>> i pledge allegiance to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> vice president oberstone would you like to take roll. >> please. >> clerk: commissionr walker. >> here. >> commissioner benedicto. >> here. >> commissioner byrne. >> here. >> commissioner lee, is under way. acting treker diana from police accountability. >> could you please call the first item. >> line item 1, weekly officer presentation. officer officer declan flaner'.

>> good evening, commissioners, chief scott and members and everyone here today. i want to present you the recipient of the officer certificate who has gone above and beyond officer declan flanery, he joined at richmond and stations. become a field training officer and transferred to park station where he serves to this very day. officer flanery has a out stantding officer and has a keen eye to address crime, disorder and build community. he is known for and wildly successful at deterring criminal activity and being a friend and advocate for residents, merchants and

tourist. provides a steady and positive influence and inspires everybody, officers of all tenure nz this organization. a resent press release, announcing a child molester and child pornographer, now facing 30 years in prison. the investigation began after the subject and his minor victim were stopped in july 2019. officers learned that the passenger in the car was a minor and observed work. from just two weeks ago, flannery quick thinking helped to apprehend the suspect. he seems to be at the right place at the right time. and that's no accident, we met

with mono lingual of the building affected by that resent homicide today that impacted them and the appi community. they communicated to us how afraid they were and continue to be that the suspect will return and prey upon them. thanks to you officer flannery, that is not going happen. he has been recognized for his work countless times within the organization and communities he serves including the lyons club and memorial officer of the year. now it is fitting that he be honored by all of you, the honorable police commission. this is declan flannery. [applause] congratulations, officer. thank you for your service. appreciate it. >> officer would you like to

say a few words? >> speaker: i don't do this by myself, i do this with all the officers for the great leadership that chief provided for us. thank you. [applause] >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment, please approach the podium. >> speaker: don't start the clock, i want to put my sign down first. i would like to show this entire, i'm going to zoom out. okay, i'm ready to speak.

hi i'm michael betrelis, what we see is the creation of propaganda. we need to have equal time, they're disrupting this meeting creating their cop propaganda. i'm showing here an image of an man that a stacked me in july of 2021, the sf police department did not issue an alert that says if you know this man, please contact them. so i want to show you something that should be shown every week, and that's unsolved cases. if you're going to put time aside for creating propaganda, i want an equal amount of time set aside for unsolved crimes.

there needs to be use of your time your time at the beginning of the meetings of folks such as ms. brown who's son was murdered, that the information she presents, should be given equal time. seeing if anyone knows information to contact the police department. i know you're going to continue with this creation of propaganda at the start of every meeting. i'm saying give us equal time, give us police accountability activist equal time. it's really the only decent thing to do. and i also have to say that you need to start taking remote public comment. there are many people who cannot come to these meetings who should be allowed to dial in on the telephone to comment. thank you.

>> president carter that's the end of public comment. >> next item please. >> at this time, under police commission rules of record, nor are required to respond to questions by the public but may provoid a brief response. you may submit public comment in either of the ways. written comments may be sent to postal building located at third street. if you would like to make public comment, please approach the podium. >> speaker: i don't want to take too much of your time,

you're busy, you have a lot of items. i would like to say, i'm at many board meetings today, i'm trying to understand what is going on with our city? what is going on with our city? so, you know, this is the police commission, i want you to look at this. this is sort of a criminal, behavior going on. there is a criminal going, that is somebody here in the city and it basically trying to pretty much handcuff me. they all say, i'm coming today and i'm coming tomorrow. they're all around you. they're making a lot of noises, recently they're a lot of demonic noises. there was a guy that burped after i tweet that i made.

that's connected, it's, is i'm wondering who are these people. i'm being held criminally, if i cannot live, i cannot walk, i can't function. that you're basically being held in a criminal capacity, that's not legal the legal. all of lawyers, like arrrrr. why is this happening, in the third grade, ifls at william cop, he said i brought a hypodermic needle to school, i've had the cooties since then, nobody wanted to be my friend. here we are 30 years later, i'm in front of the police commission, asking. thanks.

>> speaker: hi michael patrel once again. i'm here at the microphone again to say that we really need to have remote public comment. you see behind me many empty seats. that is a shameful blot on your policy of not taking remote public comment. because people will have many reasons to resist coming here to city hall. i think that, the way you ended public comment because the emergency declaration by the state about, covid, the epidemic phase and we're entering endemic phase, that's not reason enough to silence the voices of the many who can't come here and would call in. i am disappointed that the

murderer of, banko brown at walgreens at the end of april is not on your agenda. the investigation that the sfpd conducted about the murder of banko brown should be agendized. you should give us transparency about the investigation. how was it done? how did they reach their conclusions? when were the conclusion transmitted. i think that eventually will put the murder of banka brown of agenda and at that time, i would like you to put on your phone lines so that people can call in and give their comments. lastly, i want to thank max carter oberstone for last week,

raising an issue in an accountable way about the murder. thank you commissioner. >> speaker: good evening, everyone, i would like to use the overhead. i'm here again for my son aubrey, 17-year-old boy murdered in the street of san francisco. and i'm now his only voice for the last 17 years, what will be 17 years august 14th. i bring these names of the persons, these names are down at 85 in the homicide room of all the people that murdered my child that was there, hannibal tomas, paris, andrew, jason

tomas, abne hunter, marcus carter. one of them is deceased and it may be the marcus the last one. but you have all the names of the perpetrator who murdered my child. why isn't my case solved? we brought up about money being paid out for our children so that we can, so the cases get solved. they said they were going to hire people to at least talk to any tipsters that give information, that can help us with our cases. what do we do? sometimes i just don't know what to say when i come down here, that's why i talk with my pictures, that is what i'm left with. my son's case number, i'm

sorry, his case number is 060862038. anyone can call in and reference that case number to talk about if anything about my son. and not just my son, there is other mother and fathers out here. again, please let the mothers call in. they're going through mental issues, they cannot come down here. >> for any members of the public that has information on the murder of aubrey casa, you can call the tip hotline. is there any other public comment, please approach the podium. vice president carter-oberstone, there is no other comment. >> next item. >> line number 4, consent and file.

first quarter protocol report. dp a 1421 report. >> can i get a motion. >> motion to receive and file. >> second. >> members of the public that would like to make public comment online item 3, please approach the podium. >> speaker: hi michael batrelo again, i see here for item 3, that you are providing a monthly update on the status of public records act request. and i'm not sure where this information is.

i'm very interested about your monthly request for records. how much were made? were the requests for digital information,? what were people asking for? i want to know how long it took to process the requests. i want to know if the requesters were satisfied with the time it took to process the requests. and if they were satisfied or not with what was released. rilting to all of this is, a outstanding complaint i have against next request. i do not like that that the police department uses this third party processors. their cumbersome process for using their site to submit the

requests, eventually getting a response and then production of records t can turn into such a hassle for me that i have to call your public affairs to get help, to navigate the next request. i think that in addition to next request, you make it easy for members of the public to use a simple email account to the public affairs department that will process the request without jumping through all the hoops of next request. thank you. >> there is no further comment on the motion, commissioner walker? >> yes. >> commissioner benedicto. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner byrne. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner yee. >> yes. >> clerk: vice president carter-oberstone? >> yes.

>> clerk: you have six yeses. >> next line item please, sergeant. >> chief report discussion, will be limited to whether to calendar on a future meeting. chief scott. >> thank you, sergeant young blood, oberstone, commission and the public. okay, i'm going to start off as usual with general crime trends. overall, the department, the city were down 7% on part 1 or serious crimes and that includes the violence and crimes, that's almost 2000 crime decrease in this time last year. the break down between violence and property, is difference about 90, less than 90 crimes.

i'm sorry, up, just less than 90 crimes and violent crime and we're down about 1400 in property crime. one of the biggest category is deaths, that's been for quite sometime and we're down almost 8% which is about thousand fewer. however there is still a lot of work to be done in both of these areas. in terms of homicides, 25% increase here to date. we have 20 compared to this time last year and in terms of homicides with firearms, rup 4. our shootings or shooting victims were down 7% which is only 4, 61 last year, 57 this year, our total gun victims overall, it's a flat from this time last year. in terms of weapon seizure were above from last year, compared

to 344, and 39 were ghost guns. and there was a homicide that occured may 12, at third and blue in the bay view district. on that day, the approximately 3:53 officers respond today third traoet and blue regarding a shoot and located a victim suffering from gunshot wounds. the victim sub combed to his injuries later in the hospital. we do have video evidence that captured around the scene and our investigation is on going, no arrests have been made at this point. there were three shootings, one is 5th on may 11 between 1:00 and 2:00 am. the victim went to the hospital as a result of a traffic collision. in that incident, the victim

was driving a stolen vehicle when the vehicle crashed. at the hospital the victim after waking up from sedation said there were gunshots. he told the officers that he ran out of began and while walking back to his vehicle, he encountered a vehicle and recognized the passenger. the victim was continued to walk where he was shot by the suspect. that investigation is on going. the second shooting was on may 11, at 11:30 at palao and rank in, officers responded to the hospital regarding a shooting victim. the person did not provide information as to where he was shot. officers then contacted a friend of the victim. but did not disclose any other details.

that investigation is on going including trying to determine where this occured. no arrests at this point. the third and last shooting was may 11, at 3:06 in the bay view. officers respond today a shot fired when dispatch notified the victim of a shooting, that victim ran into a store. the witness told officers that he was making a deliver when the victim came toup him and asked him what he was doing. when the witness told him to leave, another person was involved with that suspect. that person, that subject rather pulled out a gun and shot the victim who then ran into the store. no arrests have been made but we do have follow-up investigation and that investigation is on going at this point. last few things, critical incident that occured on may 13 1900 block bay view.

