is in route vice president carter overstone you have a quorum also with us here tonight, we have chief scott from the san francisco police department and chief of staff sarah hawkins from the department of police accountability. could you please call the first item, sergeant line item one weekly officer recognition certificate presentation of an officer who has gone above and beyond in the performance of their duties. sergeant joel starr. number 4315 special victims unit. good evening. hi i'm gonna stand here. okay good evening. i'd like to thank the police commission. the chief of police and the public for taking the time to recognize the outstanding work that the san francisco police department investigated do. and i'm especially glad to be here this evening to recognize as one of my very own investigators, sergeant nick joel, for his

exceptional job. he does day in and day out. but more specifically, on a recent case that i will highlight this evening. first, let me introduce myself. my name is alexa o'brien . i'm the captain for the investigation bureau special victims unit. and we're honoring sergeant joel this week with a little bit about sergeant joel. he's originally from london, england, but has been living in the us since 2001. before joining our police department in 2012, he worked for the los angeles police department for five years. like our chief in 2018, he was promoted to sergeant and was put to work as an svu investing for almost six years. later, here we are. sergeant joel still works for svu as one of our more senior investigators. when sergeant joel is not at work or busy working his cases or on call, he

likes to enjoy time with his wife and two kids, a boy and a girl who are sitting in the back. with us tonight. right. i think the image many people have of domestic violence is a woman who has been physically beaten by her partner. but domestic violence in the work that goes into the special victims unit and encompasses a wide variety of crimes, it includes rape, sexual assault, robbery at dated assault, simple assaults are committed by intimate partners or immediate family members, even strangers and victims can be men, women, children, people with disabilities or the elderly that is why this recent case that sergeant joel worked at and was involved with struck such a chord with our entire unit in the early morning hours of september 13th, 2023, sergeant joel and his partner were told

that there was a home invasion, sexual assault of an elderly victim who was 95 years old. it occurred in the ingleside district on naples street. sergeant joel hall and his partner responded to the scene where the officers advised sergeant joel that the suspect possibly gained entry from the rear of the home into the victim's unit by forcibly prying their way in on sergeant joel learned that the victim was sleeping when she heard a noise that woke her up. the victim stated that an unknown male entered her unit, pulled, placed something over her head and sexually assaulted her. the victim was severely injured and had significant trauma because of this assault, the victim was transported to sf where she received medical treatment and met with the person who is the sexual assault response team member. and a sexual assault kit was collected and submitted to the crime lab sergeant joel

spent hours writing search warrants for the property and the entire crime scene, which was processed for biological and latent prints. sarge joel also had the wherewithal to have the crime lab expedite this sexual assault kit in order to establish foreign dna and a possible and hopefully a possible codis hit. we're happy to say that less than two weeks later, our amazing sfpd crime lab notified us that there was a full foreign dna profile obtained and they were going to run it through the codis system. a short time later, the crime lab confirmed there was a codis hit. sergeant joel and his team obtained the suspect s identity, who results in being a neighbor to the victim. um. sergeant joel organized surveillance in order to take that suspect into custody and shortly thereafter, they spotted him coming out of his home and took him into custody without any further

incident. so sergeant joel and his team members conducted an interview of the suspect under miranda where he confessed to the assault and even admitted that he stole items from this victim's home. thankfully, no one else was harmed by this assailant, and he remains in custody. sergeant joel, your hard work and dedication is an example to everyone on our team. thank you for being the very best at everything you do. you personally. it's a great relief for any leader to have a team member who manages manages himself the way sergeant joel does. your efforts are deeply, deeply appreciated. and i'd like to also just bring to the attention of the commission that it is domestic violence awareness month. so we really do appreciate it highlighting this case for us. but sergeant joel, we'd like to present you with this award on behalf of the

commission and the police department for your service. commission chief, i just want to say a few words real quick. i'm honored and i thank you for your time and recognizing not just myself, but also our unit as well. this was a great team effort from patrol that initially responded to the scene, to the crime scene investigators that processed it and to the crime lab techs that produced the evidence that we needed to move this case forward , supported by captain our lieutenants. we had the resources that we needed and i'm proud that it was actually our svu team members, my peers that were able to take the suspect into custody and along with the assistance of my partner and my mentor, we were able to get that confession as well. so no. 24 over seven, 365 days a year. we are always on call to respond out to some of the most horrific

, violent incidences in the city , proud that we're able to get justice for this victim and her family. and san francisco is a whole lot more safer for it. so thank you. i think, sergeant, i just want to thank you so much for your service to the city. the facts of this particular case are obviously harrowing and your actions were nothing short of heroic. so thank you so much for that. we're very lucky to have people like you who react under these distressing circumstances and handle things with such professionalism, both for the victims and the community. i will i will note that the police commission very recently updated its policy on evidence collection practices and it hadn't been updated, i think, in well over a decade. so we're hoping that that which now takes account for new dna technology and other technology logical advancements. we're hoping that that will continue to give you and your team members the tools that you need

going forward. chief scott, thank. thank you. vice president oversewn sergeant joel. thank you. i don't want to repeat everything that's been said, but i just want to sincerely thank you and thank you to your family. you mentioned something about the rigors of working svu being on call all the time, and i know how difficult that can be . it's also difficult on your family and your kids. so i know your family's here. i want to say to them, thank you all for allowing him to do what he does . and you also very eloquently talked about teamwork and that really speaks highly of you because none of us do this job alone. but for you to really give, give, give thanks and praise to the team that works around you is very commendable as well. so thank you very much for everything that you do. thank you, chief. commissioner

walker. i would like to also congratulate you, sergeant. the work you do is so important to so many and the work of you, you, your your team work with the unit, the help of the crime lab. this is how we solve these issues. and it's really important. so thank you so much for your dedication, for being here, and thank you to the family because we all know how it's a sacrifice and we all are aware of that. so this award is for you, too. thank you. uh, commissioner benedicto. thank you. i'll add my congratulations . and also to the family. thank you for the tremendous work that this unit does. commissioner walker and i were. we attended the denim day event earlier this year where we got to meet a lot of the of the special victims unit and it's a tremendous group of professionals that are doing great work. so thank you. and thank you very much, captain. sir. sergeant, could you please

take us to public comment for any members of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item one, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. line item two general public comment at this time. the public is now welcome to address the commission for up to two minutes on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the police commission under police commission. rules of order during public comment. neither police or epa personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions by the public, but may provide a brief response. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. email the police commission at sapd commission at icgov.org or written comments may be sent via us postal service to the public safety building located at 1245 third street, san francisco, california. 94158. if you would like to make public comment, please approach the podium. go ahead. go ahead. good evening.

my name is michelle azania and i'm a 26 year civilian police department employee who works for a neighboring agency. i'm here tonight to talk to you about missing persons. i had two posters to help, but they were confiscated by the deputies at the front. i had a poster with six children that have autism and were reported missing in 2023. and other states. five were nonverbal. all of them received media attention. all had an immediate, extensive area search done by police and volunteers. yet all of them, tragically, were found dead within hours of disappearing. the other poster i had was a young man by the name of knowledge shepherd. he's only 13 and is a child of san francisco . his mother reports he has severe autism and is nonverbal. he was reported missing to sfpd on september 15th. sfpd categorized him as at risk, but did not immediately share any advisory on their multiple social media platforms as they didn't publish a press release until three days later. the news reported that he was safely located on september 18th in an

alameda county medical facility . we since knowledge is nonverbal, he wasn't capable of calling his mother or telling anyone that he was missing and needed help to get back home. we will never really know whether anything bad happened to him during those three days. he was missing, and this is unacceptable. sfpd has no public alerts policy. a public alerts policy provides guidelines for alerting the public to important information and soliciting public aid when appropriate. it includes social media posts, chp alerts and press releases. sfpd has posted public advisories, including multiple missing persons announcements on nextdoor facebook and instagram for a 33 year old tourist, a 69 year old and 83 year old at risk adult. so why was there nothing for a 13 year old severely autistic nonverbal child? sfpd has a media relations unit with eight employees, including a director of strategic communications, a social marketing and public relations representative, and five public information officers. but. all

right, just two minutes. i waste my time. i'm sorry. no, it's just two minutes per person. well, i'll be sending you all an email because our policy is very, very old from 1999. it needs to be immediately updated to save children's and other missing people's lives. thank you. i can go. i don't know if you'll be able to. uh good evening, commissioners. i was just going to give my support for sfpd, so i'm going

to do this instead. um, marketing and public relations representative and five public information officers. but absolutely nothing was shared with the public or media for three days to help bring knowledge. shepherd home safely adopting a public alerts policy will ensure that every missing person receives the exposure and attention they deserve. sfpd missing persons policy department. general order 6.10 hasn't been updated since 1999 and is only three pages long. the only updated policy that i located, she located is a two page departmental bulletin. 17 086 signed by the current chief , william scott, dated five 519. the commission on peace officer standards and training updated their missing persons guidelines may 2021, pursuant to the penal code. 13519.07. this manual includes the best standard practices and includes initial

investigative steps. the oakland police department had a similar situation in 2019. their missing persons policy was 20 years old. i was she was a volunteer on the police commission's missing persons ad hoc committee. and they drafted and approved a new policy in 2021. their new policy is 12 pages long. if you check you will see that they post every missing person bulletin on their social media platforms and most are quickly located and updating these policies with the current best standard practices is critical. needs to be a priority and will save lives. and i concur with this statement . thank you. you're welcome. well, thank you. good evening. i'm not here to talk about my son right now, but i will. but i just wanted to make i would still like to use the overhead. i was just talking about the sojourner trip. i took last time

. you know, we were talking about police violence and community violence. and we're just looking back on that trip where when we tried to go to school and we couldn't go to schools, we were being beaten at . and i just wanted to bring up to watched. and i was telling you last time about the children being hurt and i'm pretty sure some of you went on this trip to and then what i saw about was whites only, only two toilets. this is in the history books. and it doesn't make a difference whether it's commercial community violence or police violence. it's all the same. it's still going on to this day . and i still say that we got to look back in order to move forward. if we don't look back at our history, we cannot move forward about what's going on in

our lives now with these with these homicides and with the police killings, with the community, violence. if we don't look back. so i think that i would love to go back on this trip again to learn more. this is not in our history books. and we all need most of you. and i'm pretty sure of you, some of you been here that been to the trip you need to go back. there were police officers crying that day. we all came together and comfort each other. that's what community, violence, community and the law enforcement coming together. that needs to happen. if we if we don't see what happened back then, how can we move forward? how can we move forward? it changed me. it changed me. what i can bring back to my healing circle. and two mothers that are losing children. it's not just police community, police, all the same. thank you. if any members of the

public have any information regarding the murder of aubrey abacus, you can call the anonymous 24/7 tip line. at (415)!a575-4444. commissioners my name is janelle harris and i am a former oakland police commissioner. i am here to support taught michelle in regards to the missing persons policy. i also was a member of that ad hoc that helped write that and we are very proud of that. so i would i would ask that you just take a look at it. we did a really good job at working with many stakeholder orders in that here is a picture of noah. that we just wanted you to see to give you a visual.

thank you. to give you a visual . and here is the poster that we want. we were going to bring in, but it was too big. so we just want you to look and it's you know, there's no it's not by coincidence that all of these children are african american. so you know, i just want to encourage you to just please look at the policies, look at all of your policy years, especially the ones when it comes to safety. it's really, really important. and it does make a difference. we have some things in place in oakland that have really, really made a difference. we find people very quickly and it's all over on social media. so the public has been really helpful in finding some of the people that are at risk. thank you.

good evening, commissioners. for those who don't know me, my name is jay connor ortega and i am a co-president of iconic three. i want to take this time to thank all of our men and women in the san francisco police department for doing the daily job that requires their lives on the line for the rest of us. the san francisco police department, our officers take so much abuse from elected officials, appointed officials and leftist lunatics and still get up each day and wear the badge. now, i am a fierce advocate for san francisco police department because for too long those in charge have put criminals over our cops and communities. and i've had enough of it. a lot of us who aren't victims of crimes take our officers for granted. and those who become victims of crime understand why we need a

fully functioning san francisco police department. aren't san franciscans of all backgrounds are the ones whose sfpd is here for to protect. let this be a wake up call that every day san franciscans are sick and tired of the anti sfpd policies that come from this commission. we are awoken. we will push back. and you can expect to see her at every meeting. thank you. so short. good evening, commissioners. i'd like to make a comment on the traffic data presented last meeting. it goes without saying, obviously, that death is sad and specifically preventable. death deserves analysis by relevant public agencies, but to make a decision on police deployment, shifting away from the drug scene to traffic enforcement requires clarity on the data. the data showed 12 traffic fatalities over six months, three were due to jaywalking and two were attributed to other than driving , leaving only six to the

behavior of the driver, meaning the police really could only have intervened with maximum six people over a six month period. by the way, three out of those six were dui, which also would have been tough for the police to do something about unless they came across them driving in a suspicious or erratic manner. to compare that with over two people a day dying on our streets from fentanyl overdoses . commissioner oberstein, speaking of his concern about the decrease in traffic citations, said we now have eight officers and a sergeant full time arresting drug users. everyone told us it wouldn't go well and it isn't going well. i wonder if some of those officers could do traffic enforcement instead. commissioner oberstein further described the 12 deaths as high rates of death and carnage on our streets to me, high rates of death and carnage more accurately describes the disgrace of 500 people dying already in 2023 at the hands of the very drug dealers. this commission seems to want the sfpd to leave alone. so arguing to deploy more police to traffic enforcement to prevent, at best, six fatalities compared to stopping two people a day from dying from fentanyl seems like a gross dereliction of this commission's duty to public safety, given current levels of

sfpd staffing and resources. and as an aside, it is tiresome to hear the anti law enforcement rhetoric arresting drug users when in reality, the sfpd is arresting drug dealers and there are also hundreds of former drug users in the recovery community who would disagree that their arrest, which served as a wake up call and set them on a path to recovery, was something that for them, in the words of commissioner oberstein, didn't go well. thank you. hello good evening, commissioners chief scott, director henderson, tracy mccray. i'm the president of the san francisco police officers association to weeks ago, when the commission was last here, we talked about that leak of information of confidential information in the sf stands. and during that time, um, and in the past two weeks, i haven't heard of anything being done about it. now, a complaint came in to dpa. you have that

information, that information then sat on someone's desk. commissioner ulverstone and, and we have not had that case adjudicated yet, but somehow now it winds up on the front page of the sf standard. so now as the president of this union representing members who feel that their discipline process is now open for the world to see, i want to know who's going to fix that, who's going to find out what happened, whether it was a leak or saying that the police department released that, you know, just because is like what is going on here? and you wonder why the trust between the officers. i represent and the commission is so afraid because they're not feeling like they're going to get a fair outcome. if we have stories on the front page. these are confidential records. so i want to know how you're going to fix it. i want to know how it's going to be your priority to make sure that

yes, when a discipline case comes before you, that it is confidential. so you do take into consideration about what is going to happen with that case and not have it splashed all over the paper because that is unacceptable. truly it is unacceptable. so go whenever you want to let me know what you want to do about it. you know where to find me. and also, ma'am, i can't wait to update that policy. 1999. i sit in all meet and confers as the president. that should be on our list to get done as soon as possible. and i would love for you to sit, lieutenant mccray, could i ask you. yes could i ask you a question? hit your public comment so. so you said you could ask back. we're allowed to ask questions to public commenters. you you wrote a longer letter today setting out kind of more thoroughly what you

just set forth just now. and in particular, you you, you essentially accused me of being the leaker of this information. and i just wanted to ask you this information being confidential information under state law. and i just wanted to ask you, are you aware that the standard published an article this afternoon specifically debunking that claim that it was leaked information that the standard published an article saying they did not obtain the information through a leak and they set forth in great detail exactly how the how they got the information. are you aware of that? no actually, i've been a little busy with work, but again, i don't go on social media and then say it wasn't me . do my best, eddie murphy. all right. eddie murphy. i just wanted to know if you were aware of that article clarifying so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that this was not leaked information. so are you also aware that that theory that it was leaked was originally

