resident in soma and here to speak in support of this measure. homelessness among youth continues to be a critical public health crisis and also just want to speak to the fact that i've done work at marie x martinez clinic so seen the extent of harm that homelessness does to people physically emotionally, socially and i'm really excited to see that a project like this come forward. there was one more thing that i wanted to speak to and that is that i hope that in the future projects can be inclusive of people who use drugs because everybody's in the community deserves housing including those who do drugs. >> thank you.

next speaker. >> howdy. thank you very much for hopefully supporting this project. yes, need more housing for as many people as possible, so thank you for that and i look forward to a time we have housing that is more inclusive and we have more units for more people. thanks. >> thank you much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is allen olson, soma resident and member of glide memorial church. strongly urge your support for these two items. for supportive housing 1174 folsom street. 42 of the most vulnerable members of the community. privileged to serve as the leadership of the pride team. committed to creating safe spaces for all individuals can live

authenticly and thrive. we see first hand the challenges young lgbtq individuals face particularly those unhoused or at risk. this project [indiscernible] compassionate comprehensive solution these young people need. thank you. >> thank you much allen allison for your comments. next speaker. >> good evening. thank you for having us here in the people house and thank you for your commitment and your time. my name is [indiscernible] work with survivors of domestic violence, hate violence who are lgbtq plus and we are just very excited about the commitment the city is taking in creating this housing. vitally important to people mental health. we see survivors mostly adults who experienced domestic violence and safe and supportive housing is

integral to folks who are experiencing domestic violence and finding a way to get on the path toward wellness and safety, so investing in housing for transitional age youth and 40 percent being lgbtq plus is a investment in the future of our communities and the health of our communities so looking forward to see that happen along with you and thank you for your time and investment. >> thank you for addressing the committee. next speaker. >> hello. i'm [indiscernible] here with lyric and i just have a little to say. it is simple. the best thing for people who are denied basic [indiscernible] privacy and safety is a home. permanent housing like this is able to accomplish long-term solutions to this crisis that funding shelter can not. if san francisco wants to live up to

the progressive pedigree we claim we have to be able to have places where people can be safe, clean and not treated with contempt by sneering cops and other outsiders who seem to hate the city. that is all. >> thank you much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon dear supervisors. my name is--i work in the [indiscernible] i really want you guys to support this. i want to-- [indiscernible] i really understand and seeing how difficult for all children in the streets. we have 1100 children outside and have 42 housing units.

we need to work to make sure this housing unit is for the youth and move the youth to housing. we need to--i don't know how i say. the first opportunity of san francisco to have a place for youth homeless and then what will happen? we have a lot of happening in the community. we need to educate the community to let them know how to [indiscernible] a place to live. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i attendeded a zoom with matt dorsey. [indiscernible] it is a housing problem. housing the more expensive the construction, the more expensive the rent. in other words, the drug use

and [indiscernible] blame for homelessness, [indiscernible] traumatic conditions people experiencing homelessness on a daily basing and also says homelessness leads to mental illness, which leads to drug addiction. there is a reason people use drugs and this book that includes a chapter on san francisco with data. >> speaker time expired. thank you much for addressing the committee. next speaker. >> hello. my name--work at the transgender district and like to thank the committee hearing this item. i like to emphasize that as we live in unprecedented times and enter ing new administration, highlighting this issue and supporting our youth during

this time with would set precedent for surrounding cities, counties, to implement such protocols for them to support our at risk youth. thank you. >> thank you much for addressing the committee. next speaker. >> my name is al smith with lyric today. i just wanted to talk about my experience as a youth who faced hard times with housing. stuff like that. i think that it is very important that we have spaces like this for other people like myself struggling at this young age. i had experiences with friends, lovers, peers, that have gone through hardships that have been solved by having a place to stay, a place for yourself. i think that is important. yeah, that is all i wanted to say. thank you. >> thank you much. next speaker.

>> [indiscernible] i am a youth advocate at lyric. i worked as a housing navigator at ucs in san francisco. i can vouch with lived experience that this new permanent supportive housing site for youth is necessary. because of my personal identity i have experienced insecure housing. about 6 years ago i was living in a tent without the amenities with a building like this would have. a sturdy roof, reliable plumbing and case managers or other supportive adults to advocate. please approve this permanent supportive housing building and invest in the future of brilliant youth who need a safe and nurturing place to live. >> thank you much. next speaker. >> good evening. my name [indiscernible] community advocate. i have been a business owner, you name it, i have done it.

what is [indiscernible] is more housing. the next comes in it will be more important our youth have housing, especially across the country come seeking refuge here. i believe it is place like this will save lives and allow the youth to fulfill the fullest identities, their dreams and be their true selves so this is for saving lives and joy, which is what we need. >> thank you much. next speaker. >> [indiscernible] san francisco resident bruno heights and feel these [indiscernible] should use their budget on. i support this and similar proposals everything time supporting unhoused youth is spornt. important. i to put my support in for this proposal and to request that you please approve the permanent

supportive housing building in surks f. thank you. >> thank you much. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is lee, a queer youth from san francisco and have been housed my lyric housing navigation program in support of it items especially with the context san francisco and rest of california [indiscernible] cleared out. as mentioned the homeless count this year says 1100 unhoused population in sf are achildren. 70 percent not in shelter. [indiscernible] which is a major setback includes id, medicine, mobility aids medical and text documents. when we leave people improve the quality of life because [indiscernible] what are they supposed to do? these projethds are step in the right direction and it provides youth more stable safe housing to get back on their feet. preventative and stabilizing care works to prevent and treat homelessness. if the city wants to show commitment to

youth it should move forward the project because no youth should start or end up without a safe home. thank you for supporting sf future. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening everybody. my name is lane casey, a transgender man and honor to serve at lyric. thank you for taking the time to hear us today. it has been a long wrun. i want to be clear, housing isn't just a basic need it is human right. we have seen the housing first model work wunlders but we still have to fight tooth and nail for supportive housing. young people in san francisco deserve housing. lgbtq plus youth deserve housing youth of color deserve housing, [indiscernible] undocumented youth deserve housing, all young people deserve housing. i urge all supervisors to stand by the young people begging for the site to open alongside them. passing the budget insures the bright fuper for hundreds young peep

people who i promise will go up to change the world. thank you. >> thank you lane casey. next speaker. >> hello. my name is veronica, a housing navigator at lgbtq center. as a youth housing navigator we have seen increase in unhoused lgbtq youth in light of recent political events. [indiscernible] to kick queer youth out and fielding calls from youth in san francisco and across america seeking safety and sanctuary. we talked today about fisherman wharf and history of san francisco. what about the history of san francisco as a queer sanctuary? for decades san francisco has been a beacon for queer folk. i came as young queer person with a duffel bag and made a home and able to become the woman today. let the queer youth have the same opportunity and please approve funding for the site. thank you. >> thank you veronica.

next speaker. >> hello. my name is alice jamesism the past decade i have done rent prevention [indiscernible] in san francisco and oakland. i work with transitional age youth 14-24. there are many people in san francisco who don't know sex trafficking is a huge problem, including commercial sexual exploitation of children. in 2022 the report from the city said youth experiencing homelessness are at increase risk of exploitation, including sex, including trading sex or drugs for basic needs. about 60 percent of children are homeless. in 2016 the county of alameda voted to expand responses and resources including supportive housing. while san francisco hasn't made the same progress we can do housing. please invest in the housing project. it is a safety net for sexually

exploited youth. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. [indiscernible] i am an assistant general manager with tndc, i management roughly youth sro units. not to tell you new information. you know san francisco has a serious issue with things like homelessness, drug and sex trafficking. this touches on all three of the ixues. issues. we know the difference bedween preventtival and reacktdive measures. today myself and this room was amazed by a tenant here supporting [indiscernible] and we also saw on the other hand the more reactive measures who get much substantial amount offunding. wanted to reiterate the difference between preventive and reactive. don't want to be too late.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is [indiscernible] a san francisco resident who is in the area and like to support this project and urge to vote yes on item 30 and 31. in the wake of trump reelection housing is important especially for population that may be threatened by upcoming new federal action by one of the worst president in memory and in humane sweeps the city continues to commit. san francisco needs to be for front of protecting every san franciscan including unhoused youth and lgbtq who need a place to call home. in addition, i want to express dismay this item was delayed because of concerns over drug use. everybody deserves a home, full stop. neighbors should not have veto power because of their concern that have nothing to do with them. in summary, please vote yes on

item 30 and 31 and in the future please do not let neighbors delay critical action on permanent houseish. thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi, everyone. been a long day. thank you so much for hanging in there with us. the executive director of lyric. i don't want to repeat everybody said. we had countless conversation. i want to-we are in a interesting moment right now where san francisco can be the city that we all think it can be. that is a city is that will protect our most vulnerable people fleeing family rejection that are fleeing unsafe conditions. we have seen vast increase in the past couple years. we know this new administration is going to only going to get harder and today and moving forward this is the moment for us. that we are going to show up for young people that we will be the

city everybody looks up to us as and really hopeful with this project. i'm committed as the executive director of lyric to work in close community with abode, hsh and all the neighbors and business owners to really hold our hands together to support young people so they can thrive so they can survive. thank you so much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good evening. marny regen, larkin street youth service. we support the 1174 folsom supportive housing site for vulnerable transyouth in san francisco. we thank supervisor dorsey, hsh, homeless oversight commission and the budget committee for your collective leadership insuring these vulnerable young people have safe stable housing. there is a cruel cultural war wageden our transand queer neighbors

across the country and this housing site is a safe halveen haven for san francisco youth ready to become rent paying tenants who contribute to their neighborhood and make it more beautiful and vibrant. this housing is needed in continuum of care to continue san francisco's success in decreasing youth homelessness and reduce future numbers of chronically homeless adults. thank you for your compassion commitment to eliminating youth homelessness in san francisco. >> thank you much. next speaker. >> [indiscernible] i find it auspicious on the same day we are debating trans healthcare being a human right on a national level, body autonomy, deportation, everything is at threat right now and we have

called this a sanctuary city and sometimes i feel we are in a bubble, and now the state is a sanctuary. i see things like this as a call to arms we need to tool up. this is just the first step, because we are going to get so many people coming here and we are not ready. please approve this and hopefully this will be a blue print for the future. [audio cut out]

>> i have seen first hand in my career as well as with loved ones. these programs create stability and opportunities for skilled development that are essential building blocks of positive integration into existing neighborhoods for formally homeless youth. between 22-24, housing projects reduced youth homelessness by 9 percent and we have the ability to grow the number. we have obligation to protect and up lift the most vulnerable members of society and in san francisco we have the resources to do so. i hope you vote yes on this proposal. thank you. >> thank you much austin baler. next speaker, please. >> hello committee members. i'm going to be the lyric program manager at 1174 folsom upon opening. very excited to embark on this new journey with the 42 youth that will be housed there.

we'll work closely with the youth and making sure they obtain employment and get coverage in healthcare and illegal issues get taken care of and most importantly, teach independent living skills. i want to double down on my commitment as a program manager there to insure that the 42 youth staff and community that live work and play around the site are all coexisting in a healthy and positive way. thank you so much for your support. >> thank you for addressing the committee. next speaker. >> i'm katie brown. a public health environmental scientist specializing in [indiscernible] proud transgender resident of san francisco from deep south and say refer gees are coming and the housing project are innovative and precedent setting solution for existing unhoused lgbtq young people and san francisco apart from the entire nation as a

sanctuary city. this is a investment in the future. also just want to say on behalf of [indiscernible] who is a san francisco native who works as a ambassador [indiscernible] lgbtq people are forced out of homes by rejection abuse and neglect forced to a world too often denies dignity, safety and opportunities to thriv. this isn't just walls and roof it is about stability and safety. when lgbtq people have access to housing it changed lives and housing isn't just a fundalment human rights- >> thank you so much. thank you for addressing the committee. next speaker. >> good evening everyone. vivian wan. i thank chair chan and supervisor dorsey for getting us here. it has been a long ride and i want to thank all the speakers. there is so much love in the

room and we are excited to embark upon the advercher with partners and lyric. it does take a village and i am little worried. i have to say because usually we start to neighbors before we are in there so we are starting a few steps back. i'm really enlightened by your talk at the beginning supervisor dorsey. confident you will help us bring the community together with us so we all start on the same page because i want the young people to feel at home. this is their home too. they don't live there yet, but will be part of the community and i am hopeful tonight that we can actually provide a warm loving home for these young people so thank you all. >> thank you vivian wan. next speaker. >> good evening. director property management with abode. thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of abode property

management and 1174 folsom. regarding property management kwr housing practice. committed to evidence based approach of the housing first model which prioritizing stable housing as a vital step for young adult transitioning to independence. provide essential resources to insure housing attention with strong hands on approach. which includes 24 hour controlled access, staff on the property and on site night manager. we also recognize the importance of behavioral accountability when lease violations occur we focus on constructive approaches. assess the communication, commune caitd lease expectation and explore measures. our belief for balanced approach we support youth while holding them accountable for behavioral and violation of the lease and ask for your support. >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> hello chair chan, supervisor mandelman, supervisor dorsey, my name is cody keen, the public policy manager at delivering invasion and supportive housing. i'm here on behalf of the supportive housing network to exspress support for this project. we all know the city is facing a homelessness crisis and sure we can all agree the number of young adults large part of which are queer youth experiencing homelessness in this city is tragic. but it is through good work that organizations like abode provides and good work others in our community provide that we can bring this crisis to a end. these young people are part of our community and they deserve safe and stable housing. we ask the board to support the project and help us all in our endeavor to end homelessness. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hisupervisor. caren adams the director of programs with homeless [indiscernible] stand in support. any given night 1200 youth are experiencing homelessness. 50 percent in san francisco had first episode of homelessness before the age of 25. tay voice and expertise need to be included and guide all efforts that aim to interrupt generational and chronic homelessness. there are job as providers to support them in leading the dignified lives we are fighting alongside them for. this is a matter of life and death. a 6 year research study of youth experiencing homeless in san francisco showed young people without a safe place die 10 times hirer then housed peers. naming the data because the 18 month process has not reflected we fully understand the gravity of the data and we have to keep saying it until our process around acquiring

