to clarify that chronology because i don't think it is totally accurate because we have seen this language and the language was not like that months ago. it was like that 12 days ago. the bottom line on that so that i'm crystal clear, i'm not here to argue. this is a policy whether you accept the policy or not that i would like you to consider that i can stand behind. i'm not telling you that all the members of the department will agree with it, nor the public, but i do think

it addresses many of the concerns from people that i have on both sides on this issue and that's all i'm asking for. >> >> commissioner cindy elias: chief, you are correct, you told us, having the word ban is difficult, it's a problem and that's why we took it out. we have had several conversations before on the posting on the 27, we had a conversation with the four of us where you went line byline with us every concern you had of this policy. 95% of everything you raised, we made those adjustments and we added everything that you asked. we have done it, right? so i thin -- >> you have but i wanted to clarify. the ban language was not even an option for me to offer recommendations because it wasn't there until december 28th or taking out of that language. >> all right. at this point,

yes, i'm going to ask, there is two motions on the floor, one raised by commissioner benedicto and commissioner carter oberstone, and he is going to read that motion and vote on that motion. sorry, we'll do public comment and vote on that motion and at that time second motion on the floor raising by commissioner byrne. at this point, let's -- before commissioner byrne's motion to the current motion on floor. at this time commissioner benedicto will read the motion for clarity's sake, then public comment then a vote and then the

second motion. >> commissioner byrne, your motion was a motion to table this until we can receive the chief's language? or is your motion, i know after commissioner walker read it was to insert the chief's language? >> no, it's to table it. and i understand what you are saying if you vote to do it -- >> it would moot the motion. >> that's the motion, you seconded it commissioner walker to table from commissioner byrne. >> it was commissioner yee that seconded and commissioner walker made amendments to that motion. >> my motion with two friendly amendments is a motion to p send the dgo 9.07 to meet and confer with the bargaining units required by law with specific

instructions to direct the san francisco police department and department of human resources to not meet and confer with the management matters and to not subject under bargaining under california law, directs the san francisco department of human resources to set clear boundaries to the meet and confer process, to unreasonable delays on the forms with matters under the scope of representation, third, to the commission appoint and deputize janelle caywood, policy director at the department of police accountability as the subject matter expert and allow ms. caywood to attend bargaining sessions to provide subject matter expertise. in addition to this motion, i accept the amendment from cart oberstone to the five non-substantive changes to dg o 9.07 and accept the

changes by commissioner yanez to one change to 9.07. that is the first motion on the floor. >> commissioner cindy elias: thank you. there was a second. >> yes, that's my motion. >> okay. >> you already seconded it. at this time, we are going to turn to public comment. >> the members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 8, please approach the podium or press star 3. public speaker: good evening commissioners, director henderson, chief scott. my name is wes, senior policy manager for glide and with the coalition, also proud to have

been a member of the dgo working group and glide able to enter in a listening session. chief, we never received a response with our multiple requests to meet. we would have enjoyed the opportunity to engage. all analysis to stop data represents a bleak picture and for stopping and searching black and brown san franciscans especially when biking, driving and as a pedestrian. police violence is not a new phenomena in the black community and certainly not in san francisco where the need to reform is in the county last in the state for black residents. this can improve through the reforms put forth by this dgo. the routine use of the traffic code is a

pretext to stop and investigate and why we must pass concrete measures tonight and to refining the stops. san franciscans communities of color deserve to be free from unjustifiable police scrutiny and this dgo represents important steps for the department with best practices which have already been implemented across the country without adverse consequences. with that, i respectfully request your yes vote. thank you. >> public speaker: my name is

frank, we are not for bank pretext stops and moving violations. this continues to enforce these moving violations. having said that, i totally agree with chief scott and particularly on the deprioritization language. because we support removing certain provisions from the general order, but this should be done in this way rather than telling police not to enforce certain laws. that sends mixed signals. we have seen a lot of success.

the traffic enforcement has declined with stops and declines in traffic accidents in san francisco. you expect to reduce stops by another 10,000 while having only 18,000 stops per year. by the way, fayeteville has a higher stop rate than san francisco. we believe this policy means more crime, more crashes. again, i think the deprioritization would solve it. si se puede.