propounded by a right wing blogger who known for trading and disinformation? so are we getting to the politics here, commissioner? do you know he's a right winger? i mean, are you a left winger? i mean, are we getting into this tete a tete right now? or we could talk offline again. so do you want to get into it right now or you don't? i just wanted to know whether you knew whether the origin of this now totally debunked theory came from. that's all that's your impression of it being debunked. so if you want to read news articles and you take that as the gospel and its fact finding that's on you, what i'm asking this commission to do is find out how that got into the paper, right. and you could say, yeah, it wasn't you. okay, that's fine. but i want to know who was it who did it because that was not supposed to happen. and i completely agree. we do need to find out who did it. but i did just want to ask you whether you knew now that the leak theory asked and answered that you out

has now been has now been asked and answered next. that's all i have. okay thank you, lieutenant. i'd like to have this agenda raised. i'd like to have an invested nation start. i mean, that's what i'd like. we need to know. it's confidential information. it got. it got put out there somewhere. all right. if there's no public comment, sergeant, could you take us to the next item line? item three consent calendar. receive and file action police commission report of disciplinary actions. third quarter 2023 and may, june and july. statistical reports. motion to receive and file. second for any member of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item three the consent calendar, please approach the podium. and . all right. seeing no public

comment on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner benedicto. yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. mr. yanez is. yes. commissioner and vice president carter oversaw. yes. vice president overstone is yes . you have four yeses line item five chief's report discussion, weekly crime trends and public safety concerns. i'm sorry, line item four adoption of minutes action for the meetings of september 6th, 13th and 20th 2023. second if any members of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item four, please approach the podium. i'm seeing no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner benedicto yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. commissioner janez is yes. and vice president carter overstone yes. vice president carter overstone is yes. you have four

yeses. line item five chief's report discussion weekly crime chans and public safety concerns provide an overview of offenses, incidents or events occurring in san francisco have an impact on public safety commission discussion on unplanned events and activities that chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. chief scott, thank you so much. thank you, sergeant youngblood. good evening, vice president carter overstone commission executive director henderson and the public going to start off this week's report with just a general overview of crime part one crime. anyway, serious crime . we are 5% below where we were this time last year. and overall, part one crime that is a difference of roughly 1900 crimes. fewer than this time last year. but the breakdown between property and violent crime still is pretty pronounced with our property crime actually down 5, which is almost 2000 crimes fewer. and our violent crime up 2, which is about 100

and about 100 crimes more than we had this time last year. specific to violent crime, our homicide are even with where they were this time last year, which is a bit of good news considering we've been above where we were this time last year. most of the year our homicide clearance rate is 75. actually, it's a little higher than that because we just made an arrest today of a homicide that occurred on august 29th in the richmond district with the liquor store clerk that was assaulted by a robber at. and i just want to also say this. i attended a community meeting in that district a week or two ago, and i know the public was asking where we were on that investigation and there were some some questions and comments because we did get information from the public. that's helpful . and i would encourage anybody that has any information on with a homicide or any other unsolved

crime in the city of san francisco, please, please forward that information to us. you know, we see a lot of stuff on social media, but it's really helpful when we get information that can help us lead to the identity and ultimately the arrest of individuals and hopefully the prosecution. so i just want to thank the public for their interest in that case and please keep the information coming. so with that, there were no fatal shootings this week. no, no homicides this week. we had two nonfatal shootings causing injuries to two victims. this week. overall, for the year, another piece of slightly good news, we are down on our shootings. we've been up most of the year. so we're down just 1% on our nonfatal shootings year to date. our homicides with firearms are also down by 4. it's only a difference in one crime, but it's still a reduction. and we'll take it in terms of gun recoveries. we have

recovered 823 firearms were seized this year. that's compared to 805 this time last year. so it's a slight increase. our ghost guns as of the 823 112 are ghost guns compared to 115 this time last year. slight decrease a couple of incidents. i want to highlight. there were and some of these were good outcomes as far as arrests, assault on sworn officer in a in the suspect was in a suspected stolen vehicle. there was an arrest on this case. this was at golden gate and hyde and the tenderloin on september 27th at 138 in the morning, tenderloin and chp officers located a reported stolen vehicle at the location while attempting to detain the suspect in marked vehicles. the suspect rammed the chp vehicle, then attempted to ram the sfpd vehicle. a pursuit was initiated as the vehicle fled and it terminated at the dead end of venice and mcdowell

, a suspect was arrested. minor damage to the chp vehicle. thankfully, no other people, no people were were hurt in this incident that resulted in an arrest. there was a incident that happened at shaw's candy on west portal avenue on that same day, 927 at 1:42 p.m. this involved a suspect basic likely that assaulted an elderly worker in the shaw's candy store car. when the officers arrived and bystanders had detained the suspect. and we were again grateful to have the assistance of the public on this case. officers from taraval station responded to the 100 block of west portal avenue regarding an assault in progress. the investigation determined that a male suspect had assaulted the victim without provocation and caused her to fall to the sidewalk. took a coworker of the victim, ran to the aid of the assaulted victim and was also assaulted by the suspect as the

suspect pushed the coworker into her retail establishment while inside the store, the suspect assaulted an additional victim in an elderly female customer, which caused her to fall to the ground during the salt work at a nearby business witnessed the victims being attacked and ran to their aid. the witness held the suspect to prevent him from further assaulting victims, but was also assaulted by the suspect, which caused him to release his hold suspect fled from the store, but was followed by additional witnesses and bystander who detained him as the officers arrived, they observed the suspect being detained. officers developed probable cause based on the investigation and arrested the 39 year old suspect, but transported him to the san francisco county jail, where he was booked for four counts of assault, likely to produce great bodily injury and elder abuse. three victims were treated and released by the medics at scene, and one victim was transported to the hospital for non life threatening injuries. again

thank you to the members of the public who bravely intervened. i would just caution members of the public to please do that carefully and safely, but we definitely appreciate people looking out for their neighbors and without them, the arrests would not have been as quick as it was. there was a assault and attempted murder at the on the 600 block of powell on 928 september 28th at 3:48 p.m, officers responded to a burglary call, which was then upgraded to a verbal dispute between the victim. the victim and a neighbor. the victim advised that the neighbor broke into her apartment and trashed it. the suspect then confronted the victim inside her apartment and attacked the victim with a hammer. the also the subject also swung a knife toward the victim, but did not make contact. the victim was treated at scene. officers arrive and arrested the suspect. there were a couple of other very good arrests here. but in the

interest of time, i just want to say that out to the public, please keep the engagement and the information coming in. our officers or doing some good work out there, working with the public to try to hold people accountable when they commit crimes. and we will continue to do that at as far as the other issues for the week, we had one hit and run collision which resulted in a fatality. this one was a high profile because there was a hit and run and then that victim was then hit by an oncoming cruise. self-driving vehicle, an and transported to the hospital. the victim was and later succumbed to her injuries. the driver of the initial hit and run vehicle is still outstanding in this case is under investigation. so again, if you have any information about this case, (415)!a575-444. there were no driving weekends, events this past weekend. and

this week is fleet week. so we have a lot of our armed forces personnel in the city enjoying the city fleet week is all about preparation, though. so there's a lot of exercises between the public safety departments, the state and the coast guard and others during fleet week and it's all about being prepared for big events when they occur and working together. so i want to thank you, thank the members of the armed services who are here in our city. the department of emergency management, who really plays a huge role in coordinating fleet week. and we hope that people, when they're out this weekend, be safe, be vigilant. if you see something, please report it. and the blue angels, which is a huge attraction, will draw a lot of people this weekend. the last thing is senator feinstein, services are tomorrow. she was lying in state in city hall today. the san francisco police department, the san francisco

sheriff's office, the fire department along with members of the senator, staff, all stood in in formation as her coffin was carried into city hall today. so, again, we will be deployed as far as the security for that service tomorrow. and we want to make sure as much as we can that the senator is given the appropriate sendoff with the respect and dignity that she deserves with the service that she has put in to this city and this county and our nation. so that is it for my reports. chief, thank you for the report . just wanted to follow up on on our conversation action and action on on the preemptive preemptive use of spike strips after the commission on clara ified. what was always true that that officers are permitted to use spike strips preemptively. you noted that you might issue

additional guidance on that. and i just wanted to ask you if that guidance has been issued. it it has been issued. it was issued as promised. the commission meeting was on wednesday. it was issued that friday. okay. thank you. thank you. and then i think i saw that supervisor melgar called a hearing on the state of the workplace for women at sfpd . i don't know if that hearing is yet to be scheduled, but i would just ask that any if there is a response, a letter to the to the board of supervisors or any other kind of documents or correspondence, if that could be shared with the commission. an this is an issue that's also of interest to me. i think you remember, chief, i invited the maureen mcgoff to come speak to the commission on how to increase its recruitment of women officers and would just love to be kept abreast of whatever correspondence there is between the department and the board. i'd last i just wanted to

i try not to do this every week, but i want to check in on the state of our push to arrest drug users and just wanted to check in if the staffing is the same and if you do have the updated arrest numbers. yes, the staffing is the same and i do actually have the arrest numbers . staffing is the same as it was from the last police commission. police commission meeting. and while you get the arrest numbers , just to make sure i have it right, the staffing is, if i recall, eight officers and a sergeant that do four, ten hour days. then another crew that does is makes it a seven day week. so fills in the other three days doing, i guess, a total of 30 hours. and then there's a night crew in the tenderloin that spends some unspecified percentage of their time arresting drug users. is

that right? that is correct. and there are other there are other resources that are working. the tenderloin, we have a team of officers, i believe it's four, who spend the majority of their time with fugitive recovery efforts, people with warrants. most of those warrants are narcotics related warrants, but not limited to that. also are our narcotics unit spends the majority of their work working these cases in the tenderloin and soma. those are our investigators that do the narcotics investigations. so those resources are pretty consistent. those personnel are pretty consistent. and if we need to surge resources, depending on what the issue of the day is, we also do that as well. and sorry, just to clarify, the narcotics unit, they're not only working on the drug users, they're working on investigating drug dealers as well. right. most almost all of their work is drug dealers. the narcotics unit. okay. it's all

in. but for purposes of my question, i'm just want to just be able to tease out what we're spending on on arresting drug users specifically me. and let me let me clarify then the 1 in 8 that works, the pretty much the day shift, they work some swing type of hours, but pretty much the day shift their primary focus is the users is the night . one and eight. they do a combination because there's a lot going on at night. so they arrest some users, but a lot of their work is actually drug dealers and other things, other crimes. they arrest robbery suspects. they've arrest, assault, suspect. so just kind of depends on what's going on in the area that they're assigned to. and they're also so occasionally officers when they're not assigned permanently, but we have details that come in when the one and eight are off in the daytime to work. the assigned area that

we're focused in. so that's not a permanent assignment, but we do do that as well. okay, great. thanks and so to be clear then, is there another 1 in 8 crew that does is the other three days of the week that the primary one and eight crew can't cover or. no, not permanently. that's where the other crew comes in, depending on what's going on in the city to relieve to fill that gap. but that's not a permanent assignment. understood okay. thank you. that's helpful. and then and then do you have the arrest numbers today? yes i do. in terms of drug users, since may 29th and these are for health and safety code. 11 three 5011 five 5011 377 and 11 364 there have been 582 total arrests since this since may 29th. and of those, do we know how many have accepted services? i don't

know. i know at least one has, but. well, last time there were actually two. the number was 467 . last i asked you and two of the 467 had accepted services. yeah. so some of these cases are being well, the people that have engaged with our service providers, they don't at least one of the ones you mentioned, it wasn't that they accepted service at the time of the arrest, but case management follow up, i'm told that they did finally accept services. so but everybody is offered it. okay. thank you. that's that's helpful. and then i think, was it august that we had the record all time record for fentanyl overdoses? i'm not sure. okay. i think i think we made a tied our all time record. i guess i'll just i'll ask you again when do you think these resource his these substantial resources we're expending arresting drug users could be better used elsewhere for example investigating and arresting drug

dealers or doing the kind of blocking and tackling policing that we're just not doing right now, like traffic enforcement and foot patrols. at what point do we say this investment? it has not been a success. yes. and we have to now put the resources where they're actually going to improve people's lives. well i don't let me devil's i think about three questions there, so i'll try to make sure i don't miss any. i don't believe that it's. a fair statement to say that this is not working, because what we don't know is how many of those people who were arrested may have overdosed . what i do know is with these efforts and most of this is in the tent. well, all of this is in the tenderloin. we've had 81 reversals, actually, 139 are

reversed. no, 81 reversed. of people who were owed an and if those officers weren't out there engaging with this population of people who can say whether those people will still be around. so i don't believe that that's a fair and accurate depiction of the situation. an and say it's not working. we don't that number may be substantially higher if we weren't doing this. we don't know that. and it's hard to measure what you prevent . the other part of this is, is in my professional opinion, you know, there's two sides to this market. there's the supply and there's the demand, and then there's everything in between with all the people who are involved. but aren't suppliers and aren't users. but they're involved in this in this market . and we have to we have to address all of it. and we're constantly and consistently looking for better ways. the engagement with our social

services, with this particular operation is really, i think, going very well in terms of the collaboration and coordination on and we'll see where that leads today is october the fourth. there's a service that's starting today called tenderloin , where officers and others will be able to actually call people and people who are on the streets using intoxicated if they're willing to go to services. some of those people will will go and this is a nonprofit that will pick them up and take them and take them to services. so that's a hopefully we'll get us further down the road with people who are accepting help. the point that i'm trying to make without being too long winded here is i don't think it's a fair statement to say it's not working. what we do know is we've arrested over 500 people or whatever the number i just read, i think it's 500 or so people and those people were interrupted from using drugs on the street or being highly

intoxicate, dated. you walk around the city, so i'm sure you see the same things that we all see. and i know you've gone on ride alongs. i would invite you to go out there with us. i've been out there all hours of the night and people are in bad shape and there's nobody out there but the police to deal with this. nobody. so when we engage and we arrest the person that's using fentanyl, because most of this is fentanyl arrest or somebody who can't get up off the sidewalk because they're so intoxicated, i don't think it's fair to say that that's a failure because the person didn't accept service, because the people are dying on our streets and we have to engage with people. and again, i invite anybody who wants to take a crack at this with a better idea to join us. all right. thanks, chief. i won't i won't belabor it, but there are there is a better idea to it was, i think, published in 2021. the san

francisco police department, the da's office and other experts sat on a blue ribbon ribbon panel. commission came up with eight recommendations for how to address a crisis like this. and we've just decided not to follow our own advice, i suppose i will i will say you want to you want to if you want to respond. i was going to try to close it out. but if you want to respond, please, you can have the last word. okay no, no, it's not about the last word. i just you know, because i was here, i sat on in some of those discussions with the people that drafted that report. and i don't think that's an accurate statement that some of those things weren't attempted to be put in place. i don't think that document is the answer. i think there are some things in there that are good. but but here's here's my criticism of that document. yeah, there is a couple of lines about the role of the police department. there are a couple of lines. and that's a problem because, you know, for those people that say, you know, this is not a criminal

justice issue, this is not a police issue, i think is a grave mistake. we have to work with all these other service providers, public health, social service providers and we all have a little bit of a stake in this, some more than others. but i've been critical of that since day one. you know, work with us, not against us. and, you know, if policing is not the answer, then let's try something else. but in the meantime, as i said, when i'm out there at 2:00 in the morning and our officers are out there at 2:00 in the morning, i have yet to see any of those folks who are listed in that paper out there. i've yet to see that. okay. except for the police department, the paper does outline a clear role for the department to play, including kind of clear consequences for people who sell drugs. but thank you for that, chief commissioner walker. thank

you. thank you, chief, for your report. and thank thank the department for all the work that you're doing out there to this issue of. your policies and your the current department commitment to the tenderloin. and i want to commend what we're doing, because i do think i agree with you. i think it's working. i spend a lot of time in the tenderloin. i walk, i walk through south of market and tenderloin all the time. it is much better, especially those hot zones, the seventh and mission. i mean, it's a moving target and everything is connected. the users are right in there with the dealers and you know, it's really clear to me that you need to sort of address everything all at once. i will also point out that there's no other equivalent authority. and if we're going to wait around for people to willingly get into recovery from fentanyl, we'll be having the same conversation in 20 years

