tv Board of Education 61416 SFGTV June 22, 2016 8:00pm-12:01am PDT
respond to that. >> yes nikki callahan again with regard to the comments made as to the poa status the law and civil service which recognizes no disbased on the title association for example california teacher and nurses association they're unions so there is no distinction in that regard they're recognized as the exclusive representative for within the city's obligated deal with terms and conditions of the employment. it is correct we don't have to bargain with the union about policy matters i tried to make that clear earlier there is a disagreement as to whether something is policy and whether it has an impact on discipline or safety that's
where if we get into trouble and dispute with the union that's where it will fall. we do not intent on giving away fundamental managementights through the mar beganing process the pcht oa has a status to speak to you about it's policy views in a public forum but we don't meet and confer about this. >> thank you director cal lan. sergeant call the next line department to use in meeting and conferring with the san francisco police officers association and department of human resources (action). >> thank you everyone. i know so many people want to be heard on this. i wanted to be clear about the process that got us up to here for now. for everybody that is here, i will go back to the
first time we discussed this is on des 9th of 2015 it was a week after the shooting death of mario woods at the direction of this commission we reopened the dgo that had to do with officers use of force that is 5.01 use of force and 5.02 use of firearms we spent january working with community safety ininterns young people that come from the violent neighborhoods who partners with us in the fall to create a series of community conversations where we put up what the existing rules were we did that on january twenty-first, 26 and january 27th. at 2 lowations we were in tenderloin, sunset and bay view and the western addition. we put together a stakeholder working group which is modelled after body cameras we got feedback
from the san francisco police association the pride alliance which is a group of police officers that represent the lgbt community officers justice the officers for citizen complaints for homelessness that was particularly represented from the mental health partners and the homeless population we invited them to a stakeholder group in addition the crisis intervention team working group which have worked on our crisis intervention team on this. the san francisco attorney's office declined to participate there is from a blue ribbon panel. the bar of san francisco the aclu we have gotten through this process since it's a public and transparent process have gotten through e-mail and many of you have made comments made that are
incorporated through the community members when we use this word stakeholders we hoped to get them better throughout the process. in addition we had a serious of meetings among the stakeholders there were meetings in february march there was 1 meeting 2 more meetings requested we had 2 more meetings. we got final comments back in early may. through this process the dodepartment of justice we will move up in advance and give you back what you already have with that process we incorporated feedback from the department of justice that included subject matters
experts across the country that had use of force process that were progressive we can learn from. we took that amount of feedback also included that had a conversation in the commission 1 of the pieces of feedback we got from doj was having 3 policies when you can have 1 over complicated things so the macro feedback from the department of justice if you want a successful use of force do not make it overly complicated it's not worth the paper it's written on if the officers don't understand it. a lot of the feedback we got is what the format is and how clear we were to officers. we took the feedback there is a sub commission of commissioner dejesus and commissioner mazzucco and myself and brought them back to the commission. we had 2 public hearing to get additional feedback from the public. i just want to say, we're at the end of what has
been i believe an incredibly thoughtful and thorough process. i say that for a very specific reason i believe if you have been following this on any level what you hear us discuss tonight there are not new conserve balls been thrown we have discussed the issues and discussed them. i think to commissioner dejesus's point things have been moved around there are some we have to make a decision on tonight we're going to do that you will have a chance to do that before we make the final decision absent 1 piece of comment we got from last public comment last week that might be new to some of you many of you issues here throughout this chausive process i took the time to explain to everybody we have gotten significant feedback i'm you'ding my binder as a visual aid. this is 1 of the binders. i say all that to say here we are now. the documents of this commission has a choice with are
as follows. there is a virgs 1 and 2 as many folks know. -- version 1 and version 2. we went to public meetings about. as we want to have happen people said i want to make that version better. then we got version 2a and version 2 b. version 2a was supported by the community stakeholders and version 2b was presented to us last friday by representatives of the police officers association with that as their version of how to improve it from their perspective. this commission has an option of considering version 1, version 2, version 2a, version 2b and and we learned through the process of the sub committee meeting there was effort to see additional common ground between the community
groups represented there and the police officer association. i want to say this in terms of a goal a lot has been discussed about people taking a stand and the role of this commission i want to say from my perspective i couldn't agree more. the people of san francisco demanded we make meaningful change. they have demanded that that change is sustainable. they have demanded that this results in real results for everybody and what that means is the more people who agree with us, if we spent 6 moss finding common ground and it's good common ground i'm not going to be 1 that says something is wrong that might be a signal something is right. just by the idea we have somehow in san francisco for civil libertarians and
public defenders and police officers to ground something is a sign of our strength not of our weakness. i'm going to ask an off to this commission we start off given there is version 3 that we're least familiar with, i would invite sandra marian from the citizen's complaints to hear from that. and the police officers association and we have questions for that person and get a chance to understand this version as we move forward in this discussion. >> can i clarify something? >> sure. >> on friday the poa gave us a 68 page draft i was part of the sub committee i want to thank the poa and the bar association to come together. i know you met
monday, tuesday, friday i know you met late into the night unfortunately i did not receive this draft until 5 o'clock today i haven't had a chance to look through it i am looking forward to the consensus you have reached the changes you have made i'm with the public i'm uncomfortable not having time to read and examine it and feel comfortable about it i'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say you have been working on on it. since 4 o'clock today. >> welcome up mrs. marian. >> good evening commission public stakeholders chief director hicks i'm honors to be a part of this. it is a long complicated process i think necessity is the mother of invention i'm amazed how we keep
reinventing ourselves i never thought friday to midnight last night we would be coming together talking about issues and putting forward lots of ideas i was part of the version 2a and working on version 3 it's a combination of many different things all of these are the best thinking that is what is amazing about the process julie tran is a part of the last few days of the negotiation and the poa be willing to sit down look at where are the common ground? what are the things we want to improve? where are the differences? with version 3 sorry it's late in coming there are things that are crossed out
people can go through to work through all the parts i'm happy to answer questions about all that. i can give you broad pieces everything you see that is yellow those are the areas we sat down and said what do we agree to disagree on. there are items we have been talking about for a long time that different community stakeholderses our agency we feel we got 1 position and the poa has a different position. those are in yellow and it's clear. there is a version 3 at the end the poa arguments and the other documents are there. >> what is in yellow is what we cannot agree on. >> we agree to disagree the big issues are shooting at cars for quite some time we have shooting at cars we have corroded restraint that is another huge issue the other areas are the
penal code session -- section. >> (speaking off the mic). >> i have broken down there are 12 areas the commission will have to make a decision on this. for the community members watching this document -- not everything is agreed upon the areas agreed upon are agreed upon there are open issues for the commission to make a decision on tonight. there are 12 of them. if we walk through them systematically, you will be able to be aided in your vote. >> i don't know what is agreed upon. >> my apologize if we had more time we would have done something that explains more we
can come together. in terms of version 3 you are seeing. any time anything that has been crossed out it has -- that is language in previous versions and it's been reworked. the text in blue or black, that is text the poa, our agency and julie tran have agreed to. this is language that we negotiated this is agreeable to us. of course the commission decides it's part of the discussion we said we could -- this is the language we can live with. these are the standards these are the words. shall you will see shall throughout the document. because
the poa agreed the principles we're talking about are mandatory shall throughout. the poa said yes we agree with immediate we got a definition we all agree with. the that the oakland police department agreed with that is an area we have been able to sit down and go yes we're on the same page with immediate versus imminent. other aspects with the escalation we agree that is a centerpiece of this policy there are particular components and mandatory requirements and that is shall. what officers need to do when they can when it's fooiezable tt is a huge component. >> i see minimal in 2a can we talk about that. >> with minimal force that is deaf situation of 2a if you look at the minimal amount of force necessary page 4 that is a deaf
situation we agreed to. the lowest level of force within the range of reasonable force that is necessary to effect an arrest of lawful objection without increase risk to others we have a key part of the policy is to strive for minimal force so that is an essential part. if you look at language in 2a and here there has been comomise how some of how it's placed some of the description but it's certainly is a component of this version 3. >> may i ask a question? >> yes. >> from a percentage standpoint looking at had document 50% agreed upon 80%? if you give an estimate a percentage i know there are 12 items if you could
categorize it in that way for me? >> from my perspective in a maefrjt of places we're on the same page i'm balancing it out with a desire to get policy and training in place. again i'm invested in us having the best policy and the most accountability it's something i feel positive about there is plenty of room i wish for other parts to be different but it's something i feel positive about. 1 thing we talked about this from the beginning the need to collect data so you know what force has been used so you know what is working and what is not. here's a vast improvement the department has agreed and moving forward with data collection
with transparency and accountability lit be reported on and the website in the process the language is strong to see the ke tail we have come a long way to have that front and center. it requires when officers do use force and the responsibilities part of that checklist officers have to account for if they escalated and deescalated and why not there is deescalation in the center and accountability throughout. when you have language like shall and a way to evaluate afterwards those are components of a good policy. >> the word majority comforts me there are a minority of items that have to been fleshed out here let me just say something
