Skip to main content

tv   Police Commission 42016  SFGTV  April 21, 2016 7:00am-9:31am PDT

7:00 am
that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www..
7:01 am
7:02 am
7:03 am
7:04 am
7:05 am
7:06 am
7:07 am
7:08 am
7:09 am
7:10 am
7:11 am
7:12 am
7:13 am
7:14 am
7:15 am
7:16 am
7:17 am
7:18 am
7:19 am
7:20 am
7:21 am
7:22 am
7:23 am
7:24 am
7:25 am
7:26 am
7:27 am
7:28 am
7:29 am
7:30 am
7:31 am
7:32 am
7:33 am
7:34 am
7:35 am
7:36 am
7:37 am
7:38 am
7:39 am
7:40 am
7:41 am
7:42 am
7:43 am
7:44 am
7:45 am
7:46 am
7:47 am
7:48 am
7:49 am
7:50 am
7:51 am
7:52 am
>> it looks like we are arresting people from san francisco, at least the newspaper is reporting it that way. and for me it would be, i mean the burglary that happened in pacific heights, where was it, this one over the weekend, the man was from outside the city. so i really want to know who's coming into san francisco to commit crimes and have, you know, traffic stops, whatever it happens to be, because i don't want us to look like we are doing, doing it to our population. and so i would want you to add that information in your data gathering as to where these people live, where they are coming from, i mean the statistics that i heard a while back, and i don't have present
7:53 am
data, but youth crime, for example, in this city, the majority of youth crime in the city is committed by kids from outside the city. so we need to gather that data. that would be very important for me because i hate to see, you know, people comparing apples and oranges. we are not comparing apples and apples. >> we were just speaking about that today. we capture the data of the district of occurrence and the police district but perhaps we in addition need to collect zip code data because we get that from anybody we issue a citation to, if it starts with a 941 or something else other than that. >> and some identification around whether you are arresting or stopping duplicates. i mean, you know, the same person being arrested or stopped twice in a period of time because can be gathering
7:54 am
data on the same person. on the occurrences maybe. >> so we actually met with james bell of the burns institute and his big encouragement of us is you just have to keep digging because the data, and i have to congratulate lieutenant para, to do -- he came up with all this raw data, he did a lot of analysis and he's a police officer. the author of the article is an analyst and did his story on the 1700 consent searches but discounted the 317,000 in the aggregate, so i think that was important but what's also important is we're trying to work actually with the dmv because we want to match this up against licensed drivers, at least licensed drivers in the city, because that's a number we -- seems to
7:55 am
not be available from the dmv, so i think when these citations come we will have more accurate data, we will have more realtime data, we'll be able to tell how many stops are replicated by the same person but we will continue to dig, continue to scrape the strainer to get to whatever -- and as captain heart said, when you get to consent searches and you find this disparity we're putting the fix in or we're at least erring on the side of caution that we're going to train to it as if it is what it looks like but even try to dig more to find out is that what it is or can it be explained or is it more pronounced in certain districts, which is another thing we talked about at the burns institute. because city-wide everybody knows that each district is particular to itself both by demographics and by the cultures of those districts. so -- and we're training our
7:56 am
recruits to that right now by having them visit those places around the city, more cultural competency from the leaders of those communities. we'll continue to dig, continue to impress upon the lieutenant to continue producing reports and getting -- the bad news on this report was 2013 data isn't as good as 2015 data but the good news is 2016 is going to be better than that and 2017 should be better still. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> thank you very much. captain heart, thank you. i know you do an excellent job teaching search and seizure, when i was in the united states attorney's office you were very well respected for the court appearances you made. you are a very good lawyer. i'm very proud of some of our office remembers, we'll have another captain speaking tonight who's actually a doctor so we have some very well trained and
7:57 am
educated officers. with reference to the data, i agree with commissioner melara, at one point there was a concern with drug arrests in the city and what wie found when we dug deep on the data, a significant number of the drug arrests were folks that were not from san francisco, they had come in off bart or drove across the bridge and were for various reasons were trafficking narcotics in the city. so i think it's very important that we dig down and get that statistic, it's very important. >> commissioner dejesus. >> i understand that we have a lot of raw data and i know it's very hard to retrieve. the auditor when he was doing audits on the police department said we skip raw data but we don't have it in a fashion we can readily read it. when we were doing whether there was the bias in policing and things like that, that was hard to retrieve. so that's been an issue for a while now. and i believe the obama's 21st
7:58 am
century policing talks about different areas to track, you can pull it out and it's easier to track. it's a good first start but there's issues with this. when you go back to look at all the arrests, we need to have the 317,290 arrests --. >> arrests? >> excuse me, total stops. 317,290 stops, i misspoke there. it would be interesting if we could see the race, the age and the address for all stops. because you have down 58 percent of whites in this total --. >> 38 percent. >> but we don't know if that's for assistance to motorists or traffic collisions or dui's, we don't know where it falls. i'm more interested in knowing who's been stopping for moving
7:59 am
violations or suspicious stops, that can be very important when you are looking for bias. i would be interested it know on the high risk stops how many are minorities, how many are mexican or latinos or african americans and if it shows they all are or many of them are, that's an area that needs to be examined. we may look at an issue and say that's not accurate or is not accurate and we need to do more work there. i was wondering on the consent searches, how many of them were -- let me start all over again.
8:00 am
i know when i've gone on ride-alongs in the mission and i know that many times there's a higher conservation, especially when there's a shooting, there's a higher concentration of officers in the mission and we go in and people are stopped for broken taillights, things hanging from their mirrors, a broken wing, and i'm wondering how many of those stops from these technical violations resulted in either a mandatory search or a consent search. those are the things i'd like to know too because i know the more concentration of police in an area that makes them more easy or makes it more available for more contact with the citizens. and we don't have that in nob hill, we don't have a high concentration of police. because of that i would like to know how many of those are consensual, how many are mandatory and how many people are being stopped in those areas. this is a good start but as you said it's just the
8:01 am
one stat you are able to pull out is reviewing and for what reason we don't know, but you certainly do need to follow-up on that. we certainly do need to gather the rest of the information for all these stops and we can look at it and pull it out and see. >> we can certainly do that and we will continue the data dig, but i do want to make a comment on high risk stops. high risk stops are usually determined by the nature of the vehicle itself, not the people necessarily in the vehicle. so if an officer is making a high risk stop, that's because somebody has put out a plate and/or a vehicle description and attached high risk to it. so whoever happens to be in that car, that's not the officer exercising autonomy when they make that high risk stop, they are told, hey, there's a robbery, armed vehicle, there's a robbery vehicle, homicide vehicle, something like that. so the officers are exercising caution
8:02 am
in making those stops, not subjectively but objectively. >> so i get that. but we nreed to know that. if there's a mandatory doj stop and what that race is and who's there we need to know that. but the way i saw the code it was suspicious vehicle and -- maybe i'm reading it there -- suspicious vehicle and high risk stop. maybe those should be broken out into different categories but i read a suspicious vehicle as more of a terry stop, and a high risk stop as doj we need to look at it, when we say a high risk stop per the doj, kind of a required stop, whether it's implicit bias or not implicit bias. we have a lot of this information, we need to start categorizing it and we need to have reports so we can see where it falls, race, age, address and the type of stop. >> commissioner marshall --
8:03 am
dr. marshall. >> thank you for the report. a couple things come to mind. do all cities, jurisdictions collect data differently? i would assume that they do or is this a -- is there a uniform way of collecting this data i guess is my --. >> you mean other police departments, how they do it? >> yeah, los angeles, sacramento, chicago. >> well, there will be. i don't know about the other ones. i can't speak to them. >> it would be interesting to see just how san francisco compares to other cities. and i know when this has come up in the past it was difficult because -- even if i ask for that, it would be the same
8:04 am
because not everybody collects it. i would hope we get the uniform way of doing it, especially is there a -- i understand commissioner dejesus, you can only collect on the field that you enter into it in the first place. >> correct. >> is there a model somewhere that you like in some city because especially as we're going through the whole best practice thing and trying to come up with, is there a model you have seen that you like that you think hits on just about all the things we're talking about here? >> the e citation doesn't exist anywhere so we will be the first agency to do e citations and having realtime data. since that program is in the development we can make it do what we want it to do.
