Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 30, 2015 4:30am-5:01am PDT

4:30 am
staffing is believe this is needed. i spoke to members of the police commission now that said they didn't know this was happening and were not consulted on whether or not this was the right move so i thipg is a mistake. before i talk about had merits of what is being presented, i would simply ask the authors of this resolution to please don't move forward. send this back to committee, continue it, whatever we can so that we can have a dialogue that includes everyone. i would encourage the mayors office because i know the mayor cares about the relationship between police and the communities it serves especially communities of color. mr. mayor, you have the ability to step in and say that this is not how we are going to address policing issues as a city. we want to be unit jd we are not going to let something
4:31 am
as strongly as people feel in the end is deviseive. that is my ask and so i would make a motion in that spirit to send this item back to committee so we can have enough time to have this discussion and conversation. >> supervisor campos made a motion to send this item back to committee. second by supervisor avalos. madam clerk can you please call the roll >> on the motion to send item 23 back to committee, supervisor wiener. no. yee, aye. avalos, aye. breed, no. campos, aye. christensen, no.
4:32 am
cohen, no. farrell, no. kim, aye. mar, aye. tang, no. 4 aye and 7 no with the no being supervisor wiener, breed, campos, christensen, colon, farrell and tang. >> the motion to send this item back to committee fails. supervisor yee >> thank you president breed. so, it is true that most of us would like to see inyeas in police officers on our streets and so forth and most of us will be supporting it to get up to the 1971. i support it and i wouldn't be supporting with the mayor lee suggested in terms of having 5 classes for the next year. to be trutful
4:33 am
walking if n to had chamber i was willing to look at numbers beyond 1971. what i wasn't prepared to do was and st. completely my fault for thinking something else, the resolution that is being presented, what i thought i was going to be supporting and s the notion that we need to look at something beyond 19 sev 1. we need to look at it for a variety of reason squz the main reason was to look at the population but what happened is that when i looked at it more carefully it seems population is the sole determining factor here and that it is aurmd determined what the number is and i feel like i need to have more of a discussion. i need to be more involved with this. it is real important. at the same time i want to honor what
4:34 am
people have-what our past board of supervisors determined and probably went through a lot of dialogue to get to 1971 that include the community and so forth. in my mind i was looking at increasing but the results are possibly the same but the pathway is a little different. i want to have dialogue and want the police and community to be involved and want myself to be more involved in the dialogue. i haven't had a chance to do much dialogue. population is important and that should be a determining factor, but like many things it isn't always proportional to a number. sometimes you need a baseline number of police officers or whatever the category of
4:35 am
services you are talking about, you need a minimum amount z after the baseline you may base it on population. i don't know where these numbers came from. we have to look at job duties, people mentioned that already. what are we doing in san francisco that is different from other places? you have to look at chair tale rather than just comparing strict numbers. the other thing that has been brought up whether it is committee or individuals here, the way i look at a it, what does our prevention programs look like compared to other places. are we more effective or less effective and that should be a big factor in w wl we need more officers or not. yes, there is a lot of things that isn't being taken care of. i would like to see more traffic officers out there for
4:36 am
instance to give people tickets that are break the laws so people don't die on the street unnecessarily. i would love to see more officers respond quicker to petty theft. i would love to see more police offers to deal with human trafficking issues in san francisco. that is something we haven't even mentioned. well we are going to get more officers and going to ramp up in the next 2 years to the 1971 and we need to look at it and we need to figure it out not the way-i feel uncomfortable with here is a number, please accept it and that is what it will be. i need to have a discussion. i need to look at it-back up and look at what we need and take these other factors in consideration. i think it is really important we
4:37 am
support our police department to have the necessary people there and at the same time we want to make it as efficient as possible and be bringing in officers that are going to meet the needs of san francisco that are sensitive to had people in san francisco to understand diversity here. those are important to me. for me i after i thought-i thank you for this discussion that we are having colleagues. i really do appreciate it. i didn't come in here with any determined notion of how i was going to do this, but after this discussion it made be think a bit more and that is why i say the things i say it so i won't be supporting the currents resolution at this point, i want us to have a discussion. >> prez dents breed
4:38 am