housing reflecktds that. i ask that we pass the resolution and do better next time. >> thank you much. next speaker. >> good evening. my name is [indiscernible] a sf resident. i want to express support for item 30 and 31 and any future projects like it. we need to move queer people, young people old people all people off the street and into safe accessible permanent housing and need to do it quickly. we need to do so in the face of country unrelenting attempt to criminalize transyouth and this city unrelenting campaign to criminalize unhoused neighbors. housing first works and saves lives. if we take young people tent the least the city can do is offer a safe place to stay. thank you for your time and votes. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, all. been a long day. [indiscernible] larkin street youth serveish here to

express gratitude to the young people and lyric to abode and all the people that work so very diligently to emily and dylan and hs to make the project happen. i agree with caren. i have young people dying outside and need to move the process more quickly and i understand that we need it-it takes a minute to take where we need to get but housing is life saving particularly for the lgbtq community so the faster we can do this next time the better and i hope we continue to create more housing for young people and thanks to all you for your very hard work. >> thank you much. next speaker. >> jennifer friedenbach. a group of young queers are said to move into affordable housing in the letter district that is a beautiful thing. what is not so beautiful was the response from a small group of

neighbors. we see this time and again and i have displeasure reviewing the e-mails and did not put them on twitter. so, this building sat empty a year and a half. it was delayed twice over language in the lease which was a political statement and the kids are stuck outside subject to exploitation, violence and sleeplessness. we don't need to spend a birch of money only security. i don't think the young people movaling in are scary and don't need the neighbors don't need to be protected from them. that said, housing heals and please approve the project. >> thank you much jennifer friedenbach. before this last speaker, i am calling last call on these items 30 and 31. if we have no further speakers,

this will be the last one. >> thank you. thank you so much. my name is adrian scott. pronouns they, them. a program manager at [indiscernible] program manager for transs service and had the pleasure of working with various city organizations, tjijp as well as when our trans home was available as the peer counselor in house addressing a lot of these issues and folks facing these uncertainties and homelessness. i also have the wonderful lived experience of being homeless myself. being a recovering addict. being a former sex worker and working my way up to getting to where i am so i can give back to the community. i am very open and upfront

about these things because i know what it takes to achieve your goals. without housing without stability i wouldn't be here and recovered and wouldn't have found myself. >> your speaker time expired. thank you much. >> thank you. please-- >> thank you much. with that madam chair, that completes the queue. >> thank you. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. supervisor dorsey would you like to close us out? >> appreciate everybody participation including the residents and i think i appreciate again my colleagues and especially chair chan for getting us to a place where we could enjoy maximum community support so thanks so much to everybody. >> thank you supervisor dorsey and i first am going to just again also thank department of homelessness and supportive housing. thank you so much for being patient

today and being the last section of this long meeting. thank you so much for answering all the questions and thank you so much for your work. i would say this is the beginning. i look forward seeing the young people, 42 of them with some good management and support and we can all do that in this neighborhood and i agree we will love to see more not just in one location, but really everywhere in the city. i think it is what we ought to do together. with that, i like to first make the motion to amend the items both items 30 and 31 as proposed by department of homelessness and supportive housing and read out loud and roll call. >> on that motion, amend 30 and 31 read into the record by the department, vice chair mandelman, aye.

chair chan, aye. we have two ayes with member member melgar excused. >> thank you motion passes. with that, i like to move both items to full board with recommendation and roll call, please. >> on the motion to forward both resolutions items 30 and 31 to the full board with positive recommendation as amended, vice chair mandelman, aye. chair chan, aye. we have two ayes with member melgar excused. >> motion passes. [applause] with that mr. clerk please call item 32 and 33 together. we'll give it a minute. >> item 32 and 33, hearing --making sure

i'm heard. item 32 is hearing to consider the review and approval of the budget guidelines for the board of supervisors clerk of the board annual budget for fiscal year 25-26 and fiscal year 26-27. item 33, a motion authorizing the clerk of the board to exercise a final option to extend the term for 6 years through december 31, 2031, for budget and legislative analyst services with harvey m rose associate llc and directing the clerk of the board to take all necessary administrative actions to amend the contract accordingly. madam chair. >> thank you. with that, let's go. >> good afternoon chair chan and members of the committee. i'm dr. edward--the deputy director administration finance for clerk of the board.

we are respectfully requesting continuance of item 32 which is our budget presentation. i will speak briefly on item 33, which is a motion authorizing our office to execute a option to extend the budget and legislative analyst service contract for 6 years. your are all familiar with the wok. this slide provides background the contract, the current contractor is harvey rose llc. the current authorized not to exceed of the contract is 12 million, 849 thousd,706 and the current contract term began on nuary 1, 2022 anwill end the end of xtcalendar year december 31, 2025. we are beforethitem before you the motion before you reuest approval to exercise option to renew this agreement for additional 6 years throug december 31, 31

your are all familiar with the work that the contractor does for you and the areas of legislative anys policy analysis, budget analysis and performance audits, so weare requesting approval of the motion to continue is important work past next lendar year and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. i don't have any questions. we know the work of the budget legislative analyst, which is critical and so, i would like to open both items to public comment. >> before i open public comment madam chair, the doctor did request the continuance of the hearing on item 32. yes, we are opening public comment for the items-continuance of item 32 and

item 33. madam chair, no speakers. >> public comment is closed. first, i like to make the motion to continue item 32 to call of chair and are with that, roll call, please. >> on that motion to continue the hearing item 32 to call of the chair, vice chair mandelman, aye. chair chan, aye. we have two ayes with member melgar excused. >> with that, that motion passes and then i like to move item 33 to full board with recommendation and roll call, please. >> on that motion to forward this motion to the full board with positive recommendation, vice chair mandelman, aye. chair chan, aye. we have two ayes with member melgar excused. >> thank you. that motion passes. and with that mr. clerk, do we have any other business before us today? i hope not. >> madam chair, that does conclude our business. >> thank you and just wanted to remind everyone that today is the last

but not least clearly budget and finance committee of the year of this calendar year. >> no! [laughter] say it isn't so. >> no meeting next week. with that the meeting is adjourned. thank you. before i do that, thank you mr. clerk today and everyone here as well. the meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned] s

particular case. a really sad case. we also had an arrest on november 19th of a shooting suspect on a shooting that occurred on the 1100 block of hollister. in this incident, the victim, who was pregnant, sustained a gunshot to her abdomen. the victim was transported and both she and the unborn child survived the shooting. suspect was identifie, and on november 21st, our investigators located the suspect in daly city and placed the suspect under arrest. search warrant was conducted. evidence was located, including the believed to be firearm used in a crime. the suspect was booked for two two counts of attempted murder and discharging a firearm in a negligent manner. on november 15th, there was a auto burglary that occurred in the 500 block of filbert street, resulting in a loss of very valuable medical equipment. on november 21st, tenderloin officers responded to the 800 block of pacific to meet with the victim, who was tracking the stolen medical equipment with a

gps tracker. officers made compact contact with the occupant of a truck that was being tracked located the stolen items. the suspect was detained and the stolen property was returned to the owner. the suspect was later identified as a burglary suspect who was wanted for commercial burglary that occurred on october 13th, 2024, in the 200 block of sutter. that suspect was arrested and booked on felony burglary charges. and last one that i will report the arrest of a suspect in possession of a loaded ghost gun. this occurred on november 23rd in the tenderloin. officers learned that a wanted subject was in the 200 block of high driving a motorcycle. he was wanted for two out of county felony warrants and had a history of firearm possession. the officers responded to that location, observed the motorcycle that the person had been riding. a motorcycle was parked, and one person that was near the motorcycle was confirmed to be the wanted subject. probable

cause was developed to arrest the suspect, and he had a loaded ghost gun in his possession, as well as unfired cartridges and a and firearm accessories. he was determined to be the same person wanted for the warrants. arrested and booked for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place and multiple felony counts. so some really some really good police work. there's also disruption of cannabis burglaries. over this past week. we've had many of those lately. and officers working the overnight shifts has been very active in trying to identify these individuals. and we've we've broken up several of these before they were able to be carried through. so just want to highlight some of the good work that's being done out there. and that concludes my report for the week. commissioner yee. thank you. can president elias. chief,

i just want to congratulate your team and also your, you know, your command staff and all the members throughout this year. i continue to see the crime drop to 30%. as you said, i don't know the historical, but it looks like it's been ten years plus that this seen such low rates of crime rates. so continue your i guess, the great work that your team is putting together. i get to read the reports, and i'm very happy to see that we are safer in the city. as i also walked the city and also visited throughout the city, i can see the change in there. so thanks again. thanks for all the hard work. i know tremendous dedication by our members and public safety first, thank you chief, your your staff and all the members. thank you. thank thank you commissioner. sergeant, any member of the

public would like to make public comment regarding line item five. please approach the podiu. we say no. i know absolute incompetence. that's i absolute incompetence. it's going to prevent self control because it's technology. it has no self control. what prevents self control as well is an intelligence obviously meaning ugliness. you see lies, cowardice. all this bloop bloop bloop bloop bloop, no self control with that. what happens then? your life is shorter. i said, i just said eternity is self control. so we can be eternal. but we can at least work at it. so no technology.

sorry. yes, we have to do otherwise. we have to do differently with self control. we can do it. who said yes? obviously it's yes. there is no no here. last thing. have you ever investigated? i don't know, it's not. it's not supposed to be for me to say that the two what i call now slap heads from abbas laws, which are all over the cities and all over the place and out front. i mean, honestly, these guys have no business normally. how do they paid millions of dollars of advertisements to be there? there is something fishy. i don't care. but honestly, these guys, you want to slap their face. even me and i'm pacifist, but at some point too much is too much i think is to get on people's people's nerves. i think that's what exactly what you are doing. yes, yes. okay. have a good night guys. self control i'm trying self control.

we'll be fine. good evening again. my last comments. last i forgot to mention the names of the perpetrators. that was involved in murdering my child. thomas hannibal, a hannibal thomas harris moffat, andrew vedu, jason thomas, anthony hunter, marcus carter. which one is deceased? we talked last time about bringing tipsters to come forth to pay, tipsters to pay to pay them to come forth. i just feel like crying because i'm just reading this and in this

dedication to me about the resolution, man, how long, how long have i been waiting for this? even though it's not going to solve nothing but i mean, it's going to. i'm so ready to go to the board of supervisors and stand there in front of them as well as i do here again, to let them know how much mothers like myself need this. i hope and believe that i will see justice in my lifetime. i will be 65th february 14th and i don't want to get any older. i want to leave this world without knowing that my justice for my child hasn't happened and let alone other mothers and fathers out there who've lost their children. i thank you for being there for me, chief. every one

of you. every one of you. i don't even know how to explain it. that you have been at least listening to me. you're not just not paying attention to me. and i appreciate you all. thank you. that is the end of public comment line item six d.p.a. director's report. discussion report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. hi everybody, i'm sharon wu, i'm with dpa president elias, vice president carter oberstein, commissioner benedicto, commissioner yee, commissioner yanez remotely, as well as the chief. i'm here for director henderson, who is on a prepaid pre-planned vacation.