8:05 am
>> rather than make up the categories i was wondering if there is someone who has a model, you may come back next time and it doesn't have what somebody else wants to see. is there a certain city that --. >> for instance, on a citation, so right now this is 3 years worth of data, right? so if we're writing 120,000 citations a year and also our warnings will also go into the e citation program, those citations have what's on all citations. so there will be a zip code, those fields, every field on those documents will be searchable and batchable. if you wanted to know how many stops were made in a certain zip code you could search for that. >> i guess what i'm saying it's got to be a work in progress. nobody has yet come up with this is the way to do
8:06 am
it. even if it has, it sounds like it, even if it has it seems other things you want to pursue have come up. that's what i was asking. at this point i was looking at you may be going all over the country trying to find the best way to do this. >> i think you made the best point. numbers may never get us 100 percent of it but when we engage the community we know now the new standard wasn't whether the stop was lawful but does the subject believe p the stop was legitimate, that they were esteemed and treated with respect. it's easy to say how many traffic stops do an officer make, it's harder to say what is your engagement and your willingness and your drive. but we are training to that higher ideal. we're not talking about what's lawful in terms of evidence, we're talking about is it the right thing, upholding and defending everyone's constitutional rights. >> i can tell you, dr. joe,
8:07 am
there was a state bill passed, ab 953 that requires all departments to provide information on arrests. the department has to provide that next year. everyone is working toward shared metd tricks. the conversation is everyone is aware we need better information and the department is attempting to follow those rules but also make sure we have data specific for san francisco. >> one other thing, on the consent searches, i'm just wondering, i'm looking at the number of black consent searches. i'm wondering if that number is affected by the fact that they could have said
8:08 am
no. i don't know if a lot of them understand you don't necessarily have to consent to the search which might have brought those numbers down if they just consented anyway. >> or if they ask consent and they said no and we strictly adhere to that, that data would not be captured. >> i can tell you some of the times when you work the saturation things and there's a spike in violence and you make a stop on someone you know, they will actually say, they will say, i don't have anything in my car, search me. and that would be a consent search. >> that may be an education piece, i talk to folks all the time and they don't know if they have to consent, don't have to consent, i was just looking at that number and seeing how that may factor into it. >> one of the greatest frustrations i have had on my service on the commission has been dealing with race data. i want to thank you for your presentation and i want to thank you in particular for the portion where you said, we are
8:09 am
concerned by this data and it gives us pause and we want to do something different and we want to find out what's going on here. because over the years there have been so many damning reports that suggest this report is doing policing based on bias as a conclusion and i think that, for a number of reasons which because i spent a lot of time asking these questions over the years, have to do with antiquated systems and failure of systems, that is an aspect of it but i have not often heard what i heard from you, we're concerned and we're going to keep looking at this. because i don't believe it's apples to oranges on these consent searches. it's very clearly one race, african americans in particular are getting searched and agreeing to search for any number of reasons and i think that that is troubling to you all and i think that's right. it certainly was troubling to me in part because the next piece is why is that, right,
8:10 am
and i appreciate what you were saying. good police work is not the enemy here. good police work is not the enemy, but bias is. so how do we root out that bias, i think it's because he referred to attorney general reno, who is like a personal hero of mine, john crew pointed out earlier in order to not castigate everybody we have to know what the problems are. like with opd and the dashboard and you can identify early on there's a problem there you can take some effort to intervene. and i just want to say, we spent some time talking about procedural justice last time, but in this effort i know the chief and many members of the department we've been studying implicit bias and it's this buzz word that gets kicked around. but the researchers and the academics are very clear it's not the new way to call someone a racist. we all have this implicit bias and if you will indulge me, i want to
8:11 am
read a section from professor everheart, this is a stereotype we all carry that social psychologists have tracked back for 60 years. the stereotype of black americans as being criminal has been documented for 60 years. researchers have demonstrates its effects on numerous outcome variables including people's memory for who was holding a deadly razor in a subway scene, the speed at which people decide to shoot someone holding a weapon, and the probability that they will shoot at all. not only is the association between blacks and crime strong, ie, consistent and frequent, it also appears to be automatic. so this awares we have that for 60 years we're all carrying this poison in our brains and we're not even aware of it, there is this idea when you say implicit bias, i want to back
8:12 am
up and say you can get training on it but you can't eliminate something you are not aware of. these are biases we all carry. so seeing the humanity in a police officer having a bias that we also have, how can we help that officer do a very difficult job and some of the ways that we can do that is bias appears more frequently when you are tired, when you've got back to back calls for service, when you are not -- it's an automatic response. so for us as policy makers here it's not just a throw away we've got to get rid of implicit bias, some of it has to be what are the policies and procedures we do, if we identify that we're all affected by this bias, what policy changes can we make in supporting officers to get rid of the bias they have. this data is obviously very troubling and what i'd like to do, deputy chief chaplain comes to the commission once a month
8:13 am
to report on all of our reforms. this is one particular item i would like to ask we get updates on every month, the progress of where the data is taking you and i want to assure you that worse things have already been said. so the only place we can do to is identifying where the issue is and supporting us in giving the officers the tools that they need. so that would be my request that we continue to track this. commissioner dejesus. >> right. so you know you're going to laugh at this, but at the end of the ticker, when you get a receipt at the store, they can go in and say what they thought of the stop. you can get that information. i also think we should have someone dedicated in terms of gathering this information and preparing more detailed reports here in front of the commission and making them available on
8:14 am
the web site and my other thing was follow-up. we need to make sure we follow-up so i do agree with commissioner loftus that we should stay on top of this. i know you have a lot, this new law coming up reporting, you are going to be working on it anyway so it would be just a matter of reporting it to us as well. thank you. >> anything further, colleagues? okay, thank you, captain. thank you, lieutenant. see you again. all right. (applause). >> chief? >> that concludes my report. >> any further questions for the chief? chief, just one last question. do we have, i know routinely you would give us the year to date homicides and information or any upticks in property caipl -- crime or violent crime. >> we have 13 homicides year to date for the first quarter. with regard to other crime, property crime, violent crime
8:15 am
is down 17 percent for the first quarter. property crime is down 13 percent including auto burglaries being down 12 percent. overall part 1 crimes down 13 percent. >> great, chief, and do you know how many homicides we were year to date for first quarter of last year? >> 16. >> okay. great. thank you, chief. sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 2b, occ director's report. this item is to allow the director to report on recent occ activities and make announcements. >> good evening president loftus, chief suhr, members of the public. today i attend the the board of supervisors budget and finance committee budget hearings where they provided departments an opportunity to provide updates and that was
8:16 am
from fire department and police department and the occ so chief suhr was there as well. i provided this commission a hard copy of the powerpoint presentation i gave to the committee today. it does reflect information that i have previously reported to this commission. this was my first opportunity to present to the budget and finance committee the occ's budget proposal, but that budget proposal is still being considered by the mayor and the mayor will provide the board of supervisors with his proposed budget by june 1st. and then the next budget and finance committee public hearing for public safety departments, that is the police department or occ, the next dates are june 9th and it's needed june 17th and you do have a copy of the powerpoint in your packet and copies out