>> public speaker: good evening, my name is deputy public defender brian cox from the san francisco public defenders office asking you to pass dgo 907. i will read a couple quotes from the report and feel it's really instructive and academic to law enforcement officials and experts in the legal system. "research indicates reducing pretext stops will not have a negative impact on public safety and reducing crimes and utilizing valuable resources to public safety measures and often recover continue bands or weapons and model for the pretext stop policy. agencies policy should prescribe the stops and limit the discretion

officers have which will determine a public safety stop and the lecture evaluate that lead to more stops and significant outcome with little benefit to public safety and law enforcement policy should prohibit to searches unless there is articulable facts for probable cause and departments should prohibit asking for probable cause and this is not me but come from legal experts. they are begging you to pass this policy as written. this will not only put you on the wrong side of the board, but as commissioner carter job # --

said earlier on the other side. >> public speaker: hello, commissioners, i'm a resident of san francisco, district 8, mother of two kids and long time city employee. first of all i want to appreciate commissioner elias, yanez and benedicto for your very thoughtful comments. to chief scott, it's clear that you have read the legislation extensively and really appreciate the diligence that you bring to this difficult volunteer position that many of you are doing." i wanted to of course urge you all to pass this legislation today. i love this city, and i want to be able to tell my children that this city

prioritizes safety and equity for all san franciscans and them and their classmates of all backgrounds in san francisco. therefore this policy which is common sense evidence driven policy isn't as potentially far reaching as some of us want to see is a very reasonable way to make real change for our city. contrary to the misinformation, what this is about is ensuring that we have traffic safety measures that are not first in the country that are not radical. we are far behind many cities including a small city in north carolina when it comes to this issue. frankly it's far time that we in san francisco really take this issue on. the data is so clear. this is a way to make a change in the lives of our children and to make a change right now. as mentioned,

the state penal code revision committee, this is a governor -- >> to a point of clarification, commissioner walker reached out to community members. public speaker: good evening. i'm the director of homelessness programs. sfpd is not immune to is this national problem. they carry guns and batons and able to put people in jail. the

numbers talk. we have a problem. the judges looked at pretext stops and looked at data and presenting safety problems and thought fully con sensing the policy in front of you. the presentation at a recent police commission meeting made clear that the stops are key to this and the police enforcement policy and white drivers are less likely to be searched and found with contraband. the policy with sound is not to increase public safety. there is no safety for sleeping in vehicles while parked. there are however violations for sleeping

who are people of color and cannot pay for a ticket. a latino man, lived in an rv and couldn't paid and lost his rv and found him wet in the rain. the numbers speak for themselves. the only bad policy is public safety. >> public speaker: good evening commissioners, director henderson and chief scott. lena bender for glide to end bias stops representing over 100 organizations united in our goal to end pretext stops in san francisco and traffic stops are the most common way that people come in contact with law

enforcement. san francisco is over egregious in communities of color with pretext stops which lead to police misconduct and use of force and already banned in other jurisdictions. this must be clear. this jeopardize public safety and unnecessary force and violence and diminish the harm from racial profiling. this has been about the safety of our community. reducing these stops will not improve the danger. this makes rational informed decisions and already have similar effective policies. based on the data and stories related by the impacted community members, we need to

ban the stops that produce these results. racial disparities right now. the data could not be clear. the jurisdictions that have implemented this in all corners of the country and there are no adverse consequences. this includes minneapolis, philadelphia, washington d.c., nashville, fayeteville and others. we should proceed aggressively and this has led an impact on our community and have the support of the community and leadership. thank you. public speaker: good evening police commission, i'm with the san francisco bicycle coalition and also proud members of the coalition to end bias stops. for the last 18 months we have