-- i'm not sure. was this added the section on 3b on use of force evaluation about the supreme court was that added in. is that the original document or added in by this new document. >> 2a the version you saw last week if you look at what is red beneath it that has been stricken there is language explaining corner it has been redone some of the language is different. but most certainly gram v conner has been in the policy. >> i like that language a lot better. i thought that was a vast improvement when it comes to the whole institutional standard and community standard around protection of the officer
that was something that is much better before we get to what we don't agree on i want to complement you on that. >> 1 thing that is clear is the standard here is greater than the constitutional standard we talked about how we want a higher standard that is stated. i noi about the policy statement. there is concerns about that word. we worked with language the department safeguarding the life dig nigh knee and liberty of all persons. >> mrs. marian 1 question came up in public comment this commission faefr favors the shall but it is when feedable 3
did not take a departure from that but 3a -- is that a fair statement. >> exactly. >> okay. colleagues i'm going to run through then we're going to take a break. i understand members of the commission need to take a break and make sure they have a chance to review this document completely so we will do that. 1 thing i wanted to flag for my fellow commissioners i have -- if you go through this document during the break these would not be new issues it would be an insult to your intelligent to metabolize issues you have never heard of but this is issues in multiple hearings you will see on page 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17 corroded is
dealt with in a number of pages everything in yellow is something i will be able to walk us through what the issues are. we can ask the subject matter expert on both sides we want to hear from lieutenant nevin we will ask the commissioners after break. if you are looking during the break and people here in the hearing room, there are color copies this is the sausage making of policy making you see the strike out the words are there before somebody said take them out f it's highlighted in yellow that's a cue to this commission we have to make a decision there was not consensus what that also means is everything else you will see what the language change from. that is an agreement between mrs. marian representatives from
everyone's patiences making sure we had a chance to review number 3 i would like mrs. marianne for number 3 and invite nevin to be available for the commission and walk us through the perspective the value of the version 3. welcome lieutenant nevinevin. >> thank you. first i would like to say the poa has been in this process this entire time cooperative we have been spent a lot of time looking at the draft that have changed over the months we have met with
president loftus with the different community stakeholders groups there are a lot of those folks in the room behind me. you can ask them, i think they would probably tell you while we were participants in this group, we i believe came to that certainly looking at it in the lens of what we feel can be best for our membership that is the police officers working on the street right now, this is written for. but we also came there with the idea we wanted to hear what others had to say we work on the whole patrol sea you are doing is from 1995. that's when i entered the police department that was a long time ago. there have been a lot of things that happened within the law in the 9th. circuit i'm aware of that as a person taught for some time when i was a sergeant that requires us to have this
discussion to see what needs to be improved of the policy. so i just want to make it clear for you folks and the audience watching this, our efforts to this point have been cooperative at the ini have gaegs of commissioner dejesus and commissioner loftus the other day which was a fantastic suggestion is there any way we can meet with stakeholders groups and see if we can try to at least iron out language we can find agreement on. the reason for that is is when you all are going to look at this and go through the policy if there is areas of agreement, then that should mean later on it's not something the poa is concerned about. the sections we had this agreement it was not --
we agreed to disagree which you will find in yellow which i think dr. marshall asked what is the percentage of that? i think it's close to 80-90% hoensly in terms of what we thought we were able to work with. so i appreciate the meeting last friday we spent a lot of time and hours folks that worked for you director we think we came up with something that you should considering in version 3. i will say 1 last thing. there is a n sentence here when it talks about safeguarding human life and cig anity -- dignity. i started it -- [reading] who
expect them to exercise that authority judiciously and respect for human rights, dignity and life . i believe that to my core. so i'm happy to answer any questions you have regarding this, if i can be of assistance i also have a gentlemen here we did consulting with who was helpful in this process as well and we're available to answer questions if you want to talk about some of the marks in yellow we can do that if you so desire. >> we can do that now. i want to ask threshold questions. 1 is you heard from nikki callahan we discussed this on friday part of the procedural issue with body cameras, there say distrust or sense that the poa has a clan disdined or ability to change it
on the back end the policy. all of the rights are afforded by the state law or charter 1 of the things interesting that came from your discussion as i understand it i wanted to confirm it for you where there is agreement in this policy where you sat with experts and discussed it my understanding is you would be willing tonight to make a representation as a member on the poa board that z items as adopted in version 3 would not be subject to the meet and confer process then as a result of that aspects of this policy would be able to be implemented immediately there need to be some acceptances of change. change is accepted in the document but the areas of agreement would not be subject to a later process. >> okay. you asked a lot of questions i got a couple thing.
>> i blame my law degree. >> if i can correct the record when i might when it came to the body camera meet and confer the poa went many with a different mind set of what came out of that process the agreement that came out of all that is not what our original intention was that has to do specifically with officers watching a body camera then giving a statement. we just for purposes of clarification i think it's important we came out of that because we're good faith negotiators there can be a brief then subsequent video that is not what we intended to g out of that. in terms of the question of the pages that you see are not in yellow, yes. that language was worked on in the course of i would just to say 22
hours worth of discussions to this point so yes i would caution you though against implement a policy even though it's maybe went % or a percentage of yellow that we would disagree with because i don't know how you would have a use of force policy without having those particular issues ironed out before the policy gets adopted. when you are talking about the engagement with a threatened vehicle that is a big deal. we see that not just as a -- it's certainly a discipline issue and director callahan followed out we believe it is pertnant to the issue we need to discuss. and corroded? that is just a small example of we quoted we did a survey of the officers i will point out
corroded i'm a 5' 4 fee male the moments i have used corroded it saved my life 3 time that is an officer safety issue we want to discuss that. i think it's safe to say if you adopt the language we went through carefully and allow for the process to proceed there is no reason the process can't be lengthier because we have gone through so much of this policy by the time we meet with director callahan and her staff it's obvious anybody wants to pick up a copy there are certain sections we want to discuss but it it is not the original policy if we had to start from line 1. does that help at all. >> yes i think i have to be precise in what i'm asking.
we're talking about 80% of the policy not highlighted in yellow. for the purposes of this record i will go over that by page number we're anytime universe of that 80%, there are aspects of that for example shall deescalate where feasible to do so we need to roll out training plans. how do you train to that? how do you move that forward? what is going to happen at the academy? it seems to me we should not delay. >> if you wanted to roll out deescalation and agree on the language we looked at i don't know why you wouldn't issue a department bulletin and begin training tomorrow. >> i don't think we have to do that if this is the question that i have for you. as we talked about, there are rights conferred to you guys on the back end it causes a delay in
the implementation of a policy that is important. my question is will you support for the 80% of your policy in your capacity as an elected member of a poa 80% of that for the record will you support the department immediately. >> i don't know how you would do that. because the yellow -- blake you want to address that? maybe i don't understand how you can have a force policy 1 day and not have the corroded for instance or teach and train officers about a bravery prohibited circumstances with vehicle and wait and confer to meet and work out. >> there would be open issues that would still be suggest to meet and confer the items suggests to meet and confer would be limited and the
department would not be delayed in implementing areas where there is agreement that is the department's obligation. and i can ask deputy chief sinus to weigh in. >> the policy has 3a, corroded and threat by vehicle it's in your current policy we couldn't be opposed to that because it's there now. >> i don't think that's going to be there by the end of tonight. that is my guess that being said that's why i'm treating that different there is 80% agreement and 20% not agreement just in that rubric. so the areas there is not agreement i understand you are preserved your right by state law and charter to negotiate. what would be important is there is an issue of the urgency of the moment and if there is agreement to not
reopen issues that have already been closed that is 1 thing that is good what would be even better is we not only have to not reopen issues but allow the department and amount of time again to begin rolling out training plans by station, crisis intervention team all of these things happening in real time there is a sense nothing can happen until the meet and confer -- >> there is nothing preventing the department from rolling out crisis intervention protocol they're working on policy now that's a different issue they will be presenting for instance deescalation we get bulletins and reminders all the time about different force matters. i just i would caution you from rolling out a policy that is incomplete.
the questions you have for alicia and director callahan i'm probably not best to answer that we're going to hold our right that is bound by charter regarding meet and confer process regarding the issues in yellow if you -- am i missing something? okay. >> it's clear what she's saying is, if we were to take the 80% and begin implement 80%. >> i have to understand how you did that. >> assume the yellow doesn't exist. >> yeah right. it's hard for me to do that. >> i know it does consist in the con fekz of meet and confer process we're putting that aside
for that purpose to ensure the 80%. >> director callahan can weigh in on this. director callahan come on up. >> should i say here? >> yeah. >> hello. >> can you restate the question? >> there is 2 issues on the table 1 is it sounds we get a from lieutenant nevin in areas there is 80% agreement they will bring that back up in meet and confer. the next level where i was pushing was would he also represent that the poa would not object to the department moving forward on what would be required to implement that in particular around training an planning so areas where there is no disagreement there would not be unnecessary delay for
implementation. >> not for training an planning. >> the question is whether the department could do it with your representation? >> no it's pretty clear. there is only certain items not agreed upon. can the department move upon on the items agreed upon? >> i would say it's the union has it's right to meet and confer on those. >> right. >> what i'm hearing from the union is saying they don't really understand how you could move forward on the 80% without answering the question of the 20%. >> for allowing us to question of t with the department to meet and confer to see. >> i'm going to jump in here. hold on. 80% we agree on. >> we hope you do.