8:17 am
on the table and that concludes my report. and i'd also like to say that senior investigator edward mcmahan is seated with the public if anyone would like to speak with him. >> thank you, director hicks. any questions for director hicks? >> commission reports, update on use of force policy development, commissioners reports. >> yes, colleagues, as we discussed last week, where we left off was we completed our stake holder engagement and it's up on our web site, all the feedback from the various stake holders on the use of force policies. we were wait to go hear from the department of justice department of justice, we all agreed it was good to get their input. they needed a little bit more time to review the significant amount of stake holder
8:18 am
engagement that we have here in san francisco, which we are very fortunate to have so there's a lot of materials to look over. they indicated to me they hope to be able to get us written feedback in early may and i indicated that i think it would be very important that the feedback is in writing so we can put it up on our web site and share it with all the stake holders. so that is really only two weeks away, i can't believe that but it's true. and so we have the materials that we have and my proposal is going to be this: we are dark always the fourth wednesday of the month, but the first wednesday will be may 4th. my plan is to angendize it for a discussion of where we are now. commissioner dejesus has made a number of good points in particular the way the body camera policy development happened. changes were made at the end, the working group can have their recommendations but each commissioner might have strong feelings. i know that
8:19 am
various folks have strong feelings, are asking all of us to weigh in. i think that conversation should start now and we can have the discussion and if we end up needing to have a couple options, to dr. joe's point, this might not be just a 1 or 2, it might be we have 3 or 4 options. we have time in may to do that. sergeant kilshon and i were talking about we can talk about this every week, at least come to consensus on what the options are, doj will weigh in, what we can bring to the public for the two meetings will be some options and we can get the public's feedback and then take it back and vote. as opposed to all the feedback us making last-minute changes, it gives us a chance to let the public be aware of all the options.
8:20 am
>> it's pretty lengthy, would you take a piece at a time or a section at a time? >> the stake holders, as you can see, there's a lot of agreement on a sit amount. i think comes down to maybe 10 or 12 issues. we can see how it goes but my idea would be for the first discussion to march through it big issue by big issue, not -- i know we painstaking went through the body worn camera word by word but that would not be my intent. my suggestion is that each of us have read ought materials and come with suggestions of exactly what we're looking for in the policy. i think it comes down to a few key issues but we as commissioners might catch a few key things we want to address. so that would be my proposal on that. any other questions? no. the other thing i would let you guys know is yesterday i
8:21 am
was reappointed to the police commission for another term and. >> lar? >> they did that yesterday. i wanted to thank incredible number of community advocates and partners over the last 4 years who came out to speak about our collaborative work. i think it's as important as everybody that we talk about and lift up what has been working and not forget that, in a moment of crisis, that it's also a moment of opportunity for us to keep working together and i think i was just very grateful for the tremendous amount of community support for what we're doing and so i wanted to thank everyone for that. colleagues, any other reports? >> we don't have to miss a beat. good. >> commissioner melara. >> yeah, i just wanted to let you know that last week, the reason i was not here last week, i was attending the international conference on family justice. the conference
8:22 am
is on family justice centers around the country, which san francisco does not have. it is where the legal community, legal law enforcement and wrap around services for domestic violence and child abuse comes together. one of the things i was reminded was that in light of everything that is going on and issues that are happening around the country, no one is getting outraged about the number of women that continue to get killed on a daily basis by the men who abuse them. and i got the data and it just shocked me because we're talking about thousands of women who are getting killed every single year in this country and we don't do -- we don't really say much about it. and so, you know, the whole conference really touched on trauma, the trauma around children and children will carry this trauma and
8:23 am
potentially become the abuser at a later time. and we talked about trauma and how we could train more people to be more trauma informed. so, anyway, that was my -- i feel very tired from the conference, actually, it was extremely intense. >> thank you, commissioner. dr. joe. >> so i just did a radio show two weeks ago on domestic violence, it was so heavy and the lights were lit up and i learned a lot, like you learned, things that shocked me. i think i'm going to do it again so if you would like to be part of it, thank you for tackling it. >> commissioner mez mez. >> nothing is pfr but the
8:24 am
progress we've made when you compare what we have accomplished to the president obama's 21st century policing report, when we are still ahead of the curve and people are looking at what we're doing but we have a lot of work ahead of us. it was great to engage with supervisors. a lot of times we sit here as supervisors and we can't say much, we are constrained by the agenda, we are constrained by the rules. it was a good opportunity for us to explain what we've done. it was a good chance to explain to one supervisor that we have over 500 cit trained officers now. many supervisors were really not aware of but now they are aware of and i appreciated their input. it was great feedback because they are at the forefront of each of their districts. it was a learning experience sitting down with the likes of amos brown and sitting down with him from 3rd
8:25 am
baptist church. speaking with him about this traffic stop data, it was a great learning experience. there's more for us to do and more for us to learn about so thank you and congratulations commissioner loftus. >> commissioner dejesus. >> i attended those hearings and some of the things those supervisors recommended we have officers who are practicing deescalation. i think last year 10 of them were honored for using the skill set they have of resolving situations without violence. they say the public doesn't know about it. it is working, you know, in other areas and we still have a long way to go but it's working and we do have officers practicing that and we need to, you know, the other thing they talked about is officers in terms of discipline have been terminated and they want the public to noi -- know that has
8:26 am
happened. somehow we need to get out to the public what we are doing. that might be something we want to angendize later down the road and see how we can get the news out. >> dr. marshall. >> welcome back and you never left. the last thing we needed at this city tal juncture was to lose our president and former president. so i'm glad and breathing. keep on meeting and keep on moving. great. >> all right, sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 2d, commission announcements. >> okay, colleagues, we do have a meeting scheduled in the central community meeting on may 18th so we're going to be here at city hall on the 4th and 11th like normal, but we're going to angendize discussions around these policies. so if
8:27 am
everybody can come prepared to discuss those issues and where they are coming down so we can try to sort it into a couple of options. the 18th we're in the central and so -- and we're dark on the 25th. so we will be back again on june 1st to have a subsequent discussion, see if at that point we've landed on a couple of options. we do hope, like i said, that during the month of may we will hear back from doj and be able to incorporate recommendations at our discretion, then let's hold june 8th and june 15th for community meetings on the draft use of force policy. let's give that another shot for those dates so sergeant kilshaw if you can identify some locations for us for those two dates. then colleagues i will ask, given the urgency on this matter and certainly we wanted to wait to hear from doj, but i would ask we have 5 wednesdays
8:28 am
in june and i would ask if everybody can normally with a fiflt wednesday we would not have a commission meeting but i would implore you to hold your calendars for that wednesday the 29th to give us time potentially if everything goes the way it should, we could potentially be voting as early as june 29th. i know that that would be very, a great moment of progress. so anything scheduling wise other that i missed, sergeant? >> that was it. >> i was secretary of the commission for like two minutes. thank you for allowing me that. >> you did good. >> thank you. okay, colleagues, anything else that folks want to add? we srtly certainly have a number of items pending. >> elections. >> we do need to have elections. let's schedule elections for the, i guess that would be the 11 th then because
8:29 am