suspect and the victim were neighbors, suspect followed the victim into the victim's house. the two got into a struggle where the suspect pushed a three-year-old child. the suspect threatened to kill everyone in the house. the victim pushed him outside and closed the door. the suspect went back into the resident examine refuse today exit when the officers arrived. a critical incident was declared with tactical team and hostage negotiators responding. following a tactical deployment, the suspect exited and taken into custody without accident. so good response by our folks and grateful;y that ended without incident. report on our enforcement efforts on our fentanyl crisis or issues in the city, the efforts which basically are

mainly focused in tenderloin. this past weekend, officers seized 800 ounces of fentanyl. today over 50,000 gross grams that's increase of 180 percent from this time last year n.terms of our efforts to abate some of the drug dealing we've had 314 arrest for possession of sales which is increase. all of last year websinger had 566 so at the pace you're going, we'll reach that by the end of summer. with that, that is still not enough, we are still deploying, we are still deploying our foot beat in some of the areas in tenderloin. sustainability is still a struggle and trying to deploy and not have the people

committing these acts guess when wore going to be there. because they tend to replace, they move when we're nr and they come back with they're gone. they have altered and tried to deal with that issue. but it's, we're making some success but having some success but we have a long way to go. there is still a lot of drug dealing happening in the city which we're also addressing that is on going strategy that i will continue to report on. and that concludes the report for this week. >> thank you, chief, commissioner benedicto. >> thank you, vice president oberstone. i want to follow-up on the surveillance arrest, we talked about it last week and you said you were going to find out more detail. >> yes, so our first report is due in june to this commission. but i can say anecdotely, there is been about 5 approved requests of those at least

three of those have resulted in live monitoring and i don't have the outcome of that data. there is been live monitoring requests that have been approved and live monitoring operations and that will be in the second report. the first report only captured i think about 3 weeks after we presented to the commissioner and did all the training. so the majority started in the second quarter report so. that will be forthcoming what i just told you and as required by our reporting requirement in that second report. so that's where we are. >> do you know how many arrests resulted in the five. >> i'm quite sure, those three resulted in arrests and seizures of narcotics. >> do you have a sense base,

and some of this can be asked once we get the report in june, once the circumstances of those cases, are these arrests that would not have been made if not for live monitoring. >> i think it was instrumental in making the arrests. when you say, not being made without live monitoring, you know, what the monitoring does is gives us an opportunity to efficiently monitor that criminal activity, not to say that human eyes cannot do that, in some cases it could depending on the technology. but it definitely enhances the ability to deal with this issue. so i cannot say that this absolutely this would not have been done without live monitoring. i cannot say that without slaoe, it would be a lot more labor intensive and a lot more cumbersome without the ability to do this.

>> and for the arrest that were made, is it the case that there is sort of a specific tip and ask and that's why they want to record. oh there is an area that is known to be where there is drug dealing, what is the process? and i know the narrative. >> the process is a combination of all of those things, community complaints, officers making observations, for those officers that were, whatever area that is asking for live monitoring particularly when it comes to these issues. they know what corners are known for that activity and we get a ton of community complaints. is have been to many meetings and they call out intersections. those things come into play. and also officers observation. what the other thing that will allow officers, let's say we have a series crime that is

very definitive, we've had robbery series where stores get hit by the same suspect repeatedly and we detect that type of pattern which has not happened yet. we just didn't have the use of this technology at that point. what is the process and access, is it all and what is the population? >> we started out in areas where we have number 1, a lot of community complaints particularly with the fentanyl dealing. and those units for instance

like the tenderloin and officers that, they've been trained to specialize units that may use this technology but it has not gone through all members of the department at this point and it will. to get it started, we concentrated on the needs and the officers that are more likely to use it right away. >> so some of the tenderloin. >> yes, tenderloin some of the southern offices that have been trained as well. >> thank you. any updates on the chp and national guard that you can share with us? >> nothing new in terms of reporting. they are still outdoing what they do, chp has been traffic enforcement. they will they will respond if

they see something. don't have any report because i still don't have anything from the chp, i know that they have made some arrests including some narcotic dealers. nothing that's changed in terms of the analyst, we're still really honing in on how we can best use that resource. and we have some meeting scheduled and others that are part of this analytical capacity. so more to follow on. but the analyst that they offered up, they're already working on some of these cases, they have to do more on what that is looks like. in terms of focusing more of the work. >> i know that you mentioned that some specific numbers the chp was delivering that.

but, to the extent the chp is able to share them with you. so it sounds they're getting up to speed and not, i think that that is also included in the report. >> will do. thank you. >> thank you, that's it for me. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you vice president carter-oberstone. along the same line, i had some questions around the coordination of efforts, given the chp i came a about the increase in overdose this year, after our increase, i guess investment in policing in certain neighborhoods, it seems like we're up to 268 overdose

deaths which is 37% increase from the same point last year. and there was a statement by there was a nonprofit provider and i'm quoting something that has been sold to folks, that is going to tackle crisis is having an opposite affect. nerds the police in this article's view is forcing people people further underground and contributing to thin crease and overdoses. do you have any comments that ensure, it was about engaging users, yes addressing the sales element but not necessarily

pushing people further underground to, to use their whatever substance of choice which could be tributing in this, do you have some comments on that? how about knowing that person, what i can say is, i think the notion that doing nothing will help the situation, which to me that's what that is saying, just leave people alone. is not the answer, part of what we're trying to do is, and this is not the answer but i think it is helpful when there is, you know, less product out on the streets because of the seizure, that at least what has been ceased will not be responsible for deaths.

wore in the city a lot, to drive by and do, whatever it is, that the substance of choice is not helpful to the situation. and not allowing that, you go to some of these meetings, people are fed up with. they're the balance that we have to strike. and i don't think the answer is simplicity of, because we want to enforce and we're causing more deaths, because if we don't enforce, who knows what the numbers will be if we were not seizing the amount of fentanyl that we're seizuring. not to mention, those that we see pass out in the streets and

not breathing and the narcan. i say all of that to say this and i say this respectfully, i don't think that's the answer. you know, that comment that was made. bow there has to be a balance of not allowing people openly to ingest drugs on our street. and how we reach the people who need help. and part of what we want to do is get them the help. we tried unsuccessfully to have a system where our police officers and not take them to jail, take them a place where that help is available. here's what else is doing it, nobody else is doing it, and nobody else is getting the calls. and there is a lot of people who want to help, but our

officers are out there day in and day out. and they have relationship with some of the people that need help. the ask is that we allowed to do that. and we're trying to get alternative to jail in place so. we don't chase people underground. and it's been difficult. you know, and it's been frustrating but we have to keep trying. for people to say that the police department should not be part of this, give me a better solution. >> and thank you for elaborating on the fact that there is a need to shift even our not gaugement strategy. i remember that was part of the effort, was collaborating with entities that do the work to make sure that we get people to treatment when they're ready for treatment. that's ha conversation continue to take place and the 'em patis

for this question, how do we ensure that this does not compound, our already issue? >> yes, that's a valid question, a god question. and one of the things that you said, is, we're trying to do is do this the right way with compassion but we still have to do it. we cannot allow things to continue. because we, i think we, we're at a place where we have to find that balance and work hard. yes, they understand what we have to do in the city. where can, throw the bus that are in uniform who come across people who need help can take people. that's not jail. and sometimes jail they're in place, but sometimes there needs to be alternatives.

the question is are we able to take them in a way where you know, involuntarily? and that's the real issue. are we able to take them involuntarily? we see somebody in the walk passed out, are we able to take them? >> and is there a conversation taking place at the macro level where i would hope the department can have some beds that have set aside for them. because we know, the nature of behavior change is it can happen any moment. and i'm glad that you're recognizing that some officers have relationship with people who may not be treated yet. but at some point, they turn around and say, we do need the help. and some 6 of the challenges is treatment on demand, how do we get to point where there are treatment facilities that our

officers can access on demand if necessary. >> thank you, that would be helpful for you for this information and that conversation is happening. >> thank you for the report, chief. i want today ask about the killing of banko brown. i know it's a the police department's if they want to press charges. sometimes those closest to the investigation have, if not a formal recommendation thoughts about what charges can look like. and i'm curious if the department communicated if any, any thoughts about what potential charges could arise from the its investigation in this case?

normally, as far as the filing of charges, to the filingtions and there are discussion sxz questions there asked. in this particular there is no recognition of charges? does it happen? it typically does not happen. sometimes there is a discussion if an investigator feels a certain way, those discussions do happen. on this particular case, to my knowledge there was not any recommendations, the charge was presented twice. does it happen? sometimes they do. usually, we don't go in saying, file these charges. we faok and that's the first recommendation. we book for what we think is appropriate and then it goes

from there. and in this case, that booking was for murder. the case is presented and then it goes from there. >> great, thank you chief. like many people i read with great interest, the district attorney's report about the institution not to place charges and there is a couple of reasons why she decide not to. the central reason was that the suspect claimed to be in fear of his life because the victim, he said threatened to stab him. it was a claim that was totally uncorroborated by the video, that was not corroborated by any person in a crowded walgreens but it was what the suspect said. and chief, you obviously worked with many district attorney in this city and also in los

angeles, and that is exceptional that we would not bring charges because a definitely has uncorroborated on something that seems to rise on a lot of cases. and i'm wondering that district attorney decline to file charges when there is evidence of a crime but the defendant has an uncorroborated defense for what they didn't commit the crime or unresponsible. >> i can say from my own experience working homicide cases, that that is not an abnormality. i've had cases where i was doing this type of work, where you know, self-defense is claims were even less than that, and the way the district attorney, this is another county another place, i can name, i can think of a couple of cases.

the way that was looked at what is the profitability of the case, them getting a conviction? and that's part of the standard whether they believe reasonably believe that they can win that case or get a conviction on the case. i cannot say that it's routine or not routine. but i can say that you have asked me my own experience that i've seen it before, where there was a case not being filed because of the strong possibility of self-defense that the district attorney filt that they could not overcome. that's not uncommon. it does happen, and it does not necessarily need to be anything that there is corob racing, i think what they look at is can we win this case. and that's how they do their work.

not all district attorneys. you asked me about my experience and i have had that happen and cases were not filed because of the possibility of self-defense, they felt credible enough that they could not overcome it. >> thank you, chief. >> this is not a question just a statement, normally i refrain from making statements outside of the jurisdiction of the commission. as my colleagues agree, i do good enough job on roughling phetingers. but i think like a lot of people in the city, i was very alarmed at the way that the banko brown case was handled.

at a minimum it was handled in an irregular way. the d.a. expresses on the merit of the case before the police department had collected all the faktsz. and i said every line of the 25-page report that the district attorney issued. whether any reasonable jury drawing all innrenses could find beyond a reasonable that the defendant committed a crime. and that standard was met in the case. the fact that the suspect made a self of self-defense that was not corroborated by the video and other members in a crowded

convenience store and in fact there was people that heard what was said and they didn't corroborate the self-defense. to me that is extraordinary. i think everybody deserves to be treated equally. we have to treat every case the same regardless of the identity of the suspect and victim and i don't have confident that that was done in this case. and i feel the need to speak up, because too many people fought and died so i can be treated equally. i don't have any power to change the outcome but as a city official i do have the power to speak up and say what took place is inconsistent with our values as san franciscan and americans. commissioner yee?