>> let's live in a world we agree. wouldn't that be nice? 80% we agree. 20% we don't agree. this commission is going to march through 12 issues we're going to vote 1 way or the other i believe. that is what i believe we should do. then we will end up with a policy where 80 remains exactly the same where the other 20% regardless you are preserved your right to meet and confer the 20%. part of what is confusing to the public is what we're bargaining on when it comes back to the public commission we're clear. 80%, 20%. i'm trying to put a finer point on it so it's clear for everybody no tricks this 80% you agree is good. >> i can't say on the fly
without labor attorneys without us what his opinion are of the other 20%. i can't do the meet and confer at this moment. >> my question is on it on 100% or 20% of the policy that's what i need to know. >> if adopted it would hopefully be on 20. >> 20 is the problem for me. >> how am i miss stating that? >> you are the 1 that is going to have to miss bargain -- >> maybe a clarification as i understand it the union is saying the items not in yellow are acceptable to the union they do not feel the need not to request to negotiate about those items and reserves the right to
negotiate part in yellow. >> we're fine with that. >> i didn't want to interrupt marte of the police officer association thank you all for your comments i want to extend my thanks to dhr director callahan to the occ the san francisco bar association secretary nevin and our council blake. they have done a fantastic job putting in 25 hours burning the midnight oil coming to this. the problem i see with this question president loftus is this. the 20% we're in disagreement that we agree to disagree with the stakeholders that 20% if changed either by dhr, by the stakeholders by the
commission could have an effect on the 80% we have pretty much agreed on. changes in the 20% can have an effect on the other 80%. also the meet and confer process is not done here in open forum with dhr also outside of our labor council who is unable to be here tonight so we cannot make that agreement here and now. i'm not saying we would not make that agreement down the road based on what this commission votes for and puts forward to dhr i'm saying legally we cannot make that agreement here and now based on the good faith that has already happened between occ san francisco bar association and doa something can be put forward
tonight. and that 80% will not be an issue doub the road with meet and confer with dhr. >> what i hear is you are participated in this process. sir you are out of out i don't want to remove anybody that would be a big disappointment. you are not going to wave in the meet and confer process there is 80% here you are not willing to say 80% you agree and we can move forward because the 20% is something that could change how we feel about the 80%. >> it could change by this commission if it goes forward as is in the document chances are we would not have problems with the 80% if something changes in the 20% that could have an effect on the other 80% so we
can no surrender. >> i'm going to say this. i could not disagree with you more. shall deescalate when feasible is such an important thing to move on. the fact that is held hostage you have those rights and i afford it to you this board needs to move on this change and it's done by department bull 10. >> that can be done by department bulletin. >> we're not holding anything hostage like the body worn camera we sacrificed language we didn't want in there and some language we did want in there we're working with the stakeholderses we're not holding anything hostage we want this to move this forward as well i as
the president of the poa have a responsibility that this policy is the best out there this 20% has an effect on the 80% could make it not a good policy i would not be doing my job to surrender those rights here and now. >> we're using 80 and 20y it's what has been agreed upon and what has not agreed upon. our suggestion was reserve the right to deal with those things that have not been agreed upon. can we move forward that is your position you want the whole thing done. >> i think that would be best. if the commission and the deputy chief and chief want to put forward bulletins addressing it that is acceptable in the
interrum -- go ahead commissioner? >> i want to understand why you think it's connected it's causally related that it's related to the escalation of force if that were not the policy you woeld vote against the entire thing let's say corroded restraint rewe could not vote against the entire policy no. i don't know what this commission will put forward to dhr what you put forward in a future commission meeting then it would be easier for the poa to make that decision on what we agreed upon, okay that is still all good because the commission didn't change anything or they changed something minimally it won't have an effect on it 80% i can't make that decision here and now.
>> my question is your concern in the yellow impacts the stuff you agreed upon or is it just that if we took a certain position on something in yellow you would disagree with the entire policy because it's so important. >> i will not be disagreeing with the entire policy. there is too much in there all ready been agreed upon by the poa with the bar association with the occ. >> that is the underlying of this document are there parts in yellow agreed upon with the parts yellow those are different concepts . >> it depends on what the commission puts forward in a vote. >> thank you. president howard and nevin. >> can i ask director callahan another question? >> sure. >> earlier we heard from the
aclu their belief that the corroded restraint would be a policy decision and not a personnel issue to the meet and confer i'm wondering to the major issues in yellow which is the corroded restraint duty to not raise impact weapon above the head shots fired the issue around shooting and moving vehicles what is your view whether these are policy issues a meet and confer versus personnel or work place issues that would be suggest to meet and confer. >> as much as i would like to start off without preparing i'm not going to do that at this point i think slay good argument these are policy matters and certainly the decision would not be subject to meet and confer but to the impact or extent it
involves safety what will happen is we will be in consultation with our attorneys and case law and standards and take our position. if we believe it is not suggest to meet and confer process because it has no significant impact or funtmental policy issue etcetera we would refuse to engage in the meet and confer and certainly refuse to go to arbitration i point i tried to make earlier there are sishgsz s something we disagr on we might reach an agreement any way. that i think can happen and we don't agree we have to talk about it or that we would have to go to arbitration and
the union maintains if we do settle it we would go. that would be coming back to the commission for approval. i cannot at this point i haven't looked at the case or heard the arguments of the union why they followed this scope. >> labor lawyers i don't understand it. with the corroded restraint i can see this is a work place issue and in terms of policy we don't want people to use this. i'm trying to figure out if you can make a broad sense how you make that decision. >> what we look at is balancing there is a lot of case law what is within the cope of bargaining and what isn't. in consultation with our city attorneys would make a determination whether it is within scope or obligated to
bargain about it if that is the case we will bargain about it if it is not we can make another agreement and discuss with a dispute then we probably refuse to go to arbitrary and the union would go to court and compel arbitration and the judge would decide is that helpful? i can't tell you right now without the city attorney looking at specific items . >> mr. marshall. >> i understand your line of questioning since that is not upon us i want to figure out where we stand on these things . >> thanks. >> it continues going to go through 12 items starting page 7 follow along in the audience. i'm sorry members of the public i apologize. the area that is in
yellow the reference penal code section 835 about officers not having a need to retreat. my sense is there a disagreement with the community and the stakeholders representative i have gone back and forth about this when we use the law on an administrative policy it's confusing and you have to be thoughtful for the sections we draw on. while it is the state of the law we cannot change that nor are we choosing to include it in here from my perspective sets a course that is counter to my perspective. i don't know if you want to discuss and agree with that. >> i agree with that. the counter intuition and it is the
law it doesn't have to be here. >> anybody else on that? second item page 9 on the bottom whether or not to include policy whether or not officers responding in route being safe to do so maintain distance cover, find cover engage in communication without restraint call for proper resources this came from doj i think it's a hallmark what this policy is ultimately about..s disagreement i commissioner melara you brought this up. i don't think it's a philosophical approach from my understanding but this level of detail is too much in a policy that is a training issue from my perspective because this signals the direction of the policy i'm comfortable leaving
it in i don't know if other folks want to discuss this. >> i agree. >> let's move to the next item. which is the corroded restraint. i will reference this is on page 11, 12, 13 and 17 there is pour teen with a reference to corroded. i will mention it once it will be reference to all 4. when i say going first to page 11 colleagues they reference to canine beats and corroded restraint holds under page 4s corroded restraint hold. on page think13 about corroded control .
then on 17 i believe this is suggested by the poa with regard to if corroded survived what the technique and warning and mandatory medical assessment would be. based on our prior conversations about this we go with the language on page 13 and strike any other reference to the corroded and i'm opening to folks have any other discussions or want to discuss that particular use of force option. okay we're now moving onto page 12 which is on the bottom of page 12 section b this is a religious that came from the united states department of justice having language that
explicitly indicates technique and control operations it has a number of them including language proficiency. this has to do with efforts to use force and gain compliance. specifically is designed to caution officers with particular populations is something you should be aware of. given a u.s. doj suggestion i'm comfortable with the language. i think many san francisco police officers working here now with any amount of time are well aware of the need to interact with the diverse pollulations in a way. if there is an issue of discipline it's clear i'm comfortable leaving in this language. colleagues any discussion on this point? >> leaving it in.
>> leaving it in. correct. let's move onto page 15. at the top number 3 restricted uses of force -- 15. (speaking off the mic) page 15 i will give as much information as i can. section on impact weapons start on 14 goes to 15. under section 3 of restricted uses. [reading] officers shall not raise impact weapon above the head to strike a subject -- can somebody from our staff deal with what the concern is there? >> page 12.
