i general meeting of the san francisco police commission. before we get started, i just wanted to acknowledge the untimely passing of christopher shea. christopher shea was an attorney who appeared before the commission and represented officers before the commission and represented them zealously and demonstrated an unwavering commitment to his clients. and he will be he will be deeply missed. good evening. the chair has called the meeting to order. if you could please rise for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to

the republic for which it stands . one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. vice president carter, i'd like to take roll. was he? yeah commissioner walker here. commissioner benedicto here. commissioner yanez is excused. commissioner byrne here. commissioner yee here. vice president carter oberstein. you have a quorum. also with us tonight, we have chief scott from the san francisco police department and executive director paul henderson from the department of police accountable city for members of the public line. item one, the weekly officer recognition is going to be postponed until november 1st due to this sergeant is away at training and is not able to be with us tonight. 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. alternative you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. email the secretary of the police commission at sfpd dot commission at sf gov. 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. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul allen. five months ago, i brought to the commissions attention that it has failed to comply with section 4.102. two of the city charter. that requires the commission, quote, to develop and keep current an annual statement of purpose outlining its areas of jurisdiction. authorities purpose and goals subject to review and approval by the mayor and board of supervisors after our inquiry on monday, i was told that commission compliance with this provision awaits the hiring of a policy analyst, and

this is a laughable excuse for delay and it really an abrogation of the committee of the commission's statutory duty commissioners with respect, this is your job, not that of a not yet hired policy analyst. the first order of business as i suggested in a memorandum to you two months ago, should be to direct counsel to prepare a legal memorandum on the commission's, quote, areas of jurisdiction and authorities. indeed one would have thought that that document would already be behind tab one of a commission briefing book. then there is the articulation of the commission's purpose and goals. that's your job. you should take pen to paper and write down what you understand to be the purpose and goals of the commission within its statutory responsibility. in importantly, 4.122 declares that the annual statement is quote, subject to review and approval by the mayor and board of supervisors. intentionally or not, the

absence of such a statement necessarily forecloses such review and approval. well, at least under that provision of the charter, it is your job, in short, to prepare the annual statement. not anyone else's. at every meeting of the commission, we hear about sfpd accountability. is this commission subject to the same standard? let's dispense with the excuses compliant. hi this is my first time doing this, so if i do something wrong, let me know my name is angela tickler commissioners. it is very disappointing that you approved a 5.25 last week because 5.25 begs a very dangerous question what will

prevent this anti law enforcement commission from using officer safety as grounds to stop the police department from enforcing further laws? it's common knowledge that most of what sfpd does is or can be dangerous, but so is your plan to micromanage the sfpd out of existence, which i'm pretty certain is the goal of at least some of you at a bare minimum, data on the number of officers hurt during foot pursuits should be provided to the public to see if such a policy is even worth pursuing. and if i were an officer and instead of being able to use my training judgment and experience to make a split second decision about doing my job, if i had to go through a pages long decision tree on how to react and then run the risk of having my career jeopardized because seven non-police officers with no experience have made yet another policy. well, i would either quit or not chase the suspect out. not worth it, but that is the end goal for some of you, right? less criminals going to jail when

there are less ways for the police to respond to the crimes they commit. meanwhile, san francisco's internal reputation and financial stability are in a shambles. uncuff the police and let them do their jobs and see how you can help alleviate the problems of law enforcement. short staffing by reducing and streamlining paperwork and processes that keep them off the streets. you are not authorized to involve yourself in tactical decisions of sfpd, nor is this commission tasked with inserting itself into the operations of sfpd. your role is limited to policy and procedure, and that must still be in line with the overall objectives of the county and the city. allowing criminals to simply turn and run and effectively prohibit. thank you. good evening, commissioners, for

those who don't know me, my name is j. connor ortega, and i'm co-president of iconic three. as always, i want to thank our men and women of sfpd for the work they do to keep the rest of us safe. i'm here because two weeks ago, the police union president and a current commissioner requested an investigation into how private information was leaked to the press and now this resident is here demanding that this commission investigate as to how any private information was leaked to the press. our officers operate on the premise of trust that those in leadership roles that concern sfpd are handling sensitive information carefully and an investigation is needed to resolve or restore that trust. i also demand that this commission to support both ballot initiatives that our mayor and supervisors for minimal staffing requirement and granting them the tools and ability fauci to prevent, solve the crimes of

retail theft auto theft, car break-ins and more. if you don't, then i can see in the future a ballot initiative where we end the power of this police commission. understand this average san franciscans have woken up and are no longer going to accept the outrageous policies of this commission enacts that hampers our police force from working to keep us safe. the people of san francisco support for sfpd outnumber this. commission 800,000 times to seven. thank you. go go. yes, good evening. i didn't want to come tonight. honestly i'm tired. but i didn't want to wait two weeks after what i said to the board, the full board of supervisors yesterday, it's like a make sure there is a nail. but basically, all i want to tell you tonight is to remember what i told you last time to own yourself,

because it's a process to understand what it means, really. and then you share the information. an it is key. you own yourself. there too, right? so because the results are going to show quickly, it's automatic because respect is going to be like, yeah, now we must respect more each other because we won't take any crap. i mean, unfortunately we'll have to deal with that, but at least we know where to say, hey, that's it. now right? okay, bye. hello again. i guess i can use the overhead. hi, my name is paulette brown. my son was murdered august 14th, 2006, is 17 years since he's been murdered. i am still waiting for some other way to have these homicides investigated. i know last time we talked about getting hiring other people to

come in and tipsters so they can get paid some kind of money to talk about the homicides that are going on. i'm still yet to hear about that. i am still waiting. like i said, this is not just about my child. it's about all the i stand with all the mothers and fathers on this thing here, about all the unsolved homicides that yet to be unsolved. i bring these pictures of all the time of me standing over my son lifeless body. no mother should have to do this. i come here every wednesday pleading for justice for my child. the only way that i can talk to you is with pictures. that's my son's face

as they cut him open, they cut his head open for an autopsy. and this is what i'm left with. i want justice for my child. his name was aubrey. aubrey aberra casa. he existed. he was full of life. no mother should have to go through this. no mother should have to continue to come here seeking justice for her child. i need justice for my child. and i'm asking for your support to continue to find somebody to hire, to investigate these cases. especially my son's . if anyone has any information regarding the murder of aubrey abacus, you can call the anonymous 24/7 tip line. at (415)!a575-4444. and that is the

end of public comment just to inform the public item nine on the agenda is going to be removed from today's meeting and rescheduled for future meeting. sergeant, could you please call the next item line item three consent calendar. receive and file action. starbucks coffee donation total cost $800 $80 per district. station for national coffee with a cop and the 2023 department award certificate action motion to motion to receive and file. second, any member of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item three, please approach the podium and there is no public comment. commissioner walker on the motion. how do you vote? yes, commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto. yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner byrne. yes commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter overstone yes. vice president overstone is yes. you have five yeses. line item for chief's report discussion weekly crime trends

and public safety concerns provide an overview of offenses, incidents or events occurring in san francisco, having an impact on public safety commission discussion on planned events and activities achieved describes will be limited to determining whether to counter for a future meeting. chief scott, thank. thank you sergeant youngblood. good afternoon. good evening. executive director henderson. vice president carter. commissioners and the public. i will start this week's report with just a general crime statistics. just very briefly and then go to some of the events and incidents that have happened over the past week, starting with crime for this week. overall, there is a 6% decrease in overall all part one crime. that is a difference of about. about 42,002 hundred crimes, fewer than this time last year, approximately. property crime is down 7. violent crime is still up 3% as two. our violent crimes, our

homicides are at 43 compared to 42 year to date. this time last year. so that's up 2. our clearance rate overall is 72. and there have been a total of three homicide in the month of october. our shootings are down just slightly, 3% from 161 167 year to date. total gun violence victims to one from 172. this time last year. so that's a 3% decrease as far as us homicides with firearms, they are even with this time last year, our weapon seizures were at 866 firearms recovered year to date. that's a 2% increase over 2022. as far as ghost guns, we've seen a 10% in increase in in ghost guns from this time last year. we have 176 ghost guns as compared to 161 seized this time last year. there were three

non-fatal shooting incidents. resulting in five victims over this past week. one was at polk and sutter and the northern district. this was on october 12th at 3:30 a.m. the victim was on the sidewalk when approached by two subjects who demand it, the victim's belongings after the subjects fled with the victims belongings, the victim realized he had been shot. the victim was transported with non life threatening injuries. that investigation is ongoing. no arrests have been made at this time. the other shooting was at leavenworth and golden gate. three victims in total. that was on october 12th at 12:43 p.m. midday, three victims were in an a or near a vehicle when the suspect pulled up, fired several shots and fled from the location. two victims were transported from the scene with gunshot injuries. a third victim, self transported and all were in stable condition on non

life threatening injuries. that investigation is ongoing, but no arrests have been made at this time. if anyone has any information about these shootings, please call our tip line. at (415)!a575-4444. there are three. the fifth victim was a self inflicted wound and that is not the believed to be a criminal matter. i want to go into a few really good arrests this past week. first one is our organized crime effort continues with our what we're calling our organized retail theft blitz. and basically for those because we've gotten this question, the blitz means we're just putting a lot more resources into this. but ingleside officers conducted a surveillance operation at walgreens located at it, basically at mission and geneva, when multiple subjects entered the store, entered the store, all dressed in masks and dark

clothing. the subjects quickly grabbed and concealed store merchandise and when it was all said and done, our officers were able to arrest six of the eight individuals, including one juvenile. there was also a baby with this group of suspects, and that infant was released to the alameda county child protective services to subjects were able to exit the store before officers could detain them, and that investigation is ongoing. but all merchandise that they were attempting to steal was recovered and six out of the eight individuals were arrested. these operations are ongoing. we've done a number of them over the last several months, and we have made arrests in every one of these operations that we have conducted. so this is a strategy that we will continue. we're working hand in hand with our retail community to make these make these types of operations successful. and we've had really good success so that will

continue. message being for people who would be thieves who want to go in stores and steal properties that we may be in there police officers with store security. so we're trying to discourage people from doing that. and do as much as we can to reduce the thefts in our city, the retail thefts in our city are another. significant incident. this was an auto burglary that turned into an assault on an officer and a vehicle pursuit. officers responded to a vehicle break in at irving street and 43rd avenue. this was on october 12th at 12 to 12:00 in the morning to 12 a.m. suspects fled on foot and johnson to a waiting vehicle at a high rate of speed. officers attempted to stop the suspect during the foot pursuit was dragged by the suspect's vehicle for approximately three feet, sustaining minor injuries. therefore, a pursuit was initiated and as the vehicle entered the freeway, the california highway patrol assisted and the vehicle eventually stopped and a single occupant fled, eluding capture

so that investigate is ongoing to identify that person and we will keep you updated on that one. lastly we had a armed robbery at a smart and final. this is becoming a trend that we want to get our arms around. we've had an increase in robberies this year, about 16% higher than this time last year. this particular incident occurred on october 12th at 10:53 a.m. at the smart and final. two suspects walked to the cash register to make a purchase. when the clerk opened the register, a note was passed to the clerk indicating that the person had a gun and the store was being robbed. the suspect was able to escape with cash and no arrest has been made. that is still under investigation. and the evidence is being examined in that case. and lastly, just a couple of updates there was a joint news conference today regarding the apec, the asian pacific economic cooperation