with less people on the street because they've overdosed. so i appreciate that the serious ness that you're giving the issue, i also was going to bring up the issue of the report on the department's lack. it's specifically around lactation areas in some of the stations and i know i've been working with supervisor melgar's office for the last few months, working on recruiting women into the force. our our conversations have led us to really move forward some ideas around child care close to the stations. this is another issue that's of real importance, not just to women, but to, i think, everyone in the department. so anything we can do to prioritize this, i think that there's money coming even from the governor's office to aim at recruiting folks into the department. and certainly updating these lactation areas

is really going to be important, especially around overtime, that we're wanting people to do so. so i want to support that. but and again, i've been in in conversation with supervisor melgar's office about this. so we will be working together more closely. anything i can do to help, chief thank you, commissioner. and i know that was one of vice president oberstar's questions. if i can just add, we are if vice president if you care, if you can agendize that we can give an update on that. actually i'm prepared tonight, but i know it hasn't been agendized, but we can give an update on where we are and we would love to give an update because we do need to. she just did a hearing to we do need to do some work. i don't know if the hearing has been scheduled yet, but we schedule i don't i don't think it's been scheduled yet. i know she announced that she was going to. yeah, she's she's she asked for it to be scheduled specifically just an update like that. so yeah, absolutely. but we can update i'm happy to update the

commission as well. commissioner yanez, thank you. acting president carter oberstein. thank you, chief, for your report on i know correlation is not causation, but it is, you know, very clear here that ever since we initiated this policing strategy, there has been an increase in overdose deaths in san francisco or well, there still an increase in overdose deaths. and there was a study that we all discussed that demonstrated that whenever these policing practices are implemented across the nation, there is this correlation. so i think, you know, there's evidence to demonstrate that this isn't necessarily the most effective strategy. so i'd like to ask what is the outcome? the tangible kind of measure of impact that we're looking for to be able to then, you know, redirect those resources? is there a number, is there a i you

know, i'm not sure what what we're looking for because we continue to pour resources forces into this approach. and it's not leading to people getting treatment. and as far as i remember, you know, incarceration does not provide the necessary treatment for people to sustain sobriety once they are released. so is there in those conversations with the people that are coordinating these efforts and outcome in mind? yeah, there is. the goal is for people to we're talking about the people with the users , the people with substance addiction disorders. the goal is two things. number one is accountability. the accountability is an issue here . but the other thing is, we all want people to get treatment. i mean, treatment is the answer. you know, where you get that treatment and how you get that treatment or whether there is there's research on both sides

of the discussion on whether, you know, compelling treatment has an impact or whether it doesn't. i'm not here to argue that one way or another. but what i'm here to say is one of the outcomes that we have to pay attention to is the people who have to live with this day in and day out. and we meet all the time with people that are the most impacted by this. and there is a lot of frustration when people who have to deal with the open air drug use, the use the intoxication and the impacts of that. it's really demoralizing to people who have to walk through that and step through that. kids can't walk to school without having, you know, escorts and things like that that is one of the things that we're trying to make better. and now that's not necessarily we are going to be cured overnight , right? but we have to change the behavior of it being okay to

just do that in in numbers that the last time i went out there at 2:00 in the morning, probably 250 people, you know, that's not okay at and whether the remedy is arrest or treatment or everything in the middle, we got to get to it somehow. but what we're trying to do is let people know that it's not okay. you know, we want you to get help, but we don't have enough rooms in our jails to arrest all those folks, even if we wanted to. we don't have enough room. so i think we got to do a little bit of it all. has there been progress in formalizing the relationships with those placement facilities? i know you mentioned an organization. i'm not sure who they are, but are these, you know, memory randoms of understanding in place? so that there are options other than incarceration? there no

mous with the police department, but that is an ongoing push to have more opportune entities for placement at and there is some bed space in our city and i know that bed space has increased it. it impacts our hospitals as i was did a tour with the psychiatric emergency services e.r. doctor at general last week. this this issue is one of the things that has our e.r. rooms overflowing. it's this issue at and when people are left out on the streets and they end up in the e.r. rooms, it just causes i'm not a doctor. i don't pretend to be. i'm not saying i just know what i saw and i know what i heard. so there's many reasons to address this issue. and we don't want people to end up in the e.r. room when if we can get them in placement before or it becomes

that type of crisis, the users, even when they are arrested, unless they have warrants, they're not getting significant jail time. usually it's a matter of hours. sometimes it's more if it's sobering, they're released. so and that's part of our challenge. well, that is that is a challenge. that's that's a real challenge. but at least there's an opportunity for somebody to reach out to them and an opportunity for case management after the fact. any progress on enacting the lead program and obtaining funding for it or revising, revisiting that strategy? it's a strategy that is has been talked about. we haven't made any movement with a formal reentry introduction of lee. you know, i am a proponent of lead. i think it has value. i think part of that. but even that there's a law enforcement component to that when it's done the way it's designed, you know, people are given an option. you're either

go to treatment or, you know, the hammer is waiting on you and the hammer is incarceration. and that is one element that we're not necessarily fully offering right now. right when you have the option on, i mean, treatment especially harm reduction, that is actually the model, right? that if you have an opportunity to access treatment in lieu of and isolation, punishment, probation, parole, whatever the case may be that those folks are then have the agency to self motivate into treatment and yet that's not necessarily the strategy, as i understand it. it's that that we're using. and i, i commend the department for being out there and sometimes reversing overdoses. i mean, i think that's a positive number. and that's something that helps balance out the challenge. but at the end of the day, i think it's been said before, that's not what our officers are necessarily here to do. right

we're we're trying to improve our public safety outcomes. we've done a great job. i think , and it doesn't get talked about enough that our violent crime numbers are down right. and we are facing other issues. but i think that not having that focus solution outcome oriented investment is really going to get us to that place. and as vice president carter overstone said, there have been other solutions proposed. and i just i feel it's we're stuck in a place of kind of just, you know, hoping that this strategy is going to get us to a to a better place. and it just it seems like it's also going to damage a lot of lives in the process. yeah. thank you. and i do, i, i respect that. i do. i do want to say, though, i want to highlight the fact that we are at the table really working hard with our public health officials,

people that are assigned to this, you know, drug market agency coordination center. they're there every day. people all working in the service side of this. the homeless and supportive housing, because a lot of our people that we're talking about are unhoused and human services agency trying to connect people back to their their support systems. so there's a lot of work being done. you know, in collaboration with what we're doing. and i don't want that to be lost in this conversation because i know when we only talk about the rest statistics, whether it be drug users or sellers, we're not talking about that piece of what this is about. this this being this agency coordination center. there's a lot of work being done and we're trying to move the needle on bringing these services and so it's not all policing, but that takes collaboration and. to vice

president carter stone's comment about the report, some of the people who had part in that report are working with us to try to make this work. so i just want to make sure that we don't lose sight of that. it's not all about the arrest. i know that's what the questions that we're asked, but it's so much more to this than just that. and we're trying to bring all this stuff together. thank you. thank you. sergeant, could we go to public comment for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item five, the chief's report, please approach the podium. i'd like to use the overhead again. my son, aubrey abkhazia, who was murdered august 14th, 2006. i have this where mayor gavin newsom said i know who killed her son. mayor gavin newsom said thursday. da know who killed her son. the police know who killed her son. he can name individuals

and their addresses. i bring this with me all the time. of all the names of the people that was involved murdering my son the last report we talked about how much money has been paid out for the unsolved homicides. and then you put on your agenda about about, about the unsolved homicides and finding someone else to pay. i mean, finding someone else to pay tipsters to solve our cases. and still, i don't know what's going on with that. if you hired anyone else to solve our cases, i bring these pictures of all of the unsolved homicides. we all know about them. they're not solved. again i bring my me standing over my son. this memory will never leave my mind. i come here every wednesday to bring

awareness to the unsolved homicides. this is what the perpetrators have left me. a lifeless body. i'm still looking for someone to solve these unsolved homicide ads and pay tipsters some kind of money. again, i bring up, we got to look back at our history so that we can move forward. that is including my son. what can we do about it? i come here every wednesday. it's not putting on a show. i'm not here to entertain . this was my child. this is our children. something needs to be done. thank you. members of the public that have any information regarding the murder of aubrey abacus, you can call the 24/7 tip line. at (415)!a575-4444. hello. good evening, commissioners. good evening,

chief. i firstly want to thank you for that report you've given . and while you all were discussing it, i did want to mention that seattle bill passed with a majority of measure 110 and 2020 and what the measure 110 did. was it decriminalize the possession of small amounts of hard drugs and establish a drug treatment program funded by the marijuana tax. now, the police officers can only cite the users and has been an abysmal failure in 2021, there were 745 documented overdoses. well, in the year later, in 2022, there were 13 and nine 1309 an overdose and no treatment center. so i think the problem we face here in san francisco is the board of supervisors is responsible to get the treatment center and it's sfpd's job to ensure we get the user from point a to point b and ensure the safety of the

community. but we're expecting the sfpd to do the board's job and their own. so like i said before, thank you, chief, for the work you've done so far. and we recognize the work and we want you to keep up with it. thank you. hello everyone. my name is joe cirillo. i'm a licensed clinical social worker here in san francisco. i actually came to talk about the dolores hill bomb because i'm a skater, but i will say really quick, thank you for reviewing what's really happening on the street. i'm a therapist on the street with the harm reduction therapy center, definitely seeing lots of overdoses. so just really putting my support behind more coordination rehab centers can be like waitlists of up to like two weeks. so while people are waiting the arrests don't seem to be helping folks. and yeah,

hopefully there can be more resources put into support and medical support on the street and therapy. but my other hat is i'm a board member of the san francisco skate club, which is a after school program. um, i just wanted to read a few points that our members wanted me to address to the board. so we know that a lot of, most of the charges for the 117 folks who were arrested in july at the dolores hill bomb were dropped. but we just wanted to see if the city and the commission can bring a little bit more clarity to what's happening to those folks who were charged, especially the youth, like what happens with their mug shots, their fingerprints. what are the implications if they're arrested or cited? again and just one other point tied to that, if i can use i don't know if this is still working. so basically, i

don't think it'll show up very clearly, but the san francisco skateboarding laws and the enforcement around the laws don't seem to be updated in a lot of the city government websites. i'm just pointing out the board of supervisors analysts website says that traffic code section 100 says that skateboarding in most areas, aside from skate parks and aside from neighborhood sidewalks, is illegal. i've personally been. there's no further public comment light on him six directors report discussion an report on recent activities and announcement commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a

future commission meeting. executive director henderson. thank you. so we have opened up over 600 cases so far this year. that's a jump in the number of cases that have come in this year from last year. we've closed. 552 cases, which is more cases than we took in at this time last year. we have 304 cases that are still active and we've sustained 44 cases so far this year. we've also mediated 31 cases and we have 22 cases. who is investigate? actions have gone beyond and a nine month period of those 22 cases, 17 of the cases are told and we still have seven cases that are pending resolution from the commission and 85 cases that are pending a resolution in with the chief's office in terms of the

past two weeks, we've received about 36 cases have come in since the last police commission. when i gave this report and the largest percentage of cases that came in, which is 14, were for allegations involving a neglect of duty, meaning allegations where an officer failed to take a required action by complainants. the full list of all of those complaints can be found on our website in terms of the precinct, the largest number of cases in terms of complaints came in from the past two weeks. the largest from central station. we had five allegations that came in regarding central station and those allegations were for complaints alleging, again, that officers failed to properly investigate or to take action when information was reported to them. the full

breakdown by every precinct, including the airport, can be found online for the allegations that have come in in terms of outreach, we conducted a mediation conference. we'll talk about that next week. i'll have a summary for you guys outline the information that we presented in terms of the audit we received an exemption from the police commission on 8.10 for calendar year for 2022 activities. and i just want to clarify, you'll see the information in the audit, but i'm just reiterating it just to remind folks on why we needed that exemption, because there were no investigations governed by 8.10 and 2022, and because revisions to 8.10 are underway as well. so you'll hear more about that as that unfolds. we have nothing in closed session this evening, but present in the

hearing room today, in addition to myself, is chief of staff sarah hawkins. also present is senior investigator brant bagian and also present. is one of our attorneys on our policy team. jermaine jones. for folks that may wish to get in contact with dpr for any reason, you can contact us at sf gov. org or you can contact us. at (415)!a241-7711. i'll reserve te rest of my comments for the agenda items as they come up that concludes my report. i thank you, director henderson for that report. at our last meeting, we agenda and discussed . sfpd's auditing practices as it relates to the audit of

traffic stop data and director mcguire presented on the current practice rs which are just just checking when there's a when there's an entry made that's not completed. the audit flags it, but it doesn't actually look for any signs of, for example, data falsification or anything else that would go to the integrity of our stop data. i just wanted to i know this is an issue that you've spoken about and something that's at the core of a dpa's work, so i just wanted to invite you to, to, if you had any thoughts on sfpd's current auditing practices and how they could be improved. yeah, i think you raised some of the really important issues on the inquiry about falsification or data analysis and those were specifically cornerstones i think we were missing. i did see that report and i reviewed that document that was presented on

the what was referenced as a small data. and i have a number of concerns. and again, i can't discuss any of the pending cases is that i have specific only or those specific investigate actions. but in reference to the overall information and the bigger issue, which is what i think you're asking me about, i , i think there's some real challenges that exist that are actual even from the audit that we were presented small a audit from the charts. it still shows a number of outstanding entries that go back as far as 2020. i real concern about the information that identified in the charts that were numbers were deleted. that's a third of the cases were deleted. 13 of those cases from 2020 are still in progress. for me, these are

just numbers on a page. there is literally no analysis or explanation that speaks to the issues that we were investigating and continue to investigate as it relates to stop data. it's not in compliance with any of the audit steps that were committed to under collaborative reform. um, the cri or even the bureau orders. that's not what at least what i saw. that's not what this is. that doesn't speak to what was mandated or to the data that we requested or tried to raise and evaluating the stop data we has raised the issues about stop data and the reliability of that data for over a year now. but we have i haven't seen a change either in the response or in the data. and this this report did not answer any of those questions as well. i've said this before that we are a small

department and we have limited staff. we are working diligently on the individual cases that we have, but we have real concerns as we have real concerns about the information that we have that speak as well to the individual discipline without having a broader understanding or a full measure of both scale and scope of what the problems can be. we've seen that problem in other jurisdictions, and i'm not saying that we have those exact same problems in san francisco, but we have the same indicators of those problems here in san francisco. but it's difficult to drill down on individual transgressions without a broader understanding of more data and broader analysis. and those are the two things that we need. i would suggest, and i think we're moving in a direction where the best option would be a review,

which is comparable, but something different from an audit. we've done audits in the past as everyone is aware, award winning, i might add, and so i'm going. to begin a review too, which is separate from an audit because it's a little more nimble in terms of the analysis. but that that review is going to call for us to either work with outside agencies and or with the department, but will absolutely need more access to data and analysis, which is what i think this is where i think this process and where the project needs to go. so that's what i'd like to do. but i'd be calling or asking for someone from the commission to continue that work with us as we unfold. failed to

confirm or deny by the problems that i think we've uncovered thus far. i know commissioner benedicto has worked with our audit team extensively. i don't want to expand his role anymore or yes, i do. i don't even need to dance around. it is we i think that's that's what i would like to see. that's what i think would be helpful in addressing this issue. i think the individual cases that come up are a real concern. but if we really want to speak to the problem in ways that confirm or deny the problems that we've seen in other jurisdictions is i think that's the step that needs to take place. i don't know if that answers your question, but that's that's very helpful. i think that i think that does answer the question. that's helpful. and i think, as we said last time, we i think we need to agendize this issue again to coalesce around a specific

course of action and the thoughts that you laid out certainly makes sense to me. um commissioner walker. thank you. now i have a question on i think we've talked about this before and i, i think it would be helpful when we look at this in light of sort of the discussions that happen every week around should we be arresting drug users or what should we be doing ? the information that we're getting around complaints that come in? i would like to see kind of the complaints around that issue of people calling, because there's folks who are doing stuff out in the street. and when officers come, they don't respond. i mean, i would imagine since i've been on the commission, most the largest percentage are in action rather than action. and so that's real