well deserved. i just wanted to give some highlights from our weekly activities report that we submitted last week. we reported about the stop data audit. i think because of the holidays, the department asked for a little bit more time and they've asked until december 18th. we agreed and so we'll have their comments back on the 18th to be able to provide to the commission afterwards. as part of our continuing education, we will be having a joint training from sfpd on use of force by sergeant crudo. it's a mandatory training for all of our legal team as well as our investigative team. so it's four blocks every other week through the end of january. so we're excited about the opportunity to hear from sergeant crudo. our policy division has been attending the cops dog trainings on emerging issues and will be assessing the gaps in any current sfpd guidance during the month of december. this week, we

opened 16 new cases. the top allegation on those cases were officers behaving or speaking inappropriately with a member of the public. and we closed 28 cases. we don't have any items in closed session today. i'm here with senior investigator matt stonesifer. so if there's anything that we can do, let us know. and jermaine jones is here. since there are so many policy items on tonight's agenda. so unless there's any questions, thanks so much. thank you. two questions with respect to the d.o.j. trainings and review of their materials. you indicated that there were gaps. it would be helpful, perhaps based on your staff attending these trainings. and if they could prepare a report of the gaps that they find with respect to reviewing the d.o.j. policies and our policies and provide that to the commission. absolutely. so that we can we're aware of you know, what the best practices are, what d.o.j. is doing and what sfpd is doing in

comparison. absolutely. i know that i had asked acting director jones to provide the he indicated that there was a link on the d.o.j. website with various training. so i asked him to give that to the commission staff so that that can be posted on the commission website for individuals to take a look at. now, the other question i had is how many cases are over the nine month mark and what the oldest case is that was the number that was frequently reported by director henderson, and i think it's fallen off. so i'm going to have to apologize. i don't know that answer, but i can probably find out. you phoned a friend because look at acting director jones. look at that. they don't trust me here by myself. i know, i see it. see, when he came, there was no question. nobody had questions. he silenced the crowd is cold. so we've had 21 cases open for more than nine months. and 20 of those are told. okay. and the one that's not told. what is the age of that case? i don't have the age

of that case, but i can get it to you. any concern of 33 or 4 deadlines being missed? no. and your previous question about the cops d.o.j. link. i've provided it to the commission and i believe they posted it. i have no doubt that you did, mr. jones. i was just filling her in. but thank you. i appreciate it. vice president carter. thank you, president elias, just one question. you said that sfpd would get back to you on december 18th with responses to the audit report or stop data report. after you receive sfpd's responses, how long before the report is published or sent to the commission? i would imagine it'd be the beginning part of january. i think that we have an opportunity to look at what the department has presented to us and some of the rationale for some of the data, and then we try to reconcile that. so i think it's just a couple of

weeks after that. i believe it's beginning of january, and i'm getting a head nod from my phone. a friend and will we get to see the full back and forth between dpa and the department that be an appendix or addendum to the report that i don't know, but i can say that you've asked for it and i will endeavor to make that happen. great. thank you so much. i think, as i recall, i could chime in as since i've been the audit liaison, i think we don't the back and forth isn't necessarily included as an appendix, but we get the summary of the communications. that's usually included in the report. i phoned another friend, commissioner benedict. no, no, i do know that the that that there is a summary generally, but i was asking something a little bit different, which is whether we'd get the back and forth exchanges that that happen about how the report needs to be amended, if at all, in light of concerns raised. and again, i'm not certain, but i'll check for you. okay. thank you. sure.

commissioner benedicto. thank you, president elias. i just wanted to welcome acting director wu back to san francisco at the dpa. she was with the da's office in los angeles for a time. i think your return couldn't be more timely, given that i believe the last had the privilege of serving on the bar association of san francisco's criminal justice task force with acting director wu, and i believe the last joe we worked on then was joe 10.11. and so to see it's been amended since that time, but to see it up again now, i think is fortuitous timing. so looking forward to your thoughts on that. thank you. thank you sergeant. any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item six. please approach the podium and there is no public comment. line item seven commission reports discussion and possible action commission president's report. commissioner's reports and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future

commission meeting. commissioner yee thanks. thanks again. president elias. as you know, deborah walker has left the police commission and on to the arts commission. i just want to thank her for our hard work and commitment to the police department and for public safety throughout the city. i got got a chance to join her and many of these, i guess, activities and award ceremonies. and throughout the time that it was, she was here. so again, congratulations on her new appointment and thanking her for keeping us safe in the city. thank you. thank you, commissioner yee. i too learned of commissioner walker's departure recently, and i think it was a shock. obviously i'm disappointed she left us. a few of us knew about it. i guess.

well, i guess i'm not on the vip list, but i appreciate it. so i'm disappointed. i, you know, i think, but, you know, i'm happy she's back on the arts commission where she wants to be. so but we thank you for her service, commissioner benedicto, thank you very much. president elias. i'll echo what commissioner yee said and that wishing commissioner walker best in her new returned role on the arts commission, as well. she was. we did a number of ride alongs together. she was my designated ride along buddy, though she promises she'll still attend those if i if i ask her. so i'll keep you updated if i if i drag her along as a civilian onto a ride along. did she promise to come back if we want her at these meetings? i don't know. we'll see about that. i don't know about that. just a few items from my report, i think. just to note, a few items are going to be up for discussion. i know there's i'm grateful for the department for calendaring the discussion on the update of the juvenile rebooking program. i know that commissioner janez has taken a

lot of leadership on that, and we're looking forward to moving that forward. i know related to that juvenile booking diversion program is the d.o.j. 7.01 that we expect to get in january? chief, i know there was the last time we spoke. you were reviewing the letter that was sent by a number of community groups, and there were a number of edits there that required sort of you and your team to take a look. do you have an anticipated time of when you'll have a response to that? i see, like we can bring director lacey up as well. yeah, i there were some areas, i think some legal areas where there was disagreement between us and whoever, you know, analyzed the legal issues there. so we'll just respond with what our disagreements are on those areas. and there was there was some agreement. so and i'll, i'll direct the question. but we'll get back to you. i'll get back to you on exactly when i mean, i guess my question is we'd love to see that early next

year. do you think it would be feasible to get. because i appreciate what we expect is a written response with here's where we agree, here's where we still disagree. and that way the public and the members of the community can have that in advance of the discussion. do you think by december 20th is doable? early next year is definitely doable. december 20th, i will follow up with you because i think i mean, i know about some of the issues. i don't know all the issues, but early next year, by the time we reconvene, that's definitely doable. okay. i mean, i would i would if we could try to get it before then. so that way because if you know, if the response comes early next year, then by the time that can be sort of ingested by the community like that, that sort of pushes everything further back. so if we could have it before the do you think we could get a response both looking to you and to director lacey by the end of this calendar year, i'm going to go on a limb and say, yes, i don't think it's going on a limb, but yeah, we can do that. okay. i appreciate that to that way over the holidays, we can all have some lovely reading and return in january to calendar that. thank you for that. and

then also we have 10.11 up and we'll discuss that when we get to it. all right. that's all for me. commissioner janez. thank you, president elias. thank you, chief, for the report. and i have a brief update on some of the dgos that i've been working on. the 5.20 language access has been making steady progress. i feel we've definitely been able to work through some of the more challenging conversations to get to a point of drafting a tgo that will reflect the change in the changes to the new language access ordinance in san francisco and also improves our document as far as how to ensure the community needs language access. support is obtaining that. we have one more work group in a couple of weeks, and

that should culminate that process, and we are looking forward to that draft being sent to the commission. really appreciate your support on that. your team has been great. hitesh is i think, you know, getting traction in his position as far as managing all these groups. my next update is around the community policing vigil. thank you, chief, for following up with ac lozar and captain parra. we've had a couple of conversations about some of the questions that i raised regarding metrics and data. i do want to ask that we agendize community policing and the conversation around data collection, and an analysis of what kind of data will be submitted. moving forward, so

that we do have a baseline to be able to measure our department's improvement or successes based on actual numbers or inputs and outputs. and it was a little revealing, chief, and i would like to ask you just to comment on what will be happening when i raise the question around, you know, the community policing strategic plan speaks a lot about restorative justice efforts. i know that the community engagement division is expected to house the pre-booking and any juvenile servicing efforts or system collaboration efforts, but when i raised this issue to ac lozar, it seemed to come to them as a little bit of a surprise that we were engaging and had been in this process for quite some time. as far as working with the community referral center to

create an mou to establish a pre book program. so i'd like to get a better sense from you of what would be put in place to be able not only to help community partners continue to evolve the pre-booking program, but vis a vis systems to collect data, which seems to be a little bit. i'm going to just be, you know, honest and say sufficient, you know, in the ability to systemically collect, analyze and report on and then, you kno, present this information to the commission, one of the questions that i wrote out, that i still have not received a response to from either yourself or the community engagement team, is we haven't received actual annual reports for the community policing, which is part of our

dgo. and so i wanted to get a better sense of what we will be doing to maintain compliance with some of the expectations that we have in the current pgo on community policing. so we have a captain now who is the commanding officer of community engagement. that's captain para aaron pera. so they are responsible and will be moving forward with compliance. it starts with getting the community engagement strategies in the department wide, which every entity in the department has to submit a community engagement strategy that process is i think they're doing at the end of last month. so we are going through those right now from that point forward. then it's compliance with the dgo and whatever is in the strategies. you know, some of them are more elaborate than others. i've seen many of them from last year, but that process definitely is being

taken seriously. captain pera and his team are assembling those strategies. and again, the dgo calls for every entity in the department to have a community engagement plan. so some units that are not outward facing units, they still have to have something in terms of community engagement per that general order. and that is happening. the other part of this is we do need to work on how we're going to sustain the basically the checks to make sure that these, these these strategies are being implemented and followed. that is a labor intensive, labor intensive piece of this policy. when that policy was written, we had many more people in community engagement. we've had to basically strip this unit to bare bones, but they are working very hard. so being that we're building up the neighborhood safety teams, we gave a presentation on that a

couple of weeks ago. last month. anyway, we do believe that with the hires that we have in the pipeline, we will be able to do the things that we need to do to make sure we're complying with that dgo but it's a work in progress, and it does go to staffing. we've hired some non-sworn people to stabilize that unit. we've hired some prop f9, 60s. they are in place and we still have a few other people with that are in the pipeline that we hope we can bring on, but that's the strategy. in order to comply, we got to get the people in place to actually do these compliance checks and audit and do checkups and make sure that these strategies are being followed and implemented. now, do you have any comment on the metrics that i had emailed and requested that we discussed for consideration as far as tracking mechanisms, haven't received the response and don't necessarily have a timeline for when will either be engaging in a conversation with the full

commission through a presentation, or will this negotiation take place kind of the way that we've been doing it? by meeting with the community engagement division leads, captain parra is, i think, a great solution for this team. he has some great ideas. i think that he is definitely committed to utilizing the satisfaction surveys. i understand that there's going to be a qr code that is going to be launched pretty soon. that will help us hopefully collect that feedback and be able to aggregate and then analyze it o. but in that, in that same vein, you know, we don't necessarily i haven't gotten a commitment or a response to about what specifically we will be introducing to as far as the expectations for what, what measures and what objectives and what outcomes we're going to be actually tracking, in addition

to the language that's in the strategic plan, you're referring to the strategic plan, commissioner, or the dgo, the requirements in the dda. well, , i'm referring to incorporating some of the metrics that are outlined in the strategic plan into the dgo so that on a standard basis, instead of having, you know, different units kind of generating plans that are, you know, sometimes very limited, sometimes very kind of robust, and having a baseline that we if we were measuring either, you know, satisfaction surveys based on people's experiences with the department that that is happening across the board and that we're using those to inform how we're going to improve our services, which is not necessarily happening right now, is my understanding. i believe that dgo was passed by the

commission and is in meet and confer. so i don't know that we're going to be able to do that in the dgo. however, what we have done is we have we have a partnership with emerson university. they have done surveying for us. we've now i think we just got one published a couple of months ago. i think it was in the end of october, during october. so a lot of the questions that you were referring to was done by emerson. it was a survey. i don't remember how many people they actually reached out to across the city, but it's a city wide survey and it's a whole list of results about satisfaction, community engagement, those types of things. so that was a part of the actually that was part of the crea initiative to have an academic partner do that type of work for us, and that's we think at least it's revealing in terms

of what the sentiments are across the city on our policing, our community policing efforts, our community engagement efforts. and there are some other things in there too, but that's been done. that was done a couple of months ago. we just got the results back and i don't know if it's on our website yet, but it will be posted on our website if it's not already. and i saw those results. i mean, they're for one year. they're not necessarily embedded or incorporated into the annual plans. and that's what i'm looking for. that's what i think. we just need to sit down and have a conversation with the full commission about whether that those metrics are going to be incorporated into the annual reports, into the community policing plans. i mean, i think that there needs to be some level of data collection that informs our practices, not just having a outside partner do an evaluation, you know, a spot check, maybe once every couple of years. and that sits on a bookshelf because as far as i understand that analysis and

those outcomes and the report that was generated by that university wasn't necessarily used to inform and develop the current annual plans. but i hope that we could get that conversation rolling early in january so that we can have a robust process of developing a community policing plan that actually, you know, embeds information that we can use to improve our efforts. my last question is about a sergeant youngblood. a couple weeks ago forwarded a document that i had requested around the live monitoring, reporting form. and i remember when we had when this item first came out and we had a conversation about how this information was going to be conveyed to community partners.

