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 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 will move it forwai 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. 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 fo 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 mothers like myself? no one's going to get hurt. that's the fact. i should be scared. you know, we need this done■k. i am very disappointed. i am very disappnted. i don't know what else to say.■khi to happen for us. i've been telling everybodabn telling other mothers about this. and for me to go back ando you, half of you right. half of

have families. let this not wait until it hits our he, and then we want to pass something. let's do it nown work on the arof supervisors, i stillto the have to go and fight. i and tali still have to do it either w noe the h 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■j another item. we're going o 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 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 beauamp, 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 presidentarter 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 whigher 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 wh 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, 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 beought 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 scopeemption 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 frequent, 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 clearl 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 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 o 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 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 thin close to the vest. not 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 spokabout 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 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 discussio 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 t 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■32 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 mak 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■p 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 whe that door. we neeo

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 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, 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. would, would be considering. wer have command posts when theent e fairmont, do we want to have the body worn camera on at the command post? and we're talking about egress andand entry for the president of the united states on video. now,hat'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 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 a discussion. okay. sounds like a good plan. let's go with operate it goes 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 they're giving field commands in an operational thing, they're body worn. cameras woue 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 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 theseg 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 benefit, in my opinion. and the 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 jonesand we taly 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 tf 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 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 staffand in n 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 t my comn response, because some of these issues, you got to make the decisions at that at that moment and i would hate to wait for critical situation where officers hold ba because it's

being recordedern is that they'o 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 whatmand 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 modelat's on theiy actually do mention that that it has a they call it a disruptive effect when that camera is always rol. 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■ç■ talking abt there. second guessing their scrutiny. and there should be. it does tend to situations, you definitely want candor i can see where officers would be. look, i, i can see where officers would be hesitant in we 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 researchws 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 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, in 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 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 ■■é 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 h 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 askit 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■z think that it's broadly written and that that is very difficult to enforce. anybody can can point to 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 tht question just so you have the context. you know, thesees incik like clockwork time to set up ad 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 traininand 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 rit and we i think we owe it to our personnel to give them the discretion. you know, w guns and stars and a lot of responsibility. we they can't make 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 metimes our policies are, well intentioned, but they get in the way of common sen. well, with that, what i will. no. yeah. okay. 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 weraised by thee

were told,, we can't do that because it would completely overwhelm us, because it would come utoo often. and i think these shifting explanations are indicative of something deeper, ich 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 bf. and in with all the speakers we've heard tonight, we have not heard one ■, one single reason why these videos cannot be promptly redacted before they would need to be disclosed tobly 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 the pw 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 commentyou. m ten line item ten presentation and discussion on commission drafted resotion regarding sfpd's reward policy discussion and possible action. okay, so i conferred with the city attorney and 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 payou person who is providing false information to solely obtain a monetary reward. under this ordinance. so i'm going to ask to amend the motiot addition, because i think that it addresses and i would like to 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 imrtt in 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 tof the acty 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 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 k of a second. then then president elias would be free to make her motion amendment right. but an amendm 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, 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 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 need me to readk

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 dokw we open it up for general, comment and then take a vote? good eveni 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 a vote then on the motion. commissioner benedicto, how do you vote? yes, commissioner benedicto is yes. c. yes. mr. y. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is ye v 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■f eight, line item eight, presentation on sfpd's disciplinary review board.

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.. 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 springer, and i we internal affairs division. and i'm here to present disciplinary review board for quarter two. and herewith,

acting dector sharon, hi. from my roleght 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■6 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 ou it should be done by next week. second recommendation was to

update the fto training manual. again. there are many obstacles with doing that, 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 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 addresson 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 purpose of targetil 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 omorcr 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■m and bookd the firearm for safekeeping, and the officer was released to his wife at the scene. the iad investigation centered on three allegations, but the training failure in particular was regarding the mpc code that the officers were unaware of, which is 3602 a mpc. we also in our panel discovered there was y failure in ts ng the bwc ids, footage revealed that their camera was muted and unmuted several times during the incident. incident. the sergeant told iad that they muted their bwc at unknown times during the investigation because they were discussing sensitive law