worked closely with the end to bias stops because we have been able to promote the bicycle and everyday transformation by transforming our place and we believe we have the right to move freely. pretext stops are p racially and this behavior can be dangerous. in san francisco, no one has died from riding on the sidewalk, while many people have died biking on our streets. people ride on the sidewalk because our streets lack the

protective infrastructure to keep people safe and this is especially true in our black and brown neighborhoods. ending pretext stops will allow to prioritize limiting resources on dangerous driving behaviors, speeding, running red lights and stop signs and failing to yield to pedestrians. last year was our dead lear year of 23 fatalities only 23 stops were conducted. black and brown communities. >> good evening, my name is

william palmer, executive director of reentry organization. i'm on the san francisco counsel commission. i'm onto the sheriff's department board. san francisco justice coalition and editor and chief of the san francisco bayview black national award-winning newspaper. i was pulled over recently, and because i was on parole still after four years. that's another discussion. because i was on parole, they pulled me out of my car, handcuffed me and put me on a curve and went through my car with a fine tooth comb and said i'm sorry and let me have my car back and let me go on my way. for a person on parole, that is

trauma triggering and disrespectful. i am a survivor of contact with police. we have mentioned names of people who aren't, but when that police officer came to my car, he had his hand on his gun and with being on parole, that this could end badly for me. so curtailing these type of pretext stops for people who have never been on parole, never been incarcerated, never pulled someone over and want to delay this for another week or two, it's not that easy for us. if that were the case, i would pull someone over for having their blinker on too long.

public speaker: i would like to appreciate commissioner carter, benedicto, elias for working with us. i'm excited and proud that san francisco is poised to pass a strong policy, the most comprehensive in the country that will serve as a model for other jurisdictions concerned about documented evidence of racial bias and traffic stops. prior to this i was an attorney to the so-called mainstream organization. when daly city police pulled someone over to conduct a fishing expedition and angry that he didn't understand

because he was english proficient and handed him to ice and a lady for driving her baby home. these are experiences of ad hoc community members including api community members. a traffic stop can mean more and lead to humiliation and death. for the commissioners, i recommend that you read the dgo and to engage the community, i suggest you do that outreach yourself. i ask for a unanimous vote tonight. >> a public speaker: good evening,

my name is joe, the director of the justice program of the aclu of northern california and its 11,000 members urge you and in strong support of dgo 907 and respectfully ask for your aye vote. this would update the san francisco police department traffic enforcement policy to limit the use of pretext stops, prohibit consent searches for traffic stops and reporting requirements. for those of you who don't know, the genesis of the aclu's founding was the strike of san francisco when workers were viciously attacked by the san francisco police department and two were killed and organizers and attorneys were called on to

support these workers. since that time, the aclu has been asked to hold the state accountable for the community that the serves. on pretext stops, the data is overwhelming and we have been engaging in this process for a year 1/2 and every data out there show how racist this pretext stops are and the sf police department is twice times more likely to use force on black people than white people using these stops that we talked about. there is a wrong and right side of this issue on the history. whether the history books are written, we ask that you not be traders to justice

masquerading. >> public speaker: hi, good evening. i live in district 7 and work in district 6 in anti-initiative. i ask that you end these stops. officers killed at least 400 drivers and passengers who are not under pursuit for a violent crime. many of these stops started with a common traffic violation. black drivers are over represented among those that are killed because of these stops

are racist and they have been stopped because they have broken tail lights. passing this policy means people will be safer and fewer interactions with the police. passing this policy, people don't have to deal with trauma from the police and to end bias pretext stops north dakota -- in order to make the city safer. thank you. public speaker: congratulations president elias and

vice-president carter object # -- oberstone. i demand that you end the pretext stops. as a white mom named karen, i am very conscious of the way police officers racially profile me. when i get pulled over officers assume i'm harmless and innocent based on my car and my skin. perhaps subject consciously, they treat me with the utmost respect and courtesy to fulfill my expectations of police officers to continue to support police officers and the status quo and not believe my neighbors stories