>> thank you very much, vice president, i'm looking at the police report chief and looking at the crime stats and it looks like it's coming down for total property crime 8%. violent crime is still at 5 percent up 5 percent year to date but week to week it's dropped down about 9 percent. i want to thank you for that and your staff. my question is, i guess the amount of administer, i guess the narcam that's your police officers are administration. do you know the year to date? >> you know we do keep stats on that but i don't think i can have it. i can bring that back to the commission in the next meeting.

>> in particular too, 2022, because every live you thank, i want to thank the officers that do administer narcam and also the public safety officers and the fire and also whoever else. i'm wondering if the chp are trained on that as well? >> i believe so, but i would need to ver foi that. when i come back with the data you asked for, i can have that. >> and if they don't have that, i hope we can provide. >> i believe they are they are. >> thank you very much, chief. >> commissioner walker. >> thank you, thank you, thank you for your report chief. to the point of the increase of overdoses, that is of concern

and i think that at our last meeting, we had a report from the juvenile commission to recommend the prebooking process for getting folks into diversion and other programs. is know on goingly, we were discussing on going with other departments, because i agree it's not necessarily the polices job nor do the job want the police to respond to getting folks into treatment, both mental health and addiction treatment. are those conversations going on? i came across one of the ambassador alchemy ambassadors who were doing a cpr on somebody who had overdosed and

waiting photoeder emt to come with the nar cam. i don't believe they were trained. so the issue of making sure that everybody is trained to respond as we want them to and also then take the next step not just bringing somebody from dying but hopefully take them to somewhere to get treatment. i think that's the crooks of it, is having that authority to do it. what is the discussion around that? around being able to have some authority to get people to get assessed and treated? when it's not a police issue? we're not arresting them. >> so part of the discussion, the law takes us the authority to take people who are under

the influence or inebriated, to take them and then release them under 143 of the penal code. of course our processes have to be in place and reasonable suspicious and all of that has to exist. but we do have the ability to take people to a facility, not jail but a facility and then they are issued a certificate of release, so that conversation is one that is on going. what next, we tried some ways to approach that including use of the clock, through provacation and had that service system set up. some people did to commissioner yanez and some were not ready

at the time of their lives. we would still have the ability. the question is, we have the ability we need the places to take them. the need is daunting, that's what we're traoug to figure out. how can we get the best of what is illegal available to us in terms of our role and then taking advantage of taking advantage of other resources that the city has to offer and the way this all works together. that's a tough discussion that we need to ask. >> and it seems the need is regional and makes it for, it seems like the discussion should be regional because the cost is great.

>> yes, and the discussion are happening regularly. and hopefully we can come up with better assistance to pull all of this together. if it's not one department is not going to fix this. we can, i think we can play a roll in getting people to at least the opportunity for help. >> great, thank you. >> sergeant can we go to public comment. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment online item 4, the chief's report, please approach the podium. >> speaker: hi, this is the chief's report, right? >> yes. >> speaker: okay, so michael again, and um, i have a sign

here reading banko brown. i'm disappointed that the murder of banko brown was not agendized for this meeting. i'm going to step away for a moment. i want the foekds to see the empty seats. the people from the black community, the people from the trans community. the people from the police accountability community are not in these chairs. sxl that is something that you need to address.

you need to open up the phone lines. the people who cannot be here for different reasons need to be able to say to the chief directly through the telephone what they're concerns are. my few moment approximates of silence right now, represent the silence of a lot of people concerned about the murder of bank o brown. you need to agendize it. finally, you need to ask the chief to prepare his written remarks ahead of time and we need specifics in the agenda, in advance what he's going to be discussing. i also want you to direct the chief to make a written report available on the web. especially about the incidents and events that occured. please, open up the phones for the family.

>> speaker: good evening, i'm going to echo what he said about opening up the phone lines, for mothers and fathers like myself who can't make it. a disability can be a mental disability too. they cannot get up from their home because they're suffering that their child was murdered. and they can get on the phone and pick up the phone it's easy to pick up the phone. if you guys can make it available for those mothers and fathers to be able to call in. that is a disability, a mental disability. and i also want to say about

banko brown, that child could have been my child. i saw it on the news of the struggle inside the store. it is terrible what happened to that young man. and i'm glad people are speaking up, he did not deserve to die just like my son did not deserve to die. did the young man think about the mothers and fathers of the young boy. he just took the gun and shot. why, i don't know, i don't have all the answers but that young man deserves justice and it's really hard to look at it on the news how he's, aggressor is the security guard. that's all i see. and please open up the phone

lines for the mothers and fathers that can't make it down here. they need it, they need to call in. they done it before, do it again, please. >> some people are like, you're very close to being a victim yourself. you wonder why walgreens, security guards face a lot of, their job is hard, it's hard. but you wonder why does a security guard have a gun? why does he have a gun? you know what i mean? you talk about, i don't know, my point is, individual lots lost their life because somebody had a gun and they can. you may have come and you were

not feeling that great and you got in somebody's face. maybe but what i'm saying is, people make decisions like that. there are people who make choice choices like that for you. they can do that. and it's really crazy. i cannot believe it, this is unbelievable to me. you can see it, it's 15-20 seconds. but some decisions take 20 years, examine it's slow motion, you know. and it still goes on. it still goes on. it's wild.

>> speaker: good evening, i think we missed [indiscernible] you rides again, it's in the news whatever, it's very important. if the district does not charge when the video shows that there is no difference involved, district as early, you are irresponsible and irresponsibility drives danger. for all of us, responsibility by definition drives safety. crimes first of all but, so if we don't push for

responsibility, everybody, everybody is responsible depending on the field of activity, we are all going to pay big time. this is a miss, we are not safe here, nobody is. have a good night. >> vice president, that is the end of public comment. >> next item please. >> director's report discussion. director rosenstein. >> good evening, vice president carter-oberstone, commissioners, members of the public. i'm director and i'm here on

behalf of the director paul henderson. in terms of what dp a has been up to this week and in the last year, up to now, i can report that virtually all of our numbers are up in 2023 is compared to this time in 2022 except one number that is important and should be down and that's the number of cases past the 270 date. as you may recall, our chief of staff was here last week and reported on that number. we have 26 cases past the 270 days, that is usually the marker we use in order to provide our recommend ations to the chief if we find improper conduct.

of the 26 cases 21 are told. i know commissioner benedicto you had questions last week. i had some answers, at this point last year, we had 32 cases past to 70 and at the time only 22 were told. it's a modest reduction and i think it's something that is worth loting. in terms of this week, we have 7 cases pending with the commission and 84 cases pending with the chief. the trends for the type of case that's we received this week, we received 17 cases and the number 1 complaint this week and number 1 allegation was an officer behaved or spoke inappropriately. the second most common, the police engaged in biases discrimination. and for third place which is the officer towed a vehicle without justification, and sfrd

failed to take action and officer displayed threatening or harassing behavior. they will be investigating them and taking the appropriate action when it's time. in terms of out reach, dp a has been meeting with uc berkeley possibility lab, it's a think tank that we're hoping to engage in projects and analysis to help dp a streamline the complaint process that we use and as well as our production generally, outcomes out reach and mediation. it sounds like a promising collaboration and the director, director henderson will report more in the coming weeks about what that is going to look like. in terms of audit, you all know, won an award. dpa drafting the final report

of our audit on san francisco handling of misconduct. this report will contain all the information that we have brought forth to you in our key issue reports. there is been throw as well as our, the final phase of our audit that involves our findings and recommendation regarding sb spies policies and misconduct case management system. in closed session, we have two cases that will be before you and in the audience, we do senior investigator matt stone sifer, and our director of policy who may have stepped out. if any members of the audience have questions or concerned, you can contact our staff. we are also available on the worldwide web.