>> different page. >> there are 2 versions. ([multiple speakers]. >> (speaking off the mic) it appears there are other versions of this handed out not by our staff hold on guys 1 person can talk at a time i got this. the font was different -- go ahead sergeant. >> so the commission had a copy. we sent it out to some of the stakeholders. the commission made 25 colored copy another stakeholders made 25 colored copy that is the difference but the language is exactly the same. we're going to endeavor to
help with the page difference somebody can help with that. we can follow along there is a2 page difference. the section we're talking about you can follow along with us find impact weapons restricted use. number 3. restricted uses. raise an impact weapon above the head to strike a subject. this is where it appears as though i might ask for community stakeholders this might have been language recommended by doj the doj believed this is contrary to current training so i'm not sure where the initial language from. sergeant you can clarify for us. >> this language is in the current 1995 version shall not raise an impact weapon above the
head to strike. the doj did not make a comment on this. the department suggest matter weighed in and said this is contrary to current training and it is sort of archaic training back 20 years ago . >> this is the department's effort to update. this is an existing policy line. >> from 1995. >> that the department feels a subject expert feels this is inaccurate since it's in yellow i will ask marianne or julie tran i would like to understand what the disagreement is if there is in fact 1. >> this was an issue as if the community stakeholders weighed in it was experts. there was information as to why it was no
longer good training as a stakeholders we didn't weigh in on that provision. >> i'm fine with that. i think we delete a in section b and this will be 1 of the area the commission wants to get update on training for that. any further discussion on that colleagues? >> let's go to the next item. this is the point i said was new for people at the last public hearing we had a community member concerned that we did not address sufficiently the difference between the male and female anatomy. this would be the chest impact on women in
particular. it does not appear we have a suggest matter expert to weigh in. i would suggest -- sergeant kill shaw will weigh in. >> only to tell the public that commission commissioner president loftus is on page 16 and the other section it's 14, 3. >> if you want to know what the subject matter expert many the department says the training is it's not a vital organ and the training for eriw's which is extended range impact weapons is you aim not specifically for a body part you aim for zone 1 and
zone 2. >> what is the difference. >> zone 1 is above the waist and zone 2 is below the waist not including vital organs they train us not to impact a specific body part it's zone they feel it would be difficult to train to this. >> this is made in 1995. >> eriw was not in 1995. >> when they amended the use of force i don't think they had women in mind i think they would argue breasts are vital. >> if we look at at the definition an issue that can cause death vital organs . >> i understand. >> if you wanted them to come
they could give a better much more thorough explanation. >> so i think this is an area where we don't have specific language at this stage we can make it clear to the dhr it would be helpful to us if there is a subject matter expert or any direction to give any clarity if it's vital organs we should stick with that. if there is no further discussion on that, we can note that is an issue and track that if it comes back but not give additional guidance there. >> there's a reference on page 17 to conduct energy devices. >> and those of you that have it different it's 14g. >> that has to come out. >> my recommendation is given we have had had a conversation to
adopt that as a technology for use in the department that would be stricken from this version. any discuss about that colleagues? >> no. >> i think it shows up elsewhere . >> it's abbreviated . >> sergeant kill shaw the only note i have is it showed up on page 17. any other notes it showed up . >> no any other reference to ced's it's been stricken. >> so its on the page 17. moving onto page 19 we're in the middle where would that be sergeant kill shaw. >> 1914. what is that for the public? >> i'm getting there. sorry.
page 16 at the bottom of the page in yellow. >> the language that we have is the above circumstances which include applying a discharge of firearm officers shall reassess the situation when feasible and safe to continue a pose act of threat. there is additional language here officers are not required to reassess the situation between each shot being fired or the time needed to reassess is not needed to...: [reading]. >> you have to speak into the mic commissioner. >> the definition above the suggestion is fine. i think it's a little bit confusing down here
i don't think you need this section. >> i think language that can clarify can be helpful i tend to agree. this language says officers shall reassess the situation when feasible and safe whether they continued to pose an active threat. to me, that allows for the officers to make real time determinations what is in their best interest in terms of safety i don't want there to be a suggestion it's unsafe to do so that you are required to do that. i don't know if other folks have thoughts on that language and want to add that clarifying language or we have sufficiently covered that in the language that exists. >> my concern is how the officers have been trained at
this point you have a vital point putting the officers at risk and their safety and concern. if it's not clear enough maybe this the way they're trained at the range or academy they have a suggest expert why that language is important to them. >> you have a suggestion? >> they walked out. >> the problem is we have critical thinking the common sense part of it we're pretty clear up above. i don't think we need this. it's a principle. >> can somebody see if there is a representative here to make sure we fully understand for the commissioner. >> approved the first question they left after that. >> i asked them to stay close
hopefully they did. >> you asked them to stay close but -- >> they're here. >> lieutenant nevin can you come up? we have a question on page 19 in the middle. commissioner you want to ask your question. >> you reaffirm what is said in the first 3 lines is there a reason for the way you reaffirmed it is this consistent with the way officer have been trained. explain the reason for this especially from you with officer-involved shooting explain why that is important. >> officers are not required to
shoot then reassess hey shoot and reassess. it happens in tandem. it's a simultaneous effort. that's what we're suggesting with that language. it's not shoot then stop then see what is going on. it's happening all at the same time an officer may have a reason to shoot once, twice, and that be it there could be reason to shoot more than that but they're reassessing that is occurring instead of 1, reassess 2, reassess 3, reassess. >> duh it doesn't say that. that is your common sense and critical thinking . >> in the back of the documents we have our arguments. blake?
you want to joint me. >> page 31 at the top it goes into our explain nation to thnt >> this does not say the officer has to stop and reassess. what it implies they have to stop after every shot you don't want them to have the impression they have to stop. it doesn't say they have to stop. >> it's to get them in a mind set. >> right. >> the point is they do it it's happening at the same time. >> as long as it's safe to do so. deputy chief -- acting chief
chaplain do you know if they have a position here? this is something that was a priority at the range and in the department with this idea a big issue that has been a cause of concern or the notion how many bullets are shot and by how many officers and what is the process of reassessing. does this strike the balance of making sure officers understand they do what they need to do based on the threat currently presented but the idea is when safe to do to, which this languages uncomforts reassess the threat before refiring bullets . >> the question if chief chaplain gave me direction on this i reached out i wasn't able to communicate with them to that point. over the past 6 months
implementing the reforms we did reduce the sequence at the range. as lieutenant we said we included that where we required officers to reassess there are they think that the threat is done to stop firing. they have implemented that training so that the officers do engage in that critical thinking once they're discharging firearms i can see where the confusion applies to each discharge of a firearm offers the impression they have to do that after every single discharge. >> the first line.
>> [reading] discharge of a firearm of application of a firearm with deadly force. >> we need to define what each discharge means if they're trained to shoot 2 rounds and reassess or 1 round and reassess. 2 rounds could mean discharge of a firearm we need clarification. >> part of this has to be what is written in stone as a dgo so the question is from commissioner dejesus's perspective a charge of a firearm and training on the back end would that sufficiently address that concern? >> discharge of a firearm with deadly force when safe and feasible to do so?
>> i have an image in my head of shots being fired and something should have been reassessed i don't want that language in there. i want them thinking all the time. >> i agree commissioner that's why we didn't integrate that process in the range training they're reassessing . >> if they're doing that. that is great that got us to here in the first place. with the insane gun fire at that point and this says -- i don't want this in here. i like it as it stands i don't the addition of being not required to assess the situation i want them to reassess all the time. >> any further discussion on
this matter? i know we're not including yellow do you want to change? here's the thing about that there are areas of agreement i don't want to offer them. this is a training issue this is something we have to ongoingly be aware of. it's important to me in particular and i think to machine people in san francisco in this reassessing of the use of force we're being mindful that officers do put their lives on the line they have to use force to go home is not something we're being light about. we're trying to make sure we're clear keep yourself safe and reassess and rethink. i think we achieved that there. let's move onto page 20. >> is there a parenthesis in the
first line? [inaudible] [inaudie mi speaking off the mic) . >> we can note that the parenthesis can be taken out and there in error on page 19. for some folks it's page 17 moving vehicle. we have talked about this [reading] an officer will not fire a discharge unless the occupier is an immediate threat officers will not move from his
or her moving vehicle period. it is from my understanding and washington d.c. this has been the policy gave a lot of exceptions this was i will say a big commitment of chief sir there shall be a strict prohibition here i feel strongly we keep that language and there's a strict prohibition on shooting at cars and we borrow language from a department that has done this for 30 yearses . >> chief sir put it in the original 1. [inaudible] principle 8 and he believed in that. and departments not only since new york has included it
since 72 but chicago denver and washington d.c. all have the same policy. and deputy chief sinus and think chief agreed with that. >> i would leave it in. >> the language as it is. >> vice president turman. >> there are 2 parts the stakeholders and the following policy. >> i see that. will that part be stricken? >> my recommendation is that part be stricken. >> yeah there is no shooting at a moving vehicle. >> just to be clear, the language we adopted is an officer shall not discharge a firearm unless the operator poses an immediate threat
(reading very fast) for example it's shooting a gun but strict prohibition when the threat is just the car i don't want to say just the car as a light thing kit be a dangerous situation but another department had that policy for some time that would be my recommendation we keep everything in the first paragraph and strike everything in yellow. let's move to page went 1. sergeant that would be section page 19 at the top of the page before the use of force reporting. >> i need more information on this. it says post use of force inserted here. can someone provide me information on what
that is? san marianne? >> on page 21 with the large font. >> 19 at the top of the page. >> the police officer association provided a chart that reflects the language of the level of force and this document should have included it because of time and my inability to cut and paste it is not here it's actually. same language that is tracked it's just a matter of time it wasn't here. >> so the chart just for folks p stands for peace officer stand training. i will say doj made it
clear we need definitions and collar pie i'm not opposed to adding this i don't think it's contrary to anything in the policy i don't know what folk thin think. the chart exists here but there are technical difficulties i will affirm to include the chart. >> the language you see on levels of resistance it comports with that language. >> thank you. that is helpful. >> i have 1 question it's not a continuum of force? >> no. >> it's a chart with description and levels of behavior with force. >> thank you. >> is it okay we're going to add it there right? >> yes we are.