of terrifying encounters with police. they generally don't ask me for my license and registration. they say, get that taillight fixed. as the neighbors stories are conveyed, that is not how people are treated. i'm a bias trainer and everyday i teach people about biases to eliminate them. i know for sure that people who want to can change, what i saw firsthand on the bias workgroup and what my friend dante king experienced when teaching antibias at the sfpd academy and the change that sf p.d. is and why we must change the policy. >> hello commissioners, my name

is rodrigo gomez. i support the working group that impacts people every week at our location in the mission. it is sad when most of the people in the group have a shared trauma affected by police and fear of law enforcement. participants in my group speak of being detained and contents of their car emptied out on the street. i have personally been stopped by the police for wearing too much red. thank you, please pass this policy. spoke >> public speaker: hello

commissioners. the non-profit penalty. please pass this policy. we work with criminal legal sentencing and the use of stops are often the point of entry to an endless cycle to increase contact. the policy will not result in more crime and not an issue of having to choose a side. people getting pulled over for being black or brown are not on the other side of wanting to be saved for kids. we are the same people, and this ad hoc is offensive and participating in this process. i'm going to be short because we need to get this time. stop wasting your time. pass this policy. thank you.

>> hello, i'm with the community member working at market and 7th. so, i'm just here to support the adoption of this policy. while i am loathe to explain why this benefits people who don't care about black and brown people, this does benefit everyone, white people, asian people, everyone. any encounter with the police can escalate something worse than a traffic stop. this is beneficial for everyone. it's most beneficial to black and brown people because they are the ones discriminated against and this is a great policy for everyone. also being a cop is a job. they get paid, etc. and the job description will protect police

too. i hope that police officers are traumatized by shooting innocent people and appreciate that this policy would reduce and counter that would unnecessarily escalate to violent situations. police officers will have lessen counters to accidentally intentionally, i don't know, that's another debate to harm other people violently and they should appreciate that proceedings for them as well. i do also appreciate that sleeping in your car is being deprioritized or banned, whatever language you are using. i see the in justices daily of being poor and we need to stop criminalizing being poor. and lgbtqia people have been

harassed by police. and this is not safe for black and brown people. public speaker: hello president elias, commissioners, chief scott, i'm with the public defenders office and the coalition. optimistic that you will approve the policy today. my colleagues have spoken about the many reasons that this is a good policy that should be enacted and a lot of the comments sent and asking the p.d. to not send it and to the police officers association. the letter in case of the escaped notice for those who have not read it is a fundamental policy decision that does not have an impact on policy decisions. this worked on the community to the

typically secret meet and greet process and called it an historic day. this is transparency and multiple sources of input from community and feedback sessions. i hope this policy passes tonight. if it does go to meet and confer, this will continue and put into effect and put san francisco to these stops. thank you. >> public speaker: good evening, commissioner, i'm from the bar association and three of us here tonight including the bar president. we have been at this a long time with this police department since before any of you were commissioners and since prior to chief scott coming into his position. we have worked with you, there is a reason we

have a ripa report and the reason the department of justice has become involved. i should remind you commissioners that because the department of justice came involved is this department didn't get into trouble all on their own. there was a police commissioner watching them and a lot of rules have changed and since that time we have evolved with this police department. i see how hard this police department has worked. how many dgo's have been enacted and takes a huge community effort, a huge effort by the police department. what i most respect this evening chief is thank you for shining a light on the fact that pretext stops are part of what police do. it's part of policing. it's part of culture, but what we have learned over time is that they

lead to abuse and no one is talking about the racial justice act which took effect last year. you do not need to prove intentional discrimination. i'm part with the state of lawyers across the state of california, every week we are talking about the traffic stops and the racial justice act. if you are worried about lawsuits, we are going to find ourselves at the other end of lawsuits if we do not pass this and do not take action. i really respect this commission for doing its work. i have seen the revolution and you have come a long way. public speaker: good evening. i want to talk about the meet and confer because that's an issue near and dear to the bar

association. meet and confer slows down reforms, use of force, many of the important policies that the commission has tried to reform over the years. i wanted to say in response to some of the commentary during the meeting, the poa has every opportunity to contribute like every other public group. what we are asking for is that they have not more or less that the law demands but what this law requires. historically this poa has abused that process and taken greater step. that's the reality. i want to commend you for making changes, these are structural changes. the bar association has asked for greater transparency, more hygiene and limitation and on what is met and conferred over and i want to commend the commission for adding janelle caywood to the bargaining team.