there are some additional items on the agenda that we will have input on. other than that, i'm open to any questions that you may have with respect to our numbers and the report i presented today. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you, vice president carter-oberstone. thank you, lisa for the report. i know that from the point of allegation or something submit today tp a to the point of there being an actual disciplinary action, sometimes it takes years, right? >> less than a year. generally it takes less than a year, except the 26 cases that i told. >> exactly. do you all, i guess, looking at like trends over 5 year period,

do you when individual officer and then eventually they're substantiated if they're substantiated, is there a way to track maybe percentage or what number of these allegations end up becoming substantiated charges? >> absolutely, that is the type of information that we report about in our quarterly reports but more importantly comprehensively, we report in our annual report. i'm not sure where we are in the annual report but i can let you know, i can give you an update on when that is coming out. is know that we had appendixes that list all the cases in a grid format and will generally show what the allegations what we started with, what we ended

up with, what we decided, what the chief decided and ultimately what is happening in the case. and that should give you a god overview but in addition, we also do and analyze the numbers. nicole armstrong of our office does an amazing job of crunching the numbers and providing that type of information to the commission usually a quarterly and also on annual basis. >> would it possible to maybe look at a 5-year analysis with just these outcomes in mind? i think it would be helpful to inform future training, to identify what those trends are and get ahead of you know, the training curb right? and i'm also interested to see how we're developing the early intervention system in the bench marks, how we can use that information to be more proactive about addressing and you know, curtailing that from escalating. because the report last week,

that said the allegation that's don't necessarily lead up to a write-up, i would like to know how many of those end up substantiate asked that way we can loop that back into the eis system basically. >> i do know that the numbers before are online and i know that we're working on a five-year report. i don't know if that issue is addressed but i will bring that up with director henderson and see whether that can be incorporated into our five-year report that we're currently working on. i can tell you that in terms of training and trends, that is exactly the type of, information that i was providing to officers when i went out to all of the stations and provided them information about dp a in general and what to expect when you come to our office. a huge part of the presentation for the officers was about,

what officer, what is leading to officers being sustained and disciplined? and i know, we definitely have that available and available to you and we can get you in touch with the right people to get you that information. certainly in an annual format. >> that would be much appreciated, thank you. >> no problem. >> for anybody wishing to make public comment, please approach the podium. >> speaker: michael petrelo again, i'm glad that the department of police accountability when you want to reach somebody, they will say who is calling? and they resist connecting you to the person you want if you're going to disclose your

name but eventually they connected me to brent bagan and that's really good. however with the sheriff's department if you call and ask for, deputy so and so, you're not going to get connected unless you disclose your name. this is important because it shows there is resistance to disclosing if the person is there. that is said, the resent report from the dpa on a band, shows sfpd lacks written criteria for holding discipline an event which may lead to subjective and arbitrary decisions. that's really an condemnation

in terms of delivering it. which can delays accountability and create perception that the process is useless. this is um why you need to have equal time at the beginning of the meeting about case that's are unresolved and listen to activist because this report shows there is real trouble with getting accountability from the sfpd, thank you. >> vice president, there is no further comment. >> next item please.

>> commissioner reports, and items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you, vice president carter oberstone. just one item on my report. here in city hall. many of the community few weeks ago. passed a resolution. the supervisors previously unanimously pass support for cards. we should be looking for to having that resolution before the commission early next month. and it was an honor to get to

talk to the community stakeholders over 20 community participated in the hard working group. they lead the group over the course of 18 groups. so i am proud to be there and i'm looking forward to having this commission consider reiterating its support for cart. thank you. >> commissionr walker. >> thank you very much, this is somewhat related to what commissioner benedicto talked about. to discuss the possibility of or the sort of existence of the patrol spshz. that discussion is, sort of ripen related in a way to the

issue of private security and how we, the police department collaborates and manages that in the city. we're also working on chapter 25 revisions that is going to be coming up. there is a lot of moving parts on folks that need services. it's not just police response, it's a lot more of the departments and places to take people. including the priority of cart. very admirable and a lot of are attempting to work with, even now the ambassador, the hot teams beinger the skirt teams, several different teams out there. but the goal is that we need to better coordinate.

i'm hardened because i think the community is involved and also the business community. people want solutions and are willing to come and talk about it. those are things that are going to be coming back to the discussion to get input on. i think right now we're trying to determine the status of certain programs and communication opportunities. to get everybody on the same page and on the same chanel as it were. i just twaont thank the chief again for engaging in this conversation. i think people are really excite beside it and i think it really is what we're all talking about, it really coordinating all of these responses better. so i look forward to bringing it up. hopefully we can do it within the next month to really get the commissioners input on this. thank you. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you, i have a brief report, it's really update

around the best practices for juvenile that's we had last week. i want to thank everyone that helped put that together, i think it was a productive conversation. i do want to make sure that people and the public in general understand that there is a diversion program that involves the probation department that has the community assessment referral center and it's a collaboration with the police department. and there is an active m.o. u that is being revised. what i want to make sure that we are clear on is what we are discussing about potentially launching is, completely different. it would be a prebooking process that does not formally adjudicate young people and there are consequences to not complying a program. obviously a design is what

we're still discussing and we'll have multiple conversations in this space and spaces outside to ensure that what we put together will compliment what the city already has. and we did have a presentation from kark, at some point last year. i will be reaching out to see where we're with the current m.o. u, that's has been something that i think, it's going to impact whatever d g.o. we create to be able to address and for a prebooking effort once we get to that bridge. and along those lines, i did want to make sure that we're agendizing, a presentation on the draft d g.o. that we did recently with commissioner benedicto leadership, recently complete. and i know that that draft, i

think is suppose to be presented pretty soon. so i want to know how soon that can be presented so we can have a conversation about what needs to be in place for the prebooking element to be successful in the city. thank you. >> thank you, just one brief update for me. this friday, the dgo first amendment working group will be convening for its second working group meeting and very much looking forward to participating in that. sergeant can you take us to public comment. >> members of the public that would like to make public comment online item 6, commissioner reports. please approach the podium. >> speaker: michael again, i have to reiterate that the murder of banko brown is not

agendized. and nothing of the reports said anything about the murder. if you want to put the murder on the agenda. i'm one of only literally handful of people who will come to speak to you two weeks in a row. and it's not easy to go through a wall of law enforcement officials just to come into this room and there is more law enforcement officials, i've got to deal with, the stress levels in me rise and it's not a fun

feeling at all. and, i bring my mask because i'm not over covid, the flu is still here. and you're making me come here because it's not on the agenda that public comment. you don't worry about other immune compromised people and other folks who can come here and participate with their verbal comments. how many weeks am i going to come here before you put it on your agenda, both the murder of banko brown and public comment. just give me a number of weeks that i can take. i'm really easy to find, let me tell you.

>> thank you, mr. pajelas. >> speaker: i'm available. >> line item number 7, discussion and presentation of violence reduction initiative, update. year-end review discussion. >> speaker: vice president. i'm sorry, commissioners, chief scott, acting director rosen stein. i'm lilly guerrero and i'm the violence reduction manager for the police department. and joined tonight by regan and

ron crandell from the partnership for safe community who is a technical assistant for this work. tonight we'll be providing a brief update on the initiative on supervisorial district 10 and looking at end of 2022. first i would like to start with the brief overview of the grant itself. so in 2020, the department applied for the first time for the grant program and awarded 1.5 million dollars tha. money was used for the foundation and partnership. in 2022, we we reapplied for additional 6 million and that has been used to continue the work to expand the program in its processes and to also expand the department ability to administer the grant and the program and also offer support to our partners. i do want to note, not yet. i do want to note that since 2020, the partners have

remained the same with the street violence intervention program. the california partners for safe community and other technical assistance, dr. anthony as our evaluaters and as our grant administrator. next slide. the vri does have three main goals. the first is to reduce gun violence, again in supervisorial district 10. the data has shown that this district has been impacted by gun violence that continues to be true today so our focus remains there. and to reduce violent recidivism and the next third goal is to provide police legitimacy and that's through our application of procedure justice principles. at this point i'm going to pivot to regan and voughn who

will discuss the strategy and outcome of 2022, hopefully they are on. >> yes, we're both on. thank you, lilly and hopefully you can hear us. if you can go to the next slide, that would be helpful. so we came to you all, this is about a year ago and we presented, a document called the opportunity analysis. so i want us to go back to ground us in the conversation for tonight. especially the analysis looked at san francisco shootings and homicide to really help us understand and help all of our partners understand what was really driving gun violence in san francisco. we don't like to assume that we know when we go into cities. so one of the things that was revealed and that we presented last time, is that san francisco has two dynamic, one is a street disorder dynamic, that typically involves individuals who have behavioral

health issues, volve market dynamic and this primarily plays out in the tenderloin what you discussed tonight is, that's one of the issues that drives gun violence majority. and that acts for 53 to 70% of you know, the gun violence in the city. and those who are highest risk in san francisco are primarily african and latino young men with the extensive criminal justice system and social connections to the conflict and fyi, of individuals involved, the average age of the victim was 30 years old and the average age of suspect was 28. you can go to the next slide so. that foundation document helped us figure out like okay, where do we focus, lilly mentioned earlier, we're focused in d10 and what do we focus on.

and the vri is intend today focus on group violence. and how the strategy works, really laid out the goals earlier, we want to reduce shootings and homicides and recidivism, that sounds great but how do you do this in reality. one of the way is you start in the way i just laid out. that does not help you understand, the shootings that just occured on third street, right. so you have a review meeting that reviews all the incidents for the purpose of prevetting retaliation and that's something that you group highlight in a short amount of time. at the shooting meetings, there is a discussion about individuals that we think are appropriate for intervention and focus on. so we want to do a de confliction so we're not doing

out reach and sfpd is doing an arrest. the out reach that is done is called direct communication and we'll visit this later in the presentation. essentially it's direct out reach for individuals that are tied to these incidents that have happened in the prief days. the purpose of this direct communication is to lower an individual's risk of becoming a victim for a perpetrator violence against that retaliation factor. on this out reach, services and reports are offered. again we're trying to reduce a individual risk of being involved in the gun violence. lastly, you have focus on law enforcement and on individuals who continue to engage in gun violence. you can go to the next slide. so that's the strategy. in 2022, which is really the scope of tonight's presentation, it really was a year of transition, there were a lot of changes within sfpd

that i think impacted the stability of strategy. one of which, assistant chief, his retirement and manager director of the program, director and you know was able to find other employment throughout the county doing other really great work that has been beneficial but it's not directing this work. and we also lost our principle analyst, she retired. so we had a lot of stakeholders within the department that were lepg to drive this work, they left and/or retired. so as a result, chief staff to support this work on the ground and at the managerial level. you can go to the next slide so. again, we have a lost changes in 2022, so you know, remarkably there were some reduction sxz gun violence. and when i talk about gun violence, i talk about fatal

shootings and the criminal code, you'll see that there was a reduction in the bay view and a slight reduction in the engel side district. go to the next slide. one of the other direct communication, so you start with your analysis and then figure out who we directly intervene with, by doing this out reach. going back to some of the changes that chief scott made, was that he gave the job of being able to do that out reach to a lieutenant, and the department where this is his full-time commitment. and as as a result of doing that, we went from having 17 kind of direct out reach attempts and efforts in 2021 to 149 so a significant reduction. so i another thing i want to mention, is direct out reach that the gateway for services and support. that was very critical, you can go to the next slide.