conference that will be happening next month. it was led by the us secret service, who is the lead law enforcement agency on this. this is a national special security event which basically is equivalent of a presidential inauguration in terms of the security needs. there will be 21 heads of states, including our head of state and vice president here. we're expected to have about 20,000 visitors to attend this conference in one way or another, about a thousand media outlets will be here. so it is a heavy lift for the department. we will be fully deployed, mobilized. everybody will be working and most importantly, this will cause some disruption with public transportation. there will be street closures in the venues that have to be cordoned off in terms of security measures. and that information often can be found on the sfmta website. if for the public sfmta .com. and if you

scroll down, you'll see a link that says apec and it has a map with all the closures and all that. one of the things that we want to make sure that we do as a city is communicate with the public so people know people's disruption can be minimized. there will be disruption, traffic closures and the like. so just we will keep the public involved in that and all that information was put out today during this press event, including the maps that were made public with the street closures. and you can find that again on sfmta's website. it's up and running. i just checked before this meeting so the public can get an idea of what will be closed and when and that is it for my report. thank you for the report, chief. i'm wondering if you might provide any update on our recent use of bait cars, just if there's been

any arrests associated with them or just any update you can give? yes, the bay cars have we have made several arrests on bait cars and we have ongoing investigations. it has been overall a success. so we have to figure out a way to build up our capacity for those in investigations. but we have had some success with our car operations. could you give us a sense of the scope, roughly how many arrests just recently? i think we've made five arrests in separate incidents we've had and we've had some spin off investigations identifying suspects who we believe are casing that didn't go through with it for one way or another. not everyone yields an arrest, but we have had some success. so we will continue that. and again, we're what we're going to try to do is build more capacity , be part of our challenge right now is with all the special events and protests, we've had to pull bait car operations to put those officers in uniform to

provide guide policing for a lot of the protests that we've had because of the conflict in israel. so that has hampered us somewhat recently. but we will we will continue to do it. great. thank you. i, i guess seeing no names in the q late breaking commissioner byrne, thank you. vice president carter over stone. i know there's a virtual town hall tomorrow on the on the shooting. you can confirm that the district attorney's office is the lead investigator on this or is it the california department of justice? no, on the criminal investigation of the officers who or the officer single the discharged his weapon. the district attorney's iib is the lead on that and internal affairs. our our investigative our internal affairs is the lead on the administrative investigation. we are

coordinating with the state department just communications wise, because it is a consulate office. technically, it happened on foreign soil. however, it's it is very well coordinated and in terms of the state of california, d.o.j, they were called, they did respond and this did not meet their criteria and did the chinese authorities and asked the san francisco police to intervene as far as intervening on the coming to the scene of the crash into the consulate. yes. the. 911 calls came from the consulate office. so we responded to there were many calls, but some of them came from that office. yes. okay. thank you. thank you. and thanks for reminding me. i forgot to mention that. and it was in my notes. the town hall will be tomorrow at 2:00, 3:00, 3:00. all right, sergeant, could you take us to public comment,

please, for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item for the chief's report, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment line item five directors report discussion report on recent activities and announcements. 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. good evening. so currently we are at 630 cases investigations that have been opened this year at dpa. we've closed 577 cases currently. we have 308 investigations that are pending. we've sustained 43 cases so far this year and mediated 31. we have 22 cases. who's investigations have gone beyond the nine month, nine month period of investigation. that's

still less than the one year, 3304 deadline. and it's for less than this time last year in terms of evaluating or comparing those cases. of the 22 cases that we have, who have investigations that have gone on longer than nine months, 19 of those cases have been told. and again, all of these stats are available on our website in terms of cases that we have pending, there are seven cases that are still pending with the police commission. and there are 82 cases who are that are still pending decisions with the chief's office in terms of our weekly trends from this time, from last week, the highest percentage of cases that we got was 12% were for allegations. again, these are allegations for neglect of duty or alleging officers failing to properly investigate and execute a duty. there were a total of 33 of those allegations. the full breakdown is available online at

the website. also, the highest precinct or the highest level of complaints this week was from precinct on the southern district. and there were four allegations made in that in that precinct in terms of outreach this week, our quarterly reports are now available in case people don't just want to look on the website. those reports are now going to be available all on the social media thread. so that's instagram threads and formerly twitter for that will also include images from our community. connect processes that we engage in our new outreach director that i introduced earlier this month, this week visited and did a walkthrough in the tenderloin with staff from the mayor's office and also attended an event and the castro with the

lesbians who tech group addressing civil rights and public safety in terms of audit. this week the draft proposal should go out any day now. for the latest audit. so i'm really looking forward to that and it should be out it should be given to the police department for final review. this week. there's no cases currently in closed session this evening with dpr present in the court in the hearing room today with me in case there are issues that come up that relate to dpr are my chief of the legal team, deanna rosenstein and our director of policy, janelle caywood, and senior investigator candace carpenter. folks have information for dpr. they can contact us directly through the website sf gov. org forward slash dpr or they can contact

the office directly. at (415)!a241-7711. we have commentary and a presentation later on in the agenda, so i will reserve my comments on those issues as they're called in order from the agenda. that concludes my weekly report. thank you for the report. i see no names in the queue. sergeant, could we go to public comment, please? for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item five, the director's report, please approach the podium and there is no public comment. line item six commissioner reports discussion and possible action commissioner reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. commissioner president's report commissioners reports and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. commissioner

walker, thank you. i i've been to a couple of neighborhood meetings as especially the stop crime sf group that had the chief and jenkins speaking about policies and programs that they're working on. and it was really good to hear. i think the general comments from the public were in appreciation for all the work the department is doing. it was really good to hear and thank you for your presentation. it was really comprehensive. so i think that's it for me. commissioner yee, thank you very much there. vice president carter was i just want to make the announcement last this last monday on the words committee, me and burns went through the

list of, i guess, members that will be receiving the medal of valor and also the mayors conduct award. want to thank sergeant reynolds and the staff and the chief bringing bringing forward these members for their outstanding courage as i read through some of their, i guess, incidents and achievements and what they did, i was very, you know, proud of them and keeping our community safe. so thanks again, bringing these members forward. thank you. commissioner burns, to commissioner benedicto . thank you, mr. vice president. i'd like to thank commissioner and commissioner burn for representing the commission on the awards meeting and looking forward to recognizing those officers who received those awards needs. just a couple of updates related to dgos. i plan to in the coming weeks. reach

out to the written directives unit to get an update on the status of the dgos i've been assigned, particularly the ones that have been have had very little activity in recent months . and on that note, i know commissioner yana has brought it up last week, but i've asked to have an update on 7.1 regarding juveniles. agendized and we had a very productive working group on that. on that general order. we had a joint presentation with the juvenile justice commission. and so want to make sure that we're keeping attention on that, particularly in light of we've seen events like kilbom or the mission high school and the six high school students or high schools that walked out today that we're seeing a lot of activism and a lot of activity and which increases the chance of interactions with youth and want to make sure that our policies are are best practices and in the best shape when it comes to the department's interactions with youth. so we'll be looking for an update on that as well. thank you. uh,

just one update for me, mayor breed recently announced a proposed ballot measure to make reforms, various reforms to the police commission. and i thought i would be remiss if i didn't address those since i imagine they're fresh in the public's mind. um, there's a number of proposed reforms, the ones that apply to the police commission. there's three main prongs which are making changes to our vehicle pursuit policy, reducing administrative burden on officers as it relates to certain types of use of force and creating a public outreach process. and i think that at a high level, all of those things, i certainly support all of those things in principle. and if mayor breed had reached out to the commission, she actually would have discovered that the commission is already accomplish that, either accomplished all of those things or actively working on on those things. but she

didn't reach out to the commission. and that's because this proposal is not so much about public safety as it is about politics. it's about blaming the commission for city attorney. are we supposed to be discussing a ballot measure at the commission meeting where there's no agenda item? uh, good evening. you raised two issues. one is that it's not on the agenda, so matters that are not on the agenda shouldn't be discussed. the second thing, we have a political activities memo that's available that i'm happy to pass around on the city attorney's website. so the rule is that we're not able to use city resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure. but you could ask about impacts. great. okay. so i will address the impacts of this proposal as it relates to the core of the commission's jurisdiction. so i object to this discussion about the ballot measure. thank you, commissioner. great. all right.

well i just wanted to address each of the key prongs of the ballot initiative. all right, commissioners, we see lost quorum. i guess we'll sit tight then until our friends rejoin us . all right. i've been advised that we need to take a recess until we have a quorum again in order to comply with the state public meeting laws. so we'll just wait until our our friends rejoin us and we'll press ahead

all right, commissioners, we are back in open session. all right. we are back on the record. i will postpone my comments into a future time when the commission has a quorum. seeing no names in the chat. sergeant, could you take us to public comment, please? for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item six commission reports, please approach the podium. just to clarify, we do have quorum. i just want to make sure that the record is clear. you meant the full compilation of seven commissioners into still, my colleagues won't scurry out of the room before i can finish a sentence. all right. and commissioners, we have no public comment. line item seven presentation and discussion on the crisis intervention teams 2022 annual report discussion.

good evening, everyone. good evening, chief scott. assistant chief flaherty, acting president carter overstone commissioners and executive director henderson. thank you so much for having us here today. i am sergeant laura, colleen and from the crisis intervention unit. and today here with me is officer elizabeth prelinger, also from the unit lieutenan molina, who create this presentation for you is unable to be here today. so we are going to go ahead and present this material on his behalf. we're going to just quickly take a look at what the unit offers and then some quick stats from the 2022 end of year report. so there are four components to the crisis intervention unit, and that's training our field unit, the cit liaison program. and the working group, the working group . now, as we forgive me, as we

look at more specifically the training stats from 2022, you can see that 77% of patrol is trained on the cit ment ill health four day certificate course. you can also see on that over to the right hand side that 100% of patrol is trained on our one day cit field tactics course and while it's not here in the slide, since we are here today, we do have the numbers from january until the very beginning of october on these training stats. so these numbers, of course, can fluctuate based off of retirements, promotions, transfers. and when we look at the numbers from the end of the end of the 2022 calendar year and we look then at the stats that we have now, it's clear that we've lost patrol officers in patrol. we've lost just

personnel in general across the board. but the percentage trained at the district stations stays the same at 77. and i just want to highlight a few of the stations who are doing a phenomenal job at somehow navigate doing patrol duties and still sending officers to training. and those stations would be central station in northern taraval and the airport. and i will say that taraval is seven bodies away from being 100% trained. so they are right on the on the cusp in addition to these trainings, for our own agency, we actually conduct trainings for outside law enforcement organizations as well. and that includes golden gate bridge patrol, the ucsf, usf, us park police, our own sheriff's department. we've recently had adult probation come in as well. we do trainings for programs like alert, and we