>> i have a set of amendments by this resolution. i'm supportive of increase police staffing and helped push for new academy classes. the 1971 officer minimum even if we meet it today it is outidated and too low. i hear all most every day from murchints the haight rr who want more police officer from folks in sun set and coal valley and residence of public housing who want more police officers patrolling. public safety is one of the most important jobs and have new neighborhoods and add 10 thousand people a year and every other major department, mta, airport and puc is planning for the future and we need to do the same with our public safety places. we need more officers and i want to
4:39 am
thank supervisor wiener and cohen for bringing this resolution forward. may amendments which i passed do 4 things, i think if is important to add police staffing based on what other cities do. i know the controllers report issued sited other cities having 271 officers per 100 thousand residence meaning we need 2279 to meet that average. [inaudible] encourage the chief to prioritize these cadets for hiring. wurn of the commitments i made when i came to office is make sure access to jobs in the police department w were made. my cousin talked about a incident where he was stopped by the police and slammed on the police car and he told his dad
4:40 am
and his dad said why don't you become a police officers and his response is i don't think we can get into the can apartment. this cadet program makes sure young people in our community have access to be police officers. we can't just point our fing ers at the police, we have to be a part of the solution as well. the amendments also put the board on record as supporting racial bias and [inaudible]-the amendments put the board of recordrecord--[inaudible]
4:41 am
>> your ancestors are ashamed of you >> the third thing that the amendments do is put the board on record as supporting extensive ant bias training for all officers. finally my amendments encourage other public safety strategies such as increasing in the san francisco police and sheriff department and leveraging the use of those departments or transfers and other things performed by other public safety official. callesian thank you for your support. i'm sure you got a copy of the amendments and hope you support them >> we vamotion by president breed. is there a second? 2nd by supervisor wiener. comments? supervisor avalos >> to the amendments? >> yes >> these are comabouts to the
4:42 am
amendment. i proposed a amendment as a whole so it is hard to support the underlying resolution and then when it come tooz the amendments that are being offered by president breed there are a couple i couldn't accept at all because i think they are based on false assumptions or haven't been established as fact but are opinion which i think this resolution as it stands is based on opinion rather than fact rather than what is commonly understood with various studies and various places within our justice system around the country. so, i have a real difficult time accepting these amendments but there are 2 i feel i could accept, the one about the cadets and the one about bias training. the last one on page 3, if we were to change that to
4:43 am
say, in addition to exploring police staffing level rather than increasing police staffing level i could accept that amendment but the one that says in order to meet the average level of police services the san francisco would need 2279 police officers that to me i don't agree with at all and to put a opinion like that before me to support challenging me to give any creed toons whether this is a resolution that works in any way. i did have reaction to some of the comments that were made as well. the 1971 number, we don't know whether that is outidated or not. i think that is a opinion whether it is outidated. we have only been at the 1971 level in 2009 and i have worked at city hall for 10 years and before that we didn't reach that number. what i see
4:44 am
is that we are pushing to have more police officers as a response based on population growth then we are out of touch with every day san franciscans. we are not really in touch with what peoples experience with the police department are. i'm not going to say i'm fully in touch with all of san francisco either but i'll tell you i'm in touch with a lot of people including the police captains in the district who say they need more police officers. i also hear people in the community who want that and i have been responsive to that. i am supporting academy classes moving forward to get to the 1971 level. that probably isn't popular with people in the audience today but it is something i believe it is my responsibility as a supervisor is make sure we reach the city charter level
4:45 am
the voters mandated and we are far below that. when we talk about adding police officers i can accept that up to a certain number but to say we need to add police officers while we do it and say we need 283 more police officers to get to the 2200 number makes no sense. it is ubsurds. there is no teerft reach out to the police commission and no discussion among city departments that this is the right approach to take t is a singular point of view that comes from the possibly police captain or police chief [inaudible] who will suffer. there are real choices we are making so i cannot support these amendments and because we have dueling amendments here, i really think we should make another effort to send this back to committee where it really should get heard in a way that we actually involved all the city who discuss what our staffing level
4:46 am
should be. we should explore how we establish the police staffing levels not that we make them larger. that makes so sense so i'll motion to send this back to committee and hopefully we can make the right vote this time >> supervisor avalos made a motion to send to committee and second by supervisor campos >> second by supervisor- >> campos >> on the motion to send the item back to committee, supervisor wiener, no. supervisor yee, yes. supervisor avalos aye. supervisor breed, no. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor christensen, no. supervisor cohen, no. supervisor farrell, no. supervisor kim, aye.