i think is great to have someone from dpa or other agencies when these issues are negotiated. i also want to say please read the letter. this is not a policy that triggers bargaining rights. in fact the most important california supreme court case is on point called claremont address to recording data regarding traffic stops and race and concludes that meet and confer is not appropriate. i want to encourage the commission to keep taking these steps on future dgo's and we need greater transparency and bargaining needs and setting the limit on where meet and confer goes. thank you. public speaker: hello, i'm the

president of the bar of the san francisco. on behalf of the bar in san francisco, i'm in support of dgo. we are not neutral about effective policing and safety. we care deeply about this community. the persistence of racial disparity in pretext stops is discouraged on our city. as outlined in our memo, much of the policy is not subject to collective bargaining agreement it's not skirting the law but following the law. we know this will not change the surge on disparities, but it's a start. we thank this commission and the chief for your attention to this important issue. this is how it begins.

>> thank you. it was really thoughtful and informative and i really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> public speaker: hi, i would like to thank you, president elias and commissioners. what's going on today is such an important day. i want to speak to the political will taking place today. i'm a law school student, resident of los angeles. but i didn't think that these kind of things happened in san francisco. i thought it was a bastion for not such a

leftist, more of a progressive area but i have been sadly disappoint that it's worse in los angeles. how can that be? as a proud supporter of the coalition, it's been my duty to just support brown people. i look nice right now, we all have suits, but when i'm not, they think i'm just some mexican kid. i have been stopped and i have to explain to them, i'm in law school. i could teach you the constitution probably than you just learned it in six months. with all due respect, i want to thank everybody for the political will. i think that's important to highlight, and pass

dgo 9.07. thank you very much. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. public speaker: hi, i'm a san francisco. i would lying to thank this commission for supporting this. i am not white and i support pretext stops however it's not protecting public safety. there was a kidnap because the police were able to view the license plates for the kidnapers. how can you capture those that do home invasions if you are unable to view the license plates of the vehicles involved. this is san francisco 2023. we have not

reached vision zero, can you sensor them going forward. i don't understand why you want to vote before meeting with the chinese community as suggested by commissioner yee on january 20th. they represent this community. meet with the chinese community before the vote. thank you. >> public speaker: i am kelly, i live in district 9. to stop harm relations and far too often cars already circle law enforcement

causing more unnecessary force and violence. it's really important that we curtail pretext stops. i appreciate all the work that the three of you commissioners have done on this d go. dgo and it was good to hear from the chief of north carolina. it sounds hopeful. the leadership of the police department is so significant in order for the success of the

pretext stops dgo. in order for it to continue. in order for it to initiate and continue on. i urge you to curtail pretext stops, thank you. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> good evening commissioners, my name is nick, a staff member with walk san francisco. walk san francisco as part of the coalition to end biased stops strongly supports the proposed policy changes now. right now across the city people of the community especially people of color are at risk because of driving. speeders, running the red light and stop signs are the five most dangerous driving

behaviors that are killing and severely injuring people. 37 people were killed in traffic crashes last year and 100 more left with lifetime injuries and trauma. right now the traffic enforcement needs to focus on the most dangerous driving behaviors. back in 2014, the sf police department committed to ended 0 crashes and this will help the sf p.d. better fulfill the role in public safety and also racial bias. >> hello, i'm the senior coordinator and support for justice and support life foundation. i want to thank the