when, you know, whether it's an officer or a sergeant or anybody that's going to be requesting access to their cameras, i felt like i was pretty adamant that i wanted it to be clear that those people receiving those documents should know that it was an optional process. and when i look at the form that was sent to me by sergeant youngblood, it is not very clear to me that this document reads and is interpreted by people receiving it as an option. and so i'd like to get your thoughts on how we can improve that effort. so that community members who receive a request from police for access to their cameras can, can understand that there is an option to participate or not. well, our officers or sergeants

or whoever is asking me, it is a ask, not a tale or a demand to for individuals to either share their cameras or share their footage or not. so, i mean, i it's consensual and some people say, yes, some people don't say yes. so i mean, what is it that exactly that you would like to see in this? just so i'm clear, i mean, i can generate a suggestion. i mean, i think making it clear at the outset of this or in big bold letters that this is something that's optional. the only thing here that makes it seem as if a person has an option is it says that after they've either agreed to give permission to monitoring, it just says, i am giving this written permission to these officers freely and voluntarily, without any threats or promises having been made. it

no other section or anywhere on this form says a person has the option to, you know, authorize or reject the request. right, i will i will send some some language. i don't know if the other commissioners have seen the document, if it was shared with everyone. i think we could crowdsource some language to be able to make sure that people that are receiving businesses, especially with language, you know, bilingual staff. i personally, yes, no, i think i like that suggestion of you crafting language in written form so that we can see it, and then having it distributed to the commission so we can all take a look. great. and then is this isn't this, we agendize this item so that we can then discuss it. perfect. do do we

have a date? no. we'll get a date okay. we're going to get a date. so agenda okay. and that is my report i appreciate your time. thank you. commissioner yanez. sergeant, for any member of the public that has public comment regarding line item seven, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. line item eight presentation on sfpd's disciplinary review board findings and recommendations. second quarter. sergeant, sorry to interrupt you. can we take out of order item 14, please? sure. line item 14 discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 1011. body worn cameras for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. thank you. who's presenting on this body worn camera? so we have a couple people here. i'll open it up. i don't know if it's lieutenant beauchamp here. lloyd austin. okay. yeah. so we'll get we'll

get started and i'll open it up. we also have captain ahern here from our tactical unit. so 1011, the. the dgo that the department has presented. sorry, chief. do you want me to wait? can. how long is it going to take to get them here? do you want me to take item ten out of order? yeah. we can. can we do that? so, i mean, can we get them her? it is agendized for tonight. so, sergeant, can we call? i'll do ten. let's take ten and then we'll take 14. all right. line item ten. presentation and discussion on commission. drafted resolution regarding sfpd's reward policy discussion and possible action. go ahead. vice president carter overstone

sure. so we've already heard from miss brown twice this evening in her capacity as public commenter. this this resolution is really about miss brown and her advocacy on behalf on behalf of her son and on on behalf of every family who had a family member taken from them and whose homicide is unsolved. a few months ago, this commission held a hearing in response to her concerns. i want to thank dpa, and in particular jermaine jones, for his role in collecting information on what other jurisdictions are doing as it relates to their homicide reward policies. dpa sent out a survey to several jurisdictions and did a lot of independent research and i want to thank

lieutenant saunders from sfpd for presenting on sfpd's current policy and the outcomes we've had in the course of learning about best practices from other jurisdictions. it became clear that the commission was not in the best position to make the necessary changes because our homicide reward policy is enacted, was enacted by the board of supervisors in the administrative code. so this resolution asks that the board make certain amendments to san francisco's local laws that reflect some of the best practices that we learned about here in this commission. i just want to say, i mean, miss brown is here at every single meeting, and i think it's just it's inspiring to see the way that she never gives up and has managed really all by herself, to hold an entire city accountable. this is one first

step, a small but important step in that direction. and i just wanted to read one paragraph from the resolution before we vote on it. this resolution is dedicated to miss paulette brown, whose son, aubrey abacus junior, was tragically murdered on august 14th, 2006 and whose killers have never been brought to justice. miss brown attends every police commission meeting. she speaks with both vulnerability and unflinching clarity about the wrenching pain of her loss and her hope that her son's murder might one day be solved. she has been relentless in her efforts to prod this commission into action, not only on her son's behalf, but for every family affected by an unsolved murder. today, we recognize her advocac, courage and commitment to holding this commission and sfpd accountable. and so with that, i will make a motion to adopt this

resolution. commissioner benedicto, thank you very much. president elias, i think this resolution is exceptionally well crafted and long overdue, and i want to thank the vice president for his leadership on it. i also want to echo the recognition of miss brown for her tireless advocacy, both for aubrey as well as for so many other victims of unsolved homicides. if you've ever gone to any of her her healing circle events, she always makes sure to allow space for other victims and other other families of unsolved victims and i've had the privilege to do that. and like i said, i think this this is long overdue. i think i've had i don't recall if i've shared this story at, at commission, but i first met miss brown long before i was on the commission when i was happened to be seated near her when she was doing what she does, even to this day, almost ten years ago. and i was reporting on the then blue

ribbon panel on transparency and accountability and fairness. it was my first time i was a young lawyer that was very nervous to suddenly have been asked to speak before this commission, and out of nowhere, my nose started bleeding and having never even met miss brown, she reached over and offered me a tissue and told me not to be nervous. and i think about that moment whenever she speaks and whenever i think about the path that led me here. and she's been relentless and tireless and has spoken before many commissions, but unfortunately not enough has been done. and so i really do. i'm so glad that the vice president, carter robertson, has taken on this project and has crafted this resolution that i think will move it forward. i think, like the street renaming, this is not justice. this resolution. it's not the end, but what it is, is it reiterates a promise that this commission and the members of this commission, this community, stand with you, miss brown, and will continue to stand with you

as we move this process forward. so thank you to the vice president. thank you to miss brown. i will happily second the resolution. chief. thank you. president. i just i so let me first say definitely i, i am in favor of this in concept i do would request and i don't know commissioner or vice president carter whether you had any input from the department on this. but there are some, some things in the language that i think can be be shored up. there's a couple of questions that, you know, that i have because as i read the ordinance, there are not in any particular order, but i don't believe the current ordinance precludes a tipster from getting a reward if they have a criminal history of any type of history of crimes being committed. but what it does state is that a person claiming the reward cannot be involved in the crime, that the reward is being paid on. so i don't i just

would like to work with you on with, you know, subject matter experts on the department on this language. i do think that maybe some of this can be strengthened. the tipster part, some cities have had issues with, you know, paying tipsters. i don't know if there was any district attorney involvement in at least consultation in this, but i would strongly recommend that before this moves forward, that that be a part of the discussion to make sure that these, these, these recommendations that might be in an ordinance or work with the prosecution of the case. so that's that would be my ask. i definitely support this in spirit. when we had this hearing last time, i definitely you were asked and i think you gave me an opportunity to speak on that. there is a problem with the reluctance. people want to remain anonymous, and even when they remain anonymous, it's still difficult. so i do think the spirit of this is great, but i do. we would like to help on it, and i think we can help with

some of the language. so i did reach out to the department about this and i think we can chat about that offline. i think it makes sense. but what i would say is that because this is directive and hortatory to the board, any concerns that you have about the particulars about how it should be implemented are best directed to the board? i think that that your your point about anonymity and criminal background is exactly right, and is how i read the current ordinance with the ordinance also does though. is it vests tremendous discretion in the chief of police in deciding when to pay out a, an award. and so this would constrain that discretion and say that, for example, standing alone, having a criminal history would not be cannot be the sole reason for denying an award. it wouldn't amend the separate provision

that you referenced about taking part in the crime. but your point is well taken, and i think that the board of supervisors is now the appropriate venue to vent that concern. and so i would ask that we vote on it tonight. i had a question, i guess my concern is, well, first let me say thank you for drafting and putting this on the agenda. the resolution, it obviously took a lot of work and i appreciate it. and i second what you and commissioner benedicto are saying with respect to miss brown's advocacy and her being here every day and fighting this fight, the one concern that i do have, and i'm wondering if we can add language to safeguard, to have safeguards in place against false information and allegations based on some of these rewards, because i think that we have had instances where people have been

falsely accused based on tips and the city has had to pay out millions of dollars for people innocent people, going to prison for long periods of time. and so my request is that we add language to provide some safeguards for that in this resolution. go ahead. i think those concerns make sense. i don't know if we need to. i think my instinct is right now with the vice president to still vote, given that this is, as we've learned, this is not something that is, we're not drafting the ordinance where we are. and so we're you know, this is it has three it looks like that's that's what we're saying are these three things only. and i'm saying that we need to add one more to ensure that there's a safeguard. because the fact that people are can go to prison based on innocent people can go to prison based on certain information. i think we there needs to be something in there

that recognizes that and puts a safeguard to make to make sure that we have extra protection for those instances, because the worst thing and police officers have told me the worst thing is having innocent people go to prison. and so i just want something in here that reflects that is my request. i, i have to say, i'm just a little surprised by the suggestion. so your new concern is that if i understand it, changing the criteria for when an award is issued will somehow lead to false allegations, and that those false allegations, despite all of the protections in our criminal justice system, will somehow result in an innocent person being convicted of a crime. is that the concern? i don't think it's a new concern, and i don't think that the protections that we have obviously aren't enough, because

innocent people still go to prison for very long periods of time. and we know that because we've seen well, we know that. but the question is, will this cause it? well, well, i'm saying that we're putting a resolution to the board of supervisors, and why can't we include another pinpoint number four that would address that situation or provide something to address that situation? because the way that it looks like while i understand what you're saying, which is the ordinance has all of these provisions and it may not be applicable, and it may certain provisions may not be applicable, and certain ones may the way it reads is that these are the three things that we want and the only three things that we want. and i'm just saying that i would like something in addition to it. i, you know, that's what i'm saying. so and i would i would say this, miss brown has waited for this a really long time. and, commissioner, you've been aware that i've been working on this for a really long time. i for you to raise this for the

first time at a live meeting. isn't that when we're supposed to discuss it? well, we've discussed this issue at a live meeting, for example, in in may. we've i've given updates about this issue on a monthly basis. the opportunity to weigh in. you know, there's been multiple opportunities to weigh in. and frankly, i don't just as a substantive matter, i'm just not sure that your concern makes any sense whatsoever that that somehow changing the criteria for a reward would by itself lead to false convictions. it's just not particularly. i mean, let me ask you, is there has there been an instance that you're aware of in the united states of specifically a cash reward leading to false tip that then that false tip was the but for cause of someone being wrongfully convicted? is this a documented problem? it is a problem where people come forward and they have received

benefit, whether it be monetary rewards, other benefits. i'm providing police officers information that accused people, which would result in them going to prison. we had one here a couple instances in san francisco resulting in millions of dollars being paid out. but this is the first for a tipster reward that. let me finish. so you writing the actual resolution with these three points we receive that friday? yes. we've had different discussions, but this is the first time in writing i've seen it. so all right. okay, but i understand your concern i okay, i think we've heard each other and i my position is i think we should vote on this today. and i think president elias, if you have a concern about that, then i think the board of supervisors is a place to express it. commissioner brown yeah, i was going to say that i think at a high level here. i mean, i appreciate that this commission is conscientious and detail oriented, but we're looking at here as a general set of principles to forward to the board of supervisors to begin

what will likely be a long process to change the administrative code. there will be many other opportunities for individual commissioners, for the chief, for dpa, for the commission as a whole to weigh in as this goes through the legislative process, which i truly hope it does. you know, this might not even be if this continues to move forward, this might not even be the last. and i expect that it wouldn't be the last resolution on this issue. as we've seen with many issues that the commission takes on when it's outside of our purview and we're sort of forwarding things to other bodies, we can have more than one. so you know, i expect, you know, hopefully that this will get taken seriously by the board. i spoke to miss brown about this before. and if a member of the board of supervisors writes an ordinance that then we review, we might pass a resolution supporting that specific ordinance. once there's legislative text, at that point, we might raise concerns about false convictions, or we might disagree with the ordinance altogether. as it's written. so i think this is, you know, as a step to get the ball rolling, appreciating that there are concerns, what we're what we're voting on today is a general set of principles. and making sure that the legislative branch of

the city and county of san francisco is aware that one of its commissions wants them to take this issue seriously. and on that, i think we do have general agreement. so that's al, i think, why i'm comfortable moving forward with a vote today. you want to have additional to be complete so that we have everything in it. absolutely. i agree, if you're saying it's just one like, what's the difference whether we vote on it today or we put it over to january and then have additional information or additional points here in the resolution that make it more robust and make it more expansive. like, i don't understand. i mean, i just think that we're we're here. it was agendized, it was noted for the public. and i think that while there while there are ways that are discussed to make a stronger resolution, that doesn't sway me all the way to not voting on it tonight is all okay, but i just want it to be the strongest. if we're going to put it forward. it's the best, our best foot forward, not let's just do this one. and then there's more to come. i think there's something to be said for having it for the new board when it convenes in january. and since it's our last meeting of the calendar year.