4:47 am
supervisor mar aye. supervisor tang, no. 5 aye and 6 no being wiener, breed, christensen, [inaudible] motion to send to committee fails. supervisor avalos just for clarity in your comabout you said you would be sporetd supporting the amendments to support the academy class jz bias training but not the other 2 proposed amendments? >> i said i'm okay with those but in over all the resolution itself doesn't make a lot of sense >> if we were to separate those you would be willing to support them? >> if you have separate votes on each one i can do that and i have other amendments i would like to make as well so i can do those one by one and we can see how we vote on those >> great, thank you. supervise r wiener
4:48 am
>> thank you madam president and thank you for your amendments which i do support. so, first oaf all i want to thank you colleagues on all sides of this for all your remark jz arguments. this is a important issue. i think it is really important to understand that no one is suggesting that population is the sole fablter in determining the need for increase police staffing. first of all, when we compare ourselves to cities it is clear we need more police staffing. we have new neighborhoodss, it isn't just about population grouth and we all know this and supervisor avalos admitted this. this is about our observation and the communities we represent where people do not believe we have enough police in our communities to improve neighborhood safety. this is something we all hear
4:49 am
all the time from a broad cross section of the community. in fact at budget committee the other day i asked chief surif there was a member of the board of supervisors who didn't ask him to have more police staffing in their district? the answer is no. 11 out of 11 members of the board of supervisors being responsive to the communeies they represent asked for more staffing. when you valimited number of police officers qu move officers from one area to another that original area is going to have less police staffing. the answer is to have adequate police staffing. we are not even close to being there and we should be looking at the numbers and we have looked at the numbers and we need to increase our police staffing goals. i want to respond-i appreciate supervisor kim's analysis about the fact that
4:50 am
with the smaller police force we have less violent crime t. is true violent crime is down and that is because the police department understand preventing violent crime is job number 1 for the department so we see increase focus on violent crime and they have done well but it is that expense of property crime and traffic enforcement, it is at the expense of officers walking beats in neighborhoods. there is a price to pay for the great work that they have done with inadequate staffing to reduce violent crime. so, colleagues we absolutely need and thank you sfr visor kim for acknowledging that we support increase invesment and housing and education and health and as a member of the budget committee for the last 5 years every single year i have
4:51 am
advocateed for increase investment in all of those areas and i have been able to working with colleagues and the mayor see significant increases in what we invest in health and education and housing and i'll put my record up against anyone on those areas but we also need neighborhood safety and we need more police staffing >> supervisor campos >> thank you madam president. i want to ask a couple questions of our police department if i may. i see that - >> commander alee is here >> deputy chief alley >> microphone is on, sir >> good afternoon supervisors >> thank you very much deputy chief. now, the report by the police by per which is the research forum that is sited as
4:52 am
a basis for staffing recommendation and i was actually on the police commission when we asked per to come in and do the report, so one of the things that this report says which i think is very important because one-let me begin by asking the chair, the per report basically said that a int rugle part of any type of reform or restructuring has to include better training and imagine the police department still agrees with that recommendation that per provided. >> yes, absolutely. >> so this is what the per report and i would encourage you to look at page 24 if you
4:53 am
have it of that report. this is what it says the need for training. the recommendation is create a professional development program to nucher employees and cultivate tomorrows leaders. then it says, currently the san francisco police department has no formal career or professional development system. in order to accomplish the portion of the the vision related to employ dwaement the department should create and implement a formal professional development program. education training speerjs and high quality performance should be key aspects for all sfpd employees both sworn and civilian at all levels line supervisor management and recommendation. has the police department to your knowledge
4:54 am
created the development program that is called for in the per report? >> supervisor we have a professional development unit assigned to the police academy and just this morning and addressed a group of police officers both within our department and actually throughout the country. we had folks from los vegas, colorado, teaching a course on blue courage the foundation of which is a incorporation of the points within a 21 century report and that is change the mintality and mind set of police officers to that of warrior tooz that of guardians. those who have a responsibility to protect and to engage our community. what i offer is >> that isn't what i asked.
4:55 am
what i asked in this report it said there is no formal career or developmental system program defined by per so has the police department in san francisco created that system as defined by per in that report? >> unfortunately i do not have that document in front of me to reference the >> it is page 24. i can continue with my points if you want to have a opportunity to look at that portion of the report? >> that would be great and plus i'll add we do. we track and provide training on a consistants basis to every level of leadership within the department from line officer tupe the chief of police. there is monidated training through post and supplemental training we provide to our officers >> so do you have conformation from per that infact you have
4:56 am
addressed this recommendation? >> we have a professional development training in place. i don't have the verbiage for per to address that but to aerf in the absence that we have fundamentally standard training in the department >> there is difference to having a training program and doing what per said and the reason i raise this colleagues is that if you are basing the staching recommendation on a per report where the report basically calls into question the training that the sfpd had as of 2008, observe before you hire mere police officers we should make sure they have addressed the training that we needed as of 2008 when the report came out. it is a simple question, you have done it or you haven't and it is what the report says. maybe
4:57 am
you can look at that >> with all due respect i do not have the document in front of you. it is on the website of the police department, it is page 24 of the per report. page 24 of the per report. the reason i raise that issue is that i think that before we go down the path of saying what the staffing level should be if it 2200 plus officer we should make sure there is the capacity within thsan francisco police department to train the new officer that will come in. you are talking about increasing 10 to 20 percent the staffing 3 4 f1
4:58 am
i think we'll look back at that action when it happens probably not too long from now we'll look back and say this is one thof worst mistakes the board of supervisors has made and why do i say that? because i think that when you have the kinds of
4:59 am
issues that have been facing this police department in the last few months that before you start talking about hiring new police officers, we should be talk about reforming the police department. imagine what the reaction from the country would have been if the sate counsel of ferguson responded to the incident by saying we want more police officers, yet that is precisely what this board of supervisors will do if this moves forward. instead of talking about the need for reform we are talking about the need to hire more officers. now, i do believe that san francisco police department is among the better police departments in the country but the fact it is doesn't mean the issues facing departments like ferguson and other departments
5:00 am
are not facing this police department as well. you look at the isue of what happened with the racist and home phobic texts, i imagine if the police chief came out and said nothing will happen to these police officers i imagine this board of supervisors would hire more police officers but say we need to address the issue of the texts that are racist and homeo phobic before we hire more officers. yet something really significant happened with respect to those texts yesterday. even though the police chief is saying we should terminate those officers, the san francisco superior court issued a order that basically says that the san francisco police commission has no jurisdiction over those disciplineary cases vaurfbing those officer