on the 18th we're in 17 -- central. for everyone watching our rules of order require us to have an election. thank you for keeping us on track. anything further, colleagues, on this matter? then let's have public comments on items 2a through 2d welcome back. >> members of the commission, ray, san francisco. i'd like to talk about this traffic stop data reporting. one thing, i don't know, maybe you just missed it, of the traffic stops 28 percent are either african american or latino. of the searches, there -- they are over 71 percent. how obtuse would someone have to be to not see that as a problem? i myself kind of take it as a
8:30 am
good thing because i have a much less chance as a caucasian of getting searched simply because i am not hispanic and i am not african american. you can sit and talk and nibble at the edges about, oh, we don't know whether this is small percentage or that small percentage or whatever, but the bottom line is 2 1/2 times more often african americans and hispanics are searched when they are stopped for a traffic violation which on the alternative means 70 percent of the people who aren't hispanic or black don't get searched. the interesting thing is i've been coming to these things for years and you've been having these discussions over and over and over and over again and you
8:31 am
sit around and do reports and you think somehow that activity equals achievement or accomplishment and it doesn't. you kill a lot of trees, you send each other reports and i'll be honest with you, you don't pay attention to the public when they talk to you, you do other things. just to be, i don't know, what is it just to be blatantly rude to them, to let them know how little you think of what anybody in the public has to say? it certainly appears that way. but the lot um line is 70 percent of the people who get stopped and get searched are african american or hispanic. that answers a big problem. the other thing is basically, these commission meetings are like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. you do nothing but pass around reports, the department general orders get reviewed, i've seen the listing, some of those have been under review for 8 years,
8:32 am
6 years, 5 years. and it doesn't really do, it doesn't make any damn difference how many reports you do, which i feel happy you probably don't read them anyway, but the bottom line is if nothing ever comes of those reports then you are all about as worthless as tits on a hog. >> you know what? you don't get to call us individual names, sir. city attorney, is he able to say that 200. i'd like to get an opinion because i want to follow the sunshine rules. i would like to get an opinion from the city attorney on this matter. is he able to call us tits on a hog or something like that? >> worthless ass, i didn't call you that, worthless ass. >> the public is able to comment. if you feel any of the remarks coming from the public are discriminatory, then we have the mayor's policy on discriminatory remarks on public comment and we have a
8:33 am
couple options available to you. you can take a break and you can let them know the. >> your time is up, sir, your time is up, sir. your time is up, sir. your time is up, sir. >> can't intimidate me. >> your time is up, sir. >> then ask me to not stand up for myself. >> you are very well aware of the rules and there are time limits. thank you so much for your comment. i would like to make clear to members of the public any commissioners who are here, any staft of the city who are here, that we do not endorse any comments in particular any comments that would be sdripl discriminatory to any particular group, if you felt those comments are discriminatory to you, please know they are not shared by the commission. any further comments on items 2a through 2d mr. crew, thank you and welcome. >> thank you. first, i was going to say congratulations for your reappointments but
8:34 am
maybe i should say my condolences or some combination thereof. had i known janet reepb know was your hero i would have quoting her for years. i endorse basically everything you said about the role of implicit bias, i appreciate attorney heart his comments about concern, but i think we need to focus and we can't begin to address this issue in the brief 2 1/2 minutes here, i'm very thankful that you put it on the ayen today again, but let me try to focus, the issue if you aren't even capturing the data, that was not only reported in the chronicle but you have seen time after time after time the occ has seen cases for not collecting the data and there's been no discipline. you have a whole unit that a large percentage of the data, according to the chronicle, weren't be
8:35 am
collected. to send a message that this is important to the department there needs to be accountability. secondly unfortunately this is not a new issue. it first came up in 1999, i don't know how many police chiefs ago was fred lao, he found disparities that were horrible then that are much worse then. the city hired an expert to come in in 2007 to study this and she made a number of recommendations and warned you if you don't get on top of this issue, take it seriously, you are risking the department of justice department to come in and intervene. the chronicle did a data-driven story of what happened when you do not consent. you have seen not only in the chronicle but in the litigation that comes before you that there are large numbers of those sorts of false
8:36 am
arrests with huge racial disparities on them. finally we need to focus on the data that you have now. the key isn't the 300,000 stops, it's not the traffic division. the traffic division is doing traffic enforcement. the problem is the pretext, it's a small subset, it's those searches we're talking of, evidence-based add consent, that's the issue. you should focus on that. it's a distraction to pretend it's the traffic division. it's what captain heart talked about, they're looking to see if you have anything in the car. you have had mothers talking about what happens to their sons when they are innocently sitting in
8:37 am
their car. the data (inaudible). >> got to follow the same rules, three rules for everyone. feel free to submit any written comments. next speaker. >> my name (inaudible) and i have written some notes on this already where we all made equal and professional back talking is not in our jurisdiction. african americans and any kind of different looking person,
8:38 am
we are all made equal and this is what i was talking about in my letters that i wrote, and any combination of our attitudes and psychologically, depending on what we're saying is going to affect our race and who we are around. i had wrote things about how the equipment (inaudible) area should be so we are made equally and dependable so we can understand where our equipment that we do on our ways of trying to do
8:39 am
wrong things is not going to be included in our history. we should already know that in the things that we -- does an editor in the police academy, we need to learn a lot of these disabilities so we can correct it and know what to say to make it to where they understand exactly where they stand psychological. i think a lot of people, you know, follow what's real upset because the detail, the detail to where we stand in our academies that we get the job done successfully
8:40 am
way of being as editor possess exactly everything back in the 80's and how our family made a lot of things that happen with the world would understand why the landlords exceptions in the police academy stand. >> thank you. next speaker. welcome back. >> (inaudible) foundation again. in 2004 my (inaudible) was at the base of the restructuring of the police commission that was passed as prop h by a very substantial margin in spite of enormous amount of money that the poa had put forth to defeat prop h
8:41 am
and at the time the demographic of the police commission then reflected three people elected, appointed by the board of supervisors and four by the mayor. and it was very clear that those demographic were giving us, the people, some negotiating power because three people were defending pretty much the interests of the people while four were defending corporate interests in this city. so this way the people always had a swing vote and thus thanks to the swing vote were able to defeat the taser issue four times already. now we're facing the fifth. candidly i want to say i do not see that demographic any more. that's why i've been coming much less. and i hope to be able to restore my faith
8:42 am
in your commission soon with all the very grave decisions that are ahead of us. thank you. (applause). >> next speaker. >> good evening, tom sellers. first of all congratulations on being reappointed, president loftus. since you joined the commission, since president loftus and commissioner melara have joined the commission there have been notable changes, there has been some improvements, there has been movement of things that have been sitting still and nothing has been done for years and years prior to your joining. thank you, mayor, for reappointing them and thank goodness you are back on the commission. no. 2, congratulations chief. if crime is down 13 percent in the first quarter, excellent, that's job 1. i commend the department for doing that. thirdly my head almost came off my body when i heard captain heart, who was
8:43 am