commissioner yee, thank you very much. president elias. i sort of echo your concern to you and making sure that this resolution is complete. we don't want to come back again and then redo the resolutions or there's, you know, changes to it. as president cindy elias get it done right, making sure that we push to the board that it's this this another meeting instead of coming back so that that's my concern and making sure that making sure that we don't get false tips that leads to incarceration of people that are that are innocent. that's my concern, too, is the most important. thank you. okay. commissioner yanez has his hand raised? no. okay. sergeant. webex. no motion. any motion in

a second. i got motion, okay. if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding, excuse me, line item ten, please approach the podium. i am very disappointed in this. people have been accused of false information way before this. what does it take for you guys to for you to pass this? let the board of supervisors deal with it. how long am i going to be coming here to do this? just like he said. this has been talked about. it's been $0 paid out to anyone in a decade. and mothers like myself that have been coming here, i'm not. you don't actually have to do it for me. do it for all of us. all of us. just because i've been the person to come here every wednesday. i'm not just

doing this for me. we understand that other people might be. of course you're going to. i mean, nobody's going to be falsely. there's no one coming forth now who's coming forth now? it's been almost 20 years. who's coming forth, and there's a $250,000 reward and no one's going for it now. so why can't you pass this and help mothers like myself? no one's going to get hurt. that's the fact. i should be scared. you know, we need this done. i am very disappointed. i am very disappointed. i don't know what else to say. this needs to happen for us. i've been telling everybody about this. i've been telling other mothers about this. and for me to go back and tell them that it's not going to happen, it's not right. half of

you have children, half of you have families. let this not wait until it hits our home, and then we want to pass something. let's do it now and we can work on the stuff, even when it goes to the board of supervisors, i still have to go and fight. i still have to go and talk to them. i still have to do it either way, i'm hurting right now. these are the holidays and we need this. we need this. us mothers need this. please don't do this. please, i'm begging you know, you're absolutely right, miss brown. we're going to pass this. we're going to take a few minutes. we're going to go move to another item. we're going to pass this and then come back to it. because we're going to take a break. i'm going to confer with the city attorney. and then i'm going to are we passing it? we're going to pass it just for

a second. we're going to hold the other item. body worn cameras deal with that real quick. and then we're going to come. i'm going to take a five minute recess. i'm going to confer with the city attorney, and then i'm going to pull it back. bring it back. okay. please. thank you sergeant. line item 14 discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 1011 body worn cameras for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units, as required by law. discussion and possible action. okay, should we get started? yeah. okay. thank you. thank you, sergeant youngblood. so we have i think most of our team here. we'll go ahead and get started. i think lieutenant beauchamp probably is joining. it's probably in route. i'll kick this off and just want to say here to present just the department's position on dgo 1011. we have attorney stephen betts, we have captain jim ahern from our tactical unit, myself, and we'll have lieutenant chris beauchamp, who will be joining

us shortly, but we can get started. and if lieutenant beauchamp doesn't make it, we can cover his part as well. how i like to do our presentation. i'll start with this. i think most of everything in this dgo there, there appears to be at least some common ground, if not agreement on commissioner or vice president. carter presented a basically a dgo with some revisions in it, and i want to just focus on that because i think that's the point that the department wants to present on three of the i think it might be the three revisions that we don't agree with the position. so how we will do this for the sake of time, i'll take the first two. and that's on the disagreements. basically, the revision in the package is the addition of on page three when making a decision or briefing in a command post with vice

president carter, that would be a required activation of body worn camera. the second thing was striking the language about the sensitive tactical discussions in being an exception to deactivate that language is being stricken, and vice president carter stone's version. i will take that as well. and the third one is the interview. i and captain ahern will take that one. and then the third one with the interview piece on officer involved shootings or criminal investigations, administrative investigations. there's some language that we disagree with and attorney betts will take that one. so i'll just start just real briefly on what the department's positions are. there's the reason that we wanted to exempt the command posts and briefings from requiring activation or multiple fold, but it starts with this.

you know, the public safety and the safety of our officers should weigh against recording, you know, these these types of discussions, command posts by nature, are meant to be a forum where officers and their supervisors and the incident commanders can have candid discussions, can discuss issues before decisions are made, and it is, in my opinion, problematic to expect in a command post that some of these command posts are, you know, ten, 12 hours or longer. i've been on command posts that have been 20 hours long to have a body worn camera rolling throughout these discussions. number one is unnecessary. number two, it doesn't serve in the public's best interest. you know, there's the bureau of justice assistance, which is a doj department, has a motto of body worn camera on their website. and in that motto, body worn camera, there's some

basically some recommended language and there's some notes. and one of the notes that i want to point out when it comes to that issue specifically talks about interaction between officers will be disrupted when they know that every word they say is recorded in a command post situation. these decisions and these discussions are are meant to be candid. they're meant they go back and forth. things change. futures change, decisions change. there. it does not serve the public's interest to record that. and i think it would have a chilling effect on things that need to happen in a command post. i've been in many of them through my career, body worn cameras are meant to be transparent with interactions with the public. that's really the spirit that got us to body worn cameras. tactical discussions, briefings, homicide briefings. officer involved, shooting briefings, those types of things. it does not serve the public's interest. and i think it's counterproductive to the public's interest. and i think

it puts the officers in a disadvantage when those decisions are then potentially made public. the next part of this is the language that talks about striking the ability to turn off the camera when tactical language is being or tactical sensitive situations, and the department's recommended version of this, this policy is not meant to not share routine calls for service. we release that information all the time. two officers are in route to a call. they're talking about their tactics. they're talking about their plan, and they get involved in something and it ends up in an officer involved shooting. we release that routinely. that's not what this is about. this is about the high level tactical events, barricaded suspects, you know, hostage situations, active shooters, the things that are described in the memo that that speaks to critical incidents. we specifically kept that language consistent with that dgo. so

there's consistent language about what is an extraordinary incident or critical incident. and i would like captain ahern to speak on this. but the bottom line on this is we feel very strongly that the ability for this information to be made public or get in the hands of defendants suspects, puts our officers lives in danger. and i personally have had people that i know very dearly shot in entries one survived, one did not. this is serious stuff and we cannot risk this information getting into the hands of the public. how we do entries, what equipment we use, why we make the decisions that we make it does not serve anybody's interests for the public to have any potential to get our playbook on these type of tactical situations. the cameras are on the officers that are making entry. the cameras are on

anybody that is operational. but these types of administrative and tactical decisions should not be recorded. we should not give anybody the ability to tap into what we do and why we do it. in terms of these types of tactics, i would like captain ahern to talk a little bit about this. thanks, chief. good evening. i mean, you guys are aware we do go to the same locations on search warrants, you know, for cvs or for homicide follow up investigations. if our actions were documented, the steps were taken in a playbook scenario and then provided to the defendant when we were prosecuting on one crime, and then we're back there for the second crime, who basically have he would know exactly what we're doing. it'd be like, i don't know, like a the water boy. i don't know if you guys saw that one with football. football. right. and the coach had the playbook. right. and he's watching the

playbook and he's just making the calls. it's a little different than knowing tactics and then knowing the order of tactics and why we're taking those tactics. and that's what giving all that information the sensitive information like why we made those decisions, they might know we're going to breach a door, but they might not know why we breached the certain door we did for that location. and that's that's the concern. so and that's why it's very narrow cut out in this one. thank you. thank you captain. and just to before we move to attorney betts, i know the working group had sfpd members on it. that working group process is meant to bring these recommendations, if you will, to the department, and then they go to concurrence. this is one thing from day one when this policy first came to concurrence, that i disagreed with. and this is no disrespect to anybody working group. i just

flat out disagree with it. i've had to go through those doors. officers are going through those doors every day and we cannot afford to take the risk with our officers lives. for what? i mean, whose interest is this in also looking at dgos or body worn camera policies throughout the state. and this is just the major cities in california. nobody is required to record tactical sensitive information. i have sacramento police department's policy. i have la county sheriff's, i have lapd's i have san jose. i have oakland, san diego, some of them expressly prohibit these conversations from being recorded. some of them are silent on it. but nobody requires it. and i think there's a good reason for that. i know we throw the words best practices around quite a bit. i think it is a best practice to protect the safety of our officers by not allowing this type of information to get made

publicly available, and there's a reason for that. so i just ask that when the commission is considering this, that these, these discussions weigh on on this decision, because in my opinion, it does not serve the best interest of the community, the victims, the people that we're there to protect, to have this information, possibly disclosable. and i know in the working group meetings, i was told that what came out of this is, well, we can redact it. we don't have the luxury when we have 48 hours to turn this case around and get it to the district attorney's office, we have a hard enough time redacting bwc footage as it is the notion that we can go through ten hours, 12 hours of video and redact all this stuff and have these discussions with the tac people to know what to redact. it's a recipe for failure, and it puts our officers at risk. so for those reasons, we strongly, strongly urge that this be allowed to stand in the policy as we have submitted it. and with that, attorney betz will present the

last piece of this. good evening everyone. just some quick comments about the administrative interview process. you have two options in front of you or two proposals. one is the initial statement process and one is what i call the full interview process. this is just, of course, about the administrative investigation following a critical incident. we don't do the criminal investigation. so it's just about the administrative part. and for that reason, really, i think that the initial statement process fits the administrative investigation better. and the reason really is that the nature of administrative investigations is necessarily more adversarial. you're compelled to be there. you have to answer pointed questions under threat of termination. and unless you're a witness, just a witness. you are accused of misconduct. so that creates a more adversarial atmosphere. and the problem is, if we don't allow the officer to watch until after you've gone through a full interview, you can't use the video in the

course of the interview. so which is more like a deposition or an interrogation or a cross-examination? if you have a wayward witness, you want to be able to kind of confront that witness with the best evidence you have. if you have a lot of ums, i don't remembers, i don't recalls. you want to be able to use that evidence in the interview. of course, the way it's written with the full interview process, you can still do that, but you kind of got to go through a full interview, stop and then redo the interview over again. it's a bit of an administrative hassle that i don't think is necessary because we still are. we're mindful of the concern that we don't want officers to have to watch the video and then give a statement entirely. we are we think that the initial statement process requires the officer to commit to the core facts of the incident before they're allowed to watch it. and i think that addresses the issue of memory implantation or it balances the concerns. obviously, there's different ways you could do this, but for administrative

investigations, the nature of them is different than criminal investigations. and we think that it is more helpful for us the nature of these people to have the video in the course of it to, to for the benefit of our investigators. so that's that we ask you that you adopt that process. vice president carter oversaw. thank you, president elias. i just want to correct one thing the chief said at the outset, because he characterized the alternative version that's on the agenda as as my edits, i want to be very clear. these are not my edits. i didn't come up with any of these edits. these edits reflect the consensus. the unanimous consensus of the individuals who are in the working group who met four or 5 or 6 times 2 to 3 hours each meeting, and included the subject matter experts from sfpd who have the highest degree of expertise in the subject matter that this dgo covers. chief

scott, did, i think, a pretty admirable thing, which is that he supported requiring all members in the police department, including command staff, wearing body worn camera. i think that that's a welcome reform, and i think all the benefits that we've seen for body worn camera, for the public and for officers, all those benefits and the transparency and accountability that come with it, should apply with equal force to command staff. and i want to give chief credit for supporting that aspect of the policy change. but what happened after that is that by all accounts, there are many members of our command staff who are not thrilled about the prospect of having to wear body worn cameras because they don't think that the same rules that apply to line level officers should apply to them. and there was an effort

after this lengthy and thorough and deliberative working group process, there is an effort to carve loopholes into the policy to weaken it. and the question before us tonight is, why would we discard the consensus of every working group member? why would we discard the expertise of the officers and lieutenants who were in that room, who understand this the best? and the i think the main issue, the one that was discussed most at length, was this issue of tactical deactivation, where if, i guess, as it was described, high level tactics that are truly top secret, that you wouldn't want the public to be in possession of, it allows officers to deactivate their body worn camera, while those tactics are being discussed in the midst of a critical incident. again, every subject matter expert from sfpd in the room said, we don't want it. we

don't need it. there was a panel of three patrol officers invited in. they said, we do not want it. we do not need it. so the need is not coming from the people who understand and know this best. now, if there is truly highly sensitive material discussed involving tactics that we would not want disclosed to the public, we already have a remedy. we do it every day. we redact. we redact after the fact. the problem with allowing redaction or with redact allowing deactivation live in a critical incident is first, it encumbers officers with the additional duty of tapping in and out of their body worn camera in the midst of a very intense and volatile situation where all of their attention should be focused on what matters most. but second, it's just ripe for abuse. the way that it's drafted, it it allows

different people will have different views about what constitutes tactics, and we will never know. that's the most important part. we will never know if the deactivation was legitimate or not, because there will be no recording of it. and that's the problem with this. if it's abused the public will never know. there are no so there's no benefits to this because you can redact it and there is just a slew of downsides. and that's why every officer in that room said they didn't think that we should have this in our policy. i think that this commission should follow their lead because there hasn't been any sound basis presented tonight with respect to the speaker so far for deviating from their recommendations. chief, i just want to clarify a few things. vice president carter just spoke about. the

first thing is command posts are not the same as operational. i only addressed the tactical deactivation just now. if you want me to address the other. i was trying not to be breathless here, but if you want me to tick off the others, i'm happy to as well. well, yeah, no, i understand, but i think what you said might lead people to believe that there's this. you know, fluid thing happening in a command post discussion, and officers will get confused and forget to turn their cameras on and off. that that is the furthest thing from the truth. so i just want to i just want to clarify that. okay. second thing, the officers that were in the working group, particularly the patrol officers, nothing changes for them. they still are required to turn their cameras on their discussions as they're going to a call, if they're going to a hot call, whether it be a person with a gun or whatever, nothing changes for them. those this is not what this applies to. this applies to high level tactical situations

that the swat team, the tactical unit, the specialists are involved in, where we have to make decisions about entries, about why we enter, what we're going to enter, just as the captain said, why we're going in this door, this window, not that door or that window. that information is not the people that are on the line that are actually making the entries. those cameras are rolling in on. but the discussions to get us there and the why we need to do it this way, this is what the department is protesting. so i and that's a huge distinction. the second thing is discovery rules apply. we don't get to redact this information before we give it over to the district attorney's office. you know, that happens once once it's in the hands of the arrested perso, it's out. we don't get to pull it back. we don't get to go back and say, yeah, the public redaction can happen, but this is how things get out. and then when things get out, they get out and they get out and they go

viral. being in this business as long as i have, we've seen people practicing tactics of how to defeat the police. why would we give them and why would we give anybody an opportunity to do it? and i and i want to reemphasize what i just said when i understand that some people don't trust the police, they don't trust that we're telling the truth. they don't trust that we are being honest in what we do. but that curiosity should not ever outweigh putting an officer's life in danger and putting the public's life. but, chief, i just want to be very clear because you keep raising this, there is 100% agreement that information that is truly sensitive tactics that would compromise our tactical operations are put in officer's life at risk should never be released to the public. and so i just want to be clear, that's not what we're debating. that can what i'm saying is that can