even conduct trainings for our civilian organizations out in the city, which would include aid organizations from hotels to stores, security, their regular day to day staff because they are obviously faced with a lot of these calls for service within their establishments. and that is always a obviously a concern for them as well. we've have done presentations for the for uc berkeley's business negotiations course as well. so we do that on a on a yearly basis. we've done that for a couple of years in a row. and recently we received a call from, i'm going to say this correctly, i think it's gwinnett county sheriff's department located in lawrenceville, virginia, sorry, lawrenceville, georgia. they are coming out to training our training next week. so we're very excited to have them as we can see, there's a

there's an overreach in our our department and our training and our program is getting further out there. so other agencies from other states are beginning to call us as well. so that's great news. i'm going to pass this. the next couple of components over to officer pillinger. good evening. i'm officer perlinger. i first wanted to say that one of the most important aspects of the program is the cit field unit. it's comprised of three officers. officer carlos manfredi, officer matt nazar and me. and what we do is we actually go out in the field with clinicians from dpi specifically comprehensive crisis services and this is part of a really visionary co-responder model that was actually implement in 2018 by lieutenant mario molina and i want to say that we are primarily concerned with the safe, effective and compassionate engagement of subjects in crisis, particularly

those who've already demonstrated some acts of violence or danger, potential, a public safety concern, and who also have perhaps a mental health component woven into their behavior. part of what our chief objective is, is to give a safe avenue of approach for the clinicians to literally and figuratively, figuratively meet people where they're at out in the field. and so what we do prior to each field visit is we actually conduct a safety plan. we conduct a pace plan, and we debrief afterwards to understand the positives and negatives of where we can learn and improve. and part of this just moves towards that collaborative focus of working proactively and preventative. li to really help people, specifically those who are in crisis. another really important aspect of what we do at the field unit is we actually do 100% of the follow ups and

mental health intel support to all the active hostage and crisis negotiator incidents that occur in san francisco annually. this is really important because h.a, call outs really represent the top tier or the apex of most concerning crisis incidents in the city. these are your barricaded subjects. these are your suicidal subjects with weapons. these are, you know, critical incidents. often times. and so for negotiate was to get top quality, thorough information that can help them negotiate. so that we can avoid use of force so that we can effectively resolve things safely. is absolutely essential. and if you look at the statistics, that's where this is really important, is that if you look at 2019, the active at&t call outs were at 36 for the

year in 2020 and 2021. these were were approximately 78 and 80 respectively, which indicated almost doubled during the height of covid. in 2022, we closed out at 94 for formal hostage crisis negotiation call outs and we are well on that trend for this year , perhaps exceeding that. and what this means is that the need for competent crisis intervention can competent crisis negotiations is absolutely essential to our police department. and thank you so much to chief scott for always being so supportive of our program and really creating the best training, i think nationwide with regards to this type of work. another aspect of where our cit unit really grows is our relationship with patrol. we have what they call a cit

liaison program and what that is, is an operational design that really helps us relate to what's happening on at the district level. so there's two personnel at each district station assigned to take on the auxiliary responsibilities of crisis issues. and this kind of enables officers to resolve lower level crisis situations, but it also encourages them to identify really concerned going crisis issues that might be evolving. and they notify us we get ahead of it. and again, this is towards that spirit of working proactively and preventatively so that we can deter any type of tragedy in the community. so again, the cit liaison program at the patrol level is absolutely a huge part of our program. back to you. sergeant so the final component of our for our of our program,

of our unit is the work with the cit working group. this is the city working group alongside side the sfpd, cit unit is the essence of collabera reform. we are continually relying on them for their input out and for their support. they are enormous advocates of our program, of our training and some of the some not all, but some of the members of the working group are dea. of course, the mental health association, nami, the city attorney's office, department of public health and ascend, as well as clinical surgeons who specialize in first responder care, which is incredibly important as well. so we are lucky to have them here in this organization in with us and we meet with them every month. and we, of course, always welcome the commissioner's to attend these meetings and be a part of

it as well. so we'll be sure if anyone is interested to make sure to pass that information along so that you can also attend these meetings. i'm going to pass it very quickly back to officer prelinger. yes, i'm back again in front of you. you have a map of san francisco and if you look at this map, every single small dot represents one mental health detention that occurred in 2022. if you count them all, it's going to be 2308. this is especially important to look at this as a visual representative of just how much each crisis impacts the community in san francisco. and again, mental health detentions are kind of at the apex of a crisis incident because you're involving danger to self danger to others and gravely disabled subjects and so because oftentimes there is a danger

component, it's really important that our first responders specifically police, are well equipped to be able to identify how to engage people effectively. so this map really does also just shine a tremendous light on why crisis intervention is so important to our department. and then as we look at these last few slides, we're going to look at stats from last year. so i'm going to make sure we're on the correct slide. so the total calls for service involving mental health and well being checks for 2022 was almost 40,000 calls for service. and while we certainly appreciate all of the other organizations and programs and our city partners who also have of these non-law enforcement response teams, our officers, our patrol officers are still

responding to this amount of calls. roughly every year. and just to give you an idea, from january until the end of september this year, we are currently at 25,527 calls, which certainly puts us on track to hit well over 30,000 again for this year. so i just want to bring attention to that. now as we look at the next slide, we can see that there are 333 he use of force use of force incidents involving mental health calls for service. now within that 333, 285 of those are simply control holds. the remaining 48 are those that you see that are used ing actual force of some type takedowns. the extended range impact weapon leg sweeps, oc deployment. but

doing the math and i think we did the math correctly that equates to 0.001% of calls for service out of that 40,000 calls total. so in terms of who are we seeing out there, the or you can see here we have lieutenant molina added stats on the subject's race and age. the majority of our subjects are actually male and fall into the age range between 30 and 40. and then as we look at at the injuries, so out of that 333, 306 of those subjects had no injury and no complaint of pain. 27 had some complaint of pain, minor injuries or minor minor visible injuries. and then in our last slide, you can see that the subjects that when other than unknown because oftentimes

we don't have that information, it's not provided to us for whatever reason in the moment, it's not gathered. but when we take that out of the equation, we do show that 179 of our subjects that we come into contact with are housed. and the larger majority of our calls for service come from dispatch, which poses a unique issue for patrol officers. because we the reality is there's not always information that comes in that is complete or even accurate. so they're responding to these calls for service. sometimes almost in the blind with that said, i that's the end of the powerpoint. but if i may, i want to just acknowledge image the team that i have here behind me every member, every officer in our unit is a hostage negotiator, a hostage crisis negotiator here with an amazing amount of experience. s and we're very lucky. it's, it's no mistake to have this group of

officers in this unit because the negotiators have a skill set that is that above the average cit trained officer in patrol. so we're thrilled to have them with us. and i also just want to say, i would be remiss if we did not mention lieutenant molina as our fearless leader has volunteered to take a role elsewhere. we miss him tremendously. it is because of him that we are where we are with this unit and he has forged relationships with all of our partner city agencies with mental health organizations, with private hospitals, and has created the unit that we see here today. so while he is enjoying his new assignment, we have him on retainer, so to speak, and we do bother him regularly as a consultant. so but i want to thank him so much because he's the reason why this unit is what it is today. we're happy to answer any questions.

thank you both so much for the presentation and thank you also to all the cit team members and attendance today and for the vital work that you do. i i have to say i learned some new things today about what your team does. i didn't realize the full scope of what you take on, and i'm just curious, what is the total size of the team? there are four of us in the unit. for total sworn officers, correct. and any non sworn. no, no. okay does for officers that sounds like a lot of work for four officers. does that are you able to meet all the demand for your services. no no we're not. and with that said , all of the units and all of

the district stations are short. and i can imagine that none of them are able to meet the demands as we are down. i think certainly the chief could speak better to this, but i think roughly 600 officers and so we have taken a hit, i think, across the board in the department. we do manage to make things work at times. field visits with the department of public health are not we're not able to conduct that in real time, but instead have to schedule them out for maybe the following week when we have when we have enough staffing, when we have a clear calendar trainings come into play. of course we have a training next week i'm going to need all hands on deck for the training so it it does become tight, but i will say this, that we recently had visitors from perth, australia and aid from the london metropolitan police department and that that was a chief

inspector whose main assignment was the security at buckingham palace. and so he came out to do to check out they both came out to check out trainings and to do a ride along with our team members. and i think lily can kind of speak to their their assessment of what we do. thank you very much, sergeant. yeah, it was actually quite a profound encounter when we facilitated his interest in coming to see our unit. he shared with us that he had actually kind of been researching online and he had come up with material related to sfpd, and he was so struck by the high concept design and the implementation of great ideas that he was like, i want to check this out. and so he made it possible. and the clinicians over at comprehensive crisis actually opened their doors. we had a big roundtable discussion

and it was very moving because afterwards, you know, this is somebody who's super high level associate with an immense landmark overseas and he's like, i'm blown away. he said, where i work, we have so many resources, but we don't have anything like this. and i said, you know, that's so interesting because we have very limited resource. rs but we have great people. we have great people who care. we have great people who really work towards getting great ideas out there and trying to make things better. and so, so it was a wonderful feedback from him that he was so impressed with our unit and yet he was so surprised at the very limited number of folks associated with the unit specifically. so it was a great compliment coming internationally actually. thanks. yeah, that's great validation. and i also share his

surprise just last question for me, which you mentioned a training for, i think it was uc berkeley's business negotiation class. can you just talk? that was one thing i hadn't realized that you do those types of trainings for outside organizations. can you just give a bit more color on that process and the types of organizations that that reach out to us? absolutely we don't advertise our training simply because we can't accommodate the amount of requests that come in. however, people do hear word of mouth and reach out to our unit. so we have been asked a couple of times now, lieutenant anderson was also there and handled the training with us. but oftentimes when you look at regular negotiations in law enforcement and in business negotiation, business negotiation is a lot of the same techniques. is are there are the same they're the same throughout. and so there's

a wonderful professor over at uc berkeley who reached out and said, i would love for you to come in and speak to our my business class in business negotiation. so lieutenant anderson provided a powerpoint on all of the topics covered in basically hostage negotiation 101. and gave examples of interaction options and how to persuade people, people to, you know, come up with the decisions almost on their own, but really kind of help guide them. and so they they liked the presentation so much that they they asked us back a second time and then they slotted us for third time as well. so lieutenant anderson could speak more to the actual presentation itself or can send you some documentation on that, or we can get that to the commission. great. thank you. director henderson. great. i just had a comment. i didn't really have a question. i just

wanted to point out that even though you guys it's only four people in that unit, this presentation was extremely helpful. but i want to be very specific about why why this is a very good presentation from the department. the level of detail that was included for this presentation as well as the analysis is really important for the commission and for the public to see as well as the transparency is an excellent representation in terms of the reporting that goes through or that comes to the commission. and i'll specifically say the things interpreting, explaining like what a blind response is related to the data that's being presented, the inclusion of race statistics and numbers and your interpretation of the numbers of what happens if you remove these numbers or look at it this way is exactly the kind of information that i think the commission and the public appreciates to understand the significant amount of work and what gets done, especially for

reporting purposes. it's not lost on me that there's only four people in that unit, and yet you're able to deliver this. and at a very high level. so thank you for this report. and your ongoing work. oh, thank you. and just i see that miss caywood is coming up here as well. and we have worked with, of course, epa and specific with miss caywood on policy and 5.24, 6.14 702. and so we're are grateful for the collaboration as well. so if it results in stuff like this, then more of this. yes. more like this. yes thank you. excuse me. just i'm part of the. i'm janelle caywood. i'm the policy director at epa and i am part of the cit working group. and i can't say enough good things about this unit. they're wonderful people. they are the change we are looking for here within sfpd. they're collaborative, kind,