excellent, and captain para, talked about training officers to not only do law enforcement but to be right? i've never, ever gotten the sense, and i have interacted with many of the officers in this department, unfortunately, i've never gotten the sense that they were interested in doing right as a body. individual officers, sergeant kilshaw and others, have always tried to do right, but the department, i'm shocked they are trained that way and somehow that training sort of falls out near the end. i think that's all i have to say unfortunately. again, congratulations. the next item is going to be the body-worpb worn cameras and i heard in your report they were hoping to get the cameras on before the end of the year. that would be 45 months after you got going on it. i know it's government and i know government is slow
8:44 am
but 45 months, really? that seems a little slow. i hope the use of force policy doesn't take 45 months to get implemented. thank you so much. >> thank you. any public comment on items 2a and 2d, welcome. >> hi, i'll be pretty quick. so with the traffic stops there were a few comparisons to the population of san francisco. so there's just another way of looking at the data if you look at number of african americans who were stopped and searched versus the percentage of whites that are stopped and then searched, african americans are ate times more likely to have a consent search. >> my view, the bayview, i've seen it happen over and over
8:45 am
and over again, racial profiling just constantly goes on and on and on. too many times i've seen a car with 4 and 5 blacks and you can see the car is not doing anything weird. and an officer always comes along and pulls them over. and i know darned well their violating their constitutional rights and doing a search, well, we're going to find something on them because if there's 5 blacks they're up to something or they have something on them that we can give them a ticket and throw them in jail. over and over and over again i've seen this. then i've seen a black and a white cop play good cop, bad cop. there will be a couple blacks sitting on a bench, minding their own business. and the black and white cop go
8:46 am
over there and they play their little game and violate their constitutional rights and my look at that black cop is he's a sell-out helping the system. this shit needs to change big time. big time. and i'm sick of it, i'm sick of seeing it. i view it too often and i don't like it. i don't like what i see. the city needs to make some serious damn changes. >> is there any further public comment on items 2a through 2d ma'am, come up. >> thank you for being here and giving me the opportunity to say something. back in 1980 i had a car and i had no idea that there was any kind of warrant or anything on there. i was stopped by the police, a female police, and she handcuffed me and she took me to jail because she said
8:47 am
there was a warpbtd out for my arrest. i'm, like, what? i don't know what you're talking about. i was flabbergasted. anyway, i was embarrassed, i was unbleefblly -- it was a mistake. it was a computer mistake. they had the wrong vehicle. and i had to be bailed out by my friend, i was handcuffed to a bench and my arms had to go in the back for a long time until my friend came up with money to bail me out. and i will never forget this. i was younger and naive, i did not fight back, i did get off and everything was taken care of, but it was very humiliating and i'll never forget that. so i just wanted to comment on that so people know it's not right and she would not listen to me. i said, you must have the wrong vehicle and it was a mistake from competers. back then there wasn't as much computer stuff going on, but i will never forget being arrested for something i never did. that's all i have to say, thank you. >> thank you, thank you. is
8:48 am
there any further public comment on items 2a through 2d >> item 3, discussion and possible action to adopt a resolution requiring a department to give annual reports to the commission on the status of backlog of sexual assault kits and an audit around communicating with survivors of an assault. >> colleagues, i will invite up who is going to present tonight. you all have a draft resolution regarding reporting to the commission about the department's collection and analysis of sexual assault evidence. for my colleagues who have been on the commission even longer than i have, this is an issue that many commissions have addressed. it's an issue that has been addressed by the board of supervisors in terms of identifying backlog, in terms of putting timelines. the state legislature has written some laws around this and we have had a significant number while i've been on the commission of audits of both the property room and the crime lab to identify where there is
8:49 am
a backlog, to identify what policy decisions might have led to the backlog, and i know the department did make the decision to proactively decide to test all of the kits as a result of some of the lessons that were learned from instances where an inspector decided not to test the kit and it went to the property room so it wasn't even counted as the backlog so there was a challenge in identifying whether there was capacity even at the crime lab to test the kits because there were all these kits that never made it over to the crime lab. so as we have grown i think across the nation with our awareness of backlogs and where they came from, we have learned a number of lessons along the way. this resolution is a reflection of some learning around the importance of reporting the status of where that kit is through the process, what is learned and then, really importantly, what communications are given to the survivor about what happened in
8:50 am
that instance around whether there was a successful match, whether it was uploaded and what happened. so it's an issue that the commission has cared about for a long time, i want to thank the department and occ that this resolution came from really a collaboration of all of us to identify how we can make sure that we avoid backlogs in the future and morover to the point we're talking about with the race data, where there are problems we can identify where they are and make decisions in realtime as opposed to hearing another terrible story of an incident where a kit wasn't tested or a victim or survivor wasn't called. this data is not designed to be a report that lives on a shelf but it's designed to be something that can be useful to the department. sam or marion from occ, good evening, commissioners, chief suhr, director hicks, members of the public. i just want to make a few comments to give you some
8:51 am
background about why the language is what it is in the resolution about dna reporting. the first thing i wanted to do is similar to what commissioners talked about in terms of domestic violence. tts shocking the level of sexual assaults. it is absolutely shocking. and it is the most underreported crime. almost 66 percent of sexual assaults, they are just not reported. and the department of justice department of justice as well as cops they just done two tremendous reports in december and january about gender bias in police departments and working with community-based organizations and those reports are, they are great because they give us a lot more skills and things to work with but also it's crushing how systemic the problem is. so to have this kind of resolution, it's really a terrific thing. so that's part of why the dna testing is so important. it's not only for the instant, the particular cases but now because there is this data base across the nation and in california when there is the
8:52 am
forensic evidence is collected when it's actually analyzed, when it's then uploaded, when there's matches made, most times, most times, often, we have situations where serial rapists are identified across the country. 1 example, in detroit, they found 11,000 assault kits that had not been tested and within a short period of time they identified 469 serial rapists across the country in 39 states. it's dramatic evidence and it's great this commission and the department wants to do something about making sure there's accountability around that. so i just want to spend a moment about what the dna bill of rights is about just so you have a little bit of history. back in 2003 because of sexual offenders, service providers, district attorneys and organizations, there was legislation passioned and it was a way to provide sexual assault victims information. so there were some really basic
8:53 am
things about victims could be notified as to when, after there's been forensic testing, when that information is analyzed victims are permitted to know about that, they are permitted to know was there a suspect or asail ant found. police departments would notify if they weren't going to test or destroy the evidence victims would have the right to get that information. fast forward to 2014, there's been some amendments to the code, penal code section 680, that's the part of the law that provides those rights. district attorneys and others came together and said let's put some deadlines in place. within 5 days when a victim
8:54 am
provides the testing, within 5 days have it sent to the laboratory and within 120 days, let's have it uploaded, let's have it analyzed. then there's an opportunity to do these matches. so part of the resolution, the purpose was to institute those deadlines so that's one thing, then also to then be able to track and also then be able to report to the commission and to the report the cases the department is using, the analysis that they're doing, are they complying with these deadlines, are they providing notification to the victims. the resolution is a way to give more transparency, look through and be able to see there's compliance with these kinds of deadlines and make sure the victims are being notified. so that's kind of a thumbnail print of what the resolution is about. happy to provide answers and both captains from the forensic unit and svu are
8:55 am