be redacted, that we should not make it the decision of individual officers in the field in the moment, to decide what qualifies as sensitive tactical information. we can redact it after the fact, just as we do every single day in this department. when we're redacting bwc, we already have the capacity to do it. so under the proposal that, again, the subject matter expert supported, there would be no risk of this information being leaked to the public. i just want to say one other aspect of this that i think is just an issue of fundamental fairness about why why we need the bwc on which is the commission hears discipline cases. obviously, these are all outside the public's view. you know, chief, you you've seen this dynamic as well. it's not uncommon that we get a case where an officer is being charged with misconduct and sometimes serious misconduct, and the officer says, well, i

did x, y, z because i was directed to do it by my superio. and, you know, we sometimes notice that the superior is not being charged with anything. and the reason is that there is no record of the alleged order being given to the officer. and as a commission, we're put in a position of having to decide whether, you know, we're going to hold someone accountable for following a direct order, which failure to follow it would be itself insubordination. i don't think that that's fair to the officer, and i think that that's another reason why we need the body worn camera rolling in all of these situations, including when higher level, you know, command staff, personnel are laying out what, you know, the plan is going to be just to just to clarify, commissioner, we have never had a case in my time in this commission involving the

issues that i'm speaking about, because those tactical discussions between officers responding to a call or we're not talking about routine calls where everybody's body worn camera, we're talking about the incidents, the type of incidents are defined. and we have never had that case in this commission since i've been here. i have never seen that. and the bottom line on these critical incidents, when an incident, a critical incident has been declared, the incident commander is responsible, period. the incident commander is responsible for what happens in these incidents, whether it's on tape or whether it's not that when you raise your hand and say, i'm now running this incident, you are responsible for what happens. and the point being, and i want to go back to the fundamental argument here, it's not about will we will we be able to say, you directed the officer this really has to do with the safety of the people doing the work. and i know

you're saying it can be redacted, but there are issues with that that potentially compromise the ability of this information to be kept confidential, like it should be. and i think acting assistant chief waltz has a few comments on that. i just want to clarify the redaction part and i'm not sure if there's confusion. so if we look at the most redacted things that we do publicly, officer-involved shootings, that takes an enormous amount of tim. a lot of that's for privacy. if you see klutz because klutz can't be broadcasted, etc, the difference between what we're talking about and redaction time and getting it done is the amount in case that suspect or that person is arrested, we only have the 48 hours to turn that around. if it's wednesday, we have even less if when we deliver to the da's office discovery of a of a major incident like that, that all goes over unredacted. so to have those discussions and once they

get it, the discovery goes over to the defense. what we're what you're suggesting even in a limited scope, we would not be able in most cases to get things redacted, even if i think the da would say there's no way we'd have to talk to them that we're giving the defense a redacted copy again. once again, it would only take a judge's order once that case was at a defense table to say, well, we may need to see there. maybe there was discussion about what the suspect was wearing and maybe you misidentified them. and maybe it's in that section. then you peel off the redaction. all of that then goes into into the defense, it goes into the public realm. and all the things that we discussed are no longer there. so i think there's kind of a difference. i'm not saying we can't do redactions. i'm saying there's a lot of hurdles and there's a lot of obstacles, especially if the person we're going to do is going to be arrested immediately to do all of that, because if we can't turn it over in the appropriate

time, they can't rebook. they're back out on the street. that's all i want to clarify. so your solution is to just not do it at all, to not have a record of it or or documentation. i think i understand the logistical concerns that you're raising in terms of turning it over, but i think like there has to be some middle ground because what's the solution? not well, let me them to deactivate when they want. let me give you a general, a general scenario. and we do have the tactical captain here who can correct me or add there are capabilities in certain units. let's just say eod. what does eod explosive the bomb? the bomb squad that they may have discussions on approaches. what capabilities they do and they don't have. which way are we going to go with this? and by telling the public and your potential adversaries what you can and cannot do in an explosive ordinance situation is not something the public needs

to know. i also just want to note that there's a categorical exemption for any member on, on, on eod duty. so they're not required to wear bwc, not the tactical discussion that we're talking about. if i'm the captain or i'm the lieutenant and i'm at the command post and we're doing the tactical discussion with eod about what they're going to do, you're saying that i can now redact that even though everything that's sensitive in that approach, that bomb disposal, that incident is now on body camera, even though they're not even wearing body cameras. you know, i'd like to we have a subject matter expert from the working group here, and i'm wondering if she also had would like to weigh in or had any comments. yes. sorry. i'm not sure i'm a subject matter expert, but i've sat in a room full of them for every one of these meetings and what's

troubling, chief? and i wish either you had been there or these issues had been raised because what we heard from the subject matter experts, tactical as well as the body worn camera experts, i mean, there was agreement. there was unanimity in this working group. and i hear what you're saying, but i think that what some of the officers said candidly in this working group was they thought it was unfair that not everybody had to have their cameras on all the time. they did feel that they they voiced at times. it's confusing to know when to turn them on and when to turn them off. they did raise the point that commissioner carter oberstein raised is sometimes, you know, we could be called into a disciplinary hearing for something we've been told to do. i think that there's something to be said for preserving it. i understand redaction is cumbersome. i'm wondering whether or not if the other thing i heard was 99% of our tactical decisions are not a

secret. i heard that so what i'm now hearing is something very different. and i appreciate your concerns and i appreciate the safety of the officers. i get i get all that. i also want to correct the fact that, you know, defense lawyers do not get this body worn camera footage immediately. we work really hard to constantly remind the da's office what they got to send over da's office. i don't know, maybe you know how quickly they get it, but i think there could be time for a protective order on those rare occasions that you might need to not put something out there that might be a better solution. but i think that there's something to be said for preserving this, to just not record it is maybe problematic. well, the working group. so sorry. i had a question, chief. did the working group or did people explore the option of maybe muting it, allowing the it to be muted rather than both audio and video deactivation?

can we just do audio deactivation? we didn't talk about that. we turned off the mute function in the body worn cameras, so there would not be a confusion because we were having issues with the muting and we so we no longer. right. and apparently we can probably turn it back on, but we turned it of. so when we streamlined the policy to make it clear, you turn them on when you're, you know, before you get to all those things, we turn off the mute function. but with that we were what was preserved was the ability to not record these tactical, sensitive discussions. again, mr. chairman, i, i respect what you're saying about the reason i'm not in the working group meetings is i want officers to speak out. but but just let me say this agreement between the working group does not set policy. that's why we have concurrence. that's why we bring what the working group brings to the department. and that's where all the command staff and the people who, including some of the subject matter experts, and that's where we discuss these issues. there

was i just to make the record clear, this is not people in the command staff, as you know, vice president carter robertson said, trying to undermine the policy. this was me saying, i don't agree with this from day one when i saw it, there was no the things that, you know, the all the command staff wearing the body worn cameras, i get it, i'm good with that same thing. there's recommendations. as a matter of fact, my understanding is that there was a recommendation to not have these by the working group, to not have these cameras on in command post situations. it's problematic. and i understand the want and i go back to what i said. there's a very strong reason why nobody's doing this, because nobody wants to get this information in the public realm, because it puts us in danger. and when you hadn't had to go through the door and when you hadn't had to make these decisions, it's really easy to say, oh, yeah, just record it and it'll be okay. you know, it's a problem. it's a real problem. people get hurt. people get killed when these things get

out and it is a problem. can we add the mute function back? is that a possibility? yeah, we had it turned off. i'm sure we can add it back. i think it's just a programing thing. i don't know, i'm the only member of our working group that was able to come tonight. some of others were planning on coming and were out sick. but i it just feels like and i and i know chief from working on some of the other working groups that you know, whoever is in charge does come to you, you know, as the working group is meeting to check in with you. apparently that didn't happen with this, with this working group, because i think that there was, you know, this was a really great working group. we brought in we brought in doctor kathy pezdek to talk about the cognitive interviews, the department. i was heartened to understand that the department is actually trained on cognitive interviews, and agreed that that is the best practice. well, let me let me speak on that. that's one issue.

i don't i don't want to belabor the point, but look, there are multiple interviewing techniques and i understand, you know, i don't necessarily agree that it needs to be in a policy. i don't agree, as a matter of fact, that cognitive is the best practice. interviews are situational. i've had interviews when i was doing these types of investigations where you do cognitive in one part of the interview, you do confrontational in another part, you do another technique in another part. so i don't think it's wise for us to, you know, lead our officers to believe that cognitive interviews is the is the end all, be all. it is a very good technique. let's let's not let's be clear about that. but there are other techniques that are just effective. you have to have a willing person who's willing to talk during a cognitive interview. a lot of times we're dealing with people even in in administrative investigations, they're not so willing to give information up. so that's a whole nother technique to get the information. so i mean, i you know, this is good information, but to put that in a policy as

if that's the only thing out there is a mistake because there are a whole lot of other interview techniques that are situational, that are more appropriate sometimes than cognitive interviews. if you have a you know, a person that's confrontational, you know, there's a rapport building interview technique. so i'm just saying that's why the working group is there, but it's also why we have concurrence because the working group can i don't i don't interfere with the working group's suggestions because i want them to make the suggestions. but then there's a second conversation, and then it comes to the commission for a third conversation. that is the process. and i just, you know, no disrespect to any officer who was on that working group. i will say i disagree with the positions that we're presenting tonight. it would have been great if we could have discussed these concerns during the working group, because there was a lot of compromise. there was a lot of vetting, there was a lot of research. there was before we came to any agreement. and it

was one of the rare working groups where it felt like there was really unanimity, and people came to every meeting prepared and ready to discuss best practices. and the recommendation isn't that, you know, there must always be a cognitive interview. the recommendation is that that's best practice. and, you know, before an officer views the body worn camera footage, we just want to record their memory because we all know that. i mean, if, if, if i had a client and i, you know, only only gave a statement after seeing what everybody else said, you'd be cross-examined on how that tainted the memory and the testimony. and the same is true for police officers. you know, district attorneys, at least prior administrations really didn't want officers to be looking at their body worn camera footage before they gave a fuller statement. and that's what held this up the last time around. it was held up forever.

on on that issue alone. so i'm just i'm just thinking, i hear you. i think that we could have worked out your concerns in a way that would have made sense to you and to all the people on the working group. i'm not exactly sure how to deal with it at this point, as i guess my point. i don't know if that's helpful or not, but thank you. thank you. yeah, well, i really i think you know, miss tran for sharing the details of what the working group process like is like, because i think it's giving people a window into how thorough and deliberative these conversations are. and frankly, i just were i revising that really thorough work and what seems to be a haphazard way, i wanted to add something on the deliberate on the cognitive interview piece, which is, you know, as miss tran pointed out, this isn't even a directive. it's to recognize it's a best practice. and to do it, quote, when feasible. and in my, you

know, brief review of the professors writings who spoke to the working group, it appears that cognitive interviews have decades and decades of research behind them, including hundreds of studies they have been adopted across the country and, in fact, across the world. in law enforcement organizations. the study, the meta studies show that on average, you get 50% more information without any decrease in accuracy. all this is doing is recognizing that we should not be, as a matter of course, handing over body worn camera to be viewed before an interview even begins and just give this a shot. and if it's quote in the words of the dgo not feasible, then it's not feasible and it's not a requirement. i also just wanted to respond to deputy. is it deputy chief now? i'm sorry,

deputy chief walsh's comments. and just to echo what miss tran said, that there isn't a requirement that this be handed over to the defense in 48 hours, that a showing of probable cause must be made in 48 hours. and in many cases, i imagine, can be made without any body worn camera. and as chief said, chief, chief has emphasized again and again tonight, this will only apply to a narrow slice of critical incidents. and that same view was echoed by the working group, as miss tran said that in 99% of the time, this won't be an issue. so the idea that somehow our body worn camera team will be flooded with redaction requests, it just doesn't reflect. i think, reality as as it was laid out by the subject matter experts and even by chief scott, who said that this will hardly ever come up. i definitely don't want to

go back and forth with this, and i won't. but i will say this, that and correct me if i'm wrong. for anybody who was in the working group discussions, there was a lot of discussions about the lethal lethality assessments and the protocols, and i believe the group agreed that those should not be recorded. and for good reason to protect the confidentiality. i mean, look, we are there's a balance, protection of our victims, protective of our officers, protection for public safety and all this is about is that little sliver that vice president carter and miss tran mentioned, tran mentioned is protected. and i think the balance in terms of best interests, you know, the rationale that, oh, we you know, we get to see what happens or our officers that are being told what to do. and this the chances of that has not happened since i've been here. i'm not saying

it can't happen, but that's not the issue. it is really not the issue. and i just want to make sure that we that i stay focused with what the department is arguing for, that is not the issue. the issue is the safety of the public and the safety of our officers as it relates to these specific types of incidents. that is the issue. all this other stuff is not the issue. commissioner benedicto, thank you. president elias, i think something i want to point out that i think has been lurking in the back of my mind, and i think the vice president crystallized it nicely. the chief, like when you and i talked about this exemption, we talked about that, you know, the working group had asked for it to be removed and in concurrence, it had come back and we discussed this really would be a lot of our discussion was around scope and how rare, you know, we that this wouldn't apply to even most, most critical incidents, even most major incidents. it would be a really small sliver of incidents. and in fact, i think when we last spoke, we couldn't even think necessarily of an example of when you think this,

the tactical deactivation could apply, that it's a very limited exemption. and it seems to me that that's at odds with the argument that it can't be redacted, because either this exemption would be sought to be used for very regularly, in which case it would be a large administrative burden for the unit to be redacting. you know, every week, a request in which case i have real concerns about the scope of the exemption or the scope of the exemption is what you and i discussed, which was very narrow, really incredible edge cases in which case those would be easier to spot high profile and would not be a huge administrative burden given the rareness of when those incidents tend to happen. you know, and so i, i think it can't be both. right. well, those incidents aren't i mean, i maybe i'm not hearing you clearly. critical incidents happened quite frequently, but when we were talking about the scope of