. i mean, there's a lot of what police are doing, especially as we ask for community policing that is about crime prevention, not crime fighting per se. and so, you know, it's the if the complaints are around a mental health crisis or if they're around drug use in the streets or if, you know, the drug use accelerates to something else and i mean, i think we have had a policy in the last few years of not doing anything, letting people be and making sure there was no violence happening. but i think that the last few months, there has been an effort to stop the action. yeah. so i would say and i think which is why i report those statistics as in as much detail as possible. and i try to make sure that it's clear that as a disclaimer, these are the allegations because these those exactly are the things that people are calling to

complain about. but without the specifics from the subsequent and following investigation ones that come from it. yeah, but this you know, the commission asked me to report on these things. that's kind of why i do it. it's harder for me to drill down on in all of the specifics, although i do to 100% on everything that comes to and through the agency every week. and that's why i put it online just so there's complete transparency about what people are asking for here with some of the specifics. and i focus on just the general ones. but you are correct that just in terms of a review, and i think this is part of what you were asking, is what we're seeing is that that trend in terms of folks complaining that they've called to have someone arrested or that they've called to have a police report generated for something and it's not happening,

continues to be the top allegation. so separate from all of the other analysis and complaints and investigations that come into the agency, that has not diminished what i've seen in terms of diminished or changes week to week is the percentage get higher or lower, but still remains the majority. it's rare that that that that allegation or that complaint is not the top complaint at the agency. i think it's a it's part it's a relevant part of the conversation we have about alternatives. and i think knowing that knowing the need out there is going to help us find better solutions as an alternate response when we can. so i don't disagree and to me, when you guys are having the conversation, the balance on the other end of the conversation is just this, that the calls are still coming in. and i think the department, you know, as the chief has addressed in the past , the calls come in every day for everything. and these these

allegations, i think, reflect that the majority of those calls that come not just to the department, but to the agency themselves, asking for a demand for services, a demand for a response with out a broader breakdown of the specifics of what those calls are. but those come subsequently, later, and then you see them in my further investigations and then those are broken out quarterly and annually. i mean, i think it's also important to note that the care court is starting up around the severe mental health issues and the referrals from family and loved ones that that have more impact on the system. at some level, these numbers are a measurement of the need of that efficiency or if it's working in terms of the public's response to it, great. yeah. thank you, commissioner benedicto. thank you very much. vice president carter overstone. i definitely agree with you. director

henderson, that i think that some sort of formalized review i think makes sense. it's something that that i've discussed with steve flaherty, who does audit a cpa. i think it's an important an important specific step so we can achieve that transparency. i wonder, chief, if you had i know it's being floated and talked about live, but if you had a reaction or wanted to respond to that, to a possibility of having to do some sort of directed review about about the about the stop data. yeah or response, because i know we heard from director mcguire that one reason why the audits as they are right now are really only able to look at are so limited. i we talked about how they're only looking at started and not completed. and one reason was that there's just one. so there's just not the resources. but if it were something that uh, to at least give us a snapshot of and better insight into what, you know, the scope of the problem is, because

we've seen this in other departments. if that'd be something that you'd be open to working with the dpa on. yeah, i'm open to working with dpa on that. i just want to say also we have to sustain the effort. you know, i think mr. rosenstein read part of the substantial compliance and one of the issues was we got to staff it. we have to staff this. you know, the audits are good. they're great. but audit recommends actions have to be implemented. and you all know that because we've been held to account on that and we have to staff it, you know, and that's kind of the bottom line. the scope is fine. i am open to that, to answer your question. but we have to staff this to where audits are sustainable because as absolutely it has to be an ongoing thing. absolutely. and i think that they aren't mutually exclusive. i mean, i think that a one time review that, as director henderson said, is maybe short of an audit. so it doesn't carry with it some of the same requirements might provide us a roadmap. and then long term. absolutely. to

add more to that unit sustainable, i think i think is good. i think then if i'm i'll continue i'll reach out with rector henderson's. i'll reach out to steve flaherty to see. and i think what would be, you know, i think that we've talked about this a lot, chief. i think that the system works best when dpa and spd sort of have a unified front and they're collaborating on something instead of instead of in a more adversarial nature when it comes to policy changes. i wonder if i see i see director mcguire there and i want to director mcguire on the spot. if you could ask if we could work collaboratively with dpa to come up with some sort of a specific action proposal to satisfy what the vice president has asked for. so we can present at a future commission meeting. this is the one time review proposal. there's buy in from dpa. there's buy in from sfpd. there's this is the data sharing they've agreed to. and so we're not getting and if we could present that to my fellow commissioners

for a vote and then that action can be taken. yeah. i mean, i'm always willing to work with staff. steve. i'm go we go way back to the controller's office together and i'm also always willing, willing to work with janelle or whomever is appointed or assigned the work for sure. perfect. thank you. director henderson. yeah, i was just going to say, i think one of the big issues is just in speaking to one of the concerns that the chief raised in terms of personnel, a lot of this can go almost out. the majority of this conversation is really focused on access to data, less than the personnel to evaluate it. what specifically is a problem or not a problem? the issue is more access to the data and the raw data. even for the small audit information that was presented, going through and evaluating that information is, i think, a big part of the solution that

confirms or denies whether or not there are a pattern in what we've identified are clear problems, whether or not that's individual or systemic. that's, i think, a big issue. i know you said you wanted to agendize the issue and we can come together then on what the plan is. but i'm mindful of limited resources , both from dpa. we're very small department in comparison to the police department, and i'm mindful of the chief's concerns about staff and personnel for this work as well, which is one of the ways is one of the reasons, one of the very reasons why i think a review is the best option that is open to working with third party agencies like an academic institution or third party agency or third party department to help leverage both the analysis and the data to make

sure that we have something that's accurate and reflective of what i think the concerns that are raised from the individual cases that we've seen . great. thank you. and yeah, i think the we'll get to talk about this more later. but the d.o.j. cops report specifically suggest using an outside organization. i think that would hopefully satisfy the chief's concerns about staffing. and i am surprised to hear that access to data has been an impediment since by state law, all of our stop data is publicly available except for personal identifying information. so i'm hoping that any issue to data access can be resolved with dispatch. okay. seeing no other names in the queue, sergeant, could you take us to public comment for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item six director's report, please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item seven commission reports discussion and possible action commission reports will be

limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to counter any of the issues raised for future commission meeting. commission president's report. commissioner's reports and commission announcements and schedule of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. commissioner benedicto. thank you. vice president carter hubberstone. a couple of updates from me. um let's see where to start. earlier this week i spent some time with with the policy development unit, which has been sort of restructured to work within our written directives unit and the way the department is handling its policy development. i believe that the vice president and commissioner walker have also attended similar meetings in the past. there are an incredible group of officers who are trying to who are spending a lot of time trying to get our policies in line. we heard from some members of the public today that there's a disheartening number of our policies that still date back to

the 1990s. you know, i want to acknowledge the i talked to the chief about this before, about the progress. this commission has made. i think we've passed more general order updates in the last year than in the preceding significant number of years. so a lot of progress is being made, but a lot of progress still needs to be done. and so it was really educational to sit in with along with some of the commission staff and as well as assistant chief flaherty with in that meeting. um, i also want to acknowledge i believe they left, but the members of the public who raised the issue of our public alert policy as one of the policies that the date back that's that dates back to the 90 ends. i've asked them to send i believe it was the oakland policy that they both worked on to our commission staff so it can be posted for members of the public to see and hope to see that among all the policies that are hopefully updated, going forward as well as fellow commissioners know,

we've continued to search for a our policy analyst position. commissioner walker and vice president carter and i will be conducting interviews for that shortly. and so hopefully that long saga of that vacancy will be coming to a close as well. um, and i also lastly, i wanted to talk a little bit about the open letter that the police officer association actually sorry, before i do that, i also wanted to acknowledge captain o'brien noted his domestic violence survivors month. it's also hispanic heritage month and filipino american heritage month . so you know, a lot of celebrations in this month as well. but i wanted to close to briefly talk about the open letter that the police officer association sent to the commission office and shared with the media. i know lieutenant mcrae spoke about it in public comment. i don't see her her in the gallery anymore, but as she said, she's easy to find. so i'll if given the opportunity, i'll share these

thoughts with her as well. i think it is important to note that every single member of this commission takes confidentiality incredibly seriously. it is. we are bound by charter by state law. half of us are attorneys. we are bound by our own professional responsibilities and take and take confidentiality and our duties as the discipline body for our officers. very seriously. and that is true of every single commissioner. we sometimes have disagreements up here on policy , on strategy, on tactics, but we do not have disagreements on our serious commitment to confidentiality of officers under our disciplinary proceedings. and it was disappointing that that this letter questioned that commitment, but also accused a commissioner specifically accused vice president carter stone without any evidence s of violating what is, again, a very

significant and serious duty. there's agreement, i think, among this commission to get to the bottom of how confidential information made it into the public. and i think that there is agreement that we want to get to the bottom. and we heard commissioner walker talk about agendizing that and i think that is 100% appropriate. and called for. you heard the vice president call for that to what i don't think is called for is to jump to a conclusion, to an accusation, a very serious accusation without any evidentiary basis. and that was that was disappointing to see. i understand that the poa has a responsibility to protect its officers. we as commissioners have a responsibility to protect officers confidentiality as well. and i think i've said this to a lot of people, it's important that when we have disagreements on policy, we don't have disagreements on motive and we don't have disagreements that we have similar goals. and it was it's been overall, i think, a

productive year of working with the poa on a number of issues and it was disappointing waiting to see what an accusation. it didn't have any evidence when we've seen in the reporting that it was apparently we've seen from the publication that published the story that it was there was a document redaction issue and nothing at all tying it to the malice of any individual commissioner. and so i personally would like to stand up that i don't believe any of my fellow commissioners would violate a confidentiality of officers. i believe that every single one of my fellow commissioners takes that commitment seriously. and i defend my fellow commissioners individually. i defend our commission as a body. and i think that it was out of line to make that accusation without evidence. and i joined my commissioner's commissioner walker and the vice president and hoping that we'd get to the bottom of how this confidential information was produced, but that we should stick to facts and not baseless accusations.

thank you. thank you. commissioner benedicto. and, you know, i echo all of those words, all of those sentiments. and i will be responding to the poa's letter in due course. just to updates for me. i like commissioner benedicto was invited to attend an orientation session with the policy development unit. i very much appreciate the invitation and a chance to meet some of the new employees and a chance to get a better understanding of how they view the policy making process and some of their thoughts and challenges. so i appreciated that and also like commissioner benedicto, i will be sitting on the interview panel interviewing applicants for the commission's policy analyst position and look forward to hiring someone and filling this this vacancy that's been open for quite some time.

commissioner yanez. thank you. vice president carter overstone a quick report from me. had a good meeting with commander parra from the community engagement division, put them in contact with some folks that reached out to me about contributing and offering some youth development training for the department officers. and i'm and also contributing to community policing strategies. the connection was made and they will be moving forward trying to coordinate calendars. as i, i had a conversation with juvenile probation department president margaret brodkin, who invited me to go to the youth commission on sorry, to the juvenile probation commission to provide an update about our progress towards initiating the pre booking program and that update they

requested in november. so it gives us a little bit of time to get a little more information in. thanks, chief, for reaching out to the policy folks to get us the revised juvenile. dgo 701 draft which which i know is a work in progress. and it's good to be able to get my eyes on it so that we can provide some feedback and suggestions and lastly, i am working to coordinate with the youth commission in who has some questions around in the pre booking program that we are working on developing. and lastly, i do i did around this data conversation, i had a meeting with a professor from san francisco state university who is interested in offering and leveraging some of their staffing to kind of comb through all these data points points. i know that it may be a challenge

to engage a third party, but i think when somebody's leveraging their expertise, i think we should seriously take a look at that and see how it is that they can contribute. but considering what a large and heavy lift that's going to be, so i know that this is going to be agendized for us to figure out what the path moving forward will be. so i'm very interested in participating in that conversation and that's my report. thank you. commissioner walker, for thank you. so i will just reiterate again that we are in ongoing discussions about the recruitment of women into the department with the assistant chief lady over there for the issue of child care has has been raised. and we also i've been discussing this with at the state level with our senator and our the governor's office to actually help with. i know that

the state gave money to help with recruitment. and this is one of those issues of that could really help with these kind of services available for folks in our department. so i also discussed it with the sheriff's office, who who is also very supportive of having the service available. so i'm really excited about that. and also look forward to the update about the lactation stations and how we better improve those situations. and also, there's ongoing conversations about the patrol specials project. i talked again with our city attorney and we are just the next meeting, i think is october 10th, where we're going to start discussing very specifics about it, what it would take to do some pilot programs with our community benefit district partners, the specifics of that and not just the rules and

regulations and training requirements, equipment, but also, you know, what we have to do to amend current agreements with the community benefit districts. there's a lot of support from folks who are already doing private security, who really want to partner more . i've also spoken to the folks in department of emergency manager that are running the heart program, which is the sort of the parallel of parallel infra structure creation to get folks is not aimed at jail or hospital oils into wherever they're going. and it needs a whole other infrastructure to support the bringing all the parties together. so i really am looking forward to that discussion and seeing how that all works. the departments are already speaking together, but really having the kind of infrastructure we have that allows us to transport people who are arresting and who are in

an emergency. it needs to be as effective. so hope really we can i'll update and bring people in on that. i think that's it for me. oh, i did want to mention that there is a october 20th, 26. there is a pink brunch at bill graham auditorium supporting women's health breast cancer supported by the sfpd, especially the women's caucus. or is it the caucus of the women's group within the department? i'm happy to share information and maybe i'll give it to the to sergeant and he can let everybody know about it. but it would be great to have everybody there. it's a it should be well attended. i think they're anticipating 14 to 1500 people. so okay, october 22nd, commissioner yee, thank you very

much there. vice president carter, also, i just want to report that last month, september 22nd, i was able to attend the safety meeting with cic and cadc. that's a community youth center and the chinese american democratic club that held a safety forum for in richmond district with cap captain chris canty. some of the concerns with the merchants was that on their there have been quite a few break ins, so i replied to them that they should also check their locks and making sure it's properly the right type of locks for their for their door fronts and also hopefully they have cameras there to keep them safe. cic was able to pass out some safety package information while i was there briefly to just introduce

myself and to listen to their concerns. one of the merchants asked me is have you ever tried for filing a report online? i said, yes, i have. and he says his question is, is it difficulty? and i say, yes, it is difficulty. go through it as as i experienced it myself. and the last one was, is there a translate options for other languages and i did not know that answer. so maybe i'll talk to the chief after this meeting and get that information. if you have it. that's all i have to report. thank you, sergeant. could we go to public comment, please? members of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item seven commission reports. please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on line item. eight discussion and presentation on benchmark.