>> this is page 23 for the large section i say page 213c -- page 21 at the top, 3 c. what level of force is recorded. if unnecessary force initiate civil i can't complaints and notify offices of complaints if forces perceived unreasonable regardless whether the citizen think has a compliant. it doesn't appear there is a disagreement over the language but there is language with dgo 2304.
>> leave it in. >> dv o. 2.04. >> dg o. 2.04 covers officer conduct if we're changing that if 2.04 needed to be looked at we didn't have time to go over it we want to recognize that 2.04 does cover director hicks you are familiar with this how complaints are generated . >> i see. this is a drafting question we have gotten from folks there are rules sited to in other dgo's and we incorporate them by reference. whey understand -- >> it cheapi changes it though
i'm not mistakes regardless if a citizen makes a complaint. >> we might have to make changes in 2.04. >> got it. >> we can discuss it. >> thank you lieutenant. i would say this is a flag for us and sergeant kill shaw we need to look at 2.04 i don't know colleagues if you are comfortable with this language this is a doj religious it's consistent it is this officers don't have to wait for a citizen to complain if they think there is an unnecessary use of force in a reporting structure. >> leave it in. >> let's leave it as is. flag the question we got. the last is page 25 . >> page 22 roman numeral 7.
officer compliance. >> this is directly in response to many community members here that were concerned it was not explicit in this document f there is not compliance what is the implication. -- as chief said is suggest to discipline in order to make that clear this was added. all officers are responsible [reading] and knowing and complying with this policy -- (reading very fast) know the contact of this policy? >> content. >> content. look at that. this was late in the night. [reading] any member becomes aware of violation should be in add accordance with the established procedures .
there is nothing new with that. it's what we expected of officers it reiterates it we don't do this with every policy to some degree you have accountability it was commissioner mazzucco this is what the doj reminder when possible i'm comfortable with that language colleagues i don't know where you are at >> i agree. it doesn't hurt to state the consequences for not complying. >> that is the 20%. we now have a full pie. 100% of version 3. yes commissioner melara. >> if appropriate i would like to make a motion that we accept the general order version as revised by you. well no, the revisions she proposed we agreed
upon that would be my motion to start the conversation. >> do we have a second? >> second. >> public comment? >> of course we will not vote until we have a public comment. >> we have version 3 the 12 outstanding issues we largely had consensus on where we would leave those things colleagues discussion? we can go to public comment. >> okay. i'm going to open up public comment on this item. we have a motion on the floor and a second. if you could line up that would be great. public comment on this item. come on up. welcome back.
>> david louis mental health trainer. i thank you for going through this. i know it's frustrating and challenging i in agreement with the changes you made not shooting at moving vehicles of course i was not clear on the change with corroded choke holds i'm against them it's unhelpful. it's out? >> it's out. >> great 2 thumbs up go for it thanks . >> next speaker. welcome back mr. lindo. >> thank you. i have a list. page 5 on mine -- sorry start with page 2 definitions under
feasibility [reading] lawful objective without increased risk to officers or other person. the word feasibility is put in there. this is language ugsed when an officer approaches an individual saying, that is a risk to another person but is never talking about the person apprehended or engaging this. i would add language this is referring to everybody including the language apprehended. if we dealt with moving vehicle we look at page 5 the factor evaluating the use and if we look at m is whether the subject escape could pose a future safety risk . >> your copy is different from ours . >> page 6 [multiple speakers]
b b2m. >> got it. >> suggest escapes could pose a future safety risk i that leaves a lot of room in this case for mrs. lopez to where someone is running away it could be cause for excessive or justified excessive use. that is something we should explore if someone rents out a gun and is running away you would want to deal with the situation if it's a knife running away that would be justified. the poa had an opportunity to meet and confer in the negotiations we had today. no discussion of what policies or what were protocols they had the opportunity then
they rescinded their offer to -- micrometeorologic[speaking off sorry. rules apply to everybody. welcome. >> this is definitely a sausage making exercise. i'm afraid in this case the sausage has fallen on the floor it has gotten stomped on the roaches are all over. the process is up in the air right now the public thought they had an agreement with the poa to with hold their meet and
confer on 80% and it turned out we don't. i'm not sure what we have. this is so confusing it looks toe me it may head towards lawsuits which we should all be concerned about. where are we? does anybody know as far as the meet and confer on the whole thing now if it's adopted? what should happen at this point i will reiterate we should go back and do deep thinking about this and revisit it. community groups are not the same as the stakeholders. the stakeholderses are the aclu, the bar association etcetera. justice mario woods is not involved in the discussion neither are the other discussions these are the grass roots people the people showing up making noise and shut you down once in a while. i feel
strongly you should not vote on this because the process has gotten so messy. we should have more thought about it. i'm glad what happened as far as the yellow items they got resolved in a way community members will like this need toss be explained to them in a way that can buy into it. please don't vote tonight. 2 more weeks are not going to kill the whole process we're going to meet and meet and confer with the poa so let's do this right. thank you. >> next speaker. welcome back. >> thank you. i'm confused as everybody else right now. there are 3 parts to use of force before during and after. the question i have is propertied by the letter to poa from palrant
all they have to say is i exhausted all reasonable alternatives the script is written they're trained and coached in that. during is the only time when a good cop has an opportunity to intervene physically is necessary. there is an article i will share with you police intervenes when police officerses use of unlawful force. in the article groez into everything from a verbal response to a hand on the shoulder to some action not just report after the incident and after the person died after the funeral. in the moment a police officer some of them in the union act like they're not trained to deal with crisis most of us understand the streets we
understand that things happen and the training you go into the immediacy of what happens includes the immediacy of intervening and responding and stopping that lethal force so the interpretation when things are reasonable are so subject to prior conditioning they get up have a bad day have an an argument with a spouse the kids got kicked out of school the car is not running well they're loaded on caffeine and going on patrol what do you expect? officers can be helped to understand that. right now it's useless to report it after the funeral. >> thank you. next speaker. good eveni
evening. >> hi. i'm john jones doing it from the comments forgive my remarks if they're unkien the representatives of the police officer is that general order was not severable. in my upon to have a bunch of lawyers like yourselves try 5 different times to get an un cliernt to waive uncollective bargaining rights. i think there's a breach of trust are you responsible for it i would like to confer what you did tonight i don't know what is up and what is down i presume newspapers will be report on it tomorrow. >> thank you. next speaker. good
evening. welcome. >> commissioner loftus commissioners my name is ken. i'm an associate with morgan louis here representing the blue ribbon panel in the community stakeholders in the drafting of previous versions in version 2 and 2 a. the version 3 discussed by the commission have substantial improvements and raise many of the concerns and the blue ribbon panel over the course of this process 1 remaining concern of the panel relates to portable use of force where is a different use of force despite that we believe it
represents the substantial improvements and the commission should move forward with 3 amended this evening. we strongly believe there should be no revisiting upon shall and mandatory language dees ka leaking principles and the robust data collection given there is widespread agreement on those issues we hope that leads to an expa dieted meet and confer but should not be revisited. while the draft of version 3 is new we echo what president loftus said. it's not new and reflects months of discussions. we appreciate the hard work of the occ the various stakeholders on this process looking forward with the
commission with the use of force. >> i know you studied different versions at length. and give us different oneses what is the greatest version compromise from stakeholders 2a to 3. >> i think it's done with the bar association with occ they can answer that question more effectively than i could. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comment? it's closed. >> i want to say to the blue ribbon we have been working on this language for months. a lot of the language has stayed the same the consensus is in terms of the policy is fair to both parties and transparent you ask.
>> when you asked the other stakeholders he was not allowed to tell you is that a law you are not aware of. >> i can talk to you about that offline. thank you sir. public comment is now closed commissioner hwang. this is the last 1. then that is it public comment will be closed after this gentlemen. >> i just wanted to -- >> nothing go i have done that myself go ahead. >> 1 of the issues around the meet and confer is the police officers association won't be
able to effect that process the commissioner have effected policy in that process rather than just safety concerns and a think a lot of the community is concerned at the degree to which the police officer association gets to effect policy in the first place. >> thank you for your comments commissioner hwang? >> my question is to mrs. marianne or tran. version three is a compromise. what issues if any did the stakeholders give up between 2a and 3.