here also. >> i am captain beatty, newly appointed to the special victims unit. >> anything either of you want to add regarding our consideration of the utility of this resolution for your work? >> yes, just as a precautionary, we're committed to meet the spirit of 680 but i got to remind the commission that sometimes we should do so not at the sacrifice of the quality of the work of the dna as you know there are specific control protocols and validation procedures needed to make sure that we can upload that data into codis and it's interesting the first half of this whole meeting was about bias and all of these controls are to ensure that there is no scientific bias in the work that is being done is done properly and to the
8:56 am
specifications. chief suhr is committed to making sure that this happens. i'm glad to announce that we're in the process of hiring 6 new criminalists to help us with the dna in the future. we go back and we look in 2006 we had 10 criminalists, 2016 we had 10 my fuss -- minus 3 that are on leave so you can see with all the other competing pieces that are going, with this new law we're still committed to going forward but with these new people and with the immreltation and hopefully the request for robotic this will really reduce some of the backlog or the time frame and will still ensure the quality that we need to perform this important work. >> yeah, captain, i think you make a really excellent point. you don't want to sacrifice the quality of the work. part of the reason dna is so powerful,
8:57 am
it's very probative, it gives you a lot of information and the fact that it's done in a scientifickally and forensickally sound manner is what allows it to go to court. certainly don't want to suggest that there is an idea here, we're talking about bias too, too much time pressure can make you subject to your own biases and there's even cognitive biases. this really is just to identify where issues might be happening. it's not a gotcha resolution, it's a resolution to make sure that we all have the information to support you all in doing this work and i know the chief has devoted, i think you've quadrupled the staff, that's a total guess on my part, not forensickally validated at all, but there are a lot more analysts and criminalists than there were when we started. >> since 2010, yes. >> but also part of that is they have to be validated on each tool, they have to pass certain certifications and you
8:58 am
have to validate them on the various tools. it's a very lengthy and exhaustive process to get them up to speed so we appreciate that. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> just like any other profession, there's continuing professionaled case, certifications and they have to do their own testing just to make sure they are doing these procedures. >> right, absolutely. and i know that there was collaboration between the department and the occ and certainly the idea that this is something that we all think reflects the greater goal, which is the transparency, where are the kits and if there are issues with some of the reporting an opportunity to figure out if there are more resources needed or a policy fix would be in line. chief, did you want to jump in. >> there's two other people in the room, captain connelly, the former director, jonathan sanchez, civil ian director
8:59 am
manager who are responsible for clearing that backlog and got us to where we are now on this resolution so they should be acknowledged as well. >> captain connelly and john sanchez, the one thing i know about the folks who work in the crime lab, when the crime lab is on the police agenda they all watch. i'd like to thank all you. one of the first things i did was go out to hunter's point and visit because that's a place that has been through a lot. you had to transform, there was really tough morale and the resources that the department has brought and the continuing -- that's part of the issue here, right, there's continual stories that there's a backlog and nothing is happening, the idea is let's get on the same page about what our expectation is, we can evaluate whether it's working and make sure the survivor of sexual assaults, to commissioner melara's point, this is one of the most
9:00 am
horrific things this can happen to a human being. anything we can do to make that right and hold that person accountable that's what we're here to do and sometimes the challenges in handling this evidence, but you have gone leaps and bounds in expanding your capacity. we need to make sure the public knows exactly why we are where we are. colleagues, i don't know if you have questions specific to the resolution. >> i do. >> commissioner melara. >> mine are, it's very simple, it has nothing to do -- because this is a resolution from the commission and it is our commitment to do this, i would like the first whereas to be the san francisco police commission, not the department, san francisco police commission is committed to this. then --. >> could i suggesting that we vote because we don't let
9:01 am
anybody off the hook? perfect, perfect. >> we are both committed to this and then the last sentence, this resolution, that should be a resolve. on the second page should be a resolve and then i'm not really sure but other departments, the secretary signs these resolutions. >> yeah, that will happen once we vote on it. so your last edit is therefore be it resolved. >> therefore be it resolved that this resolution shall take effect. thank you, commissioner melara. commissioner mazzucco. >> i want to thank the police department. when this issue first came up the crime lab was understaffed, there were some issues with some of the personnel in the crime lab that commissioner loftus referred to and i want to thank captain connelly and (inaudible) when the chief first came on board that was one of the biggest
9:02 am
issues he inherited was a problematic crime lab. we reached the point where we sent kits out for testing, kits that are outside the statute the limitations but the victims needed to know. the chief made it a point that everything was sent out on an expedition basis, even if we had to send them out privately. i want to thank captain baily, great investigator, i think crime lab's in good hands. but the most important part is this is the part we have to do with the community and we have to show the community that not one of these rape kits will ever go untested again. >> commissioner dejesus. >> this is a really important
9:03 am
resolution and i hear the hesitation in your voice about making this. i suggest a follow-up so we know it is actually working, what commissioner loftus is making, maybe we need to change this or tweak this. >> it's in there. >> regarding the resolution itself. maybe i missed it. >> that's a good point. if we pass the resolution we would be back on the agenda to see that first quarter of data, that would be the third quarter of this year. i don't even know, are we in the second quarter? next quarter so we can see again where it's at and where you might be having challenges or need increased capacity to get to these data sets or areas similar like the safe streets for all the vision zero resolutions. some of the data points became less relevant and new ones were added, we can make sure we're fluid and it's actually serving the intended
9:04 am
purpose. commissioner melara. >> the last one should be the further resolved that and i'd like to provide a motion that we accept this resolution as written with my edit, the san francisco police commission and the san francisco police department, et cetera, et cetera, then the last sentence. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> okay, so we're going to take public comment. so captains and tamera or miss mayor public comment on this matter. welcome back. >> for once i'm very happy about this resolution but also want to bring up that just as
9:05 am
the reported sexual reports are, they are even more underreported when the sexual assault is perpetrated by a member of law enforcement. (inaudible) she was sexually assaulted behind a church at night in the back of a patrol car. she was a young woman, mexican-american with an african american boyfriend. and three weeks after doing the intake she asked me to keep it confidential forever because her family and the boyfriend's family were petrified that there would be retaliation against them. so i had to keep confidentiality. what i would like to bring up
9:06 am
is that special attention will be brought during the preselection of the police academy that, it's a crime that is not only sexual in nature but foremost of power and cultural and any candidate would present that kind of psychological profile would be automatickally deleted. >> san francisco open government. i have to ask you a question common sense. since this issue came up, the non-tested rape kits, how many of the sexual assault vic tips decided why bother to report it at all, they weren't even going to test the kit? i dare one of you to tell me they decided
9:07 am
based on that not to report the assault. they won't test the kit, what am i going to do? man, nothing. second thing is how many of those people who were sexually assaulted reported it and were asked to submit to the invasive and humiliating procedures necessary to take the testing kit and complete it and simply said, they don't even test it, i'm not going to go through that when the police department won't even test it. you sit here and self-congratulate yourself that now in 2016 you are finally getting to the point where you say, gee, nobody in the department should be allowed to simply make a unilateral decision not to test a rape kit which is a piece of evidence. to me that's mishandling evidence. dairl dereliction of duty.