commission for taking this up for a vote. we have been waiting for about a year 1/2. we are very much concerned about these pretext stops and the data and experience that the black and brown san francisco show that police officers are continuing to stop and use of force to stop black and brown people for those that are higher in most other cities. in 2018, the sf p.d. have stopped black people two times the rate of white people and searched three times the rate of white people. we know the statistics have shown that nationally police officers have killed 400 unarmed drivers and passengers who are not under pursuit of a violent crime. in a pretext stop and far too often

cause those fearful of laws causing unnecessary force and violence. we urge you to pass this. thank you. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> public speaker: hello, police commission, my name is javier, and i live in district 10. i am a human rights organizer with the coalition on homelessness and also a member of the coalition to end bias stops. i support this policy and pretext stops because it doesn't help with the reduction of criminal activity and do little to help with public safety. the chance that pretext stops provide are

subject to bias. it's not a matter of which training coalition and what new officers they hire, we just need to remove officer discretion from the point of harm. to the police commission should adopt a dgo focused on public safety and not these unnecessary and damaging pros. racial profiling must be aggressively addressed so people impacted by biased policing support you in a strong policy. thank you, good night. >> >> hello, my name is david, a resident of san francisco. tonight i'm speaking on behalf of myself. i would like to say that i personally support this

dgo being adopted and for the commissioners that like to speak about how bias is a problem and pretext stops are bad, have the courage to do something bit. while this may not be a perfect policy and watered down from what it was originally, we need to take steps in the direction of doing something about it. please have the courage to do something about it. i hear a lot about public safety and public health. the pretext stops have an impact on black and brown communities with regard to public safety and public health. we need to consider this rather than tinted windows and broken lights. the data tells us that

limiting these with people in the black and brown communities will improve the health and safety and well-being of all, particularly those in the black and brown communities. i would like to call out a couple other things. first of all, commissioner yee seemed to think that i guess the non-profit asian community has not been engaged. that's not true. in the first meeting, i addressed the chamber of commerce. a member of the asian police officers association was part of the working group. the working group had more police officers than community members on it. finally one thing i would like to say, and chief said that 95% said that what was adopted in the policy to characterize. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> this is gene bridges led by

felicia jones. at the december 14th commission meeting, commenters and general public comment were prevented from speaking on racial profiling by sfpd by non-matters and told to comment later on the agenda and pulled the item from the agenda entirely and comment never happened. tonight public comment happened and the agenda changed last minute again. we have participated in every step of this process for pretext stops. we demanded the routine stops by police in the middle of 2021. many months before the commission process began. encourage dgo 907 is strict of any emphasis on bias even in the purpose section now. city officials need to know that this is about the treatment for black san franciscans which has gone on for many generations. a black

san franciscans is more than likely to be stopped than any other resident. this is well over the quote of the representation and sfpd know about this. the end of pretext stops by police is not ground breaking as has been suggested previously. there are numerous suggestions as suggested from other areas and beyond. this is behind in the state and producing something that is not meaningful including policy change including racial equity in san francisco. keep this justice and improve

racial equity. >> good evening, i'm a resident of district 3. i just have an ambiguity comment and some problem with how the language reads. i have been an attorney for over 35 years. this deals with the -- i don't know if this is resolved by the addendum that was proposed when that language was marched through to be able to keep notes and whether there was sufficient changes to resolve this ambiguity. the first sentence says that a member cannot stop the vehicle that is going on for more than one year but can stop vehicles

with registration with expired for more than a year. they have been resolved with the addendum. that was not publicly provided and making a substantive change. i think a revised version and looking at the police version and the updated language needs to be provided today public to ensure that there aren't any other impacts with the addendum. thank you very much for your dedication to service in the city. >> >> good evening commissioners, chief scott. san francisco base legal and civil rights organization that serves low-income and asian americans. this policy has been a long time coming and we appreciate the

workgroup engaging the broad communities and organizations. we urge the police commission to pass this tonight and >> briefly it is rooted in our own history to be racially targeted by police and humiliating intrusions that the proposed dgo prohibits shares many harassments and leads others to san francisco aids the