smart. and i like to have to see two women up here presenting. and sergeant collins, modest, but she's now, i think, the commanding officer of the unit. so we are happy to have her. one thing that i think is overlooked is the amount of community policing this unit does. and this list was prepared for a meeting that we had with chief scott. but i think lieutenant molina prepared it. but this is some of the outside trainings that the cit unit does in the community. the sf sro provides was west side clinic, behavioral health services and sf providers golden gate bridge patrol, yerba buena gardens conservancy. see the ambassador program, the alert program, police activities league cadet program, the progress foundation and providers as ucsf fellow program philz coffee personnel hyatt hotel security personnel and citywide staff. so in addition

to their normal duties, they're out there in the community doing the lord's work. so we appreciate them so much. thank you. and if i just i fail to actually highlight officer prelinger. so i the reason i asked her to co present with me today is because she and lieutenant molina are the authors of the 2022 end of year report. so i believe in highlighting our personnel and so i just wanted to point that out and thank her for all of her hard work as well as officers manfredi and nasar, thank you. great commissioner walker. thank you. thank you so much for this report. and for the amazing work you do. there's so much that the public especially sees that this responds to. and, you know, we really need this more than ever. i have a couple of questions, ones specifically about the working with other departments because i would imagine that

most of these don't end up being arrested and transported. so is there a good connection of where folks are? i mean, do you do we have the results of these type of incident where you're present ? what what happens next? and is that your department or is that more commissioner, are you speaking of what happens when we when we do a handoff to another organization? yes so we're in the process of trying to formulate a dashboard that would collect those that data through our business intelligence unit. we're working closely with them as well. they're part of the working group. and i will say this, that at chief sloan over at has been phenomenal at collaborating and coordinating with us. you know, there are so many restrictions when it comes to hipaa. however we're based off of the crisis clause in hipaa. it allows these it allows

the clinicians and it allows us with srt to coordinate proper care when a subject does meet that crisis clause and they are able to share information with us. and i will say that in call previous calls where i know that officers prelinger and manfredi went out to, we actually were able to ask chief sloan to coordinate a response from the fire departments and together both with our officers and our unit and the fire department rescue captain and an ambulance were sent to coordinate this with ccs. and i actually appreciate you bringing that question up, because i think in a perfect world where we had more than our number of staffing , as we've looked into it, members of our unit have looked into this. we have yet to find a unit where to city where the

police department sit, a program like crt and the department of public health has of a joint not only co-responder model, but a co-housed model where our we actually sit under the same roof where we do these multidisciplinary meetings and discuss a patient in crisis and then immediately respond in real time. i think having a program like that down the road and of course i've spoken to lieutenant molina about this, this has been a long time discussion within our unit. we have spoken to chief sloan, we have spoken to director felder over at gbh. everyone is on board having as we move as we look at the future of crisis intervention, we really could be leading the way with a program of that nature as as numbers allow as well. and i'm aware that also at comprehensive crisis services, they don't have the numbers they need to create a unit like this just yet. but but as we look at the future, i think that's that's really good to hear

because i you know, i we're all as we go through the ride alongs and we end up having to wait for the next one in line to hand off. i mean that's a that's a really big deal. and i personally am really interested to help. however i can in this because it's really it's an important part. and i also think i mean, it seems to me that as the city engages in the modifications around the care court and how that affects the next step, i mean, this is a really good opportunity for me with this work that you're all doing to sort of fit in. so it's a good time for us to help do that, not. to intercede in hiring, hiring or person person assignment, but you know, it's really it's important, i think that there's so many moving parts that are all wonderfully

designed at this point, these different programs. times the yours, the hot teams, all of those are out there as well as different entities on the street , like the alchemy groups and the ambassador groups, all of whom i'm sure could participate and help. and be helped by training an and being engaged in this. i mean, they're all out there on the front lines is especially the working with the unhoused one of the really interesting things is when we're looking at the break down of unhoused housed i think specifically around the use of force do the statistics around that the percentages. follow go through to the total number of response is unhoused housed? i mean, if you look at this this map, can we look at a similar sort of percent change around the use of force? i mean, that's

a kind of complicated question, but it so yes. so the so you're speaking specifically about the mental health detentions. yes. yes. they fall into these calls. yes. okay, great. yeah it's pretty it's pretty amazing. it's all over. i mean, clearly, it's where the density is higher. there's more dots. but yes, you guys do amazing work, especially with the numbers that you have. so thank you, all of you. thank you. commissioner byrne. thank you, vice president carter. overstone case for well, at one point, first, i mean, when you look at the map that commissioner walker brought up, i mean, you could put the bull's eye, you could put the bull's eye in the tenderloin district, would that be fair to say? it would be fair to and i will say this, we actually had this discussion in our unit earlier

today. while the court. calls for service are are more frequent out in our downtown stations. i don't want to forget the golden gate division because is it just so happens that when those calls for service come out, they tend to be more involved, larger scale all calls for service as opposed to the calls in the metro division. now if the bull's eye is in the tenderloin, then the issue then about, you know, harm to harm to themselves or harm to others at and many of us don't want to deal with a number of people that are addicted to drugs is it fair to say, also have mental health issues? yes, i don't have the statistics, but i would say, yes, that having an organic mental health issue and

substance use is in many cases is go hand in hand. an and in many of those cases, as they could be definitely a harm to themselves, particularly as you point out, in case for your in your in your handout here people that people that continue tlie overdose are clearly a harm to themselves and does the crisis intervention team want to reach out to them on a mental health issue level because nobody in san francisco wants to see any more people die from from overdoses and clearly it is the seminal crisis in in san francisco that that on average more than two people a day die from overdose and it seems to me that the city and indeed the

police department need to more actively intervene. now i understand add a mental health a 5150 hold is what 72 hours or is it is it is supposed to be 72 hours? yes right. and many times those people are released. but but and certainly somebody that overdoses once, maybe even twice is that's one thing. but but when there's a pattern, i understand that the authorities may release, but it is an attempt, at least on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to try to save this individual's life, because there seems to be a propensity for some people to continually overdose on the narcan isn't going to be there all the time. and i guess what i'm saying is that i certainly want to

encourage amongst people because when i've walked the beat and been in in the tenderloin, a lot of the officers tend to know who the who, the ones that are in trouble. i mean, that is the beauty of local policing and all that. and really at the end of the day and it may it may sound tough, but at the end of the day , in in many of those instances, a mental health hold would be appropriate. would you not agree ? yes. so our officers are trained to specifically focus in on the presentation of the behaviors and not to, of course, diagnose, but to assess is what they're seeing in front of them. so oftentimes persons who are using substance or have substance use issues will be 5150 and taken to a hospital. at

the hospital, the doctors will do their assessment and determine whether or not the person has an organic mental health issue or a substance use issue. and we tend to see that when they determine that it's only a substance use issue, the person is released. right. and i understand that there's no there's no and as i said, i didn't say a statistic, but i said many not and i didn't even suggest. but with those people. this is the sort of thing this is crisis intervention. because at some stage, if there is a propensity to overdose, there's going to be a time when there is no narcan, there is no one there to revive of. and it would be it would be nice, even if it sounds to do the 51, 52 try to, you

know, encourage the people to seek treatment. i i'm not interested in charging drug addicts or people with with mental health problems criminally but i am but when we talk about crisis intervention, there needs to be an attempt to try to get these people in treatment and the use of the 5150 hold is appropriate in many instances. i have personally seen when a person is about to be evicted that the sheriff's office will bring a social worker which that person is because the person has no place to go to. they will 5150. that person. i was surprised that that they would do that. and yet we will see in the tenderloin people that clearly have mental health issues with the substance

abuse problem and not having a 5150 hole placed on them, maybe because there's too many who knows? but i certainly want to encourage that to at least get a doctor to look at them, to make the evaluation, because the current way that things are being done in san francisco with are not working. and i know it's not and it's unfair to say it's the police department's fault because there's a number of city agencies that need to be involved in this. and as people have said, we're not going to arrest our way out of the problem. but the san francisco police department is an important component in trying to prevent out overdoses of people at. and i have witnessed people that have recovered from from their drug abuse and have been hugely productive members of our

society. and they will tell me that they got the second chance. and so i guess i'm encouraging more of that so that more people have the second chance. anyway, thank you. yes, thank you, commissioner. commissioner benedicto. thank you very much, mr. vice president. thank you for that presentation on a couple of questions, i was let me get to that slide. the. 39,000 calls for service. do you know what percent ridge that represents of the overall calls of service? sfpd responds to? i do not have the overall number. i actually just saw it. the other day but did not make note of it. okay. no problem. i don't know if maybe if you could provide that to the chief. he can he can give that in his next report because i think that would be interesting to just see how much of the of the whole city is doing. yes so looking at

the training, it's really encouraging to see i know we were here for a number of years ago trying to get everyone on the ten hour and now everyone's on the ten hour and now we're approaching 77% of patrol on the 40 hour. and i imagine the goal is to get all patrol on the 40 hour. is there an approximate timeline where aspiration and realistically you think that can be done? i did the numbers on that. and in fact, it if i could have and again, in a perfect world where we had enough staffing, if i could have 25 bodies from patrol in each class , if we could get 100% of patrol trained in ten classes, and how often are this year? we had nine scheduled and we had to cancel three due to promotional exams taking place. apec is coming, so we had to cancel the november class. so we typically attempt to schedule anywhere from 6 to 10 per calendar year, even

during right before covid and right during covid we were looking at ten to 10 to 16 classes as it's just that as our numbers dwindled, we can't actually put students into the class as easily. so we do rely in order to even have a class take place. we do rely on the outside agencies to come in and also go sit in the class with us to make it worthwhile for the instructors. so ten classes would be about a calendar year. and if we could, if you had 25in a class, you could do that. we can. and so now, given the resource constraints, it'll probably be some number more than that. but, you know, we spent so many years focusing on getting everyone on the ten hour. and let's say that we continue to keep our momentum up and get everyone on the 40 hour. what is the next big goal for the city in terms of what elevates that next level after we get everyone on the ten hour

and even on the 40 hour? we would love to create an update course. we have one that's in the works. it's a two day update course. again staffing levels amongst the department and of course, within our own unit. i have to say i did not know how much work lieutenant molina did and so until i was sitting in the seat, so and i'm also handling the training as well. so to be able. yes. so trying to coordinate that schedule and that timing is a bit challenging . but we are we are looking at an update course and we have spoken to the city working group about that as well. and that's a great idea. i know that's come up before this commission before because we'll have officer-involved shootings or other incidents where we'll look and see, you know, if officers are trained. but sometimes it can become relevant as to whether their training was is at the very beginning of this process. and might be many, many years old. and so having an update course, i think would be a regular cadence of that process, i think is very

valuable. yes. thank you for mentioning that. we actually there's been a significant change from from the course when officers began taking it in 2011 versus where we are today. so i that was a portion it was a component of creating a update course to make sure that those officers who took it early on had the additional information that officers now are receiving and then i know that one thing that's been, i believe, sit was at nashville or memphis that first pioneered sit memphis. memphis. and i believe in memphis. in addition to their training, they also have sort of a dedicated sit unit that sort of operates like tac. but with sit principles. and i know that's something we haven't been able to necessarily implement here. again, in a perfect world, just based on your understanding the principles, do you think that would add value to have that for those sort of higher those cases you said that are more involved or have a

significantly more complex issues? do you think that would be helpful to follow that that model? yes, commissioner, i think in a in a perfect world where, again, we're staffing was a non-issue to have a unit where that was staffed seven days a week and could respond to real time to actual patrol calls. one of the i think one of the biggest challenges i received a call today from a lieutenant at northern station. so one of the biggest challenges is that these calls are time consuming for patrol. but if we had the ability and the staffing going in our unit to be able to respond out to those calls in place of patrol that i think would ultimately free up patrol to handle other calls for service. but again, you know, our our staffing levels across the board, there's really we're sort of stuck right now. yeah, i think that's something that's worth continuing to talk about because we've adopted and improved many of the of the memphis model of sit. and i think that's the thing that they've seen a lot of success success with of having that unit