first, sign a case management system at the request of the commission discussion on. there you go. you can just use. all right, thanks. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ron huberman, chief director. i am the ceo of benchmark analytics and we are grateful for the opportunity to be able to present to you. today, i'm joined by my colleague nick montgomery, chief research officer at benchmark analytics. hello, commissioners and chief. great. so we thought it would make sense. we'll give a quick overview and of course you'll interrupt with any questions you may have or leave them, whatever the appropriate protocol would be. but i want to just start by thanking the chief and all the members of the san francisco police departments who have been our partners in this

endeavor and have been incredibly forthcoming and hard working and get us getting us to the current position that we're in. so thank you for all that work. great there's fundamentally three parts of this program, and today we're going to be focusing on two parts. one is first sign, first sign is the brand name or the public name for the product that is an early warning and intervention system. and we'll be talking a lot about that product. what the data that goes into it and how we come up with the information that we do as well as system call care. so stands for case action response engine, and it's what records the follow up actions after an officer has been identified for incremental support. so let me just start by saying a few quick things about benchmark. we were founded out of the university of chicago where the company was first formed. it was initially a research, initially a research

project that that spanned over ten years that try to understand a fundamental question, which was can you use basic police operating data to understand and the likelihood that an officer is going to have a problematic incident rate and then use that data to try to get in front of it and help steer that officer and provide interventions and support to help get them on a better and different trajectory . the result of that research from the years of chicago is that the answering is overwhelmingly yes for police data does clearly show some officers need incremental support. it is identified, able and knowable, and there's a way to interact and do that. our work is funded by the joyce foundation. it's a non-for-profit organization that is based out of chicago and works primarily in the great lakes region, as well as the american institutes for research. the american institute for research is one of the largest non profit research organizations in the country,

and they do a lot of work with municipalities, counties and others. in this particular work. and so the three things that we fundamentally focus on as a company are how we get and how police departments manage all of their people. data we do not touch the crime side of the house. we focus only on people data. so internal staff, data and information of what we do. we then use that information to help police departments understand which officers need incremental support and intervention, and then we help them track and manage those interventions. ultimate to lead to better outcomes for those officers and the public that they serve. just a few quick notes about us. we operate the world's largest multi-jurisdictional database. why that's important is it's very hard for any one police agency to put together all of the information you'd want to understand police performance globally. but because we do this across the country with agencies of all sizes, we're able to take what we learn from any one

agency and port those learnings from the data and analytics to other agencies that we work with and then the last thing i'll quickly say is we operate late. we host, i should say, through the university of chicago, something called the national police early intervention outcome research consortium. it's a mouthful, but ultimately it's a place where police departments come together and can share best practices and understanding around what interventions work, what do you do, what are the best model policies around how to intervene, how to intervene, how to identify problematic conduct and the like. just a quick other note here. trying to look while i talk here. we're the only research based product on the market and so up until this point in really the history of law enforcement has been trigger based systems. if you get three of this over y window of time, as an example, they alert we have a research paper from our colleagues at the university of chicago that shows that those

generally lead to a 70% false positive problem, meaning you're alerting a ton of officers that shouldn't be alerted. and typically a 40% false negative problem, meaning you're missing officers that you should be identifying. we came about this and said there's got to be a better way and a research based approach is what ultimately ended up mattering the most to do this. so what we can tell you is we've been very deep in this work with sfpd to date, and we've developed a model that is deployable and ready and pending, authorized version of a policy for its deployment. but ultimately, the data science results of it show that the model has 81% efficacy. see what it does that number mean? it means that 81% of the time when we identify by an officer within the system, within the next 12 months, they'll go on to have an investigation for a major event. it is about what we find in policing across the us. our average efficacy rate is about

85. i believe it's 81% today. just because we're not live, because the system gets smarter over a window of time. in the sf context, we used over 79 different data variables to come up with the early warning system . so there are 79 different variables that are involved. they fundamentally come from four different data sources. as officer attributes, arrest records, internal affairs data and use of force records. we find about 5. and this is a national number of american policing. when we engage in police departments to be at risk . what we can tell you about american policing globally or nationally is it's never evenly distributed. so don't think about 5% of an agency being at risk. that's spread out evenly. typically when we find risk, we find it in pockets so that any one community might be experiencing more risk than others might be, and that typically that 5% is creating 66% of the disproportionate force events. i'm now going to

pass it on to my colleague nick to talk a little bit about how the system works. and we can get into all the details as well. thanks nick. thanks, ron. so the way that the platform works is that it takes data fed daily from the sfpd data systems, brings all that information in and converts it into an assessment of those officers and their activity levels. it's looking at sworn officers who have at least one year of activity to begin that assessment process. and any officers included that has a one year or more as it's looking at the data on a daily basis, it compares those officers behavior patterns over the course of their their tenure to other patterns that have existed inside sfpd historically. so it's looking for those other officers who have been investigated in the past and looking at those patterns as to identify similar trends for individual officers. those officers are identified and selected by the system. and then there's a secondary system that

looks to compare officers to their peers. so not only is the platform identifying compared to prior patterns, but saying are the individual officers selected different from officers who are deployed in similar areas, similar ranks, similar times? once it makes it through that secondary gate, the officers are released to a dashboard for prioritized intervention. those officers are categorized into an actionable state and advisable state or a minimal state for supervisors to go through and begin the review process to determine next steps. so what does that actually look like? and what you'll see here on the screen, as well as in your printouts, it's providing detailed information on that officer's risk history. so have they been alerted on before? has it changed over time? essentially is this a recurring pattern for the officer? it's looking at information for arrest patterns, complaints, investigation and discipline and use of force. and for each of

those, it's looking over the course of the past years to compare that officer and whether or not they have similar or greater levels of force investigations. et cetera. compared to their peers and the overall department, those individual areas that may be issues for the officer, they're flagged as either elevated or high, telling the supervisor and the user that the officer is in the top 5% or top 1% overall for the for the department, and then they can follow down for detailed information about the specific events that the officers were involved in over their recent history. this part of the page is what's the main place for supervisor to interact and engage with to understand their individual officers who have been alerted on they get a broader view or they can see all of the officers that they're working with and that is based on their permissions and their scope within the department. so sergeants would just see their unit. and as you move up in the chain of command, they would see other officers that are underneath their purview. all triaged for them into that

actionable, advisable and then minimal state for them in terms of the officer risk with that, they can also track whether or not they've begun their interventions, how long and click in to see additional courses of action and that's really where the meat is. that course of action process is where supervisors working with support from across sfpd, sfpd, can identify exactly what an individual officer needs and where their issues might have been and supports mentoring or coaching, coaching, training. et cetera. to correct their behavior. that process is then reviewed and submitted to command staff for approval so that everyone's aware of the officers and the supports that they're receiving. so as we look at the system and the way that it's being implemented, i want to echo ron's statements earlier that we've had strong partnership from across the police department in terms of implementing, getting all the data in and building and developing policies. we've got

the data in there currently for arrests, complaints, use of force and assignment history, and that as additional information is added over time, it can be added to the algorithm to enhance the selection process as well. so that overall is what we're seeing with the platform. and as ron had mentioned earlier, the system is ready to go. and right now and it's waiting policy approval. and we know there's been i would just say as well, tremendous amount of work that's gone into that policy research and work to try to identify what makes the most sense for san francisco. really, really great work by the whole san francisco team. great thank you both so much for that illuminating presentation. just a couple questions for me. can you just at the very outset, you said we don't look at crime data , we only look at in-house data. can you just clarify what

exactly you mean by that? yeah so we look at officer behavior. we don't unlike a traditional case, a case management or a record manager system that captures crime data. right? our whole focus is a company and the work that we do is focused on officer attributes. so because of that, there's we're not capturing crime. what we do capture is activity, though, right? officer based activity. so arrest, use of force, vehicle pursuit, internal affairs, complaints that might be alleged against the officer. all of that data is brought in, but we're not capturing otherwise criminal data inside the application in using that in the in the course of the evaluation right. okay. that makes sense. thank you. and then you mentioned the 81% efficacy rate. does that include both false positive and false negative error? no what that statistic speaks to specifically is the likelihood that says from the moment someone is alerted. right. so let's put it this way

. if 100 officers were alerted, 81 within the next 12 months would have an investigation on for, i think, the definition we use here is a major adverse event. so would will there be some investigation that's launched? i i see. so i think maybe i'm not understanding this then. so you mean you tested it against historical data and you're saying if we you know, if we had known what we knew at the time, these officers would have been flagged before their event, basically? that's correct. okay. and then but then so i guess my flip side. so that's not capturing, i guess, false positive error. right. but then do we have a sense for the number of officers who we wouldn't have caught, who nevertheless would have had a who then go on to be investigated? right so we've the way that we've optimized the model and this is a decision made in in partnership with the department is to optimize for making sure that we get the when we do flag someone, that we're

flagging the correct person so that we gain buy in and trust with those officers. so we're maximizing or minimizing false positives, right. and so that's we're at that 5% is what we're seeing in terms of officers across the department overall. we're not optimizing for the false negatives. and so do we have a sense like have we quantified the type two error for this model? we don't have the specific type two error on that, but that's something we can provide. and just out of curiosity, that seems like something one would want to know. i'm just curious why that why that isn't something that was i mean, i understand why you might want to focus on one versus the other, but i'm just curious, like why the assessment of the model's efficacy didn't involve assessment of type two error? it's included as part of our detailed review of what's actually happening inside the model. but our selection criteria for have we achieved sort of the goals, the model focus on the false positives. great. okay so you mentioned there were 79 variables and one question i just occurred to me

is, will it be transparent to the person looking at the dashboard and why any particular officer was flagged? i mean, nowadays we read about ai, where the ai is doing a great job at whatever it's supposed to do, but you just don't know what happened behind the curtain. and so with this number of variables, i'm just curious, will it be reasonably clear why you were flagged? yeah if we could you know, we've got screenshots of the system that you can interact with right? would it fundamentally allows the streets supervisor to do and it's really designed for a supervisor right is to take a look at an officer for a window of time and understand what what is the nature of arrests that are occurring, what is the outcome of those arrests? are they are they resulting in force now? force the system doesn't treat force negatively, right? the system is measuring what we would call as proportionality of force. so relative to how much resistance the officer encountered, how much force was

ultimately used to overcome that from a pattern perspective, we never look at one individual event right? we're looking at a pattern of conduct. and so ultimately what we are what the system is optimizing for and what it's assessing for is to help supervisors understand what are the nature and types of arrests, right? what is the nature and type of force that that officer is using. what is the nature and type of allegations or investigations that might be occurring with that officer and then it localizes it for them. so, you know, we had the chance to listen to some of the dialog today. so, for example, an officer who is working in the tenderloin, compare them to an officer that might be working in a community that is very low crime would be an unfair comparison, right? there's going to be fundamentally different levels or necessity of force utilization in. so it gives that supervisor the immediate peer group comparison across all these domains so they can say, okay, if i'm a midnight sergeant in the tenderloin, how is this officer relative to other officers who are performing the

same job function in the same neighborhood, interacting with the same same members of the public? and so what we typically see is it's pretty obvious when you look at that dashboard and you look at these things to say, okay, this officer may have a problem with verbal engagement because it's the nature and type of allegations they get. this officer might have challenges with de escalation. so the system provides enough data and descriptive descriptions to do that. we as a company don't include any analysis that can't be explained. so we are not a we are not an ai company where we just run, you know, random forest or any other, you know, machine learning algorithm and says, aha, someone's at risk if we can't explain it in a way that and we use focus groups of supervisors from across the country that an that a supervisor can't look at it and say ah i think i get the problem . so then it's we're not using those measures. and that's a big

part of why those peer comparisons are in there. and that secondary screening part is to make sure that it's interpretable. all right. and on that, on that point of kind of normalizing or adjusting for other factors, what kind of work went into ensuring that kind of we understand which direction the causality is pointing into. so for example, you gave the example of normalizing for where which district station the officer is assigned to. but let's say, for example, in an officers assigned to a specific unit and that unit experiences kind of higher use of force, how do you know that that should be kind of controlled for because that unit is just put in more situations where they encounter those types of situations owns or it's the opposite. it's that officers who are more likely to use force are disproportionately assigned to that unit. how does the model kind of understand what's causing what? so i mean, that's a great question, right?

so there's as we think about the trade off between in the model itself, purely identifying officers who will be investigated in the next year versus selecting down to just those people who are different from their unit. so it's a it's a two part process intentionally for that. and it's not it does not entirely rule out the possibility that if everyone is high in the unit, that it's going to allow those officers to not be selected for. so that's definitely something we monitor for inside the system as part of our ongoing processing within the data. but there are certain patterns that even in a unit that so when we said that there's, you know, a small percentage of a police force that we identify, i'm going to speak nationally right? that may have problematic conduct that that 5% is never even there in a unit, right? it's a commissioner is what you're describing. but but even within problematic units patterns appear that we identify. so for example are you do you have a large amount of on

view. right. discretionary arrests associated with the arrest, resisting arrest where there's injury. okay that that pattern repeat id is almost always super problematic. and if you have a unit involved in that right that has a lot of that, then even though the unit might have a lot of utilization of force, it's still going to be identified in our system and to be very clear about one thing, our system, we expend a lot of analytical time thinking about the fact that the system should never be alerting for high activity, right? so you can have an officer who's got a ton of arrests and a ton of other activity and never get flagged in our system. it is not a bad activity. is the outcome of that activity that the system is measuring against. right. that's helpful. last question for me. this is more of a straightforward question. as you described kind of this one year

probationary period before you get provisionally kind of sorted. and part of that involves comparing your stats to historical stats. are those historical stats just sfpd, or is that relying on your other jurisdictional databases? it's purely the sfpd patterns and trends. the national database helps inform where the model starts, but everything about what's happening inside the model for sfpd is sfpd specific . great. thanks so much, commissioner benedicto. thank you so much. vice president carter overstone thank you for that presentation. i know it's been rescheduled at least once. and so thank you for your flexibility on that. this seems like a program that has a lot of potential. i mean, we've been calling for a modernized early intervention system program. i've been calling for that since long before i was on the commission, since it was in the d.o.j. report, it was in the blue ribbon report. and so i'm glad to see that that we're moving forward on that. i want i

think my question is for chief, when they mentioned that all that's left is, is the policy implementation stage, do you mean that there's a general order that needs to go to the commission or like what's what's the what are the next steps in terms of implementation? so we so we've put out we've already put out the first phase of training. we put out some videos to socialize this with the department as we work through. and i won't say troubleshoot, but whatever issues come up in this, in this year, we will take that. and if we make it need to make adjustments to the training that we've already put out to anything that we've already put on paper. as far as the protocols that would be during that period. so not, not dgo, i think it's not necessarily a lot of this is operationally setting the right protocols based on whatever we find during this year. and if i could just add to that, just with vice president

carter orbison's question, you know, there's always i mean, this is the obvious, but i'll state it because it has not been said. there's always a human element to the analysis. you know, these systems, as good as they are, only are effective when the reviewers understand what to do with the information. so like the unit you use. question it's a great question, by the way, but somebody has to dig deeper to determine whether these things that might be red flags are, in fact problematic issues. the system is can only alert. and so part of this is incumbent upon the department to make sure our folks are trained. they understand on what to look for, what questions to ask, where to dig. when these alerts come up. and that is vital to the success, in my opinion, of this working the way it's supposed to. thank you for that. and so as i understand it, then there's nothing that is needed on the commission level to enable the continued implementation of the benchmark system, not at this point. i

mean, there may be changes afoot as we dig into again, what this what this offers. i think this is going to open up a lot more ability for us to do what is designed to do. so that might come with requests for the commission to weigh in on if it touches any of our policies as it stands right now is isn't governed by there's not a general order on is correct. no there's not a specific order on. yes. okay. so it's not like they would need to amend any general order to enable this to continue to continue to move forward. right. that's correct. but i'll double check that right now because i can look real quick. okay. yeah. and i know that i know commissioner yanez has has showed great leadership on this and pushing it forward. so i know there's great attention to the commission. so i know we we'd love to be kept abreast as things update or if there are any, if there are any roadblocks that we can help plow through. i think there's the interest on

this commission to do that. you know, i'll note that you talked about kind of socializing this among the department. i think that is that is an important step. it reminds me a little bit of the what you saw in this department and others. you know, gosh, almost a decade ago when you saw the widespread implementation of body worn cameras where there was at first a lot of skepticism. but what you've seen now is unanimously to an officer, every officer i've spoken to is a huge fan of the value add that body worn cameras provide to their policing, the value that they provide to accountability ity to making sure that they're able to do their job to the best of their ability. so i am hopeful that when we look at modern early intervention systems, as in the in the longer lens, a couple of years from now, it will look like what we saw with body worn cameras, where after officers were socialized and understood the value that they become an independent, an indispensable tool for policing. so i hope to see that. thank you. so, commissioner, i stand corrected. so 3.19 is the icu at

this point, i don't. it has not been touched in since 2007. so i'm sure there will be things that come up that might need to be revised. and this is probably i don't know where it is on the schedule, but it's due for revision anyway. okay we should keep that maybe at the top of the commission's and i'll just mind, i'll just chime in that there is actually like a parallel process taking place. and now with is also participating in that. we just didn't want to put a timeline because there had been some delays with implementation and with developing the actual platform so that is a work in progress. thank you, commissioner martinez. and again, thank you for your tremendous leadership on this issue. thank you. commissioner benedicto and so i do have a couple of questions there had been a request at some point from dpa to see if the if the