9:08 am
who was responsible for all those rape kits building up in the room and nothing being done. you are all congratulating yourself, finally you got around to doing something but you want to avoid the fact that for years nothing was done and it took an outside source to point out that these things go on and yet nobody comes forward and says, gee, how did this happen and who in the command staff is going to take responsibility for letting it happen? i was in the military for years and bottom line, we always knew if you were the commanding officer of anything, you were responsible for any wrong doing. you were accountable. the bottom line is i have heard nobody being held accountable. you hear, oh, well, we had problems in the lab, somebody snorting
9:09 am
cocaine and all this other stuff as if that's some sort of excuse for those kits building up. are you trying to tell me and the public that none of your officers, none of your officers in the ranks or none of the officers in the command staff knew those rape kit were sitting back there? they knew they were there and they made a conscious choice not to process them and the fact you are finally getting around to it really doesn't answer the fact you are having to get around to it. and i know you don't like my similes. >> next speaker? any further public comment on this matter? welcome back. >> better late than never. i don't know why they need 17 weeks to upload the data, it seems like a long time, 120 days is 17 weeks by my calculation. they get 5 days to do the test. >> very complicated.
9:10 am
>> well, i'd love to hear the people presenting earlier why they need 17 weeks. private sector you'd be fired if you wanted more than 17 days. >> 120. next speaker. >> hi, i just want to say 1975 i was raped and there was nowhere to turn. there was no place, there was nothing that i could do. luckily i was very in shape and i was able to cross my legs like this and i was unable to have any penetration. but it happened in north beach and i went to doctors and i talked to people but there was nothing in the police force, 1975. i just want you to know i hope something is done, i hope something moves forward and i hope you do something for people like me who had no place to go, no one to talk to, there wasn't anything. at least now they are hearing people out. i just want you to know i was a victim of it and luckily i was strong enough to
9:11 am
fight back. my name is joy. >> any further public comment on this matter? hearing none public comment is now closed. any further discussion, colleagues, before we vote? no, okay, sergeant, please call the roll. >> on the motion to accept the resolution with the amendment from commissioner melara, commissioner loftus, how do you vote? aye. commissioner marshall, how do you vote? aye. commissioner dejesus, aye. commissioner mazzucco, aye. commissioner melara, aye. the motion passes. >> great. this is wonderful. okay, thank you, sam or marian, thank you, dc sinez, thank you staff at the crime lab for all coming together. hopefully this will be useful to all of us as we continue to make progress. but thank you so
9:12 am
much. occ, the police department, great partnership here. this is the design really we talk a lot about what the role of the commission is, the design of it is to yiddish identify the issues. dr. marshall. >> i just want to say, tamera, you do great work. you have really done, i've been here and seeing, you really bring a lot of -- you are welcome to it say the same thing but i just want to say that you do great work and keep it up. >> okay, so we have, we're in the milds -- middle of a long agenda. i'm going to give us a 5 minute personal break so we will come back at 10 to 8:00,
9:13 am
7.50. thank you, everyone. . >> commissioner loftus has called the meeting back to order. we are back from a break. sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 4, department of human resources to give status of body worn camera discussions. >> i'd like to invite martin grant up who is, you can introduce your job, i know you are still designated by the department of human resources to work on this matter for us. colleagues, we invited mr. grant here to give us an
9:14 am
update. as we all know the commission voted on the body worn camera policy on december 2nd and we independent kaitdd it would needto go through the meet and confer policy, given we are now april 20th, there are a lot of folks asking questions about where the cameras are so we want to make sure everyone understands where the cameras are and that we have the opportunity to ask you questions. >> commissioners, and through the president of the chair, i am martin gran, i've been in the city, 18 years, 11 years with the city attorney's office as a deputy city attorney on the labor team, a number of negotiation tables and meet and confer tables and then for the last 8 years with the department of human resources as employee relations director in which that role i was in charge of all of the, our team that negotiated all the labor contracts in the city except
9:15 am
for the mta, and again also doing numerous meet and confers at the board of supervisors, departments, et cetera. i haven't had the pleasure of representing the department in a meet and confer so i look forward to the process. we indeed received the policy, the draft policy from the commission, the policy that was approved subject to meet and confer. we had two meet and confer sessions to date and we have three additional dates on calendar. let me start by briefly explain what the meet and confer process is under the state law and under the charter as we will be becoming familiar as a group with this process. state law and the city charter both require that the city provide labor associations, labor unions, the opportunity
9:16 am
to negotiate over policies within the scope of employment. the process has to include a chance for the parties to exchange information, for the parties to give their opinions as to policies within the scope of employment, and for the association to make proposals and the city to make counter proposals on areas within the scope of representation. the goal is to endeavor to reach an agreement on the policies and if the negotiations are successful we believe that there's an avenue to come to the commission with a final product which will meet the needs of the commission first and foremost and the union, the poa, in particular, as well. we will come back in closed session and present that to you. as the process goes along we will be coming to you in closed
9:17 am
session to get direction and to make sure that you are fully informed of the negotiations. those details will happen in closed session as opposed to open session. >> mr. gran, maybe you could explain why that is and why that's the practice. >> sure. well it's recognized in the government code as an exception to the brown act and the idea is much like you would with discussions around, say, a vendor contract, let's say you were making a big purchase such as body worn cameras, you wouldn't necessarily want to have an open discussion or a discussion in open session about the details, be it the cost, be it the terms, be it the evaluation, et cetera. my experience with the city attorney's office is these negotiations take place in terms of advising, seeking advice and direction from legislative body or department that those conversations happen
9:18 am
in closed session. so we have, as i said, 3 dates on calendar: april 26, may 5 and may 19. i suspect we'll be coming back to the commission in closed session to report on progress before the end of those three dates. the poa has raised a number of issues which will require the negotiation team to come back and seek direction from the commission. we do understand the urgency of this endeavor. we understand the importance of the body worn cameras to a number of use of force policies. we understand the importance of the relationship between officers and the department between the union and the department and we're looking for collaboration from the union, frankly, to find common ground and be able to implement this program as soon as possible. that said, the state law does allow the unions to present all their proposals and provide
9:19 am
time for the discussion of them. so even though we would like this to happen by now it hasn't and it won't until we have had an opportunity to hear all of the union's proposals and to respond to them. so that's the overview. as you know, we do have a closed session this evening, i'll be happy to provide some of the details that you might be seeking as a body in that closed session but i'm here to report that the process is up and running and a we are in it and we're in it in good faith and we believe the union is as well. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> thank you. is there any loan why we need to have 3 more sessions? can we accomplish this in two more sessions? the union was at the table at the initial drafting of the resolution along with the other community groups and the union and all the pay groups, this is something we really need to move quickly on. it's something that the department needs and that the public wants for the public trust, so why is