organizations in the 1960s and 70s. 50 years ago the first major case challenge the practice of the sweeps through chinatown. so our support is based on knowledge and in solidarity with other communities of color. we urge your aye vote tonight. thank you. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> good evening, i live in san francisco's district 9 in the mission. i'm calling today as a youth in san francisco requesting that you please adopt the policy to reduce traffic stops in san francisco. unfortunately san francisco mirrors the nation of stopping

people of color and into the criminal justice system to be disproportionately harm. furthermore especially impacted to stops straining the relationship between them and law enforcement. their voices should be validated. lastly as i wrote in the resolution no. 22-23 al 05 titled limit pretext stops, i urge you as the police commission revise the order 907 which discuss traffic enforcement to ensure traffic policies limit pretext stops and not racially biased. simply put racial bias caused by biased policing must be addressed to be sure that no one else is negatively impacted in the future. i hope this policy is

passed tonight. thank you. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. public speaker: thank you. i live in san francisco and i would like to end this bias and i have been negatively impacted by pretext stops. i can tell you how harmful that is this black and brown communities. one day i was driving and the officer pulled me over because my windows were heavily tinted and started to ask me questions such as i'm on probation and do i have a boyfriend and if he was a criminal and if i was a criminal as well and how often do i

commit crimes in my car. he then searched my car because i was on probation at the time and he found something that i use to protect myself. this led to an officer using excessive force with me and being detained. i lost my job, my car and wasn't able to finish my semester. in summary, i asked to please adopt a policy to end pretext stops because racial profiling and the generational harm caused by policing must be addressed. with that, i respectfully ask for your aye vote. thank you and good evening. >> good evening call you are, you have two minutes. >> i'm a fifth generation san franciscans and work with the public defenders office. the negotiation while driving while

black is a joke in the american culture for as long as i can remember. there is no excuse in this commission which has been over seeing this police department to change the harmful practice that we can all agree needs change. with this dgo, we have a chance to dispel further cynicism related to san francisco governing bodies and police who have the notoriety for accomplishing a little. and i thank the police commission for working on this. all the commissioners seated in this body tonight have the opportunity to do something pivotal for public safety, racial justice and good governance. this dgo checks all the boxes and supported by mountains of data, supported by widespread community stakeholders. it doesn't sacrifice road safety as it does

surmount police. it does provide police to attend to the matters that they say they the staff and resources to do. and finally, move our country in the future where everyone is respected. if you vote no or wishful thinking that we can solve all the problems and can't accept these modest changes now, you are voting to embolden and enforce the power of these to affect the black and brown people of our community. respectfully, i ask that you vote and use your moral compass to please vote yes. >> good evening commissioners and chief scott, i appreciate the time and attention that has

been paid to this. i really appreciate some of the earlier conversations, the concept of deprioritizing is a good one and can accomplish a lot of goals. i also agree with the proposal put forth by the police to make some edits. i think we all are opposed to racial and motivated stops. i think this dgo however is problematic in that it may address that, but it also essentially prohibits the police from enforcing laws. and i believe this will result in the public safety because it removes essential traffic control measures and prohibits enforcement of laws requiring signaling when turning or

changing lanes which has actually been a major factor in traffic accidents. i think this will result in increased traffic accidents, more shootings, more crime. i also note that some good suggestions have been made recently and should have been made earlier. my personal point of view if someone were to --

>> public speaker: we urge you to adopt the strongest version of this policy as black residents are over represented and traffic stops are a key driver of disparities in searches and enforcement and use of force. if we are serious about equity and transforming the relationships with police, we have to stop these violations against black san franciscans. nothing in this policy will impact the sfpd to focus on the -- cities goals. people of color have formants on this. our streets are safer with police and not sloping -- stopping

people. -- working to determine that traffic stops and with this vote to present -- pretext stops in san francisco and racial disparities. >> public speaker: good evening, i'm a d 7 resident. calling to support the adoption to end pretextual stops. additionally policing is enforcing the racist status quo.