system was capable of sharing information in real time with dpa when it came to certain alerts and general failures investigations, is that taking place as. no, not to our knowledge, but it's not a systems question. it's a policy question, correct. so i'm sorry , but i would say the way that our platform is designed is, is it's not meant to be a gotcha system, right? not that dpa is a gotcha system, but it's not it's not meant to be a disciplinary tool. it's meant to be a preventative tool by its design. so it's all about incremental. so i'd say from a policy perspective, our position as a company and as a research organization is this particular tool is most effective at driving behavioral change. when it's developed from the ground up as supportive, non punitive way to help those officers who are struggling out there. got it. and the reason i ask the

question not necessarily to criticize or try to contribute to changing your program model because it is a policy question, right. and for us, when we see such, you know, important technology, we finally reach our department. it is something that becomes useful across the board for our city to benefit from it. chief, would you have any issues with sharing that information as far as there are certain thresholds that lead to an actionable risk as far as the languages here? right or an actionable, advisable risk alert ? and sometimes those initiate internal affairs investigations that that my understanding are some are not necessarily always as initiated with the knowledge of dpa or with dpa being involved for there to be a parallel investigation action, if in fact there was some type of, you know, dpa type of

incident. but as far as there being you know, non compliance with a with a dgo or some type of behavior that's deemed, you know, in need of some type of action as far as disciplinary action is concerned. so if i understand your question, i that would be problematic if information if it's a disciplinary complaint that dpa has and there's something an incident that also triggers an alert, dpa should have access to and will have access to the incident. but the information from the system is not meant to be used as disciplinary unless the investigation uncovers that there's discipline involved. so i don't know if i answered your question, but the answer is if there is something that triggers an alert that dpa is has the

jurisdiction for, they would get that information. but the data from an alert being triggered just on the surface, i don't think that is that is what this system is, not what this system is designed to do. so the way i understand the system, once an alert is leading to what is the actual language here. a the action of alert. let's see. yeah, there's actionable alert and advisable alert and minimal risk. minimal risk obviously doesn't issue anything actionable alert. is the system saying that there is a strong pattern that needs review? and i think the chief's point on the human has to look at it. we've got police experience, actionable, advisable suggests, hey, the patterns going in the wrong way. and so someone needs to look at it, but it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of actionable. but the system itself isn't using any new information. so any

investigative information, such as an allegation or other data that's feeding it is already in the system. it's already there. right. there's not. it's just using existing data or existing outcomes of investigations. for example. but it's not it to help identify to say, hey, someone needs extra support or training or intervention. right. but it's not there's no investigation from our alert. right? it's not there's no independent there's no independent investigation other than the identification of a pattern that says that officer may need some incremental support. and so when that alert reaches, the supervisor, i know that there's like a risk manager team that will send that alert to the supervisor, then that's up to that supervisor to determine whether that actionable alert will actually lead to a performance improvement plan or a disciplinary action. correct. in this. so let me speak about this

in general. outside of the sf purview, because we don't speak policy for anyone. so i'll talk about it nationally and just to give you a sense, we just came off last week. we had a national summit talking about this very issue across the country. so and we're very lucky that we serve everyone from very different jurisdictions dallas, charlotte , nashville, new york city, nypd, baltimore and the doj. d.o.j. just brought us on for baltimore's consent decree. so we've got a lot of experience in lots of jurisdictions around this particular work and there are two general models us that that have that have grown from the work. okay? the original model is that it would get pushed down to the immediate chain of command. let's say a sergeant and lieutenant in the immediate supervisors of the officer. okay what we've

generally learned about that model is it generally failed and it generally failed because when it would go to the unit, i'm talking about nationally, there would be little to no action. it would it would get dismissed first, right? someone would look at it and say, oh, this is fine , and it would be very hard to get action to occur. the second model, which is a centralized risk management model, which is it's only centrally managed, right? and we just had a major city that did that and then undid it. the challenge was, is that the folks who lived in the in the risk management bureau equivalent would say, hey, this officer on paper needs intervention. right. but i've never i've never met nick, so how am i supposed to evaluate nick? because i've never been on a call with him and i've never been with him. and so that model struggled. so the ideal model that we have and we have a model policy that we publish is a hybrid model, which it comes into a central risk bureau like

organization, okay? they review it and then they partner with the local chain of command collectively to determine the right course of action and to help get that officer back on track. and it's that marriage of the of the involvement of the immediate supervisors on the street. but with the central risk management together is what really makes it powerful and where we see the most behavioral change to the positive. i hope that answers your question, commissioner. it gives you some it answers how your system works, for sure. yes. and the question is back to the chief. if at that point that supervisor iser determines this pattern of behavior merits some form of discipline or activates an internal affairs investigation, then can that trigger be shared so that in real time we have a parallel investigation, which is what is charter amended to do? well i don't believe that is the

case or should be the case. dpa investigates complaints from members of the community. so let's say let's say the pattern is excessive force and officer has, you know, for excessive force. but there's no complaint from an individual. and the excessive forces are all deemed to be within the san francisco police department's policy that that trigger would not out right yield necessarily. it would that would not yield discipline. but let's say one of those actually was out of policy. if i hear you correctly, you're saying that information should be shared to absent some dpa complaint is the question correct? yeah, i don't think that's appropriate. dpa do . director henderson. well, let me say, would there be a benefit if dpa has a relevant investigation, they will get the

discipline history of the officer or if they have an investigation that's connected to this. but the idea of just i mean that that's not the idea that every time internal affairs sustains a complaint that that information gets flagged by dpa . i mean, that's basically what this would be. i don't see the relevance and i don't see where that's appropriate. if it's a dpa investigation that's connected to this. and there is a there is a connection where that information is relevant to their investigation, absolutely. but just on the surface of every time a case that or a situation where a pattern of conduct is being investigated and let's say for whatever the circumstances are, it turns into a disciplinary situation. there needs to be some connection, in my opinion, to an actual dpa investigation. director henderson. okay. so two points. one on the information that's

being collected and analyzed and disseminated can be helpful in terms of our practices separate from aghacha and separate from discipline, which are still relevant but is absolutely relevant to some of our policy conversations, legislative conversations and the mediation practices that we have. but the bigger issue and the ultimate issue that i think is the key here is rather than notification from the information being disseminated to us in real time , and this is what the conversations have been with benchmark. and i think with the department as well have been asking for a portal of access to the information for concur cases, not to create new jurisdiction, but where there's concurrent jurisdiction and open cases or from the dpa's open investigations, if they're shared information about concurrent cases that are going on from internal affairs and or from items or information that's been flagged from benchmark to

have access to that information . and that's what we don't currently have access to. that's what i believe we're trying to work towards is does that make framed it so much better than i did? well, it sounds like we're saying either the same or similar things. i believe so. and i'll just add a national perspective. we don't have a single we work with 200 agencies in seven statewide contracts. and i just give that for context. and every jurisdiction obviously needs to determine its own outcome. but we don't have a single one where this is disciplinary based or it leads to anything to do with discipline because it undermines the it undermines the buy in from officers and from supervisors who we need, who ultimately will make or break a system. right. they're either going to take action or they're not. and when we get them to take action, it's because they they feel it's safe to engage officers to say, hey, this is not right. i got to i got to help you be better at this difficult craft of policing or

we need to support you in different ways that live outside of disciplinary track. right? that is a that is a supportive angle. and so just for context, every other jurisdiction that has done this or we've studied it or we've worked with has ended up in that framework work for the ais program that we provide. great. thank you for that. and i guess in there is one of the questions that i have for our current it department chief. this system, um, i think relies on fidelity to a model that requires documenting discipline at and i feel, i know i sound like a broken record every time there's a report or a quarterly report provided where i see that there is one performance improvement plan for the whole department. but what are we going to do to, to shift the culture of our department to

actually, when there is an advisable or actionable or, you know, risk recommendation or an alert for those supervisors to actually be put things in writing in a performance improvement plan that can then be revisited to ensure that what we are hoping for the prevention of an incident is actually taking place. well, things are are put in writing and i just read one today, you know, performance improvement plan where it was everything was in writing, including whether that performance was was improving. so the things are put in writing. i think i believe what i'm hearing. your question is, are we taking the appropriate action when we have something that's actionable, i believe is your question. so the performance improvement plan is one way to get at that. if, let's say, a an alert is

triggered, the review is done like it's supposed to, and the support is, hey, this officer needs to be on a performance improvement plan and they're overdriving. they hadn't gotten in an accident. they hadn't killed anybody. but we know they were overdriving because of whatever the alert they are not talking to people the right way. and maybe that's the reason that they're forced threshold is high. the force is may all be in policy, but the real reason is because the officer's not talking to people the right way. and, you know, that's causing some of the issues. those are things that that i have seen in performance improvement plans. that's been documented. but the question i believe your question is how do we determine whether the performance is improving? right well, yeah. so one one of one of the things is when you stop seeing, let's say that the example i gave with force, you see a reduction in the use of force. you you, you have a reason to review body worn

camera and see that the person is actually treating people with the dignity and respect that we expect him to. so there are measures out there and if those things aren't happening and the force continues, then we have to go to another measure. it may be reassignment, it may be. and that's happened before. so there are there are there are things, concrete steps that have been taken with performance improvement plan. so i just want to say that because this will still be a part of at least the support that we can give officers when they trigger an alert. and if it's a discipline case that triggers the alert, that discipline case will be investigated and whatever is appropriate, it will happen there as well. but the officer still may need support, even if the discipline case is investigated and sustained. and there's whatever the appropriate

penalty, it doesn't mean that the officer that that that performance improvement plan goes away. does the benchmark system or ongoing support provide guide development in those areas on how to, you know, create a successful performance improvement plan, how to, you know, gradually work towards improvement in certain areas? yeah, there's built into the action plan itself which there's a screenshot there in the in the document. it helps the supervisors and the risk team first assess what the problem is , right? so what aspects of the data did you look at? and then it allows them to, it provides suggestions around mentoring, coaching, training, intervention, support so that they can select from as part of building that plan. what's your follow up timeline going to be? how often are you going to check in with the officer? and then there's the capability for after, for after, after action plan follow up. so for example, some agencies will schedule 30

day journal entries where you have to report back on what you've been doing relative to the plan. so right. the plan itself helps the supervisors construct the way of doing that, to be supportive to the officers. great thank you. uh uh, director henderson, thank you. i'll be brief because i made my main point, but i just wanted to respond in part to what commissioner yanez was saying. one of the issues that i think you would expressed concern over was what those results will be if they're not shared phd from d.p.a. and again, i've raised this issue before. i think if the statistical reporting and data were commenced, right? so it's not just dpr even, for example, the things that i report on weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually, there is a commensurate report from internal affairs. you would see those things and be able to measure the efficiencies of bringing an agency like benchmark into the picture. and that was part of the original conversation justifying the

budget to bring them here. and i think that that's a report that leverages having them actually speaks to some of the problems that we repeat frequently here about the lack of resources having benchmark at the table speaks to those lack of resources because the technology will be a tool if we use it effectively so that we have broader, more transparency and more efficiency in terms of what the data will be, because that's what we originally had spoken about was the benchmark was going to be and serves as more than a representation of just early intervention systems, but was also a tool to be used and now paid for. that's both going to collect, analyze and disseminate information. so i just want to make sure that we're still talking about the same things and not a narrow framework of just the reaction on to the actionable alerts. there's a lot more information that's being shared to and

through benchmark. and as long as we have the commitments to be expansive about it, that shared data and the collection of data, i, i think it's a positive thing. so it's and i know that you guys already have a benchmark or best practices because you're in other jurisdictions, both in terms of what what the capabilities are of benchmark and what you have done, not just with the departments, but with all oversight agencies and independent agencies, civilian oversight agencies as well. and you've worked with jurisdictions that have those agencies. his. yes, in the past, yeah, absolutely. and there's a whole aggregate statistics piece to the platform as well, right? that there's i think there's two pieces to it. obviously, there's individual alerts, right. which is at the officer level. but then there's aggregate information that the system provides, which is pretty broad. and maybe what would be helpful when you guys are presenting in the future if there's a whole separate component, just to

speak to the total of what the commission has jurisdiction on or over, if some of those presentation options speak to some of those shared data analysis or shared data capabilities with the civilian oversight agencies, that would probably be helpful and specific and then we wouldn't have this drill down to make sure that we're not forgetting anything that we've built. and paid. for all right. commissioner walker, thank you. thank you for this presentation. i mean, i see this as an incredible personnel tool that is really going to take some time away from in human analysis and i think that i really understand and see the importance of there being a trust factor in what it is. it's really helping managers manage their staff and i mean, i think

it's important to see aggregate numbers of how many triggers there were in one given time around certain things and, and compare and see if this is working. and again, i want to i'm really reluctant about sharing specific data because it does then sort of cross over the line into personnel issues and feeling punitive. and, you know, it just it's going to kind of defeat the purpose of having it. so i really understand that it and i really i love this because i think it's really going to be helpful. so all right. thank you both so much for the presentation. thank you, commissioner yanez, for your leadership on this. sergeant, could we go to public comment? great thank you. thank you. members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, the benchmark presentation, please approach the podium. there is no

public comment line item nine discussion on collaborative reform initiative quarterly update second quarter 2023. discussion on. here we go. getting in here. i thought i was going into the white house. did you did you. good afternoon or good evening, commissioners. vice president carter overstone chief director henderson. i'm catherine mcguire, executive director of the strategic management bureau . we weren't expecting to present tonight necessarily, but but we do have i mean, meaning our unit, but we do have deborah kirby here from jensen hughes, who is our our contracted consultant, that is doing the

monitoring and providing monitoring on behalf of cal d.o.j, who is doing the oversight piece of our collaborative reform. so with that, i'll hand it over to her. good afternoon. as i pull up my powerpoint, my name is deborah kirby. i work for jensen hughes . so good evening. my name is deborah kirby. i work for jensen hughes. i've been asked to provide a brief overview of where we are in the collaborative reform initiative and then also to be available for any questions or concerns we may have at this time of the process next slide, please. so in. in 2016, the us department of justice came into san francisco at the request of the then mayor and chief of police to look at issues within the within the city and within the department following some highly

publicized officer-involved shootings, the last of which was mario woods, our team conducted that initial investigation in and we came forward with a series of recommendations, 272in all that were focused on five strategic reform initiatives. as you just heard a presentation here that identified that there are concerns that are consistent across policing agencies in the united states and the concerns and the objectives that we identified here were consistent right? so use of force bias in policing, community oriented policing, how the organization holds itself to account as well as how it hires and retains personnel. all issues that i've heard discussed here tonight and i have heard throughout the years here in san francisco. next slide, please. so we published our final report under phase three in february of 2022. at that time, the department had accomplished almost 90% of the overall goals. the objectives of the recommendations at that

time, our report in the final three identified what were some of the areas and some of the concerns going forward at that time, what had occurred was that the department negotiated through and with the california department of justice to go into what we call phase three plus. and the goal of this program or this phase of collaborative reform was intended to help transition the department from a traditional monitor oversight role of some outside agency to one where they can self sustain and identify not only what are their organizational goals, but how do they want to go forward in the transformation. so consistent with that, what we wound up doing, if you go to the next slide, please, is that the focus here began in september of 2022. there are five project plans are aligned with each of the strategic recommendations with the exception of personnel, although that plays into one of the plans with the goal of coalescing the recommendations

and the way that they were originally envisioned that they came in under strategic areas and they were necessary linked to help the organization build iterative practices that helped them to achieve the goal outcomes. and so under these five project plans, the department engaged and agreed with the california department of justice. and two, on a timeline that's rather aggressive that ends in april of 2024. our contract with this project extends to allow for final review and an assessment. it's no surprise here, but we know that there are always end of game or end of project issues and resolutions between the various stakeholders. and so that time expansion will allow us to deliver a consistent report that reflect all of the input of the stakeholders. there's also a portion in this phase that allows for sustainable review. and so what that means is that of the recommendations that were awarded substantial compliance by the california department of justice, we will dip sample and