enforcement inforti said they documented in the police report that they muted the bwc in accordance with department policies, ane overly broad stay camera, was muted and turned off at times in conjunction with our department policy, citing police tactics, confidential information and administrative investigation.icy failure, involved an incideed in novembet approximately 2200 hours. the sergeant reported off duty after working an extended shift due to apec. the sergeant believed they they left their department, issued radio on their desk at the hall of justice to charge. but when they returned after their weekend, they could no longer find the. the officer believed that maybe another officer grabbed a radio thinking it was theirs. at the

time of the incident, the robbery detail detail shared its office space with a group of non-sworn analysts, and it was configured in a with a walkway conjoining both units and a separate doorway on each side. the detail was not reported as any type 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 have to do with things that were on agenda or coming up on agenda. so much dei want to go into it. the first was a policy failure concerning a dpa received an anonymous complaint requesting an investigation into a sworn members, improper entry of the stop data information. the

investigation showed that the sworn member conducted 1198 stops and listed 1193 stops as white individuals in his stop data during the dpaerview, the sworn member admitted a multear practice which disregarded department protocol and traffic stops and data different things self-taught practice of opening and c a 107n investigative detail failing to communicate his stops to dispatch, not conducting criminal records checks on individuals. he felt that were completely normal, listing drivers races as oh for others all traffic citations. we ed robust stopt the that there 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 to delay a discussion until the stop data audit is presented bor this would be a much more full discussione . 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 agda. 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 individualecreted on their person. they pulled that 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 came out of the drb recommendation one is to issue a department notice informing members of the mpc code. we

sc the regarding the firearm recommendation to sfpd should consider options such as implementing a comprehensive citation system department wide and discontinuing the use of written citations, or creating an mou with the traffic court to share a unified citation database, ensuring that all handwritten citations are archived before being sent to traffic. court recommendation three sfpd should provide clear guidance emphasizing the importance of mntaing communication with dispatch during traffic stops. 's■z critical for officer safety, and this update could include guidance at advanced officer training, a department notice, or any other training recommendation for. we kind of already talked about, 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.-q8j■e

any questions. thank you. great job. thank youer of the public e to would?k like to make public e 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

ok, 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 bcasted information about suspects in a silver mitsishi 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. triding together and td the silver mitsubishi be 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 southerndi lost sight of the vehicle, but then they located a at varney place and jack london alley at this time. 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 s. however, they were unable to deploy the adjacent alley in frontcle happd off due to construction. the plainclothes team stated they didcause a lot of times they hae the radio and it scares them off and puts the public at risk. so officer one and two formulated a to prone the suspects out custody. they had their sfpdto stars displayed and their gun, their guns out. it was at this tibjects 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, th■úey started running up on them and yelled police department. and the one

officer kind of bear hugged the suspect from behind. officer one heard a loud pop and heard the or saw the suspect bleeding from the left wrist. officer one realized they had their gun out and had unintentionally shot the suspect. officer one explained that in their mind, they truly believed that they had holstered the their gun before running to grab the suspect. officer one one r a tourniquet applied in. e sergeant responded to the scene of the oas. sorry, i've not been keeping up with my slides. these were the recommendations of the investigator to the board, which were out, obviously out of policy on the use of force listed here. the other officer ■"d sergeant were found to be improper conduct when the diffe,

because from the get go, the officer said he did not mean to fire the weapon. so i didn't feel a proportionality. immediate threat was really relevant. so when i did my evaluation and presented it to chief scott, we looked at dgo 5.01, specifically the safe handling of firearms section, which is what whas . in the third quarter of 2024, there were zero in-custody deaths presented to the in-custody death review board. and then last is just open eyes and in-custody death investigations, which i know you gu rf you havey questions on that answer them. otherwise. that concludes my presentation. acting director wu, the only