9:20 am
there three, is that specified in the code or is that just something we've agreed to or can we reduce this to two? i think, i respect your work but, you know, we need this yesterday. and so why do we have to have three more negotiations? all of us know who have been in the business world or the legal world that generally things sort out within the first hour or so and everything after that is a waste of time. so what can wae do to expedite this because i think it's important for the public, it's important for the officers and it's extremely important for this commission. >> thank you, commissioner. the number of dates we picked was a good faith attempt to find the right number of dates that wouldn't build in useless dates or dates that the parties would fill up just because they are there, but given the number of items that the association brought forward that's probably the minimum we could expect. it couldn't happen in two, i
9:21 am
don't think. >> mr. gran, obviously we have had these conversations. colleagues, as president of the commission i have shared wtd department of human resources what a priority it is for this commission, just to echo what commissioner mazzucco has said, and i think while we are here publicly talking about this i am very frustrated that we don't have cameras on our officers yet. i do, though, want to say that the reality is we did this policy differently to front load stake holder engagement. often times a policy doesn't come to us until the very end for adoption and we did this one differently, but made it clear that there were still rules that would have to happen on the back end. and so i just want to recognize that while those, all of the laws need to be followed and we do have to bargain in good fate, there is an absolute imperative on behalf of the public and behalf i think of
9:22 am
many officers who very much want these body cameras to be placed on them. so mr. gran it's certainly your position and doing everything you need to do and certainly we are not where we want to be and we're going to discuss it, what the next steps are, but i just want to assure members of the public that it is the commission's direction to the department of human resources that they move as quickly as legally possible to get this done and get us to a place where we can hang these cameras. colleagues, do you have any questions, general questions about the process for mr. gran dr. marshall. >> the only thing i would say, it's good that you are here to explain this process, the legalities around it, but everybody knows what's been -- people generally know, they know about meet and confer but
9:23 am
they really don't know about meet and confer so i'm glad to hear you explain it. i don't think it's going to please anybody but at least everybody will know how this thing works. like everybody else, we will talk in closed session and see -- particularly i don't know how you feel but perhaps this is not the time to do that. but i'm glad you are here it explain how this thing works. we'll probably be facing it again so i am glad you are here. >> thank you. >> specific question? general question? >> anything further on this matter? okay. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. gran sergeant, please call the next line item. >> we need public comment on that item. >> next item is public comment. >> okay, public comment on item no. 4. >> ray harris, san francisco open government. i have been chided about the fact i am not
9:24 am
supposed to talk about what took you so long to do, just accept you are finally doing that and let that whitewash everything else. these body cameras and the procedures you are talking about, i'd like to know whether or not these procedures are actually going to be enforced. what's going to happen to an officer who is involved in a skur mirb or some sort of incident when his body camera is turned off. what happens when he gets out of his car and the camera is turned off and the whole incident, the traffic stop, is not recorded? we know it happens, it's in the news all the time. the cameras are off in the police car, the cameras are offer on the police officer's body and it's only by some miracle that a person with a person with an i phone or some other means of recording it comes along and catches what actually happens. what's going to happen when officers make a report which
9:25 am
they are supposed to do by i guess the end of their shift, and then subsequently the review of the body camera footage shows that the report was inaccurate? and not one of the commissioners i'd like to notice can look me in the eye. they all sit and work on everything else, which is much more important. >> you should read the policy. are you asking the questions? they are already in the policy. >> (inaudible) occurring too. >> well i'm asking the questions so the public can think about it so they might have some idea what to look for when this policy is finally promulgating. then there's also the fact we have talked repeatedly about the department general orders which aren't enforced. officers don't follow them and apparently there are no repercussions at all, or it goes to the occ, the occ recommends discipline and nothing happens at all. what's the difference between that and the body camera? if i am an officer and itch the body camera on and i decide, oh,
9:26 am
this looks like it's going to be a problem, click. what's the penalty? and, more importantly, will you actually do anything at all to enforce it? because that's what i've seen in the last 8 years of coming to these meetings, a lot of talk and no action. and whenever action is taken, supposedly, it's always done behind closed doors where the public doesn't have any idea what you did and we have to take your word and that's the problem, really. the public has gotten to the point where they really don't believe you. they don't trust you. i know it because i've been told i'm not allowed to talk about certain things here when the person who told me that was a lawyer and knew what he was telling me was a lie. >> next speaker. welcome back.
9:27 am
>> was a new family, it's a family of james nate greer, killed in may 2014 by 17 cops, hayward police and the bay police. i'd like to look at the video because there was a video. fortunately there was a video otherwise nobody would have ever known how greer died. actually look at the 7 minutes of his beating death and not the end, the cop is telling, hey, why are you filming? the cop says, i'm not filming. yeah, i can see your camera beeping and then they turn it off. so we have 7 minutes of footage that the family had to see. given that the cops may turn
9:28 am
the camera off and on at will and that likely there will, they will be able to see the footage before they write their report, what is the use of the cameras? i'm confused about it unless i'm missing something here. it's like why guarantee that we have, a pretty enormous expenditure is going to be useful to you, to the cops and to us, the public, to know exactly the facts what happened. it's an open question, i know you cannot answer. >> thank you. any further public comment on this matter, item no. 4? >> commissioners, i know you are as frustrated as anybody about the delays. but they are not necessary and i would encourage you to actually ask some hard questions why you are doing it this way. when your predecessor did a collaborative review in the past there would
9:29 am
be a series of meetings with the department, the department would meet and confer, it wouldn't go on for 3 or 4 months and the commission would make a final vote. i don't recall any instances where the commission enacted public input and the poa and it went back to them to have more input. why it changed i have no idea but it is the cause of the delay. the myers brown act sets out certain rules but there are a whole series of topics that are managerial and there is no mandate to meet and confer. there is harm if you set up a community-based process -- it's not your fault, i apologize, but it gets delayed for 3 or 4 months. you have the option whether or not to go in closed session. i said last week sometimes the solution is transparency. i think we already know what the poa's
9:30 am
demands are. they made them publicly during this process and you made the call in the public interest. i may disagree, but you made the call. why they are getting another bite of the apple is beyond me. remember, even if this is not a managerial prerogative, meet and confer doesn't mean meet and agree. does it take this long to find out what they want? they told you what they wanted before. your choice is based on community input this is in what's san francisco's interests. why would that change now? if they want to arbitrate, they can arbitrate. let them. i dare them. arbitration is based on what the standard of the field is. body cams are newly emerging technology but i can tell you based on what i've seen you are not an out lieer. just because they want


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on