review to a percentage of those. right now, it's about 10% and waited in terms of their priority and their prominence in terms of the reform occurring here in san francisco. so some of these were awarded early on the work on use of force was significant. the department was identified as having a leading policy in 2016. and since that time there's been additional work occurring. and so looking at that and saying, you know, is the organization capable of maintaining a level of transformation and accountability to what it's promised to do? further, what we're looking at in next stage is that the independent monitoring review will assess not only the work done on the recommendations, but also the organizational structure as it can go forward in what we call to infinity and beyond. right. because as police issues are iterative, they they grow, they continue every day. and the question is, is there the organizational framework and

capacity to address these issues in a way that is consistent, transparent, focused on community service and allows the department to demonstrate that it is following its policy and guidelines. next, one. so when we talk about the project plans , there are basically two addressing use of force, right? and in 2016, this department had a significant issue with data, even though there are complaints about where the data is today, it has significantly advanced since that time. and what you just heard was a presentation by an organization that's coming in to help the department coalesce its disparate data systems into what ideally will be a managed management dashboard. and i'll talk about that in a minute. but it what the use of force aspect of this is, is really to be able to start to measure, analyze and report consistently on the force that officers are using. there's the sustainability aspect of that in terms of looking at what's going on around use of force and then also review of what the practices are and the policy practices of this

organization. i need to note that the 2016, 2017, the department of chief's substantial compliance based on its policy 5.01. since that time, it's gone under subsequent review and revision of the department's own accord. and frankly, the disengagement policy that they've recently published is probably a nationally innovative policy and one that we don't see happening in other jurisdictions. so that's a positive outcome, right. the other thing that we've noticed and we were just here last week on a site visit as part of the work under phase three plus was that you're seeing the training division, specifically the field tactics unit taking the recent officer involved shootings and looking at and breaking down what's happening relative to the video , the data, the evidence and identifying whether or not there are ways that training can help the department overcome a force situation or improve the outcomes of a force situation. so that's truly innovative and impressive work that the

department continues to do around the use of force. next slide please project plans three and four really are the ones i think have the most interest and part what we're talking about under project three is advancing the community policing practices of the organization. and this thing called covid really put the end of phase three a little bit off of the rails. the department did a good job in terms of trying to maintain community outreach at a time when it was not necessarily feasible, but this phase is intended to allow the department to identify and define what its structures are for community engagement, to demonstrate that they have the capacity and the willingness to do so, and that they can take forward the early work of the stakeholders and collaborative reform and push that into a process that will allow them, the stakeholders and the department to work together prior project plan four is probably the more interesting one and definitely intriguing in terms of what the department is trying to do in terms of

identifying bias and being able to assess and address whether or not there are bias practices and what does that look like in san francisco? so you just heard the presentation of the vendor who will be working on that system and that is directly linked to some of the outcomes in terms of the recommendations. and so what we're seeing within the department is that not only are they looking at this concept of bias, but as you heard here today, really looking to develop a management dashboard that will allow the department to identify, assess what officers are doing, but also make it transparent to officers in terms of their performance and what they're doing, and then allow for the opportunity for managers, leaders to have real time data to assess are there variations, are there issues, are there things that i should manage? because the concept of management within law enforcement is not one that is widely inbred. and law enforcement is really focused on discipline because generally officers arise through a system of collective bargaining and they understand that. so the ability to have this data and

move it forward, i think really will put the department on a national best practice standard and then finally, the fifth project plan, which isn't addressed here, is really about the department looking at its internal internal affairs data and how again, how they look at discipline and what does discipline mean within the department and frankly, whether or not there's disparity in discipline practices. and so these five project plans together, you can go to the next slide. i really want is going to bring the department. i think, into a wrap up of what collaborative reform is about. but also allow the department to demonstrate what its commitment is to the community forward. now that being said, you know, there are challenges and issues for every plan, right? so i've discussed the promising right that a management dashboard. but the one issue that i think is imperative to understand is that in 2016, when we came here, the department was really in a reactionary mode and wasn't necessarily inclined to look at practices, things that were

identified as not being appropriate. what you see in this department today is one that is learning, focused and really at iterative improvement . and so you have commanders now, you have deputy chiefs, you have chiefs who were leads on the development of the project and the recommendations in the early days. and so that allows the department to operationalize it, challenges. all right. so resourcing so we're hearing discussions today about who's addressing narcotics and who's doing this. and some times the actions of data collection, analysis, getting reports, dip sampling and audits are not seen with the same fervor that having police on the street are. and so in a self driven reform program, which is what san francisco has and is unique nationally to any agency that i'm aware of, resourcing continues to be a challenge because there's not a judge, there's not some lawsuit that's forcing behaviors. it completion timelines on it

projects are always notorious for delays, but also that can the it plan deliver what is anticipated and is expected by the department? and the timeline is a challenge. we have until april of 2024 for a completion and there are pressures that will come up against that, part of which are resourcing and it but it will also continue to go. and then we continue to hear some discussions around policy development. it was an issue in the original report that we're not deep enough in the woods right now, but the revisions of 3.01, the policies that we've seen promulgated have shown that the department is able to work within the system, but just to make sure that there aren't any backslides in terms of any of the policy applications, as we haven't seen it yet, but that will be part of this process. next slide, please. back one. thank you. so the one thing i do want to say and i've said it is

that san francisco is a unique department in that it voluntarily, although somewhat less so. right. undertook a reform approach which when the us, doj exited this situation in 2017, the department in the city could have stepped away right? but they elected to continue to move forward with the reform initiatives. and so that is something to be commended. you've had california department of justice as the oversight partner for a period of time and you've also got organizational investment in this program. i've talked to people recently, like i said last week, we work with the teams, we work the project plans, the goal and the focus of how to improve is present invisible. and so this is not going to be easy. there's 1300 officers out there. each one can make a decision at any time. and we're answering questions and issues regarding that officer. but if that structure is there, if that stakeholder engagement and the transparency remains as this department is well positioned to be successful in the future and so for me, that's

a positive end to this presentation and frankly, to several years worth of work. so i'm here now to answer any questions you may have. thank you, miss kirby, for the presentation and director mcguire for being on hand. and a couple questions for me. we've recently discussed we discussed a little bit today, but at the last meeting we fully agendized the issue of the department's auditing of its stop data. and we discovered that in essence, the department isn't auditing its stop data, not not any audit that would catch anything that would call into question the integrity of the data auditing of stop data is something that the cops report comes out and says it's very important. it's specifically recommends engaging . a third party like a university. and i think the words that you use are that kind of like the bare minimum is to

get an independent outside partner that that's considered best practice. we're obviously not doing that. we're where do you see where we are now on auditing of stop data and do you have a. jensen you have a view on what steps we can be taking to the commission is going to be actively considering this. so i just curious if jensen hughes has a view on kind of what direction we might consider going in? yeah. so there's good and bad news here, right? the submission of data, the stop data for how many years hasn't been basically audited by most agencies who are engaged in it. shocking to me. i come from a state where that was audited. so i think it is a problem throughout california. i also believe that with the work that's being done currently in terms of the management dashboard, the ability to link the various databases will help inform. but our original call

investigation review assessment identified that there were significant issues and i don't know that there's been strength placed in developing those those standards. now, there's challenges here, too, right? so what type of organization comes in and how do they do that? and frankly, whether or not the department is in a position to be able to continue and maintain a level of audit. we've talked to stakeholders to this process is short answer. it continues to be a challenge. it's not one that i see a near-term solution to, but it is one that is part of the closeout of this project. we've been having conversations. there have been some outside agency brought in to look at various aspects of the data, as you're aware, but as it relates specifically to stop data, i think that continues to be a challenge for the department and one that we'll be working with them. great. thank you for that . i think it was last week or

maybe it was last meeting or maybe a couple meetings ago. i asked the chief if he would be amenable to putting on our website all bureau orders, bulletins, maybe some department notices, but but putting up all significant policies that are not department general order, general orders. i'm looking at my notes. i think at page 149 of the d.o.j. report that was called out as kind of, again, something that was basic best practices, the chief's response was that i wasn't prepared to commit to doing that and cited staffing issues. i'm just curious if you know, jensen hughes has a view about the necessity for transparency around all all policies that govern how officers in the field carry out their duties right? so i think the issue that we saw first on was that department

notices were being used to circumvent the due process. right? and so that's why it was called out initially because it was unique and frankly, probably counter mounted. the goal of the process established in the dgos when we get down to bureau orders, unit orders. so when you look at a large law enforcement organization, there are multiple orders and the ability to keep those aligned and consistent with the change in policy that you were just speaking about, a policy that hasn't been revised since 1999, i came from the chicago police department. i'd go into units where i was commanding. i'd be like, when was the last time somebody touched this book? so i think there's two things here, right, is that the department has committed to transparency around its dgos that's consistent, right? but but to be able to build a process internally where they're able to maintain those standards becomes part of, i think, you know, transformation and beyond. is that what are those auditing? and when i say

audit, i mean something different here because of los angeles. so i'll use paul's term of review. what are the review practices around the update of unit policy is and i think there's several things that you have to focus on initially because it is iterative. what are your risk issues? right? you know, are you do you have different use of force policies? i'd be looking at swat right. and what are your positions around stop what data are you maintaining that's pii and is there anything that's not consistent with the current organizational rubric? so the long term answer here is, is that i don't know that it would be helpful to put every unit order division order up on the site. but i do think that the organization itself needs to be able to establish a rubric under which those policies are reviewed, are consistent with the practices and where they impact community concern. there should be transparency to them. great. thank you. yeah. you spoke primarily to two policy

revision, and i do want to ask you about that as well. but just to this issue of transparency, is there is there any reason why we shouldn't, for example, post publicly every bureau order, or is that not what what the cops report directs us to do as well as a recommends that we do as a best practice? yeah and i can't answer what is contained in the unit orders now because. no, no, i'm sorry. just bureau orders. bureau orders. yeah i don't even know what's in the bureau orders, but to my understanding , there shouldn't be anything that's inconsistent on, you know, there's always a concern about whether it directs a specific tactical action. but i don't think that would exist at the bureau level. but i can't speak to that. but conceivably, there should be transparency to the orders. great. thank you. on this larger policy issue that that you raised, it does jensen hughes have a view on kind of what best practice is are in terms of policy making? i think,

you know, we've talked about this commission, the need to revisit 3.01, which sets out our policy revision practices. and i think many stakeholders perhaps for different reasons, also agree that revision of 3.01 would be appropriate for my perspective. we've had recently the issue that you've flagged the department using bureau orders improperly to circumvent the geo making process. we just they just issued two bureau orders that clearly should have been dgos. in one case, it directly conflicted with an existing dgo and in the other case a geo revision was well under way and the department front ran that and just issued its own bureau order. we've had deputy chiefs blow owing deadlines under 3.01 and not even taking the time to request for an extension of time. so we just lose track of policies and where they are in the process and we've had some new very

innovative interpretations of 3.01 from the department's policy unit claiming, for example, that that that geo affords them unlimited time. now to revise a geo despite setting out strict time limits. so that's those are some of the issues from my perspective. certainly the bureau order issue is spoken to directly many, many times in the cops report. i'm just wondering, in jensen's hughes practices or experience whether you have recommendations about how to make our policy revision process work better for. yes. so you're raising issues that i'm hearing anecdotally. and so we really haven't had a chance to look at what is the current status of what's going around the policy review. i think that there's a couple of things in play here, right? is that policies are meant to guide the actions of police officers and sometimes those requirements require some sort of swift intervention or, you know, if something's deemed

illegal, if something occurs that the department knows that it needs to switch it has to have the flexibility to do that. however, when it comes to those community facing concerns, what is the measure that's in place to hold the department to account to ensure that there is then a public view, approval and implement of those policy requirements? and so that truly san francisco is a good practice in a lot of ways in terms of its community involvement. i mean, that is something that is, you know, continuing to be progressed across the country right now. but you also face a challenge in california that's a little bit unique. is that most agencies are lexipol, right? and so this concept of policy and how to build policy and how to actually manage policy remains a challenge for a lot of these agencies coming out of lexipol practices and in san francisco, you know, it is a major city, right? and so the size of the bureau and what are the specific

needs of the bureau? how do those drive those policies? so it's this concept of community facing issues. and then, frankly , how do you get operationally what you need to get done and where do those two intersect? and in some regard, this idea of time, you know, it goes to both ways and how does that get done? and so to me, 3.01 was developed by this group with a goal of improving policy development. but it has some tweaking, it seems, because we hear comments from various stakeholder ears regarding that. so it's best practice we're working on that. i can't tell you that there's one solution. san francisco is unique and we're trying to work for that solution. and one other thing on this on this issue of policy making, one thing about 3.01 is it gives a lot. you know, department leadership get a lot of input throughout the process. but there's no built in requirement that the commission consult and solicit actively the

thoughts and feedback of line level officers who will actually be charged with implementing the policy. do you see other jurisdictions as engaging in involving officers more soliciting feedback and when revising policy? it depends upon the policy right. so and it also depends upon the agency. so there's a lot of policies where they have the smees, which are the officers actually doing the work in some circumstances that review and inform the policy. and that's a practice like a policy working group that has various levels of officers working on a policy. there's also ways that, you know, i have agencies that are using the system similar to the department and how they send out orders that they send out notice to officers to make comment, and that those comments then are received and evaluated by the policy unit. and so there's ways to expand the visibility and the input of officers to the policy process. and other agencies are doing that. great. last question

for me. you you aptly described a period of time that you referred to as infinity and beyond. and i'm just wondering what what does that look like concretely? once jensen hughes moves on to its other, more important work in cal d.o.j. that that mou expires who is or maybe it's just the folks up here but but what do you envision as the process for ensuring that we maintain compliance with what we've already reached that we are meeting compliance for the outstanding recommendations and that we don't backslide on recommendations that we that we have completed? yeah. so there's one thing that i just really want to put out here right now is that this is a significantly different department and frankly process than what we saw in 2016. and so it's been iterative and sometimes when you're sitting in the chairs, you don't see that. but coming back from

where we were in 2016 to where we are today, i think that there's a lot of good here in this organization. the city and in its stakeholders that should be recognized. i think that, you know, and beyond really addresses the issue that you're raising. can these stakeholders work collaboratively to address the real issues and concerns? because you may disagree, but you all believe in the process. you believe in this department, you believe in this city. and so each of you need to work in that. i am by no means pollyanna, but i do believe that the ability to create an operational framework that looks at one, you know, what's going on with the stakeholders, what do we need to do? and three, how do we improve? it is key to ongoing success. there's always going to be some issue that's the nature of policing. it's the nature, nature of where we are in terms of crime, right? but the ability to apply the principles of for the community by the community and are we doing the thing that we want to

do under our own goals, i think are critical to continued success. and that's why it's important to recognize that this is more or less self driven. this this city, this department asked for this. and this is where it is. and so when i say when dad's out of the room, how this city and how this department goes forward, i think the framework is here now. and it's important because a lot of officers, a lot of lower level supervisors have been exposed to this program. they have grown up in, you know, in the department owning it. and they're now at places to make this continue to go on. now, there's always going to be challenges, but it's how you address it. and i think that that framework has been instilled in this organization and now we're working on it under three plus to make sure that it's fully there. but there's hope there. great. thank you for that. commission benedicto thank you, mr. vice president. and thank you, miss kirby, for that presentation. and for the continued commitment

out of johnson hughes to this work. i wanted to ask most of my questions are focused around the sustainability review for already completed recommendations. the dip sample would this process allow as part of that review? if there were if there were backslide observed, would that include johnson hughes changing the designation from substantially incompletion to something else? or would it would it just like what would that look like if you if in one of the recommendations you saw some backsliding the ag has final authority on saying whether or not this department has been seen in substantial compliance. and so the award was at a point in time. right. and so now the goal is to say is the is the department maintaining those goals that were identified and awarded at that time. if they're not, there'll be a conversation between the department, the cal d.o.j. and frankly, a framework of discussion as to what that looks

like, whether or not it might be a mediation plan or some aspect of that regard, and don't necessarily walk back the initial award, but we can identify what that framework is now and where the department may be deficient and then identify what would be the expected outcomes as a result of that. that makes sense. so since the award is a snapshot in time, it wouldn't change that award, but the ag could not note that a snapshot in time now would no longer find that in substantial compliance. right. what you're saying? right. so if, for example, you like take use of force, it would be a totally unlike the hypothetical. but if this commission suddenly decided we wanted to unanimously revert to the 1995 version and, you know, obviously the award was because that version was was superseded that the doj would be able to note that that in in the report that comes at the end of phase three plus. yeah and it also and you just raised an issue there too is if there was