thing that i would■g mention is that dpa did do an investigatio. we concurred with the findings of iad and theecommendat chief.t i would me■&ntion t quite laudae immediacy upon which the department took action on this particular type of event, creating aí new training for holster ready, i think they call it the subject matter expert was sergeant timothy yee, who at the academy is training now. officers not to do with this particular officer did and that took place very quickly. and the department saw the need for that and acted really expediently. and chief scott could probably speak to they immediately suspended, like all plainclothes operations until they, they figured things out. and like i said, the officer came forth right away and admitted that he made a mistake. yeah. i mean, i can speak to that. we did. and i recall we disclosed that to the

commission and to the public at we did as a lieutenant, springer said, suspended plainclothes operations basically got all the plainclothes sergeants and some of the key officers to revise the tactics. and the training, and they stayed offline until that happened. and even since then, there's been additional advancements in training. and when we see an issue, we try to address it right away. so a lot i mean, this was, of course, an unfortunate, very unfortunate situation, but there was a lot of good that came after the fact that us doing what w to make cok the training doubled. and now includes a portion at the range as well and not just classroom o would like to make public comment regarding line item pod. i know it's tough. sorry. i'mp.

sorry. and i asked on the previous one. sorry, commissioner yang. yes. thank you, president elias. i actually have my hand up for■1 the previs item■% around the policy failurs and trainings. i just, i just, you know, i cannot fail to point out that based on, you know, i think the dpa director also noted that it's very appropriate for us to be having a conversation about body worn camera when in effect. here we have a policy failure that isdie our body-worn camera policy is when it comes to citing police tactics and confidential information. administrative investigation. so i am very hopeful that we will be able to find a solution that helps us both hold folks accountable ife,

muting their camera for things that are outside of that we will come up with a better policy moving forward. and i did have a question about i mean, it is very difficult for me to understand and wrap my head around how it's possible that an individual who's under the influence of alcohol and is flashing a gun outside, you know, how that individual is just not arrested. and it's hard for me to believe that, you knowé■, this was onlya policy failure. and i tnk back to the conversation previously, if we had more camera available for that incident, we may be able to improve and raise awareness about when it appropriate, when it is forinins

necessary to mute that and when it is not. and so i think it is just very, very clear to me that that that policy failure at■ least in this incident,an be easily corrected by some of the suggestions that wealked about earlier with some specificity as we. so thank you foretting me share that. i just thought i couldn't let them go on without having made that connection. thank youe public comment on line item nine, please approach the podiu. there is no public discussion ad presentation on the department's update of the request of the commission. discussion.■

good evening, president.r sharo, welcome back. my name is k an update for you all on where we are as it relates to our build out and implementation of the pre-arrest juvenile diversionwát project. so going back to late august, in lat august, the departmentmyself and chief ott met with commissioner yanez and juvenile commission president marge weñk were as ito the pre-arrest diversiroject and some remaining issues. we were trying work out. it was a very productive ■conversation that we had following that meeting that we had. i drafted m for all of the able to

review that mou was sentte septo the juvenile department, to clark, to the to the san francisco public defender's office. all of the stakeholders that we have identifi would like to sign■ off on that mou. following that, we were able to have very1 productive initial conversations with the district attorney's office and jpd. we received substantial edits and feedback from clark. most of ose edits we have accepted, the rest. we've indicated to clark, we need to discuss, and we're waiting on additional feedback from our other stakeholders before having those follow up discussions. by the end of october, we were able to meet with the district attorney's office to discuss their position on this program and some of thee or issues that they wanted to raise. we alsto meet

with the juvenile probation department the beginning of november, and had a very productive conversation. jpd the proposal, and some of the steps that we thought a youth might■ take, particully aroundure to cm and whether or not the pre-arrest diversion program would replace the current diversn program that exists, or simply supplements with the t attorney's office and the juvenile probation department, we it was made clear to us that it would be helpful if we got buy in from the courts with regards to this program and some that might be written into it. so just today we were able withe presiding judge over the unied family court. we h a very productive meeting with him today, received great feedback on the program and some