>> i don't think we did not give up anything we felt we needed to die on the hill for. what i wanted to say in terms of the process is the poa came to the table with good faith a big part of what i'm doing with the bar association now with chief chaplain looking at different departments in terms of what is happening 1 of the most important things i have learned with implementation of officer buy in. if you don't have officer buy in at some point you get serious bad reaction we thought it was important to bring them to the table they learned from us. we learned from them. that 80% we agreed upon is
still very much there. i'm not sure it can be stated in this form. i'm confident given the conversations in the hallway it's still there and we operated in good faith. we're good with the 80% and so are they. >> i want to thank you for being here for hours and hours it's a fact. you gave us agreement on -- i almost cursed almost everything and that left us with the ability you see we moved through it. thank you. the fact that you came back got in the room and allowed us to get to where we are tonight. i want to thank all of you . >> it's not just us that worked on it i think it's all of you the community. we started thinking about women and women's
anatomy a lot of things that the community raised it's been that process and the patience we have all had it is a process you can't rule these out quickly and i want to make sure the training comes with this policy is the most critical it needs to be communicated all the way down the line 1 of the things the poa was most helpful with is creating language that would be understandable to the officers and they would reck myself and redably embrace that is a place they educated us that is where we had a lot of good work together. >> just to your point each part of the process led to the next part of the process . >> absolutely. >> there are a lot of folks that thought we were never get to this point. >> we couldn't do this 6 months
ago i think we got here. thank you. >> thank you mrs. tran. i feel a sense of responsibility for the process. we started it in december this is a messy way of doing thing the concept of transparency is something we're endeavoring to enact in every way we can having an open discussion of policy we did it with body camera line by line and people ask questions you find out where folks are at. i want to say to the extent this process is messy i'm happy to explain where we are i will do my best to tell you where we are to take a vote. we have had
significant change to the use of force in the past 6 months in the last 2 months doj community feedback comment we had versions that ended up here in version 3. that version reflects i think there is an 80% agreement while the part of me would like to lock everything in. i would like to have gotten that closed out. i understand there is a sense 80% going through the process is agreed upon the 20% we have clarified tonight this body is going to vote on it. i believe that as much as the result we end up with the process we end up with is as important. the fact that we have folks from various coalition from the bar association and blue ribbon panel the frisco 5 members of
the police association if there is anything that is going to make lasting sustained change in this city i have a different perspective from everyone else i look at this and know this is what it's going to take it's messy with that colleagues before we take a vote commissioner hwang. >> a friendly amendment to version 3. the amendment is we offer in the same process if approved designate the contact person to follow through with the meet and confer process i would nominate san marianne or julie tran or some combination with that. if they're willing to continue to follow through the meet and confer process. >> i think that's a fantastic idea. and i will definitely
support season marianne. we have to have discussion with her. >> i wouldn't couple that. if you want to make a recommendation separately . >> would we have to vote on it? >> i think so. >> we have to schedule for the next meeting to vote on it. [multiple speakers] i want to make sure they have 1 of our expert subject matter people available. >> let's designate mrs. tran and mrs. marianne. >> [speaking off the mic].
>> rehope to follow with director hicks and make it available. >> [inaudible] can you define or vote on the amendment? >> deposition attorney lisa you can rule on your rules of order i don't give an opinion on that. >> i'm okay to with draw it as long as we calendar it for the next meeting. >> any further discussion on this item? sergeant kill shaw call the vote. >> on the motion to accept the draft dgo501 version 3 commissioner loftus how do you vote? >> yes vice president turman how do you vote? yes. commissioner marshall how do you vote? >> yes. >> commissioner dejesus how do you vote. >> yes commissioner mazzucco how
do you vote? >> yes commissioner hwang? >> yes. >> commissioner melara how do you vote? >> yes. >> the motion passes 7-0. [applaus [applause]. >> all right. thank you everyone who stayed so long we're almost done we're not. we still have a whole other item. what do we have? sergeant please call the next line item. >> firms that are qualified to conduct this type of work for the city and received one proposal (discussion and possible action).
>> i would like to welcome back nikki callahan we have an acting chief of police currently this role by charter is to handing the process interviewing candidates for the permanent position and forwarding that onto the mayor and we would offer up to 3 i think it says candidates the mayor can select from those or say i don't like any of them and it can go back. part of what we have done thus far is i had an initial conversation with director callahan around options with a recruiting firm we have 1 that expressed interest we're here on the commission to discuss that
direction in that firm or others might have other suggestions i think we want to do everything we can to do the best we can with that director callahan. >> good evening. i will try to be concise. dh has a role we have a recruitment firms to recruit high level con dates we're is cysting to help the airport and a number of other departments with recruitments some commissions will decide to handle it without a recruiter. the majority use a recruiter it's the best way to get what we call pass candidates those that are not necessarily looking for work or file of people that are good candidates and encourage them to apply. going from not using a recruiter to the full nuts and bolts proposal where
you can have them do almost everything under your direction dhr if you do facilitate the recruiter the contracting process we have the prequalified pool there are a few things we would do that are supportive for example i require my assistant to help with the department head interviews brings them in and sets up the skype all that. we post them on our website. the solicitation we did i call soup to nuts i want you to source candidates for me and we will decide the ones we want to interview we don't need you to vet them for example. this chart attempts to list the major steps for recruitment. what i tried to show here is that a number of
hinges have to happen if they're not done by the police commission staff. they need to be done, somebody's got to do them. dhr is posting the job and working on the job offer aufb we would support the commission however we could. what i neglected to put on the list is the background prosets says that is a piece we need to get set up i started looking at how that could be done. the solicitation and the company elected not to bid on that portion of it we asked for the resources we talked to we contacted the city and attorney general for obvious reasons we don't have them do their own on their own chief. we do have a bid from the ralph anderson firm
from the director they sent me samples i think 2 years ago they did the oakland recruitment and nothing is quite as large. i don't know if you can blame anything that is going on in oakland. >> [inaudible]. >> the last time rehad recruitment i'm aware of that since i have been in this position and we used from sacramento i think it was mury 10 or 8 years ago george was selected and chief sir is selected it was posted and not a recruiter used depending on whether sending out the solicitation responding to the nationwide search which implies
you will do more than post it my recommendation is if the interested in looking far and wide for the best candidate you want to help beyond the commission staff you have. >> our commission staff is awesome. there is 2 of them. if you are here tonight you know how things we have on our agenda and follow up on. to end run this we do not have a staff that can move the reform agendas forward that will kill them. i would want them to stay alive. i think that we need to get resources and i think this is a fair proposal to do that. i also think i just want to say that part of what people in san francisco want to see is we have a recruiting firm not just people looking for a job but people that might not have
thought about this but would be a good fit whatever candidates we say these are the best across the nation and what we're looking for. i would think -- i would recommend -- yeah. i would recommend from the recruiting perspective and the support in the process i would entertain a motion. >> [speaking off the mic]. >> absolutely. recruitment firms there are none that are specifically law enforcement firms we ask them to show
experience in law enforcement recruiting whether you think it's sufficient i don't know. the question about using prequalified they have to meet the city's contractor requirements it's a lot faster to use ones that are prequalified. if you found a firm you wanted pho use which is not prequalified they have to use not to use prop cal hardwood and sweatshops and important things in northern ireland they have to prove benefits equal compliance in my experience that takes 3-4 months to get compliance. >> there is an aspect to this too or wanting to get out there and move and i think the sooner we have permanence around the
chief, the better that would be my thought. >> i think you are right. i was surprised we got 1 bid i thought everybody want to recruit a police chief i was wrong. the other option i wanted to point out if the commission is interested in something less than the soup to nuts we can go through the process a second time with a scaled down version or something -- i also believe that in the conversation with the bidder we could say we want to do it this way instead it would be under the direction of the commission whether you want to have the entire commission that all of the resumes are just the top 10 or all the commission wants to be in all of the interviews that is all your decision. >> i would look at the resumes . >> most commissions usually have a sub committee do some of that work p front.
>> i heard that and did that so here's where we are. and everybody is very concerned who the chief of police matters a lot to people we will keep going if there are areas we can move to a sub committee we can do that first. we got to keep moving this would be subject to a vote. i would entertain a motion to approve the bid. second? we got a second. we need to take public comment before we vote on this. any public comment on this matter? hearing or seeing none, public comment is closed. the only other thing i would say about this colleagues we will have to work with this firm on the community process. and how the areas of the communities can way in. what are
we looking for? we have to tell the recruiter what to go find over the next few weeks we have to figure out community conversations to go out and have conversations we can agendize that for next week. >> sergeant -- not next week. next time we're together. and maybe by then we can get a presentation from a recruiter and start that process. okay. sergeant. call roll. >> yes. on the motion to approve the bid from the ralph anderson firm. commissioner loftus how do you vote? >> yes. >> votes yes. vice president turman how do you vote? >> no. >> vice president turman votes
of equipment he has called a radio mike. i think 40% of the business is mental illness. this will help. we also need to have a new team the crisis intervention team. equal to the police and in numbers. this is the next step then we need to find the place to put these people again safe homes the hospital safe rooms we need to coordinate them off the streets. picking police. i believe that 10 year veterans that have not fired a gun should be involved with picking the people that want to recruit. they should have a lunch with them. go to a firing squad with hem. members of the police force with that seniority can say these people
are good these are bad we should work with these people. there is a lot we need to do. again, we need to take the guns off the police belts i would like the police to start a training session for that how that works thank you. >> thank you for staying. any further general public comments? welcome back. >> david again. i just want to thank you for reaching the unanimous vote you did on our 5.01 use of force. that is good progress. all of the hard work community meetings all that abuse you had to suffer too with things people yelling and carrying on it worked out you came ut with a good agreement i think meet and confer will go well they have a document handed
>> everyone deserves a bank account. in san francisco, anyone can have a bank account, things to an innovative program, bank on s.f. >> everyone is welcome, even if you are not a citizen or have bad credit to qualify for a bank account is simple. just live or work in san francisco and have a form of id. >> we started bank on s.f. six years ago to reach out to folks in the city who do not have a bank account. we wanted to make sure they know they have options which should be more low-cost, more successful to them and using
chat catchers. >> check cashing stores can be found all over the city, but they're convenient locations come with a hidden price. >> these are big. >> i remember coming in to collect -- charged a fee to collect a monogram. >> people who use check catchers, particularly those who use them to cash their paychecks all year long, they can pay hundreds, even a thousand dollars a year just in fees to get access to their pay. >> i do not have that kind of money. >> i would not have to pay it if i had a bank account. >> bank accounts are essential. they keep your money saved and that helps save for the future. most banks require information that may limit its pool of qualified applicants. encouraging to turn to costly
and unsafe check captures. >> i do not feel safe carrying the money order that i get home. >> without a bank account, you are more vulnerable to loss, robbery, or theft. thankfully, the program was designed to meet the needs of every kind, so qualifying for a bank account is no longer a problem. even if you have had problems with an account in the past, have never had an account, or are not a u.s. citizen, bank on s.f. makes it easy for you to have an account. >> many people do not have a bank account because they might be in the check system, which means they had an account in the past but had problems managing it and it was closed. that gives them no option but to go to a cash -- check catcher for up to seven years. you want to give these people second chance. >> to find account best for you, follow these three easy steps.