a significant deviation from what was deemed as a successful outcome. you know, if you look at the overarching five areas, if the department completely walked away from its use of force goals, i would anticipate that there would be more than a discussion around mediation. i would as well. okay, wonderful. i have so the dip sample will be about 10% of the recommendations. so that's about . is that right? you said, yeah, we're looking at about 35, right now. that's about what we'll be looking at. have the 35 specific recommendations that'll be part of the dip sample been identified by jensen hughes, or is that still not at this time? we last week. that's why we were here. we're looking at some weighting, obviously certain areas will be of more interest than others in terms of so. so you've got a couple, you've got some distinct issues here. you have several that were done very early on. all the work around use of force. and then you had a, you know, several recommendations that came in at the end of phase three. so there'll be a little bit of examination on that. and then the rest of it will be

distributed through the other strategic areas. so is it the case then that it will be weighted based on that and then randomly selected within that or. yes. so it's not the case that they'll be sort of hand selected? no, no, no, no, no. there'll be yeah, there'll be some weighting and then random selection. a couple might be hand selected based on their prominence or what we're seeing emerge. but for the most part it really is weighted to what, you know, what the issue is and how it's perceived in terms of its overall compliance. and for example, a lot of the work on bias is being done now. so we wouldn't weight that as heavily because there's current work happening that will inform the outcome. understood is it the case and not being like, would it be possible know we talk a lot about a lot of the recommendations here. if you know between the commission, between and the department, if there were a discrete number that we would want hand selected

in the dip sample, would that be something that jensen hughes would be in a position to accommodate concerns about specific recommendations? i would ask that you'd forward them to me, i mean, we're we're looking we may we may have already selected those. and so we could we could adjust that. but clearly, if there are concerns that are being identified and by all means forward them. okay. i wonder i wonder if that'd be something that we could discuss as a commission along with the chief and director. henderson because i think that and just one clear thing i have to approve any plan with d.o.j. but it is helpful to recognize if there's areas in particular. and so as we're selecting recommendations to review, it would be helpful. i mean, i think one example just off the top of my head is i know we've had extensive discussion about the about the stop data audit recommendation in this commission. and so but i think it might be helpful to help to provide that input for cal d.o.j. consideration. and on that issue, i mean, it is a problem across california. of course, a lot of agencies were delivering data without really

having that firsthand knowledge of what was being delivered. so it's something that's being worked out and there may be solutions forthcoming from other jurisdictions as well. perfect. thank you so much. and i do want to acknowledge something that you had said. and, you know, for members of the public that are watching that are less well versed on the broad picture here, you know, you had this this 2016 report that was it's been it's been nothing but years of upheaval with the department of justice pulling out with covid, delaying a lot of the community input stages. but you have had i know even your entity has changed names but have had jensen hughes consistently working throughout this process. and to have sfpd in the strategic management bureau, working consistently on that process, it is a lot of incremental changes that have added up to a lot. and i don't want to understate that when we talk about the progress that we all agree still needs to be made. so thank you, miss kirby, and thank you, director mcguire

. commissioner walker, this is really been helpful. so thank you for being here with the report. um, certainly there's always something institutions can do to get better, but it does feel to me in this report that we have a we should be proud of what we're doing with with all of our partners out in the community. um, i, i think that, i mean, i know it's hard to compare, but it does feel to me like a lot of the models that we're engaged in are our models across the country. so i just want to thank the chief, thank all of our command staff for engaging in this and the commission's pressure, which happens a lot. um, it's you know, it really i think our city should be proud of our police department and a lot of it is because we're engaged in this partnership. so thank you very

much. early on, we identified that the san francisco police officers were all well informed. many are highly educated and really had a good natural way with the community. and so we continue to see that even today when i was trying to get in here. so that was helpful. great thank you again. thanks so much, miss kirby. appreciate you staying late with us. thank you . oh, oh, we had a last minute addition. i'm sorry. yeah thank you very much there. vice president carter. so, again, i want to thank you also for all the hard work we're putting this through. so i know this has been a long process and thank the chief, the commission and all the members that went through it with us. my question is, the time how much time was, you know , for a staff of 1500 or how many officers we had? what was the time spent on the training for these or to bring to bring the members up to i guess, to

the policies and to meet d.o.j. requests and then the second one behind it, i guess it's an annual or continual process. and what it is that in man hours in a yearly base this my thoughts. yeah so what i can tell you is that our job was in the weeds, so to speak, part of the success of this program is that the chief did develop a standalone bureau that helped guide and direct that right. and so when you're talking about training, i would argue that it continues, it's ongoing and it's been significant, right? every time there's a switch in use of force to meet legal requirements or to meet policy goals, that invokes training the department is also mandated to deliver training through the post out training, as they call it. and so the i guess the good thing for this department is that it's been committed to training. one of

the success outcomes. i think, in terms of use of force is this recognition of the connectivity to persons and mental health crisis and so early on, the department invested in training officers on that coming out. also trained all of its supervisors. and so you had an informed response when you're dealing with somebody in mental health crisis. but that also included changing and dispatch codes. so this, you know, for lack of a better term, wraparound view of what an issue is and what can be done to help improve that has been, i think, a significant investment by the department in terms of training , i would argue that you're seeing the value of that investment and the decreased use of force and frankly decrease the severity of use of force. okay i guess what i'm looking at is, is that additional resource that is needed in the police department that adds to the like the command staff to have overlooked the policies and the changes? well, i you're asking

my opinion, so i'll give you my opinion. i think it's critical. so the challenge that we see with law enforcement is that there was a disinvestment nationally in training. and frankly, here with like, you know, canned policies that organizations fell away from identifying goals and how they wanted officers to behave. and so what you're seeing nationally as a result of certain issues arising out of the george floyd and breonna taylor is a reinvestment in what we want our officers to do. and that includes policy. it includes training. it includes field supervision. but it's not organic. there has to be an engine that drives that. and so to be able to do reviews, audits , dip samples, make sure that people are doing what they say they're going to do, sometimes is at that field level. and you heard benchmark talk about that is that units are focused on what they're dealing with on a day to day. the structure that allows people to visualize, look

across the organization and say, does this need some help? is it still spinning, has to rest with somebody for success in terms of what we want in our police and what our communities ask of police and that's true here in san francisco. thank you very much, commissioner benedict. i thank you for recognizing me. mr. president. i did have one more question about the dip sample, which is i know when these are done in other contexts, depending on what you find, it could potentially be expanded, right? if you see irregularities in, you know, when you do these sort of dip samples, is that something that is provisioned for in the way johnson hughes envisions this? again, i'm hopeful that it wouldn't be. but if you were to do a dip sample and you said, oh, of these 3517, we felt like there were deviations. we have this mediation plan. would that merit an expansion or an additional inquiry? so at this point, the department, through the bureau of strategic services, is, as i just

butchered that right, is currently overseeing the implement portion of the recommendations that have always already been substantially compliant. and so they've got a process by which they're measuring the adherence to the requirements. and so it's our anticipation that we're not going to see significant gaps. and what the department is doing, you know, might there be something where we're saying, okay, this is not trailing? might it be, you know, there's possibilities everywhere, right? because there are 272 recommendations. but i don't anticipate a significant gap. the process itself doesn't address if there is a significant backslide and what would occur. but i can anticipate that there will be consequence to any serious backslide. but i honestly at this point, we don't anticipate that the recommend actions were necessary interconnected. there were a number of them, but they were iterative and task based. and so based on what we're

seeing in terms of the ongoing compliance review, we anticipate not to see significant issues. but if something unexpected occurred, the ag would potentially we would anticipate a significant response. yes. okay that's all. thank you very much for recognizing me again. um, all right. seeing no names in the queue. thank you again. uh, and sergeant, could we go to public comment? thank you. members of the public. they'd like to make public comment regarding line item nine cry initiative. please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. line item ten presentation and discussion of the disciplinary review board findings and recommendations. first quarter 2023 discussion.

we'll go you. good evening, commissioner. chief scott. director henderson, members of the public. we are here to present on the recommendations and discussions that were had at the disciplinary review board. i'd as a way of background, this is a board that meets quarterly to address aggregate trends and sustained cases of policy failures and training failures to try to more nimbly address any issues in real time as they're coming up. so all right. so aggregate trends identified by iad in q one of 2023. so so, so my apologies to the commission. i was presented with the quarter two for 2023. so

that's what i was prepared for. and then he said quarter one. so i'm going to slide right into this. so for quarter one, we had conduct unbecoming an officer or member neglect of duty, specifically body worn camera and improper search. dps trends for the same time frame also included neglect of duty, specifically body worn camera violations in proper search or seizure, inappropriate comments or behavior and failure to properly investigate. one of the things i want to highlight, and i believe we talked about it the last time we presented, is there is also an ongoing discussion about what what actually a trend means. and i like to remind this group when we talk from disciplinary review board, it's not statistically significant. it's more of identifying trends as they're happening. so we might say that the trend is search or seizure. that doesn't mean we've had an overwhelming number of search and seizure cases. it's just that at that

moment in time, those are the most prominent cases on our caseload. and if i can just add specifically, we're looking at information that supports a timely identification of any issues that would warrant updated guidance that would give us change effectiveness or a corrective action at the same time. so that's that's the core of it. not so many how many, but what does that lead us to in the information in an. and so from there, we'll go into policy failure findings identified by iad. okay so iad had three cases closed in first quarter as a result of policy failure. one case has been presented to the third to the third quarter, 2022 drb meeting and is regarding an incident report not being assigned to the appropriate investigation unit. the second case was presented in the fourth quarter to drb meeting and regarding a case where an a psa was unclear if they were able to take a specific type of incident

report at a district station, both cases resulted in a recommendation to update the relevant department policy. the third case was regarding an ois. the case led to several policy recommendations and changes, including updates to dgo 5.018.02 and the creation of the f.t.f.o unit and the vr training course. dpr had two policy failure findings. the first involved plainclothes officers not wearing body worn camera at an incident as at the time that it happened, they were exempt from wearing body worn cameras. the policy regarding plainclothes officers wearing body worn cameras is currently being updated to address this issue. so it's nice when we kind of see that the cases we're seeing align with the policies that were developing. so that's an example of why drb is working to do what it set out to do. and the second case where we found a

policy failure involved an incident where a person in custody was held at the district station for an extended period of time due to the county jail not accepting custody. this is something that we have seen. the department's aware of it. we get a lot of complaints about it. and so it's really beyond sfpd's control. it's really a sheriff's issue. but i know everybody is working on that, and that is something that we continue to discuss at these meetings. so we have training failures identified by both dpr and excuse me and iad in quarter one of 2023. there were no iad cases in the first quarter that resulted in training failure findings. dpr had one case that resulted in a training failure, as well as a policy failure finding officers froze a location pending the issuance of a search warrant but still entered the location. dpr found the department's training does not provide adequate guidance as to what freezing a location allows for as well as what

constitutes exigent circumstances to allow a warrantless search of a location . and again, that speaks to training. that's pretty specific, right? so there's general fourth amendment training that's happening. and because the law has changed so quickly, we there are very specific instances where officers need more guidance. and so this is an example of us having those conversations more quickly than what would happen before, where we would finish our whole investigation and then issue the finding wrong as opposed to being able to talk about it more nimbly. okay so out of this particular drb, there was one recommendation and i am happy to report on what that was. that the department needs to update training regarding fourth amendment specifically around this issue of what actions can or can't be taken when freezing a location to get a warrant. the updated training should also include more guidance on what defines exigent circumstances and what allows officers to make

warrantless entry into a premise while they are trying to get the warrant. that concludes our presentation on. unless you want to hear a chord or two, i'm ready for that. one great. thank you both for the presentation. i, for the first time tonight, i think i see no names in the queue. you're welcome. oh and i was about to throw my pencil at it. right. okay. thank you very much. okay. thank you so much, sergeant. members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item ten, a presentation, please approach the podium. and seeing no public comment line item 11 discussion and possible action to adopt revised department general order 3.05 department weapon return panel discussion and possible action. so we have so we have

our subject matter expert here for that one. and let me grab my presentation. sorry. 1994 was the last revision of this. one i have. yeah. okay. so commissioner, i'm going to just be very brief on this. there there weren't a whole lot of changes on this particular policy. there were some some

tweaks to basically update the policy to our current structure for in terms of the members that sit on the panel. when you look through the red line version, which is attached to your agenda, most of the changes is were wordings and. not a whole lot of substantive changes. so if you have any questions, please, i can answer them. i was involved in this conversation even though we don't have our deputy chief here, but i can answer any questions that you have, chief. i see no names in the queue. and i just want to say the way you jumped into action, there was truly, truly laudable. and remarkable. thank you for the presentation. um, i . i will. i will make a motion to adopt the. dgo second from members of the public who would like to make public comment

regarding line item 1103 .05. please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yeah, commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto. yes. mr. benedicto is. yes. commissioner yanez. yes. commissioner yanez is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter overstone yes. vice president carter overstone is yes. you have five yeses. line item 12 discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 8.04 critical incidents response team for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. thank you, commissioner. we do have sergeant art howard here, who is our subject matter expert on this one. again, it's a fairly short two page ego and i'll just open it up for questions. i mean, i think a lot of the work on the critical incident response team on behalf of behavioral science unit is really laudable work. again, not

a whole lot of substance substantive changes, but we do think this policy is adequate in in line with what this department is trying to do with our critical incident response team. so if you have any questions, i or sergeant howard or both of us can answer. director henderson. all right. so i don't want to take away from any of the substantive work that was here, and i'm excited. this is i'm happy this is moving forward, this was identified, though, as a joint response. and that there's some stuff going on back and forth as to whether or not what qualifies as joint. i don't want to go into the weeds with all of that. but i do want to say that this is an ongoing issue in terms of working back and forth with the department that both myself and my staff is working with the department on. i've had conversations with the chief. i know my chief of staff

has had conversations with the assistant chief back there because we're really we're both concerned about preserving our resources in terms of how we move forward and maintaining this process to make sure that it's something that's efficient and timely and i'm flagging it now. how about dpa being in the role of maintaining challenging , preserving deadlines and accountability within the process that is, i think is moving towards a new a different , more collaborative process than what we've been fighting back and forth with. so i just wanted to flag those again. i've already had conversations with the chief and we're in conversation about what some of those changes might look like, but i just wanted to flag it with this because this was one of the issues that came up

without going into too long or belaboring the point. that's it. great thank you, director henderson. and just to clarify what what exactly that means, that means that the joint responses are listed. those explanation options in the grid listed as joint responses to public comments. you're saying some of those do not actually reflect deepa's response to the public comment. i'm just going to say yes because i don't want to go into the whole detail of it. but yes, correct. okay. well, we might have to subpoena you to get the full answer. so that'll be for next week before the subpoena comes. i'm hopeful that we have of a broader solution that doesn't that that doesn't necessitate a subpoena. subpoena. okay. we'll we'll we'll we'll keep the ink dry for now on the subpoena. okay. seeing no one else in the queue , i will make a motion to adopt

and send to meet and confer, subject to our resolution, the number of which i'm forgetting that commissioner benedicto drafted, which directs the department to negotiate only over those matters that are subject to meet and confer. i think it's resolution 2330, but i could be wrong. i'm sure our staff will correct it. second, for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 12, please approach the podium. there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes mr. walker is yes. commissioner benedicto yes. mr. benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. commissioner yanez is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter was still. yes vice president stone is. yes. you have five yeses. line item 13. excuse me, line item 13 public comment on all matters pertaining to item 15 below closed session, including public comment on item 14, vote whether to hold item 15in closed session. if you would like to

make public comment, please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item 14 vote on whether to hold item 15in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10. action moved to go into closed session. second all right. on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto. yes. mr. benedicto is. yes. commissioner yanez. yes. mr. yanez is. yes. commissioner yee yes. mr. yee is. yes vice president carter ulverstone. yes vice president stone is. yes. you have five yeses and we are going into closed session.

so sf govtv, san francisco government television.