suggested edits. so that's where we are today. wható# we are stil waiting for is feedck. that's supposed to be coming from the public defender's office. we're■ waitingional feedback from the juvenile probation department. once we receive all that feedback■!nd we're able to put together alldits that we've received from all, il that in the near future, we will beefinal meeting or a revised mou that everyone can see, and we can hopefully have sign off on that from all of our stakeholders. that is my update. happy to■w answer any questions. mr. yanez, i'm sure you have this one. right. thank you. yes i do saw my hand waving you must have sensed it. thank you for update, kara. i'm really

happy to hear that some progress has been made and these departm, with the district attorney's office, and it's really promising to hear that judgeity to review. would would you have a when or was there a timeline set for when the feedback from the public defender's fi judge chan will be completedso the public defender's office did not give me■n a tin that their g the proposal. i think what helpy helpful in moving this forward was the buy in that we received hoful that we'll be able to go back to our justice partners and

really wrap this up with an understanding, withíg that thiss something that, you know, at least, we think the courts will support. so i can't i don't know how much longer it will take jpd or the public defender's office to get back to us, but i certainly think that given the support we've received from the courts today, we can we can push this issue moving forwar. now with regard to whether this will be supplanting or enhancing the exiing diveion efforts that we had. this is the first i've heard ofr conversations with community partners and with the department, there's been based e presentation by the organizatiot santa clara down in los angeles. as the folks from oakland who also run a similar program. the

presentation was, you know, back in may of last year. i was very clear to everyone that what additional step to enhance thedn alternatives and effor that we have now, is that still the direction that the department intends to take, or a we now revising the model itself? no. so you're correct, commissioner, that the vision that i think we had and we have always discussed really was a transition from a post arrest, post citation diversion pre-arrest no citation program. that is that is the plan. and that is where we're going. what was raisedsr■■■ome of our stakeholders is a question of whether or not a post arrest. yn cited diversion; still exists.

and originally when we contemplated this, we contemplated that the pre-arrest diversion program would become the only diversion program that be diverted after a citation.uld and i think what's been raised ishis question of if ae fail toy complete the pre-arrest, no citation program and were cited, d be a additional diversion programe, through clark? that is somethg that we hadn't originally contemplated but has been raised. and i think isomething that is being considered as a potential option■. okay. thank you for that. and i'm sure■m■6 that's something that will be raised. i've been asked to provide an update to the next w. and i wanted to make sure that any new developments are also■é

relayed and conveyed to that commission in november of last year, the jpd commission did put together also a resolution endorsing supporting this program. i just wanted to pointy thath out that it's now bee a presentation. has there beend any progress department identifying a training plan and a system for data collection, analysis and, e set up. also provides for people that complete the program to not have a ror space. i know that those are three questions in one. we can tackle the timeline for training first, because i know that's something that

policy director roche, i believe, had mentioned at some point, maybe the summer of last year. but when i community engat division, it was news to them. is there any progrin? if i undet relates to a the training rollout for this program, is that what the question was in conversations with the chief, because he knows the model ver well and my understanding is that policy dector roach also isnd at least in some of the conversations that we've had with park to utilize does capacity building, to ensure that departments that want to replicate the effort are properly traed in both the system and identification of potential eligible participants.

that's why we developed the model comingqv from care. all of the things that we have embedded now into the dgo proper, which we will hopefully be voting on in the next month or that statement was made orv:■m nine months ago, and i have not heard of any commitment, any pl)ñd■an, any staffing, training process. has there been any so i think once the program is fully built, once it's rolled out, it will come with a training component. we are in the process righw of creating many of those documents that will rolloe the department notice and all of that. butte the program and finish the program before weha program was

designed to be officers take ver steps that they would with anyone that they have probable cause to arrest, which is to call clari and that clark is the entity that will their eligibility for this program and the steps that ey would need or not they weren't eligible, if they need to cite them, if they need to transport them, if they're going to be bookedothats done through a conversation with clark. and this program was specal:rart with a conversationl decrease the nee for extensive training and allow us to roll faster way once 're done. soand if i'm understanding cctly(, ere has not been any training identified or any new training embedded or offered up to this point where we're imagining