first, find a participating bank or credit union. call 211 or call one of our partner banks or credit unions and ask about the bank on s.f. account. both -- most bridges will have a sign in their window. second, ask about opening an account through bank on s.f.. a financial partner will guide you through this process and connect you with the account that is best for you. third, bring some form of identification. the california id, for an id, or your passport is fine. >> now you have open your account. simple? that is exactly why it was designed. you can access your account online, set up direct deposit, and make transfers. it is a real bank account. >> it is very exciting. we see people opening up second accounts. a lot of these people never had account before. people who have problems with
bank accounts, people without two ids, no minimum deposit. we are excited to have these people. >> it has been a great partnership with bank on s.f. because we are able to offer checking, savings, minimarkets, certificates, and loans to people who might not be about to get accounts anywhere else. even if you have had a previous account at another financial institutions, we can still open an account for you, so you do not need to go to a check cashing place, which may turn to two percent of your monthly income. >> you can enroll in free educational services online. just as it -- visit sfsmartmoney.org. with services like financial education classes and one-on-one meetings with advisers, asset smart money network makes it easy for you to learn all you need to know about managing,
saving, investing, and protecting your money. the network offers access to hundreds of financial aid programs. to help their eruptions, fill out the quick questionnaire, and you will be steered to the program you are looking for. >> who want to make sure everyone has the chance to manage their money successfully, keep their money safe, and avoid getting ripped off. >> it sounds very good. i think people should try that one. >> to find out more, visit sfsmartmoney.org or call 211 and ask about the bank on s.f. program. >> now you can have a bank account. open one today.
species, but i sing a womans song mptd i am a woman, i am a artist and i know where my voice belongs. i said, i am a endangered species, but i sink no victim song. i am a woman, i am a artist, i know where my voice belongs. i am a woman, [inaudible] but not [inaudible] my skin is dark, by body is strong, i sing of rebirth but no victim song. say, i am a endangered species, but i sing no victim song. i am a woman, you are a woman, we are [inaudible] and we know where our voices belong. [applause]
i am absolutely delighted tobe here this morning to electrify the air in the first ever bay area womans summit. i cannot say enough of the importance of gathering together, wem squn men gathering to harning the power of energy and expertise. thank you to mayor lee and mayor schaaf for their bold vision and resolve to make a difference in the lives of women and families in their cities. we know when it comes to making a distance a conversation is nesidary but not sufficient. so, what will our individual and collective action be after today? we do things to make sure that we pull each other up. what will we do to make sure that womans lives are not endangered? how will we pull each other up?
when you get to the top the mountain, pull the next one up, then there will be two of you roped together at the waist tiered and proud knowing the mountain and the human force it took to bring both of you there. when the second one has finished taking in the view, satisfied by the heat and pres operation under the wool, let her pull the next one up. man or woman climb of mountains, pull the next hand over the last jagged rock to become 3. two howing what they have seen and knowing the wellbeing with being finished with one mountain. being able to look out a long toward other mountains, feeling a victory as if mountains were human toys to
own. when you ask how high is the mountain with compugz to know where you stand in relation to other peeps look down where you came up and set the rope tied to the waist and tied to the next mans waist and tie today the next womans waist and the first womans waist and pull the rope. nevermine the flags you see flapping and don't waste time scrapping encryptions because you are the stone it lf. each man and woman of the mountain, each breath exhaled at the peak, each glad i made it, here is my hann, hand, each heart beat wrapped around the skin of the sun bright sky. each [inaudible] craft can laughter. each embrace and cloud that holds everyone in momentitary doubt, these are instrictions
of a human force that can conquer congering, hand over hands pull thg rope next man up, next woman up, sharing a place, sharing a vision. there is room enough for all on the mountain peaks. there is force enough for all to hold all the hanging bodies dangling in the deep recesses of the mountain belly steady until they have the courage. until they know the courage and understand the only courage there is, is to pull the next man up. pull the next woman up! pull the next up! up, up. thank you so much. lets have a great day. [applause] >> please welcome to the [inaudible] todays summit 5 time emmy award jrntest the host of kqed news room
[inaudible] >> well, hello there. thank you wanda for the inspaigzal song and words, she was fantastic! [applause] good morning to all of you, how are you? that's look warm, how are you? [applause] now, that sounds more like a sold out crowd of nearly 1500 attending today. woo hoo! we are so glad you could be here today and be a part the excitement we have about powerful conversations that move forward. i'm haun urd to be your mc. we have a amazing program with inspiring speakers who are passionate and on the leading edge of gender equity.
i came here from vietnam not kneing a word of english, lichbed in a couple refugee camps before endsing in minnesota before ending in california. along the way so many helped us. it about all us working together and helping to lift each other up. this conference today is all about you. all of you and how we can join this conversation and this movement. we want to encourage you to share your voice, connect with amazing people here today and help us build a movement. does that sound good? ! alright. if you have not already done so, we encourage you to download our event app, bay area womeen it is free from the app store. i will kick things off by taking a picture of all of you,
everybody smile. you will be all over social media. i have 5,000 friends on facebook. you will all be my best new friends. to formally open join welcoming our host the leaders who inspired the convening of men and women to focus on the every woman, welcome the mayor of san francisco, edwin lee and mayor of oakland, libby schaaf! [music] >> good morning everyone! well to the bay area's first womans summit. i'm glad you are all here today and honored and proud to cohost the summit with a incredible leader the may r of oakland, libby schaaf.
[applause] we discussed this opportunity to convene this bay area womans summit when she first became mayor. we wanted to improve economic and social conditions in the cities and region to make sure we remain leaders in equality. are you excited to hear from all our speakers today? i sure am. we know it is a incredible time for women. nationally, we have a feminist as president of the united states. these are his words, not mine. i think we can all agree he stands by his word. his very first legislation signed inoffice with lily ledbetter fair pay act of 2009 and affordable care act supports working and low income
women and families and supported smart women to areas of government, to the cabinet and bench and highest court and honored to have one of his members here today with us, valerie jarrett. today we have a inspiring woman as presidents candidate for major party. and i will continue to support her all the way to the white house as our first female president of the united states! [applause] in the bay area we have always been at the forfront of social change, so it is no surprise san francisco led the way can guaranteed parental leave, sick leave and affordable health care. we also raised minimum wage to one of the most progressive in the nation to share in the
prosperity of the region and created college savings accounts for all the san francisco public school student for k through college program. all of this insures that women have more rights in the work place and are betting positioned to succeed. throughout my time in san francisco government, i fought and strengthened legislation so women can obtain more city contracts. when the bay area hosted superbowl 50, mayor schaaf and i made sure the women and minority owned businesses received contracts that benefited their small businesses and our regional non prufts service women and minorities received funds fl superbowl 50 fund. in the early days as a young civil rights attorney i sued the sate and county of san francisco to make sure women and communities of color were able to join forces in our fire department.