, that dedicated unit to respond to calls. do you think i know you mentioned that, but when looking at the mental health attentions map that in that golden gate division is where you have some of the more involved calls, do you expect if we layered the 333 use of force incidents on this map that like, what would that look like? where would they fall? yeah yeah. i think it would be very yes, i think it would be very random. okay i don't think that there's in any one location this is just circumstances of the individual incident, which as we know in law enforcement can change moment to moment. and then in general, use of force incident usually so infrequent that they tend not to be statistically. right. great. okay. perfect thank you so much. i do want to echo what director henderson and director caywood said and provide tremendous thanks and praise to the city unit, to lieutenant molina, to sergeant colleen, officer pelander, the whole unit. it's an incredible unit. i was fortunate to attend the awards last year, which was

one of the highlights of the events i've gotten to attend on the commission. i highly recommend members of the public, not just look at the presentation, but look at the full report that it's posted on the commission website with the materials to this meeting. it is lengthy, but it is very readable . it is clear and is incredibly educational. so i do want to recommend that also, kudos to the working group, which on top of all the things described here, also help with our policy development. i know they advise us on the disengagement policy. i know they advise on other dgos , so they're also talented, talented policy writers among that. so thank you very much for that presentation and for all the work you do with only four people in the unit. only four people absolutely like this as a wonderful model. again just thank you, commissioner yee, thank you very much. there vice president carter was some. first off, all, i want to thank the

city team for your outstanding service and congratulations to the chief for bringing this out there. there's so much work that you got out there with the limited resource that you have. i just want to ask a question. how many more staff do you figure you'd need to make it a more effective unit? well, i think that would depend on the amount of staffing that we had, and that was my question in the department, how much do you need? i know that that has been a discussion with the chief. and i think that to answer that question, we ideally would look at having, you know, a few officers working each day for the for a seven day period. so, you know, we currently have officers. prelinger manfredi and nasar working either monday through thursday or tuesday through friday, because we do want to ensure that our officers

actually from our unit go out as a set, as a pair in order to ensure the safety of not only the subject we're encountering, but now when we go out, we're bringing a clinician with us, so we can't not one officer can possibly ensure more that the subject is going to be cooperative and monitor the safety of the clinician, which is why we go out together so that to ensure that that a safety component, there's a safety net there literally for our clinicians. my next question is regarding the 40 hours city certification. i look at the command staff from the sergeant all the way on up. how many more do we need to, i guess, fully train them as needed out in the field in in patrol. we we're if we complete another 250, everyone will be trained from the command staff up to. that's just the patrol division. we

have another breakdown which is not included here today, which i can get to you. but there is a breakdown of who from an officer to chief scott is trained. okay. thanks again to the team from the chief and the members and everybody that makes it work. sometimes we don't hear it enough. sometimes we hear the other side of the story, which is that we're not doing enough in the sfpd. again, this is great news. i guess we need to probably let the press know that . take a look at this report and then publish it. maybe thank you very much. thank you, chief scott. thank you, vice president carter robertson. i just wanted to say thanks first to sergeant killeen, acting lieutenant killeen. you know, lieutenant molina was needed to be the acting one of the acting

captains and laura stepped right in and without skipping a beat, i also want to say thank you to lieutenant anderson, who even since he's been promoted and still contributes a lot to this unit and to this effort and help put all this on the map. so danny, thank you also, officer carlos manfredi sitting there. carlos, if you would, raise your hand, who's a vital part of the team, and officer matt nazar they are a small unit and it's painful to know that we can't do more right now. in addition to everything that's been said here, they also get pulled or they were getting pulled to back field patrol and but what i will say to them is they are synergetic with with their their training and promoting these concepts among the general patrol force. and i think that helps us get to where where we are and will help us in the future. but just know this, you know, our academy classes are

larger than they have been in the last few years. we have another academy class that just started this month, so as we start to staff back up and i know that's going to take time, we will increase the size of this unit. sergeant killeen mentioned this or acting lieutenant killeen. we are short across the board our motorcycle officers, our narcotics unit. i don't think any unit right now is fully staffed with the exception of maybe the tenderloin station. but but we know that and we'll continue to make adjustments and try to stay afloat until we can get that unit staffed up. so thank you. great. thank you so much. thank you. sergeant, could we go to public comment for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item seven, the presentation, please approach the podium. i'm aware of the q&a protocol at public comment, but it would be from a neighborhood perspective, it would be revealing to understand better the relationship between the city unit and the city trained

officers. on the one hand and the handful or less, i guess, of crisis response vehicles that do not have an sfpd officer on board that i gather are essentially run by the health department. but i'm unclear on on that last point. thanks. to your question, commissioner benedicto 400 and approximately 428,000 calls for service for the year of 2022. so about a little less than 1 in 10 for about 40,000 for the city. about that ratio. okay. thank you very much. thank you. there is no further public comment line item eight presentation and discussion on sfpd and sparks report third quarter 2023 discussion.

and for members of the public, just one note that the powerpoint for the sfpd, the presentation has not been posted online because it was not available on friday at the time of posting. commission staff will make this item available for the public by tomorrow and hard copies are available on the table on the side. good evening. my name is aja steeves. i am the policy development division manager for sfpd. i am joined here by my boss, captain dennis tuma, who will be advancing the slides for today. we're here to talk about the q three sparks report, which you have received from sfpd. ours is essentially a spreadsheet that covers all of the items that are required in a resolution action that actually epa and sfpd must comply with. first slide, please. thank you so in our report, we have

present to you with status updates on 33 dgos that are actively going through the development process. again, this is q3, so this is july through september 30th. activity and we also have given you department bulletin notices, status updates on 49 of them. that's set to expire within 128 days. now that is criteria, again, that is outlined in the resolution plan that was passed in 2006. we do call it sparks because the commissioner sparks, it was her her resolution, an essentially the commission at the time was having challenges receiving regular updates from both the department and from epa as their function. the commission's function is to monitor and oversee policy updates so we're complying with that. and as you've noticed, there is a you know, this year we've presented you with a pretty new format out. so our hope really going forward is that we are able to provide you with consistently clear data relating to policy development and updates so that

this eventually lands on the consent calendar. next slide, please. we've added a section in this report that covers recommendations from their q two sparks report. we think it's important to actually, because epa is providing us with recommendations, we should add our responses to those recommendations so we can remain accountable and transparent. so our hope really is to with every quarterly report we're provides us with recommendations. our next quarterly report, we hope to provide some substantive responses so that the commission and dpr are aware of what our position is. it is next to impossible to answer those questions. right on the spot because we have to be thoughtful . we have to usually confer with other units, confer with the chief command staff. so we'd like to actually get that documented too, so that we have again, ongoing documentation of our responses to dpr recommendations. us so in this report, those recommendation responses can be found starting

on page eight. so again, so the q for sfpd sparks report can go back just one more. the last bullet of that is the q for sfpd sparks report will include responses to the recommendations noted in dpa's. q three sparks report. so the one that they are going to discuss today, we hope to have responses going forward, and we want to do that ongoing. next slide, please. thank you. so i also want to provide this is not in your sparks report, but want to give you some policy development division updates. so the policy development division was established back in may 2023. we are a division that includes written directive unit, the policy development unit, which is our kind of staff writers and our working group unit, which will manage all of the facilitation of the working groups on the list that will all be approved by the commission. we have brought on two written directives, unit staff members, one in july and one in august.

three policy development unit staff members all in august and one working group unit staff member that just started on monday. so we've been doing 301 workshops with internal staff. we started that work back in may of this year and we've been doing onboarding sessions with the commissioners as well as internal onboarding sessions. i do want to take this moment to thank commissioner walker, commissioner benedicto and carter oberstein for volunteering your time and sitting with us for a very large chunk of time to go through how to practically apply the guidelines as set forth in dgo 301 and commissioner yee and burn, we have some invitations out for you to join us at future onboarding sessions and elias when she comes back as well. so we hope to keep you in the fold. you're part of the conversations and again, we're really grateful that you spent this time with the pd staff. so that they can also interact with you directly. it's really, really helpful. so our goal is to have standardized processes and centralized

tracking surprise. there hasn't been up until now when it comes to policy development because it has been largely decentralized until may when we were established. we've also worked on a policy development assessment report and we're getting that finalized and sent to the chief that has 24 findings and recommendations relating to how policy develops. agent has been working up until now and the recommendations that we have as a division to the department on how to keep the policy development process efficient. so our other goals is to have a 2024 annual review list to the chief and the president of the commission in november. and that will give them time, at least november and december, to approve that list so we can set our annual refresh plan for 2024 before the year starts. and in 2024, we want to get that working group list review in front of the full commission in january 2024. so in dgo 301 that list, the

working group list is approved by the full commission at a at a hearing. so we're hoping to get that to you again, very early in the year so we can hit the ground running and start these working groups in hopefully in february and our next q four sparks report is due in january. so that will cover october through december 2023. data and again, we're really hoping to get that sparks report so clear that it's on consent calendar and we don't have to do presentation. but of course we're here if you want one. next slide, please. we were able to review the q three sparks report. we just wanted to make a quick note that section three outlines several ngos, which actually ends up being a comprehensive list of about 11 dgos and six of those 11 are noted in our sparks report. so we have status updates in our sparks report. so what's noted in their report is 506. you can find the status update on page one, line four for 207. you can

find our status update on page two, line 11 and so forth. so also 905, page three, line 28 dgo oh 618. page three, line 32. and there's an update on dgo 610 on page eight in the recommendations section, where we're responsive to recommendations from q35 of the 11 updates can be provided to the commission through q four sparks report because we will have updates or through sergeant youngblood so if at any time you have questions about the update and i heard you, commissioner benedicto wanting some updates on your dgos that you're assigned to, this applies to any other commissioner you can certainly reach out to. sergeant youngblood ask that question, sergeant youngblood can come to us and we can provide you with that update or you can directly reach out to captain tuma and we can provide those updates to you. if you can't wait for the q four snazzy report, that's coming your way. so we do have updates on a lot of those things that if no particular activity happened in this. q this last q