so when the direct communication are done, it opens up the opportunity for services and support. again it's not mandatory but it's a way to offer it for folks who at the highest risk. and 60 percent of individuals that were communicated with excessive referrals for services, a little over 35 percent, did not accept referral and about 2 percent was unclear based on the data was collected. but the 50% is really good, we would love for it to be 100 but 30 50*% is really good. to continue to refine so that more people are interested in the services and support. let's go to the next slide. looking to the future, so again with the direct communication, you know, huge increase over previous years. one of the things that we are

recommending to the department that can strengthen the direct communication is including community stakeholders and the direct communication. and a lot of jurisdiction community members participate in those out rev. so we're making that recommendation in the department to help build that partnership so that they would participate in that way. the other thing is expand ing the s*efshses and support that are available to individuals at the highest risk and it lastly just looking forward by december 2025, we would like to have enough data to have an evaluation to help better determine if the reducks that we're seeing can be attributed to this strategy. that's all i have for this report. >> i'm happy to take any questions. >> thank you for that presentation. commissioner walker. >> thank you so much for the presentation. i have a question about the, the accepted referral to

services. in this group that we're talking about, what are the primary service that's people get referred to? >> great question, thank you. so our partner is the street intervention program and what they're offering is life coaching. we're looking and focusing on that behavior modification, individuals to get them away from that type of activity and stabilize them to get them whether that is housing employment and education, we want to table eyes them first. >> so the asterisk says, does not equate to enrollment. are you keeping data on that? on how many get referred and how many complete? >> yes. and this is a voluntary program. but we're keeping the data. i can say that to date we have

25 vijd enrolled to date. >> and is there enough services, i mean? do you find that you have that you need more? >> well luckily we're in san francisco and it's a city rich of services, it's just a matter of getting these individuals to a place where they're able to engage those providers and continue that. but at this point, we're look to go see who is able to support these individuals, again they're at the highest risk. sol it's a very specific population. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you, thank you for the presentation. couple of questions, i know that you know, to reduce recidivism, reduce retaliation, do we have a number on how many

of these have taken place? >> we do recidivism and victimization? >> right. >> so we're currently tracking that. it was a component that we were building out now. so we're begin to go report that. as again based or, with the new funding that we received in 2022, we are expanding our program so my immediate team now is able to start tracking that information. but i can say that and i don't know if regan and voughn want to add on to this, is that every direct communication is a critical point that we look at as far as having a positive impact on the trajectory of these individuals on whether or not they decide to residvait. i don't think if there is anything else from regan? >> thank you, for that question. i thank you, a lot of times, how do you know if you're being successful.

i think those are great questions. and with all the transition that's happen in 2022, really join the team, we're now able to collect enough and sufficient data to be able to begin to answer those questions. as lilly mentioned before, those are foexz at the highest risk. so we don't expect immediate change. so it takes time but at the same time, we do want to begin to see some positive changes in their behavior. and we want to, hopefully see a reduction of risk of them not being arrested. is so those are things to lilly's point she has data that can track that and they should be able to provide that information for you. >> and just for a point of clarification, the grant started in 2020. >> correct. >> and that was an enhancement of the existing, sdip effort that the city funds? right?

so there are about 2 million dollars going into that program and then this bolster that by additional 6-8 million for the next few years? >> so this program started in 2020 it's grant funded to 1.5. they've never done life coaching so it is an entirely live element. in 2022, allowed us to just expand. again now i have three individuals and we're able to, pickup and expand the process that was made needing resigning in the previous years. >> got t i know at one point there was word about expanding, what is the progress.

>> what we just decided to do just to be responsive to the entire city, we just submitted remodification so. if data says indicates that there is a rise in incidents in a certain locations, we're able to go out there and out reach to certain high-risk individuals. now we can reach out to individuals that have, have traofn to be tied to an activity and tied to on going activity that we're seeing. >> and what is the obstacle with engaging and formalizing the relationship with the partners? as you said, this city is pretty healthy when it comes to support services. i think accessing these, it's about, actually connecting those individuals, right? because the resources are there.

solt what is the khal epg with getting more partners on board when there are plenty of partners. >> thank you for the question, part of it is population that we are working with. we're going back to stabilizing them, you have to meet your participant where you're at. it's getting our participant to the point where they're ready to access those. >> and thaws an actual measure that you're tracking now with the new services that you're developing? >> yes, that's something that we're looking at the outcome and the positive outcome, that does include the services. >> well i'm looking forward to an outcomes report, because yeah, any new strategy should be evaluated, right? and i think that just obviously

throwing money into a problem without actually measuring its impact is a miss guided approach. so i'm looking forward to that report, thank you. >> absolutely, thank you. >> thank you, sergeant can we go to public comment. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment online item 7. please approach the podium. vice president oberstone, there is no public comment. >> next item. >> item 8 discussion and possible ax to direct the chief to rescind plainclothes and social media bureau. >> colleagues, we worked on a number of important issues. i think this is the most important issue that i've

confronted on my time on this commission. the police commission is vested with policy making authority over the department. and we issue policies through d g.o.s, it's a public process, the community is involved, the department gets to weigh in, dpa gets to weigh in. sometimes we can be in working groups where we could not convenient expert in the relevant subject area and solicit area from a group of experts. the policy designed to ensure that ultimate policies that we pass we can be proud of that they reflect evidence, that the public can see what is going on. the department is able to implement our policies. sometimes our policies require

technical implementation and one tool that the department has, is bureau orders to do just that. bureau orders unlike dgos are not subject to public scrutiny and the department decides what is in the bureau order. and what happens in this case, is that bureau orders were improperly used by the department to make policy in first instance structure bye by the government in our city. the department issued bureau issues on plainclothes officers and use of social media. this usurp's the commission policy. and what makes this this instance so troublering is that the department knew that the commission was actively working on the development of plainclothes d g.o. and social

media d g.o. and in fact the department at several times, asked for extension of time in the dgo climbing that it didn't have enough staffing to go forward. unbe known, the department was working on its own secret shadow policies in the same arena. and we come to find out in the middle of an extension period for the social media dgo, that the department issues, these bureau and we become aware for the first time that the department had been working for years. at the time that it was representing to this commission that it didn't have resource to see carry forward on the schedule, it was rerouting and expanding tremendous resources, crafting, bureau orders outside of the public's view. this is exactly the behavior

that the united states department of justice criticized this department for in 2016 when it was issuing at the time, they were called department bulletins which no longer exist anymore. to circumvent the policy authority and to cut the public out of the process. and sadly here we are again with the same conduct. i think this conduct is outrageous, i think it's unethical and i think it's contrary to the way that the government is structured and it's incumbent for the commission to step in. as bad as these two bureau orders are and its quite bad, the circumstances underline the prom gatetion, what we do as a commission will be decided by

future chief when we're no longer here. and there may be chiefs in the future who want to take more aggressive action than chief scott did in this case. i don't think it's an over statement to say that what we do today will affect whether and what kind of a commission we have tomorrow. will they exist on paper or will we have a commission that actually exercised oversight and policy making authority? i don't think it's an over statement to say that these orders posed to the public's right and if we fail to act we will be complicity in the lawlessness. so for that reason i'm going to make a motion to dopt the resolution and i would ask my colleagues to support it. commissioner benedicto. >> i'll second the motion with an amendment. i think this is going to be a

significant discussion, i'm sure the commissionrs are going to share and i will do that as well but i wanted to at this point at the offset, propose a friendly amendment to the motion. this amendment i spoke to the vice president, i spoke to the chief today about this amendment. the goal is to operational part of the resolution, there is going to be i expect disagreement on the positive resolution, i think that's good and it will be a good debate to have in the public sphere. but there is consensus, so i would second with the friendly amount that on page 2, further resolve the social media should

be rescined immediately. further resolved within 35 calendar days of this vote. the bureau orders shall be rescinded on the day they enact the social media d g.o. and i'll get that amendment on the table. >> chief scott. >> thank you, thank you vice president carter oberstone. i just want to make a note of a couple of things that were just said and that are said in the resolution.

part of this, first of all commissioner benedicto and i you did have a conversation. the department and i feel strongly that we need a policy in place on social media. and there is been back and forth on why now? we have identified risk that need some structure and there is nothing in place right now. so you file strongly that a policy needs to be in place. that keeps it in place, until the d g.o. comes to fruition. a couple of other things that i find disturbing, words like illegal and lawlessness, this department has no desire to

circumvent to draft to initiate a d g.o., we welcome d g.o.s both for plainclothes that will be coming to the commission very soon. and for the social media policy. you know that infer that the department is committing illegal acts is a stretch. i do understand the technical of a rule as a law. but i think the general public sees that is with when a police commissioner accused the department and police of illegal activity. this department is doing nothing illegal at all. for legal opinions i would differ to create policy but even before i do that, this

commission for the public who may not be familiar with general order has given the department the ability to draft duel orders, the department notices and i will be specific about bureau orders, directive that apply within specific bureaus issued by the deputy chief of the bureau affected. every five years. nouz i know we can go back and forth about what should be a general order and what would be a bureau order, that is the commission's decision and the commission has voiced their decision that this particular policy should be a order. we support that. and i want to be clear on that, we support that. but to not have a policy in

place when risk can be identified when we have, clearly, we're going to work on this for a while. and the other thing i want to clear up. the diversion of resources. we had a subject matter expert that xarted with the public defender's office in 2021 on this department. we have did not working on it for two years. the policy has gone through different drafts, it did not take away from the work groups. so i want to be clear on that, i was there, i lived it. if they were true like i have, i would own it but these are inaccurate statements. i want to set the record straight, we have done nothing illegal.

that is exactly what we're trying to do. we're supportive, if this commission votes to expedite it, fine. that's part of what we have asked for in terms of we want this to be right. for the commission and the public and us. but to say that they don't have the ability when the commission has given us the authority, that needs to be straightened out. and i think that needs to be clarified. i disagree with that statement. and i also strongly dis grow this commission inquired about the social media policy in public, in public. and i said then, that we were work width city attorney's office and look forward into other entities, not the city attorney, the public defender's office for that arrangement. and the work stalled for sometime.

but the draft policy has been written. current including what happened to memphis, listening to the united states general to talk about some 69 risk of not having good policies particularly with a specialized unit. they need to be attended to now. we're okay and we're supportive and we agree with whatever the directive are with voting this into a general order. but we disagree that this policy be rescinded and have no policy in place to address that that department has agreed. i think it's outside of the spirit. i ask that the commission do not vote on that. i agree with the amendments. thank you for allowing me some time to be heard.