the exemption, you were saying that you wouldn't you wouldn't imagine this this exemption being used for every critical incident. or do you think it would be used for every critical incident? i remember our conversation. i'm looking for my notes. i actually wrote down notes during our conversation of being. we need to clearly define what what what rises to the level of. i think we use the term extraordinary incident and when i took that back to the to our, our team, it's like, let's follow the existing dgo that identifies which types of incidents or critical incidents barricaded suspects, eod or bomb calls. you know, those types of things, active attacker type of incidents. we're not talking about just routine run of the mill incidents. you know, we're talking about incidents where there's going to be a tactical response that requires specialization. there's likely to be an entry, there's likely to be a high risk of something not good happening. those are the type of critical incidents that we're talking about. so those do happen more often than you might think. they don't. all because we have very few officer

involved shootings because of good tactics. most of those never get to this commission, but they are happening and they happen pretty regularly. and what i'm saying is this those officers that are out there, those captains like this one that has to respond to those and make these type of decisions, i've had to do it as a captain. i've had to do it as an officer. these conversations are sensitive conversations that why are we risking even, even risking the ability for this to get to the public? because whose interest is it serving? or we, you know, the chance that we're going to have an officer say, well, i was told to do this. yeah, that could happen. the incident commander is going to be responsible for that decisio. but whose interests are we serving by recording sensitive tactical situations. the public's interest is in my opinion, served by allowing us to keep this this information close to the vest. not risk this information getting out so we can do what we need to do safely

without the people that are subjects to these incidents, knowing what we're going to do and why that that's that's to me is the public's best interest. and i mean, i appreciate that that's and yeah, i mean, when we spoke about using it in only extraordinary. you know, i remember us using that language before it became major in critical incidents. i understood that you felt that again. like like we heard from the working group members that the vast majority of their tactics, they don't consider, you know, whatever top secret and of course, in the rare circumstances where there's something you wouldn't get out. that's why we talked about redaction being a suitable remedy, because most, you know, most critical incidents wouldn't necessarily require a deactivation, even if this language were in there. or do you think that we still, when we talk about what defines a critical incident and every critical incident there's going to be if we do it the way we're supposed to do it, absent some exigent circumstances, there's

going to be a command post. there's likely going to be these tactical discussions happening that we are that we're speaking of today. and, yeah, that those things will happen. so a very few of these things result in a shooting where it even becomes a public interest, you know, past what happened in the moment. but you know, a few of them do. so those incidents do happen. so i don't i don't agree that, you know, these incidents don't occur. it's just that they don't make it to the commission's level because most of them are resolved peacefully, successfully with good outcomes. i mean, i guess my question would be then would you expect that this if the department draft were adopted with this exemption as written, that most things that would meet the definition of major or critical incident would have some tactical deactivation. if those things that i just mentioned exist, if there's a command post

where they're talking about entries, they're talking about the use of, you know, whatever munitions or ammunitions that they are trying to use to make an entry or to take a person into custody safely if they're talking about, you know, what types of tactical tools they need to deploy. yes, but that's probably most of those instances. right. because so i think what we've reached is a little bit of a more fundamental gulf in what we see this exemption. because i understood that even in the universe of major and critical incidents, you understood this exemption to be a very small subset of those where there really were, you know, how we're going at multiple times, like captain aaron said, or, you know, where eod is involved and not necessarily whenever there's a critical incident where they're talking about entry tactics. i mean, it's not every critical incident for instance, you have an hmt team goes out, you got a barricaded suspect, you got a person, you know, for whatever reason is barricaded. there's a lot of negotiations that goes on

before we even get to, you know, the point where we might want to breach that door. we need to breach that door, you know, if shots are being fired and we think people are being slaughtered in there. yeah, those discussions are happening. and those are the things that we want to protect. you know, a lot of times there's hours and hours of negotiations with these, with these cases, this policy will require a captain to be sitting in a command post for five hours with his body worn camera on, or her body worn camera on that. that, to me is it doesn't serve anybody's interest. and what are we doing it for? for the fact that somebody, some officer might say, they told me to do this. i mean, it just it doesn't weigh the balance test does not does not jive on this. it just doesn't jive. captain, did you do you want to add something? you. look, i just want to say i think there's i think maybe in the working group there might have been a disconnect because they're thinking of tactical, tactical decisions that they're making on the street. right? they're they're taking action

where we're thinking of tactical communication at a command post. so it's not something an officer would, would be considering. we have command posts when the president comes to stay at the fairmont, do we want to have the body worn camera on at the command post? and we're talking about egress and exit and entry for the president of the united states on video. now, that's not that'll be the secret service isn't going to want that. but i'm just saying we have command posts all the time. we have command posts at pride that one section you list command post when at a command post when making a decision. it's so it's so vast. i mean, at pride we're going to block larkin street. i'm going to have my body worn camera on. so i think what the chief and i are both talking about is about tactical decisions that we're making at a command post, not the officer on the corner, you know, trying to decide whether how they're going to approach a stolen vehicle. suspect. well, i think there are

two distinct things here. right. there's the command post language in the current draft, and there's the tactical deactivation language, which is would i mean, there's some overlap there, but but we're talking about tactical communication that would 99% of the time happen at a command post at the tactical command post. okay. that's that's the distinction we're making here. and they're separate in the dgo. so it's kind of confusing issues here. but so then why did the language not cabin the deactivation exception to command post if that's all you cared about. because the language that you have is much broader. right. it's both. it's the command post and it's the i'm sorry. it's both. it's the command post. but it's also those sensitive tactical discussions where the bomb squad is talking about how do we deactivate this bomb, what do we what tools do we need to use? what, you know, it's both those things. two things are happening at a command post. there's the decision making. and if i'm running a command post and i and captain ahern is there, he and his tactical team are having

these tactical discussions, and then they come to the incident commander and they say, okay, this this is what we recommend. you know, and then there's a discussion. okay. sounds like a good plan. let's go with it. then it goes operational. once it goes operational, everybody's camera is back on. one of the things that you and i talked about, commissioner, is that it has to be temporary. the captains don't get to if they're if they're giving field commands in an operational thing, they're body worn. cameras would be activated just like everybody else is. but when they're in there, i mean, i don't know how we capture a decision on body worn camera because a lot of this is what's going on in your head when you're getting this information. but the fact of the matter is, there's a lot of back and forth happening in these, in these, in these discussions and particularly in a command post is we try to position ourselves where we have time to think. you know, we try to position ourselves where we have time to have these discussions. it doesn't serve the public's interest that these discussions

are recorded, possibly made to be made public. it doesn't serve the interest like i'm saying there. there should be a balance test on everything we do. what is the public's interest? it doesn't jeopardize if it turns into a criminal case. turning off these cameras does not jeopardize that criminal case in any way. at most, we're talking about administrative things that. yeah, it would be nice for people to hear if they want to hear it, because everybody's interested in what we do. and how we do it. it doesn't it doesn't. the risk outweighs the benefit, in my opinion. and that's, that's that's the pushback on this. i appreciate that, chief. and i appreciate that we have to weigh those things. i do think it's worth noting that there are other factors than just, you know, one example that the vice president gave is that an officer might face administrative discipline, but there are other, you know, there are broader policy benefits. just before the meeting, i was talking to public policy director jones at dpa, and we talked about the very comprehensive report after the uvalde shooting incident that was a model for both that

department and for other departments. i know when i attended one of my ride alongs, that report was posted in the in the room for officers to look at, to see what they can learn from it. and a lot of the comprehensive learnings from that report were because they had really comprehensive body worn camera footage that under this policy might not necessarily have been captured. it included conversations from the command post. it included conversations that were undoubtedly tactical and one of the most unimaginable high stress situations, and that department and law enforcement in general was helped by the fact that there was transparency. in the context of that report. i do want to turn a little bit to the recording question, and i want to see if acting director would like to weigh in. i know we talked earlier about how the issue of viewing footage before an interview was quite a controversial subject for 10.11, the last time it was up. and to see if dpa, you know, what his reaction was to the current drafts on this topic. thanks very much, commissioner

benedicto. so wait, sorry is at this point because commissioner yee is on the. oh, i'm sorry. no, i'm sorry. i asked her a question. oh. thank you. i asked her a question about recording, but if commissioner wants to go, we can. yes, i i've been waiting. that's okay. hey, thank you very much. president elias. my question is that in regards to the body worn cameras by, i guess, the command staff and, and in these critical situation and tactical situation being recorded, my, my question is whether the officer, i mean, not the officer, but the people involved in these command meetings, would it be what you call, i guess, responsive right away or they're thinking back about, well, it's going to be recorded and i'm going to hold back on some of my comments on response, because some of these issues, you got to make the decisions at that at that momen. and i would hate to wait for

critical situation where officers hold back because it's being recorded. and their concern is that they're going to be up on it, and whether they're being charged for whatever comes, comes of it or whatever. learning that we can have. my concern is that we keep the public safe and making sure that people that does not need to know what the command staff does to protect us, because once the people that commits a crime that knows our policies well, we'll use it against us. so that's my concern, and i'll see what the chief have to say. yeah, unfortunately, i think the answer is yes. and that's part of what i read earlier from the bureau of justice assistance or bja, in their model policy that's on their website. they actually do mention that that it has a they call it a disruptive effect when that camera is always rolling. and in these

types of situations i do think there is a chilling effect. but we get second guessed on, particularly on these types of things that we're talking about there. second guessing their scrutiny. and there should be. it does tend to make people pull back. and in these situations, you definitely want candor, but i can see where officers would be. look, i, i can see where officers would be hesitant in these situations. and we're talking about literally life and death decisions. and you're going through a process, thought process out loud, talking through your thoughts and all that. sometimes what you're thinking may not be what we what we interact with. and i can see situations because i see it now where it it does have a chilling effect on officers being candid when they need to be candid in these situations. so when these incidents go to the operational

phase, everything is on, all the cameras are on. but us talking through tactics, talking through issues, bouncing ideas off of each other. yeah, i venture to say it will have a chilling effect because that's what the research shows from the bga model. policy. and just to follow up on regarding body worn cameras, if it does happen, it goes to the command staff. would they have to file reports, written reports as well? the written report piece would follow the same protocols, but it would require the command staff to be be equipped with the body worn cameras. and if we're involved in depending on how this policy lands, if we're involved in something that we're activation happens. you know, it depends on what what that action is. so say a captain has a body worn camera going on for, i guess, a shift of eight hours. he's and there's incidents that

go through. he would have to review that to write has that additional time that is lost. do we need that. we cannot get back. and that's time cost. and looking at the budget that's coming up in the this this coming year, i think we need every minute and time that we can have our officers on the street. thank you very much. you thank you. i'll now repeat my question to acting director to see if you have any thoughts on the on the interview process and on on the topic of viewing footage before an interview. so thank you, commissioner benedict. i was not part of the working group, but mr. jones was part of the working group and dpa's position was that there should be an interview prior to any viewing of the body worn camera, that a cognitive interview is the most appropriate position to take. i'll say on the flip side, as in

my other role as a da, that was our position from the da's office under prior administrations as well. i do agree with miss tran that the that the a witness is compromised when they are able to view body worn camera. both themselves or other people's body worn camera prior to being interviewed. it really does affect how they view and what they see. so our position from dpa in the working group was that they should have an administrative interview prior to being able to see body worn camera. thank you. and you have decades of da experience, right? well, yes. thank you for aging me. president elias. but i'm just saying that you were the number two in several da in san francisco under several administrations, right? just under mr. da gascon, but also in los angeles as well. i'm just going to make one comment on on the other issue that we've been talking about, the critical

incident issue. we didn't ask about that. i know, i know, but you know, it's hard for me not to pipe up. i'm asking about it so she can provide exactly the only issue i completely understand, chief. the department's position on that. i have some concerns about the broadness of that language that is being proposed in the in the red. i don't understand who has the opportunity to make those decisions. is it someone who is an incident commander is allowing that to occur? i think that it's broadly written and that that is very difficult to enforce. anybody can can point to that and say this was a critical incident. i turned off my body worn camera. but i think that if you know, i'm a i'm a creature of compromise. i think that there is language that can be crafted that would satisfy the chief's concern about officer safety, but also satisfy the idea that this is not going

to be something that officers will do without actual direction. someone from an incident command who says this is a critical incident. body worn cameras should be turned off for these purposes. so that's my only concern about the language is the broadness of the language. i can answer that question just so you have the context. you know, these types of incidents don't always work like clockwork. ideally, you have time to set up a command post and somebody comes out and declares incident command. you know, sometimes these things unfold so quickly. you know, even when the tac team arrives, things are happening on the fly. shots are being fired. you know, we want to talk about, you know, uvalde. yeah. there was command post after the fact. but, you know, our training and what we actually do in reality, if lives are at stake and in danger, we got to go in and we got to we got to do, do our job. so