doing thisfter the mou and design efforts have taken place) even though there is some an organization that is available do that cheap at one point, i believe that, you know, the conversation had been to use the census organization or any oth organization that focuses on working such a restorative type of program to obtain best practices, raise the capacity of our of ouras not had a youth division in some time. is there a to engagt process, or is this something that, as kara pointed out, will■ just kind of grow outn the same fashion as any other go? retraining wou would require? yeah. so at this point, commissioner, there is not a

commitment to stand up a juvenile division. we just don't have the people for it. the it definitely imethinthat we've talked about and we would like to do at some point. we ju have the personnel to do it the way this will roll out. you know, have a person, the same sergeant that we had identieit. so and ts a that's a personnel driven thing that, you know, the sergeant was previously assigned to community engagement division. she's now assigned to a district station. but we believ c get this started with that same sergeant. and she is willingk to do it. and she's enthusiastic about this type of wor. the mour as the training, then i think we're able to set what things we needrç to train on. an we got a lot of insight from the court today, things that we plan to bring to this mou. hopefully we need to talk to the collaborative stakeholders a the

judge brought up. but there was some good information th i think will enhance t program. if we can, we can implement it. so we don't4k really set the training until those thi i l like we've made some really good progress. and now■ we need to just kind of close the deal with our collaborative partners. there's some languag like with juvenile probation, that we're waiting on decisions on. there's, you know, waiting on they had some requests, and now we have to go back to them with. and so we're getting there. but to answer your question, t ai not said it yet because there's still some moving parts with the today. there's going to be a few tweaks to the mou. and we and we will keep you informed when once that's done. but we're going to move on that quickly. thank you forr=. i know that obviously whenhave a multi system partnership such as this, it is a, you know, challenge the

feels like, you know, i wish i6y the department had a little bit more of a se■wnse of urgency. yu know, we've been talking about this for over two years. i received some information from clar ithe actual number but in those two years, at lea and yeao could have been eligible for is, and more thana÷ is just raw datt necessarily havee types of charges. and we haven't identified whathose charges would be for this p■

recidivism being, you know,ved d in the program versus them goina 20% recidivism rate when they don't haveso i can imagine that of those 111 of these young people, younow, we could have pentially already diverted to you know, develot and help young people stay out of the sysm. so i hope that we can use■e■÷ of reset and , accelerate the process. iou think we can youñ[now, talk and chew gum at the same time. i don't see why we can't train by by people to start learning what these best practices are aroundd trauma informed care, which i know department. but i would5p love to see and im encouraging, compelling you to

get the ball rolling in the areas because the youth, based on what the community has said, you know, is, is a documen guidm moving forward. once we commitments. but ultimately building that the department can invest in. before we finalize that mou. but i think those are my questions for today. thank you for the update. i know that commissioner benedicto has been pressing to have 101, you know, go through the legalnd the vetting process for us to take a vote on■tt. and i hope that when we have that, if there is some more information about progress towards launching thepreciate f. on the same date, if possible. thank you very much.

commissioner benedicto, thank■d■ you very much. presidentner yan, for your leadership on this issue. thank you, director lacey,1$or would definitely echo what commissioner yanya said to both■ director lacey and the chief that i think we do want to see, you know, movement on this. i'm we do want to see an urgency on this. i ink it would be helpful to maybe schedule another update for sometime in the first quarter of next year to see where progress has been. so we'reontinuing to keep our eye and our attention on this. like commissioner yanya said, we'll we're also pushing i know they're related, but independent. the 7.01, you know, one thing i want to make clear is to hold up the other like i don't want we need to hav oh before we can launch diversion. and i don't want we need to be sure that version launch d.o.j.o i think they're connected but not relying on each other. and so i want to make that completely clear. that being said, where we can advance them