>> thank you commissioner chief. commissioner yanez. >> chief, you made reference to a process that was taking place with the public defender's office? when did that start? >> april of 2021. >> april of 2021, and i understand that there was a draft of this that had been generated at some point which lead to or part of the reason why the public defender's office decided to dis engage with that process. >> i cannot speak for them but i do know that they were not in agreement with the draft. they felt strong and they pulled out the process. and when was that draft generated? >> i can go back and check emails. they did let us know that they were pulling out of the process. but there were several drafts commissioners.

language that you put in the table and you come back to the drawing board and there were several drafts to the policy, it was not just one draft. >> a draft was available last year when i made it clear that we wanted to include investigative social media in the work group process to revise the social media dgo. >> we had a draft available since early on, work withing this process, yes. and what prohibited the department from sharing this draft at that point, when it was made clear that we wanted to draft. two things, this commission raised the issue then. and i made it clear to position, we're trying to get, dp a was in that conversation as well.

we opted to do this. we opted to do this and get the thing off the ground. i've always did this to to you and others. these are two separate issues. i've since written a letter to the president of the commission asking for initiation of this dgo and we are where we are. but the the accusation that we're hiding and trying to circumvent is not true. it's really not true. this was a bureau order from day one and we're never going to post to make this a.

>> i'm going to post to use with social media. and that's a conversation that is on going. the department's policy on the use of social media both for personal use and department's social media profiles. they're still entangled in my view and a lot of commissioners agree with that. but the real crooks of the issue, we were in the process generate to go have these conversations when this department bureau order was issued. and as soon as i read the bureau order in one reading, i identified numerous issues. no oversight overtime, the allowance for officers to open an investigative account without necessary, the

expansion of what includes or what constitutes an investigation itself. i think it infringes upon the dgo series that is about investigation, it's expanding the language. there is no probable cause environment for officers to now engage in creating a social media account sometimes under the guys of another. you can see why this is problematic and you agree that those needed to be improved upon. this commission is here to provide both guidance, to be a sounding board, i feel like i have been very clear that whether it's publicly or in a meeting, we can have these conversations to improve our policy making process. and that was clearly circumvented in this case when you look at the timeline and the events of when was this

released six days after an extension was requested and authorized. >> just to clarify commissioner, your conversation with me, there is some misunderstanding on your part on some what you just raised. and specifically some of the issues of investigative details and we went into detail about those things. and also in that conversation, we agreed to modify the bureau of general order which, the bureau of order which we're in the process of doing. to my knowledge and please correct me if i'm wrong. my understanding, there was never any initiative in the policy development process or discussion about investigative media. conversations for the d g.o. was personal use.

it was strictly personal use, and the personal order, we have emails from from kp a and others about whether or not this is a conflicts or amends the bureau of order. and we disagree. there is no policy except for the bureau order on this issue. correct me if i'm wrong. i don't think that body that you were part of has ever touched this issue at all. >> i publicly in a meeting in october or november, made a statement at this commission that we wanted to bold investigative media in the work group revision process. we reiterated that in writing

through dpa and at in point with anything from the department oppose or indicate that they were not going to be on board with including it. and we can look at the record because i'm clear that i made that record publicly and i have emails where jenel reiterated that. and this is where we got to a point that is a narrative that needs to be clarified. >> yeah, i think we should clarify. and going back to why we're here, we have a resolution on the table that will eliminate the policy that we put in place. and i know, you know, no disrespect to the vice president carter-oberstone. we disagree on some of the language but if our charge and task is to have a policy in place, let's get a policy in

place. i would not oppose but right now there is nothing in place. >> i agree that sometimes any policy is better than no policy, when thts vague about what policy it is, it behooves to look at that and revise it which is what happened here. and without be laboring this, i really feel that had this conversation had that bureau order been shared in its draft form before it became public, we would not be having this conversation about this particular issue in that resolution. but we are here now and i hope moving forward, you will take us up in the fact that when we

publicly state that we want to be involved which is what our task requires us to do, that we are entering into those conversations as hopely as possible. because we sometimes have good feedback. >> i'm not arguing with the commission feedback or authority. what my argument is general order number 1. that is a big deal. it's a very big deal. and you know, not every policy is general order what our officers have to do out in the street. there'ses a whole other policy that was drafted by this

commission. if your orders are illegal, and we're circumventing, i understand what you're saying, what i'm saying is this organization, this department wants to work with the commission and others who want to be involved in the process. that's how we open the door. now if the process is, if i don't get my way, i'm going to pack my bags and leave, what are we doing? we don't get to do that and the commission does not get to do that. we're not always going to agree and that's why we have a commission. >> correct. >> and we're getting painted this with brush because you will not graoe, you're evil, this is ridiculous in my opinion. >> last word on my end, the

timing did not lend a hand with this being transparent. the process with the public defenders ended last year and this bureau order was in the draft form but it does not get released until after an extension is requested. it just, it seems dis ingenuous to me. >> i appreciate that, it wasn't. i get the optics, it was not dis ingenuous. it's not just dis en generous. people can decide for themselves. >> thank you, commissioner walker. >> thank you.

so ifls reading this agenda item ahead of the meeting. and also listen to some of the testimony. i agree, i think we can look at the issue and have this conversation without blaming people like this does. it's part of the problem since i've been on the commission where i've been hearing about the need for general orders around social media, we have had some instances that clearly because we had no policy it became problematic. and i also have been involved in some of the discussions about d g.o.s that take forever to come about.

it takes a long time, i just want to say chief, i'm really glad that there is a policy to fill-in until we get our act together to come forward with the d g.o. that we can all agree with. so i appreciate commissioner benedicto's amendment. i appreciate that. i would like to take out anything related to illegal bureau orders in the retaining. when we look at the issues around morale all you have to do is listen to the commission meeting and see where that comes from. i want to apologize. these are important issues and we're trying to work together coming from different place to see solve these problems and it

does not help to blame each for hiding things. it's your job to run a department. i have a different feeling about where my jurisdiction ends and we can make recommendations about policy and see whether you're achieving them. you're the chief, so thank you. >> thank you, commissioner benedicto. >> thank you, vice president oberstone. >> i think setting aside the discussions about whatever the intention alt might be is that i believe the policy making through the bureau process is wrong.

and i've been working on prior chief i worked with the bar association, all of those organizations have consistently stated that policy processes outside of the department general orders is wrong. and the same is true now, it's not consistent with the department justice report. not every bureau order is wrong. and that's not my view.

there are bureau orders that are fully within, like vice president carter-oberstone, said, if it's interpreting and provide thating direction to members, but that's not what we see in these particular orders. and if you change the heading, you would not know the difference, they're just significant policy provisions. so just because 3.1 provide, does not grant authority. that's not something that the commission is empowered to differ to the department on. the charter haez only with the commission. it's not our role to recommend policy, it's our role to enact policy. we're not advisory body, we're policy body. that's why it's important to have this discussion.

and the fact that they authorized, has not changed. this is like if you told somebody that you can tend the garden and they build a huge statue. that's not the authority you meant to delegate to them. and some of that is on the commission side. this looks like what you saw from the policy and that's why i think it's important that the commission act here. not every policy should be a d g.o., but we agree that policy items do belong in d g.o.s. i also want to make sure not to disregard progress.

there were hundreds dozens, and we're talking about two specific orders now. i don't want to discount that has been made. there have been leaps and bounds. there have been significant piece of progress made and i'm happy to call out that progress when it's made but that also means that i feel compelled to speak out when the department is short. we have our discipline role also to call out where we think the department is falling short. that'ses my first point. i do recognize and agree i don't want necessarily be in a place where there is no policy at all. i know there was not always one

but there is a difference between a policy that has been in affect even if it's unsufficient. than going back to a status quo. so so i recognize that while i remedy the bureau orders, that's why i propose the amendment and i believe and share the amendment with the chief and believe that the amendment ensures that the commission clearly states today, that with want, the policy authority as the charter says but to make sure that we don't have a gap without policy. that's the purpose of the amendment and i'm glad that the chief reached that agreement so we can have something in place and move forward with a d g.o.