this is systemic racism. this is not simply the result of the pandemic. traffic has returning near normal level. enforcement continues and no less racially biased. only 20% stops and enforcement focused on the five most dangerous driving violations and equity priority communities. this is a form of racism and putting higher risk at death while driving. pretextual stops is not only

enforcement and will not stop sfpd racial biased problems and will remove one avenue where such bias is addressed and will not harm safety over the roads. public speaker: good evening, members of the community. we believe that access is the fundamental right for all. we realize there are instances of being in fear of being stopped by the police. it is our goal to continue to support our black,

brown and indigenous communities who are most affected by helping to spread in the most equitable way and lifting the voice of the communities who are most affected by traffic stops and this leads to mistrust by the pleasant in communities and to not be afraid. further more, parents driving their children to school could be less stressed because parents do not have to be worried about being stopped and children are not subjected to this experience of being stopped.

>> hi, it is really surprising to hear that this commissioner didn't bring earlier to the meeting to read this information to them to include them in this process. as a san franciscans this is disturbing and to hear you are just learning about this now. it is up to you to educate them and bring us altogether. i'm in favor of dgo 907 but most important, please do not use this to divide this community. it is your responsibility to bring us together, it is your responsibility to let them know of these types of meetings. i want to thank you all for your work. i was raised in chinatown

and want all of our communities to work together. please do not keep dividing us by not giving information to them. thank you. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> i live in district 6. you all failed to thank and list the people who worked on this. you have allowed the current draft of the dgo to down side this and the purpose is to reduce and prevent racially biased policing. the first sentence of the original version read, the goal of this general order is to reduce racial bias in the enforcement of our traffic laws. now the first sentence reads, the san franciscan police department traffic enforcement

effort to ensure the safety of our sidewalks and roadways, the word bias doesn't appear anywhere in the section. the purpose and impact of being undermined by the outside involvement -- that police and the public feedback group and the police are not the public and chief said, police officers who uphold any policy. and every turn to this policy change including the mobilization of people to speak against the dgo like spreading inaccurate and a long list of information and criminal acts and against asian americans. things be that have nothing to do with pretext

stops. the goal the stops of racial profiling of black people and to put the breaks on biased policing. thank you. >> i'm a resident of district 9. i wanted to ask what was said about how it is important to pass this policy. when police are doing pretext stops, that means that they are not focused on enforcing the violations that

are the most dangerous. i think another good reason to pass this policy is thatten enforcement should be focused on -- >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> i'm calling because i support strong racial equity. this includes -- pretext stops. and could be properly understood. this is very confusing to understand the agenda and as a constituent this

is a bait and switch. the fact that you are comparing, the north carolina is a completely different demographic make-up from san francisco. i don't own a car. i walk most places. deprioritization does not mean disregard the law altogether. i support pretext stops. >> that is the end of public comment. >> thank you. your proposed

language doesn't change the dgo but rather provides wording on how to enforce? >> correct. >> all right. that's the only clarification i needed. go ahead sergeant. >> >> the vote on 8. on the motion. >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call]

>> there are 4 yeses. [ cheers and applause ] >> the motion is moot. i ask that the chief's language be on the agenda to be added to next week's, next meeting of the commission. if i remember commissioner comments during that indicated a willingness to consider that. so, i make the motion that the chief's language which i haven't seen yet

completely changed and not proposed to show. i know i speak for myself and the other commissioners that are in opposition to pretextual stops and i want to come up with a solution that can bring as many san franciscans along as possible and if that can bring the police department along, i think it's important for the commission as a whole to hear that and it's important to bring as many san franciscans along as we can. thank you for your courtesy. that will be on the website and get to each commissioner the following week because we have several agenda items. that's

what we can do. yeah, as i said i want to make it clear, my vote is based on what was in front of us tonight. not that i want a solution to this problem but to bring along as many san franciscans as possible. >> thanks. >> next item? >> closed session closed session roll call; a. personnel exception . pursuant to government code section 54957(b)(1) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10(b) and penal code section 832.7: assignment of a commissioner for

i voting to into closed session.