three, we may not have reported on it, but a few of those dgos that are on that list. we also did a report on q two. and again, expect q four so next steps we will continue our onboarding sessions with staff as we are still bringing people on. just brought on the working group person. so we're really we're still moving along with training. i think training is really, really critical to making sure that we get this process correct. and also a review of the assessment report for the chief. we're really looking forward to the chief's review and seeing what his comments are so we can move forward next slide. i'm assuming we should take questions after dpr. okay. so we will move aside so dpr can get started on theirs and then we'll take your questions after the dpr presentation. thank you. oh, thank you. i think she's

going to do it. thank you. good evening, commissioners. chief scott, members of the public. i'm janelle caywood. i'm the dpr policy director, and i'm here to report on dpa's third quarter 2023 policy work. next slide for approximately one year, epa has been raising concerns about possible inaccuracy in sfpd stop data. and just as a background for members of the public, the california racial and identity profiling act took effect on january 1st, 2016. it's called ripa. in the statute, the state enacted multiple provisions to uncover and address the unlawful practice of racial profiling and identity profiling. and as an example, ripa specifically provided that the consideration of a person's personal characteristics such as race cannot be the basis for deciding when to stop or how to treat a stopped person. so ripa requires

and its related regulations require police officers to enter the perceived race of people they stop. so the data can be reviewed for bias policing in the third quarter of 2023, director henderson publicly reported that we've noticed three issues which could affect sfpd stop data reliability. the first is officers entering multiple race categories up to seven for a single person to possibly obscure the race of the person stopped. number two, officers failing to enter large number of their traffic stops in the stop data system. and number three, officers entering the wrong race of known persons. they've stopped. and to be clear, all three issues should have been discovered by sfpd through routine audits of its own stop data. just as the us department of justice recommended they do in 2016. this is important giant data to collect that is mandated by law. it has absolutely no value if it's not reliable and validated. and so as a result of our

preliminary findings, dpr has called for an external review of sfpd traffic stop data to determine the discrepancy is that dpr highlighted whether they are isolated incidents or more pervasive and systemic discrepancies. dpaa is aware of several jurisdictions around the country where law enforcement stopped. data is under scrutiny for similar race related errors. in 2021, deputies in louisiana reported, making six stops of hispanic drivers out of 73,000 total stops. for context, the population is approximately 18% hispanic in 2022, a missouri state trooper pleaded guilty to 12 counts of falsifying stop reports the trooper recorded reported black drivers as white and failed to report searches. he conducted in los angeles in 2022. the county inspector general reported massive discrepancies in the stop data

reporting. they estimate made over 50,000 that there were over 50,000 unreported stops, including over 33,000 of under-report stops of hispanic people and over 25,000 underreported backseat detention years and over 18,000 underreported consent searches. as earlier this year, the connecticut state auditor released a report alleging that connecticut state troopers placed. 26,000 fake infraction records in the state racial profiling system. almost all of the false tickets purported that the drivers were white. the us department of justice and the us department of transportation have taken over the state investigations. next slide at this time, it is essential that san francisco exhibit leadership on this issue and take the necessary steps to determine the scale and scope of our stop data discrepancies is to that end, dpr has made the below recommendations to sfpd number

one, sfpd should convene a working group with sfpd, dpr, academe partners, and data experts such as chris bolton, who i believe the chief met with last year to determine the purpose and scope of a stop data review. number two, sfpd should allow dpr to work with the comptroller's office and or academic partners to conduct a review of sfpd, stop data number three, sfpd's special investigation unit should audit all stop data entries with general checks on data quality. compare the stop data against other databases, such as citations or cad, which are the dispatch records. each citation and arrest should have a corresponding stop data entry. additionally, each stop data entry for citation or arrest should generate documentation. and we also want to check for whether the officers have platform fatigue. they're required to enter data in a lot

of different ways. so we want to make sure that the sfpd systems are up to date to lower the administrative burden on officers. we recommend that you check for misstatements of facts for citations and arrests and compare race data in the stop data entries to citations and incident reports. this next slide. so that's all i have on stop data. turning to the general order revisions. so on july 13th, 2022, over a year ago , dpr publicly reported on 26 department general orders that we identified as languishing or having stalled for one year or more midway through the development process. so one year later, we have an annual update. and just as background in 2016, when the department of justice found that the sfpd development process was overly protracted and directed, sfpd and the police commission to make a process that is nimbler and more efficient. so kudos to president

elias sfpd's policy director deanna roche and chief scott for their leadership in 3.01. because of this policy, sfpd has produced more updated general orders in the last year than by my count, than they have in 30 years. and so best practices is to update it every 3 to 5 years. so the department really has done just an incredible work in the last year. and i'd just like would like to acknowledge lieutenant eric altaffer, who really got the ball going in last august, from november last year. and also hats off to captain tuma and aja stevens for keeping the ball rolling into the third quarter of this year. overall, there's been major movement in the past year and it's great to see regarding the list of the 26 stalled egos, i'm happy to report that 12 have been either finally adopted by the police commission or in meet and confer with the mayor. and i think all but one of those have

been submitted this year. so that's great progress. for 14 on i call them the final 14. they were they're still pending. and i presented a table from dpa's perspective of what the status is and i think commissioner byrne gets the award for most engaged commissioner on the status of his egos. so thank you, sir, for that. um, but despite that, 3.01 has been in effect for a year, some of these egos have stalled for 5 to 7 months, which is problematic because under 3.01 the entire ego development process should take about six months. and i did have an encouraging conversation with assistant chief flaherty yesterday and sort of we identified pinch points and pain points in the process where egos were stalling. and she has a good plan with her team, with captain tuma and aja. steve to sort of hopefully address why some of these egos are stalling out at certain on certain desks.

but i'm happy to report that there's a plan in place and hopefully we'll prevent similar delays with newer egos as to address some of the delays in the pending egos. if you just scroll through the table, some of them have been stalled out with little movement for 3 to 7 months and we've made some recommendations about how to move some of these egos forward. dpr and sfpd should confer and i'd like proactively insert all of the egos into the 3.01 process at a place where it makes sense. if there's already a draft. let's start it at stage two or if the policy has already been updated with dpr recommendation. let's just proceed to public comment. and then once the ego is inserted in into 3.01 at a reasonable spot at then the ego will be subject to tracking and accountability by the commission. then we also recommended that sfpd not interpret 3.01 to have lengthy

delays between the stages where egos stall out. our opinion is the stages should be consecutive , and instead of allowing draft egos to go into sort of a black hole of a whirlpool of time in between stages or when a ego finishes concurrence, our recommendation is that instead of just letting a stall out that 3.1 be followed and that the department asks the commission for an extension of time. so that there's transparency and accountability about what's happening with the egos around the cause of the delay is that's all i have. i did want to address ms. steve's responses to the dpa recommendations, which i appreciate so often. our recommendations as we don't feel we're fully heard. so i really appreciate that new process for most of them, for most of those recommendations, we provided them to the commission, but

they're still early in the 3.01 process. so while we appreciate a response from the police department right now, it's certainly not necessary because it has to go through concurrence and then commission approval. so it's good to know where they preliminarily stand. but ultimately, we it's early on in the 3.01 process and i just wanted to express appreciation for the issue about dpa having access to evidence.com, which is the body worn camera viewing platform that sfpd has. and i just wanted to address the response there. there seems to be a misunderstanding. dpa has never requested access through through evidence.com. there's the department can do all whatever redactions it needs to do and then just provide us the body worn camera after the redacted. so the first part of sfpd's response, i just wanted to clear up any confusion because we don't we're not asking for information on. so thank you. that's all i have.

and thanks to the policy unit, sfpd for their clear report. thanks, director henderson. thank you. i just to clarify two things, just from what you presented, miss hayward. so in this. notice of the 49 languishing dgos that haven't been resolved yet, two of them indicate date that they're pending with dpa, the duties of patrol officers and duties of station personnel are those still with. i still have those. i requested it and received an extension till next week because i need to confer with miss hawkins before those. and then the u. you said when you were presenting that one of the recommendations was that these the language in dgos be inserted into the 3.01 process. is there a reason that they're not under?

how are they an exception to 3.01. i just don't have that information. i did ask captain toomer last week if he could provide a list of where all the dgos are at in 3.1, and i haven't received that list yet, so they might know in their mind, but i just i don't i don't see i don't have a clear understanding of where all of the dgos are under 3.01 for the final 14 and just other dgos that we're working on. do we can i ask them? yeah thank you for the question because it's been quite a an interesting journey going through the policy development process after inheriting it in may. so going through and as i said in my report, we don't have a central we didn't have a centralized tracking system. so each geo had its own update process, access or tracking mechanism. there wasn't one document to track everything. and what's become abundantly clear is that the majority of the dgos that have

been updated over the last year, based on agreements that were made between actually there were some individual commissioners and at the time were written directives, was housed to develop under what they called old 301. and there wasn't a purposeful, thoughtful process, at least that i can see from the kron's. i'm just looking at the chronological in each one and some of the discussions that i've had with strategic management bureau and lieutenant altaffer that we were as a department and in joint agreement to move forward because it was looked at as challenging to start with the new 301 for implementation when to janelle's point certain dgos had already gone through certain processes, but now that we are assessing those items that are in development and we're going back to the subject matter experts and the deputy chiefs because some of the drafts are

almost two years old. they're opting to start at stage one and start over. so while that is, i understandably a delay, it's better than going under a go that no longer exists and hasn't existed since july of 2022. was the decision. to scrap the process and start from the beginning. was that just made by the department? so actually we're going through an individual process. essentially, we're going through now that we have a centralized list now. so the first step was getting all of the goes that are actively be going through development on one list so we can see it. and then seeing where it is. some are so complete that the only logical next step is public comment. right. and then some are. the deputy chief has just moved over to that bureau and has reviewed the draft and it may be only received one grid from dpa, but there was or it may have gone to concurrence even there are some that have already even gone to concurrence in 2021 and 2022 and that have now started back over

in the process. maybe a law changed or something. so it's really going individually. they all have their own place base in current 301. would it be possible to get an update on the 14 on where they are? absolutely yeah. we can provide that to you . thank you. yeah thank you both for the presentations. i'll just pick up where director henderson left off or for ms. steve. so just to be clear, it is the department's position or your understanding that if a dgo is in the middle of being revised when 3.1 became effective, the new 3.1 that that dgo needs to follow the current 3.1 process? yes yes. and then i didn't hear an answer to director henderson's question. when was the decision about where to slot one of these dgos s where to slot it in the new 3.1 was that made by the department. so that's coming from pd d so these

are out of discussions with the captain with flaherty, with the deputy chief that's overseeing that particular geo. and again, it's there isn't one standardized place to put all of those geos in development because essentially what we're what we found out in june of this year during our assessment, the beginning of our assessment, that starting in essentially august of 2022, all the way through may of 2023, the people that were developing processes, developing policies, were agreeing to use guidelines under a geo that was no longer in effect. so gathering all of that information and then figuring out where to put it in and that is a decision those decisions are coming in with with several people in the department. yes. so the answer is yes. the department's making those decisions on its own. okay. um and i just one other thing you said in response to director henderson. you said that some

