drop the medical facility part. >> yeah. >> president turman: commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: well, i was asking if there was clarification -- >> president turman: he said he'd drop it. >> okay. that's fine. >> commissioner mazzucco? >> commissioner mazzucco: that's fine. >> president turman: all right. let's move onto the -- the appendix. much talked about -- yeah. >> okay. first point on the appendix, page -- this is -- it's the first page of the appendix, and the first point is related to the number of police commission members to sit on the review board, so the appendix is the accountablity portion. the department will create a review board. the first point as it currently stands, one member of the commission is requested. the stakeholders would like a second member. that second member -- so two commissioners, essentially, on the review board. the reason being is that the department is still working with the city attorney on allowing a member of the public to sit in on the review board until the stakeholders believe that until that is done, they -- they prefer two commiss

commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner: can i have the language back, please. i do agree with commissioner hirsch i think assault is vague and over broad. the aclu gave us a great letter on the assault and touch. this say -- is an is a weapon that could be lethal and we nude to be clear and i think assaultive is vague and ambiguous. it doesn't carry the water. i agree with commissioner hirsch in making changes to when they can use that to when it's causing immediate physical injury or threatening when there's reasonable believe the subject has intent and capability of carrying out the threat. i think that's very clear. >> in 5.01 this is immediate use of force. the courts have held it's an incredible use of force. we understand it can cause deadly consequences but it's still intermediate use of force. when you read 5.01 the use of force policy under 4d, it defines what assaultive is. and this language and the department's offering mirrors which was vetted by the same stakeholders. it's important to be consistent and not change the terminology of definitions. th

so if you turn to the page on special considerations, which is page six of what we have. >> commissioner dejesus: okay hi. >> commissioner ong hing: i believe that the department understands that -- that there's a heightened risk of an adverse reaction to the use of these weapons on certain subjects because that's what the first sentence is. and it begins, officers shall be aware of the possible heightened risk of an adverse action from the use on certain subjects. the problem is from there on, from there on, it's advisory, so it doesn't actually have any -- any strength. and so what i would propose is that the next sentence be changed: officers are prohibited from using the weapon on such subjects, and there's where i go to the language that was proposed: unless no other intermediate use of force is available, something like that, so that we understand that the concern that the chief had, it was eliminating the possibility of an intermediate use of force. we say that, that we acknowledge that it can be done, but it be directive that officers are prohibited from using unless no other intermediat

and i think commissioner dejesus found another typo. >> yeah. on page three, 3-b, on the second line, the little thing that's crossed out, it needs to stay in. [ inaudible ] emergency response to ice or cbp shall immediately notify their supervisor. the strikeout went a little too far. >> t-o, and middle of page three, next sentence. >> okay. i think they did hear me. can you hear me? >> based on that, i would make a motion that the commission adopt the revisions to dgo 5.15. >> with the corrections made. >> with the corrections. >> i second that. >> and before we -- i seek public comment, i want to say, and this is very legally sound document. it's very fair. it's extremely fair, and it points out that, you know, we would respond -- if somebody wants to criticize this document, all's i ask is that they read it and read the entire document, and also read san francisco sanctuary city policy and ask yourself what it is. you ask ten different people what's san francisco sanctuary city policy, you get ten different answers. they want to just take a

it works, and i want to thank you for it, and i want to thank commissioner dejesus. commissioner hing? >> thank you, vice president. i want to pick up on a -- on something you just alluded to, mr. vice president, and that's the -- a real challenge with respect to domestic violence victims and the importance of doing your best to identify the victim. there -- for a few years now, when the -- when the secure communities program was in existence under ice, which has been reinstituted under president trump. it ended -- it flourished for a while under president obama's ice. it stopped, but it has been reopened. there are reports of individuals who actually were victims where the officers -- not in san francisco, where officers were not sure who the victim was in some cases because of language problems, and so the victim actually got fingerprinted, and those fingerprints got shot off to the fbi and were shared with ice under the secure community programs, and these victims got deported, and so that's one thing that we want to be on guard for here in san francisco. let's mak

. >> commissioner dejesus: second the motion. >> president turman: it's not a motion. >> commissioner dejesus: i'm sorry. second the amendment. >> president turman: we're going to take a straw poll on that. all in favor of -- generally take a straw poll on whether or not we would be interested in -- substitute in the language that commissioner ong hing has suggested for the -- a special consideration as it relates to vulnerable populations? let me just see a show of hands if you would be interested in adding that language in. okay. all right. so next, director henderson. >> i just wanted to clarify, again, on that training. i think there's a misunderstanding in the 1(b) section. >> president turman: i'm sorry. we're voting here. [ inaudible ] >> president turman: all right. commissioners, any -- any -- any comments from commissioners? >> commissioner hirsch: yes. i'm still hearing from the dpa that our language does not include 40 hours of c.i.t. training. that includes only the field tactics training which is 20 hours. i'm voting on this with the representation and the belief that it

commissioner dejesus. her button's not working. it's right here. i've gotcha. >> so this is good. i want to go back to the word, but that word got 2,671 hits. out of 2,671 hits, that word got 2,029 hits. >> that might account for some of it. i used this example before. it could be a lot of different innocuous words or words that end, so we have a couple street names that have words that people might find derogatory or believe are derogatory. so in clets, and if 18 was bad, if i had 18th street or 18, it would read it in that context. all those are not of one word. they're multiple, but when you see generally the big rise from month to month or quarter to quarter, it's usually a word or something we have in context, and the investigators have to make sure this is what we're reading versus this is a word we need to move forward through the discipline process. >> and is this a word that we work with discipline consultants with -- and i don't want -- >> i'm not going to tell you, but it is an every day word, and everybody in this room has used it in a complete innocent innocuous way a

commissioner dejesus, commissioner melara, mission summer herrish. you have a quorum also with us tonight is the chief of police, william scott. i don't see the representative from the dpa. mr. henderson is arrive from the dpa. >> thank you, secretary. members of the san francisco public, thank you for joining us on wednesday, february 7, 2018 for the regular meeting of the san francisco police commission. would you begin with item one. >> adoption of minutes for november 3, 8, december 6, january 10 and 17 of 2018. >> thank you. in your packet are the proposed minutes as the secretary has read out november 3rd, novembe november 8th and december 6th of 2017, and the january 10th and 17th minutes of 2018. hopefully you have had a chance to review the minutes. any comments or questions? i would entertain appropriate motion. >> move to approve. >> second. >> all in favor. >> public comment first on april approval of the minutes. thank you. seeing no public comment, public comment on item one is now closed. moved by commissioner dejesus, seconded by mazz

commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner: can i have the language back, please. i do