today we now have a woman leading the largest fire department in the nation, our fire chief, joanne hayes white who is here with us today. [applause] in our cities government workforce, 58 percent of our over 30,000 employees are women chblt we have womeens holding some the highest offices in the city including city administrator, fire chief, department of emergency manenment director, public health director, port director, dreblter of environment and director of human resources and so many more. we are the first city in the nation to created a department on the status of women. thank you mayor, willie brown for your forsite and leadership creating this very important department and thank you to our director emily mur
aussy for your commitment to women everywhere. [applause]. we have a vibrant healthy mothers workplace coalition which is partnership across several city departments, businesses and community organizations. the coalition promotes family friendsly workplace policies and supports all san francisco employeeers who want to help parents achieving work life balance. in my personal life and home i'm surrounded by strong women. my wife anina and tonia and bianna, therefore i have a porent responsibility to keep san francisco in the forfront of gender equality. i'm reminded every day we have achieved a lot, we have even more to do. yes, we are living in a incredible time for women. women everywhere are shattering the glass ceiling,
but need to make sure all women with fully par ticipate in the ocanomies and communities and family. when women succeed, our world moves forward! [applause] so, on too many fronts whether it equal pay, financial literacy, implicit bi ish traineringing or affordable childcare we are falling short. i put a spotlight on the progress we made but more importantly the work to be done. throughout the day we want to hear from all of you about the actions that we can take to solve the challenges that we face. so, please give your feedback to the polls and discussions and as mayor schaaf and i always say, working together, we can solve any
problem. so, to kick this off, mayor libby schaaf and i will do acephaly with you in the back ground and push this to the social media frenzy. come on libby, you got the tech smart. there we go, alright! [applause]. and please find it at the hash tag bay area women. we have an excited day, enjoy the summit and let me introduce my partner of the summit, the mayor of oakland, mayor libby schaaf. [applause] >> good morning! well, it is really my honor and i really want to acknowledge that this
summit was mayors lee idea. i said i don't know about you but i'm busy and don't have time for a network event cht this is about action so i ask as we kboe fl to day, you do 3 things. first, we all know what the obvious issues are. things like equity and pay or access to small business capital. let's stop just talking about them, by the end othf day i want you to do something about one of these issues. one thing i'll do is make a loan to a small woman owned business today. i will do that before the end of the day. it is small thing but it is something i can directly do to address what i think is such a obvious disparity. the second thing i ask you to do today, is really look to uncover the less obvious gender based problemsment when mayor
lee and i cochaired a campaign earlier in the year to put minimum wage on the california ballot, both the cities adopted our own minimum wages but want to do it for the whole state of california, we recognize minimum wage seems like a gender neutral issue roughly 2/3 of californias minimum wager earners are women. hay are women. a vast majority of them support children. and so, let's uncover the less obvious issues. the other one that has been deep on my mind latey is issue of a toxic macho culture. i had two tweetable moments this month-[applause] let us not applaud for the toxic macho culture. boo! hiss! i had
two tweetable moments over the last month, one was defending my fine city of oakland when the presumptium republic nominee referred to oakland as one of the most dangerous place in the world and said the most dangerous place in america is donald trumps mouth. [applause] and then just last friday, i had to expr >> okay, good evening
everybody welcome back to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee for june 22, 2016. we are reconvening we have items number two and three on the agenda. right now, we have supervisor cohen has been inserted as a committee vice-chairman. replacing supervisor tang temporarily. colleagues, we want to do is go into recess. will be reconvening until tam >> you contend it continue these items to tomorrow's meeting >> okay. colleagues, motioned them to continue this will take public comment. and you one wish to comment on on items two and three seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> a motion to continue items two and three june 23 we pick moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> any other business in front of us >> no other business >> thank you, everybody. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment]
special technology projects for the depth of the technology a passion for helping people and a passion for doing work that makes a difference and makes me feel good at night and i think about what i did today and helping every single person in the city as. >> a technology professional a need for more women and more women in leadership roles the diversity and the leadership pipeline is an area that needs a little bit of love. >> a lot of love. >> a whole lost love. >> i'll contribute for the change for women's equality by showing up and demonstrating that the face of success schizophrenia came come in a variety of corresponds. >> they're a lot of roadblocks for san francisco when it comes
to our proposition and finding a play for information that has how to start and grow management so we started to build the san francisco business portal not just consults or the taxpayers and voters they're actually customers we are the government serving the consumers in our neighborhood i point to at least one best that i personally touched with one way or another and makes me feel good about the projects like the business portal and in embarking on this new exciting journey of finding better and efficient ways to deliver services to san franciscans i sit through a lot of senior management meetings i'm the only woman in the room i know that
our c i o is tried to recruit for women and a male dominated environment. >> i've felt unbounded and inspired to pursue a lot of things over time i recognize to be cricked in ways i didn't anticipate you know i've followed the calling but now put me in a position to spend most of my time doing things i love this is the whole point; right? you ought to feel inspired in our work and found opportunities to have you're work put you in service for others and happy doing what you're spending so much time. >> my father was a journalist lift and my mom a teacher when
we finally decided to give up their lives because of me and now i actually get to serve the city and county of san francisco it makes me feel really, really good not this didn't happen overnight i've worked my entire life to get to this point and much more to learn and i have a lot of changes ahead. >> really think about what moves you what you're pat's about and trust that you are sufficient and enough where you are to begin and then is her that you are being tenacious about getting to the next place in the evolution but by all means start with you are and means start with you are and know that's enough
i was just driving around minding my own business... when it came out of nowhere. suddenly, there were lights all around me. i'm like, "they're coming for me!" yeah, it was crazy. i just never thought they'd find me. not out here. it doesn't matter where you drive. if you don't buckle up, you will get caught. cops are cracking down all across the country. click it or ticket.
>> welcome to the epic center did you know you may be eligible for a 3 thousand redefeat beating he'll learn about the stay safe program hi, everybody i'm patrick chief resigns director for the city and county of san francisco welcome to another episode of stay safe i'm here with jennelle for the california earthquake authority she'll talk about brace and bolt good to see you. >> earthquake brace and bolt
the first incentive program of california mitigation program as jointly managed by the earthquake authority and the california gvrnz of department of emergency services. >> and what is the mission. >> brace and bolt is $3,000 up to a homeowner that retrofits the equivalent in a single-family. >> we're down owe epic center the public demonstrates we've built a mock house so i don't in the take a look at it and and show you what we're talking about we're in a model house in the epic center to demonstrate a variety of things jen i will i want to focus on the portion of the house and tell us how brace and bolts help to keep the home safe. >> this is a particular foundation and that mockup shows the first floor right here and, of course, this one is the
concrete foundation and this short wall that is in between those two you're first floor and the concrete foundation is called a cripple it is a short wall this is a particular vunltd in 0r8d homes they're designed before metamorphic coddling codes and will slide off the foundation. >> if you come to my home look at the previous work. >> so see if any anchor bolts between the wood and this mud and concrete foundation that is a collar bolt. >> what if i don't have enough space power a think collar bolt and we have foundation plates made by a company where a flat plate that is bolted to the concrete foundation and screwed into this flat mechanism. >> if i applied to a bolt what
is a it coffer what type of work should you do in my hope. >> up to $3,000 funding with the collar bolts or foundation plates and plywood up to the top of the short triple wall that going around. >> what are the tips. >> you want to make sure the capital improvement plan emancipation proclamation he will the short wall is less than 4 feet tall you'll use the provision to adopt it to the city of san francisco so a contractor can use that. >> so if i have a typical house over a garage and did that quality for the program. >> that would qualify for the program you need an engineer to design the riefrt it is not specific for that kind of house it is really they're looking for short cripple walls maybe a
couple of steps up. >> so jen i will if i want to find out more information. >> earthquake brace as a society we've basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good
food and our parent cooked this is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over
teaching them basic ways to fix good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night
life diners. >> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our
choice about you many times this is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased.
>> i go for vera toilet so someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie
wasn't taught how to cook. >> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to
keep it that. >> we'll have our new headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out
figure out and find the future for all right. on 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 you innovation on or was on over 200 years they went through extensive innovations to the existing green new metal gates were installed our the perimeter 9 project is funded inform there are no 9 community opportunity and our capital improvement plan to the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood it allows the residents and park advocates like san franciscans to make the matching of the few minutes
through the philanthropic dungeons and finished and finally able to pull on play on the number one green a celebration on october 7, 1901, a skoovlt for the st. anthony's formed a club and john then the superintendent the golden gate park laid out the bowling green are here sharing meditates a permanent green now and then was opened in 1902 during the course the 1906 san francisco earthquake that citywide much the city the greens were left that with an ellen surface and not readers necessarily 1911 it had the blowing e bowling that was formed in 1912 the parks
commission paid laying down down green number 2 the san francisco lawn club was the first opened in the united states and the oldest on the west their registered as san francisco lark one 101 and ti it is not all fierce competition food and good ole friend of mine drive it members les lecturely challenge the stories some may be true some not memories of past winners is reversed presbyterian on the wall of champions. >> make sure you see the one in to the corner that's me and. >> no? not bingo or scrabble but the pare of today's competition two doreen and christen and beginninger against robert and
others easing our opponents for the stair down is a pregame strategy even in lawn bowling. >> play ball. >> yes. >> almost. >> (clapping). >> the size of tennis ball the object of the game our control to so when the players on both sides are bold at any rate the complete ends you do do scoring it is you'll get within point lead for this bonus first of all, a jack can be moved and a
or picked up to some other point or move the jack with i have a goal behind the just a second a lot of elements to the game. >> we're about a yard long. >> aim a were not player i'll play any weighed see on the inside in the goal is a minimum the latter side will make that arc in i'm right-hand side i play my for hand and to my left if i wanted to acre my respect i extend so it is arced to the right have to be able to pray both hands. >> (clapping.) who one. >> nice try and hi, i'm been play lawn bowling affair 10 years after he retired i needed something to do so i picked up
this paper and in this paper i see in there play lawn bowling in san francisco golden gate park ever since then i've been trying to bowl i enjoy bowling a very good support and good experience most of you have of of all love the people's and have a lot of have a lot of few minutes in mr. mayor the san francisco play lawn bowling is in golden gate park we're sharing meadow for more information about the club including free lessons log >> good afternoon everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisor's meeting for tuesday, june 21, 2016.