in tandem, i think that's a good opportunity. i think particularly where we wano want to get clark, when we want to get fol fhere, it's a lot too to the eent we can havee time, i think that's productive. i'm glad that in the chief's report, we talked about getting the comprehensive response toe the end of this calendar year. thankwv■b youor that. i know tht wo easy. and so i really do dappria it. i and so that way it'll be in a position where we can hopefully calendar it for as early as possible next year and hav think we saw a little bit in some of the back and forth somes better when we have our things laid out in advae, of figuring things out live in front of ev an instructive. well, i think that was a proiv conversation. i think it could be instructive that you know, to the extentou can hash things bei think everyone agrees on that. and hopefully we can do that.

for a lot of the 7.01 issues. so thank you for that update. and looking forrd to coinuing to mo this project forward. sergeant, for any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 11. please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item 12 discsind possible action to approve revised department general!@persons in d transportation for the departme to e in meeting affectd bargaining units as required by law.is dio. good evening everyo. my name is mark moreno. i'm air. president, commissioner. subject matter expert on deago 5.18. persons in custody and transportation. before i go over a couple of the quick highlights, i wanted to thank

publicly our working g included at thatmatt ortega, whw lieutenant matt ortega. ironically, he took my position at central station when i was transferred, but he did a lot of the heavy lifting on thi dgo, so i wanted to thank him. we had reestave francisco fire department, the sheriff's department and departme of police accountability, and i'd also like to mention that janelle cad their feedback and suggestions. so deago 5.18 was last adopted in 2008. some highlights and changes that we made, probably the firsthing is we replaced the term prisoner and prisoner handling to persons in custody. we felt that was kind of a more expansive term, consistent with other a definitn section at the beginning of this dgo. we also replaced the special category section with a

vulnerable population ske juven, elderly persons, pregnant persons, and persons with physical disabilities. we incorporated several department noces ini3to thidgo. one of the most important being transporting persons. and then finally,e updated the overall organization and content for clarity. i think one of the things that we found in the existing dgo is that we there was a lot of things were considt what we reallye didn't have it tried to do is incorporate a lot of that into this new dgo.■■ú■yd we've certainly expanded it a little bit, and i'm happy to anf you may have. commissioner. no, that's o. commissioner yanez, do you have anything? no. thank youor all of your hard work. i'm seeing no on the dice.

can i i will make. th■$i meet confer. yeah, i will make a motion to adopt gene order 5.18 for use in meeting conferring with the effective bargaining units pursuant to the commission's labor labor relations resolution 23, dash 30. i'll second any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding approae podium. th public comment on thecommissioner bener benedicto is. yes. commissioner yanez is yes. commissioner y yes. commissioner yi is yes. and elias. yes. esident elias is. yes.ou have four yeses. thank you, thanyou. line item 15. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 17 below. closed session, including public comment on item 16, a vot whether to hold item 17 in closed session. if you'd like to make public comment, please approach■ the podium. there's no

public comment on vote on whether to hold item 16 in closed section 67.10 d action. motion to go okay. go ahe. motion to go to closed session. second. second. thank■. all right. on the motion, commissioner benedicto how you vote? yes, commissioner benedicto is. yes. comm■jissioner youngs yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. and presidentas. yeis four. you havr yeses. we'll go into closed session. ■w?, of item 17 a where provided in

the minutes. second, any member of the public would like to make item 18. please approach the dit on the motion, commissioner benedicto, how do you vote? yes, mr. benedicto is. yes. commissioner y is. yes. commiss. yes. commissioner yee. yes.çn pren you have four yeses. line item 19. good night.

>> hello everyone. wee bayview btro. >> it to bring the community together by delicif1 y because nothing brings te commun like food.

vigzing food options for and by the people of■b this community is critical to the success, the long-rm success and stability of the bayview-hunters community.■t >> i am nima romney. thiss a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a lin twist. i wanted to open a truck to soun heras my latindescent.

>> i have been at this for 15■8. i have been cooking all my life pretty m y know. i like cookings my favorite is the grill.