dgos had been pending for so long under the prior 3.01 that that the decision was made to simply restart them at stage one. and i guess i was just that didn't make sense to me. so there were so much delay that we wanted to delay further by restarting them at the beginning of the process, even though there they had already had some amount of work done on them, that that didn't make sense. sure. so the in looking at the development process of and i'll talk about specific, there's two dgos that i can think of. one where we started it from the beginning. it had started under the old 301, which didn't have the same deadlines that the current 301 has. right? so when we say languishing there was no specific deadline that it needed to adhere to, but because of certain agreements after after the current 301. was approved and there were agreements to just make decisions is whether how to move forward. and i can give you this we can also give

you the updates where they are specifically and what occurred, because each one is each one is so vastly different from the other. so there were decisions when specifically recently when smes have changed. so the subject matter expert, the main drafting officer is no longer with the department or no longer in that bureau. we have a new deputy chief assigned to a bureau who had nothing to do with a draft dgo and then upon review you stated that it did not actually reflect where they wanted it to move forward, and so they wanted it to start under the 301. so we're under we're challenged with how to recalibrate these dgos that all the way up until basically june of 2023 have been under old 301. right okay. that makes sense. and so i understand that it's going to be an individualized process for each dgo figuring out where to slot it into the three into 3.01. i mean, 3.1 is

not been on the books for a while. um, i guess what i would ask is that the commission at a minimum, the commission president and the commissioner who was, who was assigned to that dgo be consulted in that because as i understand it, only the commission is empowered to interpret 3.01 and, and if, if the department can't, i think can't be making decisions in isolation without notification to the commission, to epa, to the public, to make these types of one off interpretations. i mean, i think at a minimum, the commissioner who's overseeing the development and the president should be informed of this and have some input in the process. sure. so that's not i don't share that understanding. i believe that 301. was adopted by the commission, but it is the department's job to interpret the policies that their members have to comply with. so in that, i mean, your statement would essentially mean that the department has no ability to train or interpret their members on any dgos that exist. so we

are interpreting 301 and doing our best to create practical ways to apply it because it all calls out written directives unit quite a bit on what their requirements are to comply with that. dgo so i don't share that particular understanding. so we are interpreting 301 and we and it is our it is our job to apply it. so that our staff, which has written directives and called out specifically in 301 can practically apply the guidelines. okay yeah. i don't think we need to get into a whole side discussion about it. i think there's a distinction between interpretation and implementation. it is the department's job to implement 3.01, but the commission is the final arbiter of what all of our dgos mean, you know, just you were here a couple weeks ago when we passed a resolution interpreting the meaning of one of our dgs, two of our dgos, so that we could afford officers the ability to use spike strips preemptively. that was something

that only the commission could do. it's the same for all of our dgos. but i appreciate and i'm heartened to hear that that that the commission will be kept abreast of further decisions about where to slot in in dividual dgos. so i have been actually seeking sergeant youngblood and asking him to forward those to the commission who is assigned or the commissioner that is assigned to those particular dgos. so we are keeping sergeant youngblood in the loop whenever we make kind of go through the stage. one or stage two of the dgo can i, can i add a suggestion? i know you said you're going to provide an update and i think that will be a real clarifier for all of this because i'm sure the public is this is in the weeds for a lot of this. but i think what would probably be most helpful if that update includes the next steps as well. sure. because i think that will answer a lot of the questions. certainly. yeah. i just. thank you. i hear you. yeah, sure. i do have some i don't know that the old versus new three point is that

confusing? we did say that these dgos would be under the old 3.01, but each commissioner sat down and gave the department at that time like deadlines to provide certain drafts and some were met, some were, some weren't. and, you know, some commissioners were more engaged with monitoring that process. but our position is once there was a labor opinion that only the new 3.01 could apply, we would have liked to have sat down with the department and provided input on where it should be inserted in the 3.01 process. for example, dgo 9.06, which is vehicle tows that was pending since 2021. lieutenant altaffer asked me if we could delay that even further till 9.01. the traffic dgo is completed. and i said totally fine, let's just put a pin in it for six months and then the next thing i know is that after 9.01 is passed, i get a notification from the department that they're starting 9.06 all over again without any like honoring the

original agreement or any explanation. so i think if we could just like loop in and have an open channel of communication , i think that would be helpful as well. just so we all know what's happening. yeah, i, i think that makes sense during this transitional time when we're transitioning to a new 3.01, they'll be questions about what to do and i just think looping in the relevant entities would would make sense. so i'd like to make a quick note that again, so current 301 went into effect in july of 2022. so while there were agreements made where individual commissioners were involved and maybe individual commissioners were interpreting it, there are legal implications with using a dgo that no longer exists. so that's the part the risk management portion that wasn't considered that when using a geo that doesn't exist anymore, regardless of if there was meetings and agreements in individual commissioners involved and when inheriting this work, it's challenging to

agree to honor old 301 when it the current 301 had gone through to meet and confer process and became a legally binding document. right. so i think you know i think we all agree with that that we all have to follow the new 3.01. and i just think the decision about where it belongs in the new 3.01 is what we're talking about. and i just think looping in dpa, looping in the commissioner who's charged with overseeing it, i think that that's that would be the best way to handle it going forward. that's all. so in 301. also, just one last thing. the deputy chief has the authority to set that timeline. and we have been looping in the commission and the dpa. so i definitely agree with executive director henderson what we'd like to do. i think it's a fantastic suggestion is get a list so that you can see where it is, because our cron logs don't necessarily match what was in the dpa report . and we'd also like dpa to have that information prior to the next quarterly report. so that

it can be incorporated in and then provide you with the next steps. so so there's no surprises. i feel like it eliminates the need for us to be so much in the weeds. if say, for example, some of those suggestions are already wrapped up are part of where we currently are. but we just don't know. it gives us a clean slate to evaluate exactly where we are. i mean, that's rather than trying to anticipate what that process is and where you guys are, if you just tell us and then with the next steps, are, i think this is a communication thing, but it's also a back and forth in terms of we have an objective list, things are happening. but i think without us having something in front of us to tell us where are we with these lists, what we're doing and what's happening at the next steps. we're just leaving it back to subjective interpretation. i just don't know that this is going to resolve it. sure on a case by case basis, but but and i

absolutely agree with that suggestion. so we can provide that to both dpa and the commission. great. glad we're all in agreement. question for dpa for director caywood, both you and director henderson have brought up various times the need to have an audit of stop data and to involve outside partners and there's been various discussion about what that might look like. and i'm just wondering if dpa has any updates on that front or any just thoughts about what, what that could look like. sure. we've been vetting national experts, academic experts in stop data and data in general that we hope to invite to a working group should sfpd agree to convene one. great. thanks.

chief, could i ask you a question? or perhaps miss steeves as well? well, i just as i was about to ask you, my computer went to sleep, but if i recall, i'm just going to pull up the chart that dpa provided with the language dgos and it's also in the hard copy of section eight on the paperwork. right? so i'm looking at it dgo one, let's say 1.06 on page three at the very bottom. so concurrence completed. may 5th of this year and it's not passed yet. it's pending with the chief. and i'm just. wondering if there's any update on, on just why this isn't before the commission at

this point. yeah. this oh, i'm sorry. this is one where we have , i believe, worked out all the kinks and that is one that i believe is this the one where i offered language? yeah. so that one is done. i just got to get it to asia. and she's been hounding me to do that. but it's done and i'm just so i'm having flashbacks now to my day with the team where we talked about the process and just as i understand it, concurrence is 40 business days, then it goes to the chief and the chief has five days to send it to the commission on. is that not right ? yeah close. very close. so you were listening. so 40 days. the

meetings must conclude. and then at the conclusion of simultaneous concurrence, the dpa has five business days to request a meeting with the chief. they did that in this case for 1.06, i believe it is within five business days of the conclusion of simultaneous concurrence. they requested a meeting and then that meeting there's no designated timeline in 301 for when that meeting should occur. and then there's no designated timeline in 301. for how long it takes for that particular document to be finalized. i think we did see that this happens, right? so if the dpa meets with the chief, what we'd like to do to solve this problem is make sure that there's a pd staff member in that meeting so that we can capture the edits as they're agreed upon in that meeting so we can immediately take it back to written directives and have it edited. so this one is there were revisions and it was an unstaffed meeting, at least on the sfpd side. and the chief has slammed so, so then in the in

the section after simultaneous concurrence of section f and i know you've committed this to memory upon chief approval and within five business days of receipt from the chief's office wd shall submit the draft to the commission. an yes. so it's your you interpret it 3.01 in a way that so as i read it, when concurrence is over the draft and dpa, if dpa requests it's meeting with the chief within five days after that process, i understand the draft to be with the chief. and you're saying it can be with the chief, it can be, yes. and so okay. and so i read that language as saying that, you know, this is like a ministerial thing. the chief's got five days and then this has got to go out. but you're interpreting that as saying the chief has an unlimited amount of time. so those are two different sections. so what you're conflating the simultaneous concurrence? no, no, no, i'm not clear. i'm not conflate. it's

just i read it as one thing happening after the next order. and so in my explanation, i'm letting you know. so in the simultaneous concurrent section that we're talking about with the 40 days conclusion, and then the five day just to make the request for the meeting, the meeting then occurs as the chief can make decisions about the draft. dgo so let's say the meeting doesn't occur and it's just in the 40 day period and then that concludes that the chief still has time. that's not designated in 301 to actually make decisions. excuse me. and you're saying it's that's an unlimited amount of time. it's not unlimited. it's just not designated. there's not a designated deadline. so those are two different what is the limit then, if it's not unlimited, what is the limit? it just means that there is no designated time to ask for an extension. so if there was let's say there was a third day development time frame for the chief's review, then we could reach out and say, hey, there's this timeline and we'd like to ask for more time. but the way the concurrent section works, there is this non designated timeline line that is problematic. dick we would like

to see non designating present in the isn't that just another way of saying unlimited? i'm just i'm not trying to go back and forth, but i just want to make sure i'm clear. when you say there's no designated timeline and there's no extension needed, how is that different than saying so? could the chief hold it for six months? we don't so there's two separate things going on. so pd, could i just could you could you just answer? could the chief hold it for six months? we would not let him. pd wouldn't could he under your interpretation, could he hold it for six months. that's without him going into a non compliance mode. yes. he could. however, a pd exists to make sure that things keep moving and so this is one of the problems that we identified with you present on how we want to address those types of problems. so that it's not unlimited and could the chief hold it for a year under your reading? could he not? would he but could he he could without it being a non compliant issue. so yes, could he hold it for two years? he

wouldn't, but he could without it being a non compliant issue. yeah. if we're if we're reaching a discussion of if you're being you're out of compliance with 301. okay so this came up at the last sparks report and i just don't see how you can read a document that provides step by step instructions and you know that i agree with you and we talked about it. i agree with you that there are many areas where it lacks clarity. so there's no disagreement about that. but one thing that i do think is clear is that it's just it's written like a step by step cookbook. one step happens after the next. and. to interpret, to interpret it to basically a lot unlimited amounts of time in between steps. i just don't think that that's a reasonable interpretation and it's the whole point of the new 3.01. it was passed to implement it. d.o.j. recommendation learns about policies taking too long to revise. it was passed in