i think today's discussion and vote is first step. i think you're right chief, it's not always clear. whether something is creating policy. so i think it's clear here but it's not always clear. that we know and that we're operating from the same rules. i know there is been discussion on revising which was a monumental change. and like many big changes it's immaterial perfect. so that the commission believes to be a bureau order. that's something that the commission should take up earlier this year. i know that you have agreed

that you'll provide them to the commission to look at to address commission yanez's concerns. i've been work to go work on a resolution to work on that as well. this is the first of many steps, i'm happy to see so many progress that has been made in this department in 2016. and i think that this and other steps will ensure that we don't fly backwards and we can continue to have a department that is moving forward and that we can be proud of. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner byrne. >> thank you, vice president carter-oberstone. first a question to the city attorney. commissioner benedicto's amendment asking to expedite the dgo5.8, that has been agendized and it seems luke a significant issue that it

should be agendized so that the public is aware and can come into the discussion whether to agendized 5.08. as i have indicated to the commissioner i would be in support in expediting that but i prefer that to be a separate agenda item so that the public can weigh in on expediting that. so, i, that's my position. i don't think if you can amend it that much. >> good evening, deputy city attorney, alyssa cabrera, item number 8 is different that they could direct police to

rescind, so there is an issue with that aspect of it. secondly is if you can amend the d g.o. so this was my position i want the public to weigh in, because i'm in favor of ex pa tighting. which oberstone brought up at the last week, to expediting 5.08. as regards to the resolution, i intend to vote no.

i don't think anybody is going to argue that the d g.o. went over orders. everybody agrees. i think the need to have it's incumbent to act expeditiously but get the public involved. that's the essence of transparency. by also where i appreciate, the department of justice report,

one of the words that caught my mind, i had not seen it used in such a long time. right before the resolution, particularly concerning saish of the commission policy making authorities. i had not seen that word used that much since thomas jefferson wrote the declaration of independence and its attack on monarchy. and with all due respect, i agree with the principal and i agree that part of what they did, i'm not how would you say, i'm not going to sit and defend

that. but at the same time, i'm not going to use language like that because it's a lot better than the 13 colonies relationship to the british crown. so i would prefer a resolution that cuts through the chase, not used language that can be deemed inflammatory. but i have no problem insighting the facts the way it was done. but i think that we need to expedite, 5.08 i think that needs to be agendized and let the public weigh in. and in the interim we live with the bureau orders.

and move to get a 5.8 in place. >> i'm going to respond to a couple of things. first legal issue about the posting requirement. i respectfully disagree with deputy city attorney that this pend a ten-posting period, it applies to rules and regulation under the city's charter. this is not a rule or regulation, because the department bureau themselves are not rules and regulations, they're not subject, if this resolution was subject to the ten-day posting period so do would the boor orders examine nobody here is arguing that that's the case. it goes both way, you cannot say it applies but not to the bureau orders that we are rescinding, i think we greed that they did not. i did want to respond to a few

of the things that chief said, i do think it's remarkable how much we agree on. i think we agree on that the department was working on the bureau orders for years without notification of the public or the commission. we agree that they have without disclosing, and we agree that the department issue this bureau orders during dependency of the revision process that it knew quite well was going on. i agree with chief that we should take a hard look at 3.01 and look at way to see improve it and clarify things. nobody said either in writing

or orally that bureau orders are illegal. they just can't be used to enact policy. lastly, there is a comment made about somehow correctingly characterizing the conduct in occured in the cases, somehow affecting or somehow concerning about recruitment. i noticed people have come out with a lot of way that's we should not play our role of holding the department accountable. and i really recruitment is a serious issue that is under staffed we intoed to do everything we can. but acting is a poor job, it instills public confidence in the department.

and the notion that we should not do our jobs out of recruitment is not accurate. so with that, i'll move on to acting director rosen stein. >> before we move on i want to make a points and clarified. a couple of conclusions need to be corrected. just to clarify, i've been with the city attorney's office over 16 years and it's been a longstanding history of the city attorney to advise that every department has the legal authority to implement policies and procedures for the efficiency of the department provided that it does not conflict with the board of supervisors or police commission or oversight body. so to the extent there are any indication that the department had does not have the authority that is legally, incorrect.

under the charter the city attorney's office is the entity that provides legal advise and the legal advise from the city attorney's office is that one, indicating that the action was illegal as a legal matter is incorrect. two, where it says in the resident losing, that there is exclusive authority that is also incorrect, that should be corrected. thank you. >> thank you, ms. carrera. acting director. >> i want to sway your fears as somebody who is prolific in the use of case law, used in case law that is current to this day. so you do not have to go back to the colonies to find, citations of the use of the word user patient especially when it comes to the case law.

but i want to point things out. and thank you everybody for taking up this matter and giving it consideration and thoughtful discourse. this is something that dpa raised in the last quarter in the sparks report. and the bottom line, what has been affective over the years and what we see over and over again, is that when dpa and community and the public is involved, in this process, we make good policies and we are constantly, every time there is a dgo that comes to you for approval it's because of the hard work of both the department and the dpa and all the stakeholders and individuals that are involved in the working groups and that is the policy, that's the best practice on how policy should be made. and bottom line is let's be

collaborative. we are available and there is only two people in our office that are doing this work. and one is only doing it part-time *. and yet we're able to make it happen in a timely manner. we ask that we be at the table. examine that's it, thank you. >> chief scott? >> chief scott. >> vice president carter-oberstone, stepped out for a second but i do want to draw attention. there is some statements here that bear discussion. mainly bear paragraph, it references, the report criticize the police department use inappropriate use of

orders, which at the time was known, that is incorrect. so that's incorrect. and then, it, elaborates on that because it replaced bulletins with bureau orders and the rest of that paragraph. when the commissioner comes back, that should be corrected in this resolution. again, you know, getting back to, the issue is not being held accountable for us to be hild accountable that's part of what you all should be. there is no issue there. but i believe that when this goes out and the news gets ahold of them, has impact.

and to say that this does not impact our department, when we're getting this by our own commission, it does. this commission has heard from commanders staff, from officers, you you don't have to believe me, go ask them. the ask if we're going make these statements, let's at least make them correct. >> commissioner lee. >> looking at the resolution that is before us, some things i have problem with, stating that lis commission is illegal bureau orders and city attorney says the department head has the right to do what is needed implemented.

and sometimes the dgo, the time it takes, is cumbersome to get our issues that making sure that our members comply to the needs of the police department. one in particular is the social media. these are some of the issues that are outstanding. so you just leave it out there so that members don't have clear directions. and i feel that we should have some clarity as soon as possible and work in getting these d g.o.s as soon as possible too. with this resolution, i will not support it with this language, thank you very much. >> thank you, and i do want to clarify i think the statement is right, that the department can issue policy orders, i think that's exactly right.

i think here when the department holds up a commission policy and then issues a bureau orders that it knows is different than the policy that the commission is poised to implement that is complicating with commission policy. and i do want to raise this issue about multiple times about the needs to have something on the books. and i agree that we have something in the books than not. but that's no excuse to have this. you can get a d g.o. in 30 days. so this idea that we needed to circumvent the commission in order to get something on the books right away, it does not make any sense. we could have got more organizations and people in the room to provide diverse perspective and create a better

policy and we would have gotten it quicker than the years that they spent on the orders. i need to dispel that this notion that this was quicker. chief scott, is your name in the queue? current or? you're good. okay. seeing no other names on the queue, can we go to public comment please. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line number 8, please approach the podium. >> speaker: i'm julie from the bar association. i sat with most of the working group or great many of the working groups with this

department. i want to quote one statement from the dog report by the in 2016, the police commission authority over dgo supports one of the core concept of coproduced policing as identified in president obama's 21st' century policing. public input participation, and knowledge and understanding of police procedures is one way for sfpd to hold itself accountable. i think the public cares a great deal about social media. that's one of the issue where they care a lot. i've been a criminal task force since 2015 before the department of justice was involved, sitting on that task force is the police department, the sheriff dipt, the civil rights attorney aclu, we meet every single month. we would be happy to help you. i noticed that one of the first

sentences in this social media bureau order is laws consistency evolving with social immediate ya, the passage of new statues the issuance of state and court rulings. this is exactly where we can be of help to you and this is where the public wants to weigh in. let us be a part of the process and all the time that we've been meeting nobody has raised this in our task force meeting. so i'm going to be calling the public defender and find out what happened there. we're here to help. and we're here to participate. and the department of justice was also critical of this commission for not following through on their responsibilities because it is the responsibility of this commission to institute and to follow-up with these d g.o., thank you for here to help.

let us know how we can do that. >> my name is paula len i'm not speaking on the merits but i find the process and what we said tonight dismaying from a public citizen point of view. it seems to me something has fundamental as this should have been frankly worked out rather than airing what is a lot of dirty laundry tonight. secondly, the public is not well served, i think by a lot of what we heard tonight. inflammatory language accusing the police department, using the words that have been used tonight, i think that's not the way that we as a see need to move forward.

we're facing allegations of doom gloom and disorder on the streets and what not, and we need to bring the city together. and that that could have been done without the harsh language in the draft resolution, which frankly is the reason i showed up tonight. you can get to the therefore, be it resolved without having a lot of, harsh and unnecessary language that frankly reads in part as if it was written by a parent who's child went off and stayed too late in a curfew and now the phone is being confiscated and the car keys is being confiscated and the individual is being confined to the room. i don't think we need that. i don't think that's the way to handle these matters in a

fruitful productive way that suggests team work among all involved. thanks. >> vice president carter-oberstone no one else. >> no. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez is yes. >> commissioner byrne. >> no. >> commissioner yee. >> no. >> vice president oberstone, you have three yeses and three nos, the motion does not pass. >> thank you, sergeant next item. >> line item 9, 9.01 enforcement discussion and possible action. >> good evening, vice president

carter-oberstone, acting director, commissioners and chief scott and members of the viewing public and audience here tonight. i'm daniel the deputy chief and also executive sponsor for 9.01, traffic enforcement. i have my smes from the traffic company including officer jones here. so are there any questions or comments on the d g.o. 9.01 draft. >> i'll make a quick comment. thank you for the presentation, i want to thank officer jones for his work on this. as it has been said many times. officer jones is instrumental in dgo9.07 and as i said

before, i can only characterize his work as en cyclopediaic, not only will i be assured that it's a high quality but. so just want to absolute officer jones, thank you. >> commissioner benedicto? >> thank you, vice president, i want to thank officer jones and other smes, this is another d g.o. that dates back to the 90s so this is the request to get the d g.o.s updated. i think this is an important d g.o. and i strongly agree with the changes and i look forward

to move it forward. i mack a motion to approve the department order d g.o. 9.01 for use and ask it to be forwarded with our resolution 23-30. >> i'll second. >> acting director rosenstein. >> thank you, our director of public policy just had a few comments that she wanted make. i know she worked really hard, i would just ask that we yield the floor to jenel very briefly. >> thank you, good evening, commissioners, chief scott, members of the public and acting director rosenstein. just a quick word, i would like to echo the praise to officer chris jones, i don't get to vote but i would recommend him for to get certificate up here.