there's not always the scenario where we have the luxury of having the incident commander saying, you know, you turn off your camera because this is a, you know, sometimes these discussions have to happen like right now. and we i think we owe it to our personnel to give them the discretion. you know, we give them guns and stars and a lot of responsibility. we they can't make a decision as to when to turn a camera on and when to turn the camera off, when they're about to go in and make a life or death decision. you know, i think we owe that to our officers the ability to do their jobs and do their jobs in a way that makes sense. i think sometimes our policies are, well intentioned, but they get in the way of common sense. well, with that, what i will. no. yeah. okay. of course. just one last point. i just want to and i'll be very brief. i think commissioner put benedicto really put his finger on the nub of something when we were talking about this exception will be ripe for abuse. we were told. oh, don't worry, this will hardly ever come up. when? but then when? when we raised how

redaction would solve every issue raised by the chief, we were told, oh well, we can't do that because it would completely overwhelm us, because it would come up too often. and i think these shifting explanations are indicative of something deeper, which is, you know, there's a reason that the folks who are most expert in this didn't ask for this exception. now, the last thing i'll say is, i just want to emphasize one point, which is that redaction of body worn camera footage after the fact would solve every problem raised by the chief. and in with all the speakers we've heard tonight, we have not heard one good reason, one single reason why these videos cannot be promptly redacted before they would need to be disclosed to the public. that should satisfy every concern raised from the department tonight. if i could just make sure that we, for the record, commissioner, vice president carter, you keep saying that these people in the working group were the most expert at this. they are not. this man is the most expert at

this. you're talking about. the work group had two line officer, a retired member who worked some long time ago. there was nobody in the tactical company in that work. former head of the tactical unit was in the working group. you're talking about the retired member? no, i'm talking about lieutenant meehan. and. and also officer in charge of ftfo. am i am i getting that right? officer woodson? he was in the tac. okay, so but but this is the most let's not minimize the let's hope we're going to pause. i understand what you're saying, chief vice president. i understand what you're saying, i apologize, i should have made this disclaimer when the item was called, but i was distracted. commissioner clay asked me to postpone the vote on this because he would like to weigh in and participat. well, he'd like to weigh in and make the make this vote out of respect for that request, i am going to grant it. i do appreciate this robust discussion. i think issues were raised tonight that give us all pause and will give us an

opportunity to take back, and perhaps propose new language to solve some of the issues that were raised, including the one by sharon wu. so with that, i am going to ask that we move to public comment, since we are not going to be taking a vote on this issue unless there's something else that you would briefly like to say, chief or other commissioners. okay, nothing to add. thank you. at this time, the public is now welcome to make public comment on line item 14. if you would like to make public comment, please approach the podium. there is no public comment. thank you. can we return to item ten line item ten presentation and discussion on commission drafted resolution regarding sfpd's reward policy discussion and possible action. okay, so i

conferred with the city attorney and there is one addition that i would like to make to the well crafted, inspiring resolution by vice president carter, oprah stone. i would ask that the fourth a fourth paragraph be added to state notwithstanding any other provision, no payout will be made to a person who is providing false information to solely obtain a monetary reward. under this ordinance. so i'm going to ask to amend the motion on the floor to include that addition, because i think that it addresses the concern that i had, and i would like to also move this forward. given miss brown's comments, i'll second that motion. i just like to be heard on this. i, i, i don't think this addition is necessary because under the current ordinance, the chief already has discretion about whether to give

out an award. and i have confidence that whoever the chief of police is, he or she would not give out an award to somebody who knowingly provided false information. so i just don't think it's doing any work. but the most important thing to me is to pass this tonight, because i miss brown's been waiting far too long for this to happen, and i disagree. i had hoped that this would be a celebratory and uplifting moment on the long journey to getting revision of the actual statutory language, and i imagine that was a little bit distressing for miss brown when we were on the precipice of doing this, and it was all pulled back at the last moment based on concerns that i think could have been raised far earlier and that substantively don't make any sense. and i just want to apologize to miss brown for the any duress that that might have caused her. but i

will be supporting the version tonight because that's what's required to get to four votes. it appears, i think procedurally we're in a weird we're in a weird pickle. so i think what can happen procedurally is i can withdraw my second of the vice president's original motion, which would then fail for lack of a second. then then president elias would be free to make her motion amendment right. but an amendment to a motion that's already been it hasn't been voted on. it's been on the floor. yeah. on the floor, i, i think commissioner, city attorney who is the advisor of all procedural commissioners, you have the ability to amend the motion and to have a friendly amendment if you would like. but a friendly amendment has to be accepted by the original motion or correct. correct. so if you do not agree, then that right. then i figured you wouldn't, which is why we would do my thing. okay. no, i'll just agree because i don't think we have four votes

otherwise. okay. all right. so do you need me to read that back or can i give you the paper with respect to the fourth prong that i read out, just for the record, it's. yeah, it's been read into the record. i'll second the motion. okay. so at this point, do we open it up for general comment and then take a vote? good evening commissioners. we already had public comment on the matter and that's all that's required. so you don't need a second public comment period for that matter. let's just take a vote then on the motion. commissioner benedicto, how do you vote? yes, commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. mr. yanez is. yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter overstone is. yes. and president elias. yes. elias is. yes. you have five yeses. thank you. can we resume to the regularly scheduled items, beginning with item eight, line item eight, presentation on sfpd's

disciplinary review board. findings and recommendations second quarter 2024 discussion. he's wrong because look at this. i. the mouse is like acting weird and it won't be. there. when she

does it in a. way not the double standard. no. she. thank you commissioner yee. sometime version. is everybody ready? all right, let's go. thank you. good evening, chief scott and president elias and commissioners, i'm lieutenant lisa springer, and i work in the internal affairs division. and i'm here to present on the

disciplinary review board for quarter two. and herewith, acting director sharon, hi. from my role. and i thought you were leaving. i was like, oh, that's interesting, but can you speak either speak into the mic or speak like you're very soft spoken. i thought it was like super loud. no. so we had our board on october 30th of this year. those were the people that were present. before i go into the quarter two, i just wanted to discuss the recommendations that we had first from quarter one and kind of where we are with those. so the recommendation one was to revise an 18 dash 259, which is rules, protocols and procedures for firearm safety. that has been revised and is currently in concurrence. and it should it should be done by next week.

second recommendation was to update the fto training manual. again. there are many obstacles with doing that, but we did get the intervention. what they present to the fto from the fto office so that that is still being worked on. update number three to update the arrest and control manual or dgo 5.01, so officers can receive clear and adequate training on regarding speeding subjects and use of force. they have a draft pn that the academy made and very specific to splitting subjects. so that is also in concurrence. and the fourth recommendation involves updating policies to train officers on not including certain information on the dpos on dv cases where the suspect may not know where the victim

lives. and inspector keene from svu is working on a draft to address that. so now on to quarter two. the aggregate trends identified by iad were failure to appear at the range. there was a 27.59%, which was 24 cases. neglect of duty was second general and that was 21.84% conduct unbecoming an officer, 19.54 and neglect of duty body worn camera was fourth at 14.94% for dpa. what we found were in the aggregate trends, neglect of duty and body worn camera 13.9% neglect of duty. failure to take required actions 11.1% and comments and becoming an officer dew point condition. there was one ied case that resulted in both a policy failure and a training failure

for q two and there was one ied case closed that resulted in just a policy failure. the first case involved a sergeant and his squad that were assigned to the mobile field force detail for the purpose of targeting illegal stunt driving events occurring in san francisco around 2200 on 927. in 2020, the sergeant observed a suspicious dodge charger with a passenger holding a handgun out of the right rear passenger side window. the vehicle stopped abruptly in front of 1630 vicente and the officers detained the occupants and the subject that was producing the firearm. it was later determined to be an off duty law enforcement officer from an outside agency, and that officer appeared. the off duty officer appeared to be intoxicated. the sergeant seized the officer's handgun as

property for safekeeping and issued him a certificate of release. the officers did not believe the subject had committed a criminal offense. however, they seized and booked the firearm for safekeeping, and the officer was released to his wife at the scene. oh, sorry. the iad investigion centered on three allegations, but the training failure in particular was regarding the mpc code that the officers were unaware of, ich is 3602 a mpc. we also in our paneliscovered there was a penal code as well. the licy failure in this case was regaing muting the bwc ids, review of the sergeants, bwc footage revealed that their cameraas muted and unmuted several mes during the incident. incident. the sergea told iad that they muted their bwc at unknown times during the

investigation because thewere discussing sensitive law enforcement information. the sergeant also said they documented in the police report that they muted the bwc in accordance with department policies, and the narrative gav an overly broad statement of my camera, was mutednd turned off at times in conjunction with our depament policy, citing police tactics, confidential information and administrative investigation. the second iad case, the policy failure, occurred in november of 2023 at apprimately 2200 hours. the sergeant reported off duty after woing an extended shift due to apec. the sergeant believed they they left their department, issued radio on the desk at the hall of justice to charge. but whethey returned after their weekend, they could no longerind the radio. the officer believed thamaybe

another officer grabbed a radio thinking it was theirs. at the time of th incident, the robbery detail detail shared its office space with a group of non-sworn analysts, and it was coigured in a with a walkway conjoining both units and a serate doorway on each side. the detail was not reported as any ty of accusation, just to show that the security was an issue. of dbi also had two policy failure. i'm sorry. yeah, policy failure cases. it's ironic that both of these policy failure cases ha to do with things that were on agenda or coming up on agenda. so i'm not sure ifnto how much detail i want to go into it. theirst was a policy failure concerning a dpa reived an anonymous complaint requesting an investigation into a sworn

members, improper entry of the stop data information. the instigation showed that the sworn member conducted 1198 stops and listed 1193 stops as white individuals in his stop data during the a interview, the sworn member admitted a multiyr practice which disregarded department protocol and trfic stops and data entry. it includedany different things self-taught practice of opening and closing cards as a 1071, an investigative detail failing to communicate his stops to dispatch, not conducting crimin records checks on individuals. he felt that were completelyormal, listing drivers races as oh for others on all his traffic citations. we determined that the that there needs to be aore robust stop data auditing system. i think that the stop data audit will shed much light and more light

than i could do in this case on this particular issue, and i actually would want t delay a discussion until the stop data audit is presented before the commission. and i think this would be a much more full discussion once that happened. the second case and i apologize, i did not do our slides. the second case had to do with dgo 6.14, which was taken off calendar for this agenda. in that case, officers conducted a search of an individual that was having a psychological issue, that individual they did a pat down search of that individual prior to being transported for a 51, 50 hold. they did locate items on that individual. they

recovered those items, but they did not do a detailed search, nor did they accompany the fire department to transport that individual to the hospital. that individual had a knife secreted on their person. they pulled that knife on the emt. we have suggested some policy failures involving 6.14, 6.14 is currently on the agenda tonight. i think it's been put on hold, but i think again, i would delay the discussion on this particular policy failure because i think it will be addressed with the revisions of dgo 6.14. the office of equity and inclusion did review everything they did not find any bias. and then just really quickly, the recommendations that cam of the drb recommendation one i issue a

department notice informing members of mpc code. we discussedith the regarding the firearm recommendation to sfpd should consider options such as implementing a comprehensive citation system department wide and discontinuing the u of written citations, or cre an mou with the traffic court to share a unifietion database, ensurit all handwritten citations are archived before being sent to traffic. court recommendation three sfpd should provide clear guidan emphasizing the rtance of maintaining communication with dispatch during traffic stops. it's critical forer safety, and this update could include guidance at advofficer training, a department notice, or any other training recommendation for. we kind of already talked about, so i'll skip over that part next steps and outcomes is we haven't done our quarter three yet. i'm pretty sure we're going to

combine three and four just because of we're a little bit behind. and that concludes that. any questions. thank you. great job. thank you sergeant. if any member of the public would like to would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, please approach the podium. and there's no public comment. line item nine sfpd's firearm discharge review board report and in-custody death review board report third quarter 2024 discussion. you're a good idea.

okay, in the third quarter of 2024, the drb only reviewed one os, which was 20 1-001. this os occurred on may 7th, 2021 at approximately 12 30 hours. sfpd dispatch broadcasted information about suspects in a silver mitsubishi committing all auto burglaries in the area of fisherman's wharf central. plainclothes officers went out on in three separate, unmarked vehicles to different locations that day to try and locate this silver, mitsubishi and the suspects. the plainclothes sergeant happened to start later that day, and as the officers were leaving the station, they

saw the sergeant and notified him about their plan for the vehicle. two officers were riding together and they located the silver mitsubishi by the ferry building on the embarcadero. they observed two of the occupants commit two separate auto burglaries and stealing luggage from parked vehicles. the two officers relayed what they had witnessed to the other members of the team, as well as to the sergeant who was monitoring the officers on an encrypted radio channel while they got ready for their shift. the officers followed the mitsubishi into the southern district, where they temporarily lost sight of the vehicle, but then they located a at varney place and jack london alley at this time. now two of the occupants were standing outside of the vehicle rummaging through the stolen luggage, and another suspect was sitting in the driver's seat. officer one exited the vehicle and monitored the subjects on foot, while officer two parked the vehicle

and then joined officer one. a plan was discussed by a third officer to use spike strips. however, they were unable to deploy the spike strips as an adjacent alley in front of the vehicle happened to be blocked off due to construction. the plainclothes team stated they did not call for marked units because a lot of times they have the radio and it scares them off and puts the public at risk. so officer one and two formulated a plan to prone the suspects out at gunpoint and take them into custody. they had their sfpd stars displayed and their gun, their guns out. it was at this time when one of the suspects or subjects saw officer one and jumped back into the mitsubishi, and so the second suspect that was standing outside of the car had not been alerted. so their plan kind of went out the windo. so at this point, they started