response to behavior under the prior 3.01 where we had languishing dgs. so to interpret this to kind of efface the whole point of the new 3.01, i just i don't see how that's a reasonable interpretation. i agree with you in that that's the goal of the dgo as it exists. it is not the result of the dgo as it exists. but again, so we have been doing these sessions so that pd can determine how best to fill those gaps because we agree with you. we don't think that those those times that are non designated should not go unchecked. right? so those are things that pd written directives. pd you and eventually the working group unit itself will be aware of those non designated time lines so that we can put our own timelines into it so when we check. but with that particular example we have, we believe that if we're present in those meetings, we can immediately grab those edits and take them back to written directives. great. ms. caywood yeah, i'd just like to point out that 6.14

went to concurrence on march 24th, 2023, and is technically been on the chief's desk for seven months. i know other work has been done, but when i've asked the department to file an extension of time, what's told to me is we don't have to. it's with the chief and there's no deadline. and that's in march 1.06 with the chief for five months. and i think this discussion even harkens me back to my years as an appellate attorney. this is a regulation and there's a statute free interpretation principle called the doctrine of absurdity. and that you can't interpret, even if you're relying on the plain language you can't interpret a statute or a law in a way that would lead to absurd results. and i think the department's interpretation is bordering on that, because what you have, there's no point if you have seven months in between stage three and four, where there's no point in having a 30 day deadline in stage five, like

these whirlpools of interstitial time just don't make sense. and i don't think that they are supported by any kind of legal interpretation of this regulation. thanks great. i think maybe the commission will maybe need to interpret the current 3.01 to clarify some of these apparent differences in interpretation. all right. i see that commissioner benedicto is in the queue. commissioner. thank you, mr. vice president. thank you for that presentation on. i think a lot of what i was going to ask were covered by director henderson and the vice president. so i won't belabor i would ask, i know that we had a couple of agendized conversations now about a review of the stop data and it sounds like that dpa is working with the department to see if a review can be constructed. so it doesn't sound like there's a place right now for any any commission activity on that. but if certainly if that that need becomes more apparent, i'd ask that director anderson bring

that to the commission's attention. i wonder if it makes sense. i mean, so one issue on this languishing dgos is that there are these these 14 it is good to see that number go down and to see 12 get past. i think as director kato acknowledged, you really have seen in this commission act decisively and quickly to update dgos at a faster rate within working with the department than in decades. and you've seen the commission do that while also engaging in some of the most sustained outreach and soliciting of community feedback than in decades. and so the fact that this commission has been along with dpa and the department has been able to do both an act dgos at a really good pace to have them done in cooperation with the agencies that we oversee and to do so with having solicited community feedback and public comment, i think is a testament to this commission and, and the department. so i commend my

fellow commissioners and director henderson and the chief for allowing that process to continue to proceed. i also would be remiss if i didn't call out the times we have done so nimbly in this last year, twice in the last year, we've made important updates to 5.01 in close collaboration with command staff and a command staff's request, one to reduce the unnecessary paperwork associated with use of force, which was in response to command staff raising that and another in response to the department making the decision to pause the use of preemptive deployment of spike strips. so i think that's another example of the commission is moving in response to that feedback as well. i would want to ask, are there any new to stall? are there any those that that weren't on that list of 26 because they weren't stalled as of last year, but maybe there's still been no activity. so now they make their way. are we adding anything to the stalled list or is it just that it's this body of 26 that we've now reduced by 12? i don't think any others are significantly delayed. i didn't

go back and dig. i'm on overload this week, so i can check and look into that. but i think we're in good shape on the other ones. i mean, i think it might be helpful. i think some of the most helpful part of the conversation that we just had up here was when we got into specifics and the vice president asked the chief about 1.06, and we got and you responded that you had a back and forth, and now we know that we should see that submitted fairly soon. i think it makes sense. you know what i think a lot of the spark support presentations have improved a lot in the last number of years, certainly from the they used to be much more opaque, but it is still a lot of a lot of ground to cover in one meeting. i think it might make sense and i've made the request here to agendize this which i think we also did last year a specific agenda item for the remaining languishing dgos so we can go in open in open session. i know there's often one 1 to 1 communications between commissioners and the department, but i think to have us go through those 14 open session so we hear from the chief and from ms. steve's and captain tuma, where this one is

here. if there's a question maybe that can be answered. and that way we go through the specifics of the languishing dgos sure. and i'd just like to clarify, i don't for the dgos that are stalled that are frustrating to dpa because they've been we can't get an answer for seven months. those aren't sitting with the policy unit. i know they're moving as fast as they can. they're sitting with other people. absolutely want them to feel blamed for that frustration. absolutely exactly. and i think the goal is, yeah, i think that that's a very helpful clarification. the goal would be to ensure that we're having that communication. as director henderson pointed out, some of what we're having here is communications issues more than substantive issues. just knowing again, just learning tonight that we've gotten updates on 1.06 and you know, the chief's given that to jason was helpful information for us to learn. so i think exactly i think just getting those answers questions, those questions answered. so we know where the various issues are, whether they're with pd or whether they're with dpa or with waiting for current or with the chief. i think that that'd be helpful too. for example, 5.06,

which is one of your dgos we've there's an important fourth amendment issue that needs to deciding that we've talked about for two years. dpa's stated. we've stated our position and provided authorities. so did captain harvey and captain perdomo. so i think at some point, you know, we just need to pull the trigger and make a decision and have it go through the city attorney and then hear from the lawyers, because it's an important fourth amendment issue. we've had disciplinary cases on it and officers need guidance. absolutely. thank you, chief scott, just thank you. vice president carter stone. so there is one that the serious incident review board, that is not. it's a new dgo, but that one's been hanging for quite some time. so part of this tracking, we will identify where that is. i'm not sure exactly where it is, but to answer your question, and i don't think that's a no, had an interest in it, but i don't i think that's

one that we shared with dpa and the committee. we don't have it yet. i have conferred with retired lieutenant nevin, and i know that he and sergeant crudo completed it and they said that they submitted it either up their chain or to a written directives. so it should be starting the 3.01 process soon. yeah no, it was sent, but i think it just kind of it probably i think it was sent even before you started with dpa. but they've totally rewritten it at this point. so no serious incident review board. yes, i have the most current draft. i don't i think the one, the one that i had was sent so. so they rewrote. we will figure it out. i'm just saying that's the one that's really important that we want to move that has been sitting. so i'm not sure exactly where that lies, but i just wanted to answer your question. the other thing is, with this new unit and this was on one of the slides that miss steve's presented, now that we have the personnel in place and the tracking in place that we don't, we hope to eliminate these problems. so

just we know there are some gaps . and part of this process will be identifying these gaps and working with dpa and the commission to make sure that we, regardless of what happens with 3.01, that we fix the gaps that we have. so that will happen. director henderson, thank you. i'm not going to belabor the stuff that we've already gone over. i just wanted to raise one of the points that some of the substantive stuff because you mentioned miss k with some of the stuff from the stop data. and one of the things that we had talked about last week was i think i'd asked for one of the commissioners to be assigned and i'd indicated that we started collaborating or figuring out scope, scale of the review. given the data and information that we have. and i think you alluded to some of the recommendations, but one of the things i asked for was one of the commissioners to be assigned . i just wanted to follow up. i know i threw your name out there, commissioner benedict. i thought it was me since it was since it was it's the audit team

that's working on it. already been assigned as the audit liaison. yeah, i know. i just wanted to. yes, i think it's me. i presumed as much, but i hadn't mentioned it before that we'll probably reach out just to give you some of that information so we can have more regular updates about the details. so it's not something that's just going to go away or we have to wait for the next sparks report to address the issues in terms of where we are and what the next steps are to keep the commission informed. okay. i think i have a meeting with the audit team on calendar. maybe we can add it to that agenda, i presumed, but i didn't want to take it for granted and so i just wanted to articulate that. great. thanks. just one last question, chief mentioned today that they are vetting potential outside organizations, academic institutions, ones that could do a third party independent audit of sf, sfpd, stop data. and i just wanted to clarify with you that i think it was the last sparks report when there was a suggestion that sfpd should should audit. you had said that there might be issues around just staffing to do that, but

i'm assuming that if we get an outside organization and that organization is reputable like a university and will do it for free, that there won't be any issue in terms of handing over the data to that organization, especially since this is a data. so it's supposed to be made publicly available. yeah, we there usually is not, but one thing that we do routinely when there is that type of arrangement is we consult with the city attorney on whatever data sharing agreement. there's certain language that, you know that is recommended. so usually we are able to get through all those we have many agreements with academic organizations, but it is a process and we do consult with the city attorney to make sure that the city's interests with data is protected . right. gotcha. okay. thank you. um sergeant, could you take us to public comment, please, for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, the sparks report, please approach the podium. and there

is no public comment line item ten discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 9.04 seatbelt policy for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. good evening, commissioners. good evening, chief director henderson. officer from traffic department and i'm here to present 904. this is the most current draft that it's been on. i think simple down as much as possible to do allow for it. it was too

hard to put in every conceived all scenario in here for when to wear and when not to wear a seatbelt. so we went through it and i think this is probably in my mind, a honest attempt at a good simple policy. great. thank you so much for that. and for the hard work on the policy. and i love that it's short and sweet. yes, that's the goal. i see. commissioner benedicto. yeah, i was going to make that same. i was going to i was going to make that same point. i like that. it's short and sweet. two pages. it's a double whammy. it's shorter and it's newer. are this priority joe is 1994. so just the that makes it about 30 years old. this the are going to be this this prior could rent a car with the seatbelt in it. so it's good to see us continue to make progress. i know exactly i wonder with the state of our seatbelts were in my continued quest to have no joe's from the

90s on our books as soon as possible. i'm glad to see that. and so i don't have any questions. i'm happy to make a motion to adopt this for our use with meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units subject to our labor resolution 23 dash 30. is there a second? i'll second the motion from members of the public. they would like to make public comment regarding line item ten 9.04. please approach the podium and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner byrne yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter oberstar. yes. vice president robertson is. yes. you have five yeses. line item 11 public comment on matters pertaining to item 13 below closed session, including public comment on item 12 vote whether to hold a item 13 in closed session. if you'd like to

make public comment regarding closed session, please approach the podium. i'm and there is no public comment. line item 12 vote on whether to hold item 13in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10. action motion to hold the next item in closed session. second, on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes. commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto. yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner. commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter oberstein yes. vice president carter overstone is you are back in open session on line item 14 vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 13 held in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.12. a action motion to not disclose with the exception of factual information provided that will be disclosed in the minutes. second, members of the

public would like to make public comment regarding line item 14. please approach the podium. seeing none on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes? commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto yes. mr. benedicto is yes. commissioner byrne yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter overstone yes. vice president stone is. yes. you have five yeses. line item 15 adjournment when? when do you sleep? very little. good. stacy.

you're unmuted. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the october 12th, 2023, regular meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i am catherine stefani, chair of the committee and to my right is vice chair engardio and to my left is supervisor lee dorsey. the clerk is mr. john carroll. and i'd also like to thank kalina mendoza at sf. gov tv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? yes thank you, madam chair. the board of supervisors and its committees are convening hybrid meetings that allow in-person attendance and public comment while still providing remote access and public comment via telephone. the board recognizes that equitable public access is essential and we will be taking public comment as follows. first, public comment will be