i would also like to thank chief scott, an important sentence was add today ensure that no incidents like what happened with sandra bland can happen again. there is a important language that officers are allowed to exercise their discretion with regard to traffic engagement to either dis engage and issue a warning or use deescalating. to have included and it could have gotten in there without chief scott coming to the rescue. so thank you. >> see when we collaborate we do great work. >> i want to add that i saw that horse going down the road, but to executive the acting executive director's point, and

thank you to dpa who was involved and thank you for the praise of officer jones and some of his colleagues also some of our smes and everything traffic related, they have decades of experience, everything related to enforcement and commercial vehicles autonomous vehicles, thank you. >> commissioner walker? >> yes, i would like to thank you all for your work. i would like to wholeheartedly second this motion. sergeant with you call the roll please. >> point of order, public comment. sorry, jumping the gun. thank you for not helping, public comment.

president elias left a note that they wanted to person thank them. for members of the public that would like to make a comment on item 9, please approach the podium. seeing no public comment on the line item, commissioner walker how do you vote? >> i think chief scott wanted to say something before we vote, is it all right? >> i apologize for what i want to say, i just want to make sure that i believe, officer jones and his team had some non substantive minor corrections, if possible i would like to for them to an opportunity to say. if that's okay, with vice president and the commission. >> yes, of course.

just to clarify these are changes that we need to make. >> non substantive. >> yes, please do it. >> thank you. >> i do apologize. thank you, chief and thank you vice president, carter oberstone and commissioners and acting director. just, some stuff came to mia tension late after i had submitted this to the commission. and i don't believe they're very substancetive but they do change our practice and procedures and i want to make sure that i have it right. so what i recommended or my changes, that in 9.01.03 a 2,

where it mentioned enforcement, i have where it says, it says now, of the california vehicle code, i would actually ask that to be stricken to just read that members should act on moving violation while consideration the totality of the circumstances in any of the following circumstances accepting violations prioritized by 9.07. the reason being is they're moving violation not just of the san francisco code but the transportation sf and health and safety code and by limiting to vehicle code, it, it sends the wrong message to the officers that are subjected to this d g.o. that they may think that they can en only enforce vehicle codes and not all the other california codes. >> can i ask a question about that. >> yes, ma'am. >> does that refer every time you mention vehicle code.

>> in the preceding sentences, yes. in a, where it says vehicle code i would strike that and before violation, i would put moving. for a moving violation strike of the moving code. >> on page two, this would be 9.01, 8-2 identification and questioning. midway down, where it seeds vehicle code, i would add the kofl california before vehicle code because it's the first

mention of the vehicle code. going down to enforcement. i would strike the word any before mechanical violations and then strike the word of the vehicle code. >> on page 4, so this is 9:01.5 a. midway almost two-thirds of the way down, medicals shop forward

the original citation and a copy of the report, strike the comma and the via department mail comma, so it just reads the copy the report at traffic company because they can submit it electronically. so it does not have to be hand carried on a report. page 5 number 7, where it says a investigator should respond, i would strike that to say is responsible for determining charges and issuing a citation as warranted. >> what number is that? >> this is on page 5, this

would be 9.0104 a-7 a. is responsible for. put in the place is responsible for determining the or issuing a citation. i don't control protocols, they determine case by case basis for the crashes. next in b at the end, a member of tciu or i should strike that to just say a tciu investigator

is responsible for, strike the should, is responsible for reviewing the report and determining if the citation should be mailed. in c, similarly so the, the investigator strike the should, and is responsible for determining charges and/or issuing a citation as warranted. examine in paragraph b, it says

the assigned investigator should be responsible, strike the should be and substitute the word is. in that same sentence, ensuring the citation for the appropriate violation of the vehicle code, strike the word of the vehicle code. so it just reads the appropriate violation is issued and delivered. and lastly, this is a procedure thing that was brought to mia tension, in the next section b, going to number 5, that member shall forward the white dmv copy changing that to member should forward the original

copies of the reexam form. after the word traffic administration, inserting a period. striking the word and capitalizing the, capitalizing rebooking and capitalizing officer. striking the word should and replacing it with is responsible for, forwarding the reexamining request and striking the sentence, members should book the, striking the whole sentence. she asked me to help the case file that she transmits into

dmv and when it goes into property it's difficult for her to get the information and if she had the forms, it helps her prepare the correspondence with the dmv, that's why i'm asking that that part be strick not. so in paragraph ce, that entire line be stricken because they don't have to book the canary copy, they will mail the whole thing to her. >> when you say, ce, what do you mean? >> six e. >> it looks the whole thing. >> the whole thing is stricken. >> 6-e where the member books the canary copy, strike that. >> thank you.

>> and then an order, just a order of let me see, just a con hronological that members should write the report first examine then submit everything to to traffic administration, so i would ask that paragraph 5 become paragraph 6 and paragraph 6 become 5, so it flows chronologically. those were all the revisions that i have for this d g.o. so with those revisions, i would present it to the commission. >> thank you, thank you officer jones. i'm fwg to if you can send a

revised copy to our commission office so they got all of those down. commissioner benedicto. >> yes, i have one change to a change that i want to ask about, on page 1, 901-3. i figure it may be helpful to provide a statement there about statute. can we say, welcome to the circumstances and all applicable laws regulations or policies? so that is way its inclusive of health and safety and municipal code, just so there is some statement of the start that the officers will go back to. >> would it be better to put it after the words moving violation, members should move on acting violation of applicable california codes?

or california or california and/or california codes? >> so on moving violations, of all applicable laws and policies. >> yes, while considering the totality and any of the following? thank you. >> so with that, i will with the permission withdrawal my prior motion and make a motion to adopt d g.o. 9.01 with bargaining. along with our resolution 23-30. >> second, rescind and second the amended version. >> great, commissioner byrne? >> thank you vice president. i intend to vote for it, but i prefer a clean copy of it.

i feel negligent myself because i missed a lot of those shoulds too. i'm not about to cast stones on anything because i missed this many when i reviewed. there is too much this time. if we're forced to vote, i should vote yes, but we should put it to the next copy so it's clean to the public. i'm sorry, i will vote for it and if i have to vote for it i will vote with these things, but it would be more fair to the public to have a clean version in front. a few changes here and there, none of them are really major. but it just, it just it was just too many and i'm partially responsible so i'm not going to throw stones. thank you. >> commissioner walker? >> may i ask our city attorney,

are these substancetive changes. >> they're within the reading of the notice but it's a separate policy issue if you want to put that over. >> i hear you. thank you. >> do we need to read public comment. >> no just one public comment. right, sergeant but have anything else to add? >> no sir. >> sergeant can we call the roll please. >> it's getting late, i thought we did public comment. that explains why my question made no sense. okay, thanks can we go to public comment, sergeant. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment online item 9, please

approach the podium. and there is no public comment. on the motion, commissionr walker. >> yes. >> commissioner benedicto. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> yes. >> commissioner byrne. >> yes. >> commissioner yee. >> yes. >> vice president carter-oberstone. >> yes. >> you have six yeses. line item 10, discussion and possible action 9.02 vehicle crashes for the department to meet and conferring as required by law. discussion and possible action. >> good evening, vice president carter-oberstone commissioners, acting director, chief scott.

daniel special operations, i have with me sergeant edison and oak wood who are smes and i've been told that your clean copy is the copy. and i apologize for the, that was anyway. here we are. >> all right, i don't see any names in the queue. so can we go to public comment please, sergeant? >> i have no motion yet. >> motion to adopt and send meet and defer with resolution 2330. >> southboundeding. >> membersed of the public that would like to make public comment, line item number 10, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote. >> yes. >> benedicto. >> yes. >> yanez. >> yes. >> byrne. >> yes. >> commissioner yee. >> yes. >> vice president. >> yes.

>> you have six yeses. line item 11, public comment on all items listed below closed session. if you would like to make public comment please approach the podium. >> thank you. i'm not sure how, close session stuff, you're going to closed session, i guess i've got to step out for you to handle your business, thank you. >> and there is no further public comment. >> line item number 12, vote whether to vote item number 13 in closed session 13b through 13f. >> motion to hold item 13 in closed session and assert the attorney-client privilege with regards to 13b through 13f. >> i'll second.

>> commissioner walker. >> yes. >> commissioner benedicto. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> yes. >> commissioner byrne. >> yes. >> commissioner yee. >> yes. >> vice president carter-oberstone. >> yes. >> vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 13 held in closed session with regard to 13b to 13f, administration 12 a action. >> i will make a motion to disclose factual information with respect to item 13 a, what we disclosed in the minutes and otherwise not disclose the rest of closed session and to assert the attorney-client privilege client with 13b through f. >> second. >> for any members of the public that would like to make public comment online 13, there is no public comment. commissioner walkr. >> yes.

>> commissioner benedicto. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> yes. >> commissioner byrne. >> yes. >> commissioner yee. >> yes. >> vice president carter oberstone. >> yes. >> you have six yeses. line item 13, adjournment. -

>> good morning, everybody. thank you for coming here today and to roll out and as what will be an important intervention. we know that the occupying and epidemics in your state is one of the most deadly public health crises in a long time. >> opioid related overdose are not the real cause of death but we've seen a doubling of people who have died in overdose over the last 5 years. we are in the midst of a public health crises there are solutions we