Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 12, 2018 6:00am-7:01am PDT

6:00 am
>> supervisor yee: is there, in regards to -- i love to talk about childcare centres, but i won't this time, in regards to city-wide question, but again, we're adding quite a few residential, so any discussions about schools, public schools or how we're going to actually be part of the solution? >> thank you for asking that question. we have been working very diligently for the last year or plus with the school district to help them and the city at large understand the growth and enrollment in the school district. as you know, enrollment has been rising in recent years. when we started this plan, it was close to its lowest point in decades, but that has turned around. with this growth, as well as other growth, the school
6:01 am
district is assessing how and when it might need to add new facilities. there is a site that the school district owns in mission bay close to central soma across from mission creek that has over $50 million of construction funds to help to build and that will serve central soma in the near term. beyond that, we're working with the school district and bringing other resources to help discuss what resources might be made available to look for additional sites if needed that the school district might need in the future, to land bank those, and to pore through the data to understand when and where additional school facilities might be needed. >> supervisor kim: i wanted to respond to your question. in regard to open space, i now you have heard me, but district 6 has the smallest and fewest
6:02 am
parks of the city, so open space was a key part of the discussion. however, in talking to constituents, there is hesitancy around building more parks, without ensuring that there is the funding for the maintenance and security and the new parks don't become blight in the new neighborhoods. there has been a push from a lot of our residents to actually build upon the existing parks we have. if you notice the central soma fees, a lot of them go toward building up the rec center, which is the only rec center in the south of market. and it is undergoing major capital plan, where we can build up the rec center to increase recreational capacity by building additional floors on site. there will also be a rec center that is part of a deal with one of the key sites. this was mentioned by ms. chen.
6:03 am
this will be the first new swimming pool -- in fact the only swimming pool that will be built in the south of market and it will also include a kid-learning pool for young children. and so there are plans to build more parks and honestly many of our residents are hesitant about the new parks even being included in the plan, so we're really pushing the neighborhood on accepting the new parks. there is going to be a considerable obligation expected both office of residential developers into terms of the open space they provide in the plan. and finally, a greater investment in the rec center and the gardens. i want to appreciate your point about how do we specifically leverage within the public spaces that the city is building
6:04 am
or the spaces that are private -- developer sponsors are building that children-friendly facilities are built as well. that's something i'll figure out how to insert more concrete language as we amend the finally on the schools issue, our office is going to be reaching out to the school district about how to obligate any school fees to be limited to the south of market. that's not something we can do here at the board of supervisors, it's something we need to ask the board of education to do, so if we need help on advocacy, i will reach out to your office, supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: ok.
6:05 am
i have a question -- i guess one of the things mentioned was who decides how to use the money. and i guess that's a good question, who would decide and whether or not it has to be put into this legislation or not in regards to, for instance, one of the amendments was on the -- i'm sorry i don't have it on the benefit district, i guess. or the new taxes or new fees. who decides how to spend that? [laughter] like the 49ers over
6:06 am
there. >> so as mentioned in part of the presentation, we're trying to learn from how other area plans have addressed this same issue of programming funds that are generated by the plan, as well as public oversight, so that gets into the fee discussion as well. but in terms of what we're proposing through this plan, that that's formalized in the public benefits document. there is a description of the implementing agency as well as the kind of capital planning agency, that would be responsible for this. so the intention is with the special tax district, in particular, it would come under the purview of the capital planning office as well as the office of public finance, so they would be the responsible agencies for essentially developing the proposal for how the funds are spent and bringing
6:07 am
that to the board for approval. they would be apprised by the committee that works mostly with impact fees, so this would be adding to their duties. please stand by.
6:08 am
-- so i think that's important. in term of the administrative code in terms of the special tax, i'd like to ask a few questions about that. you named some additional categories, but what are some of the existing categories that those are being added to in terms of what can be -- the tax revenues can be spent on? oh, we have someone new. all right. >> morning, supervisors, chris lynch, counsel on this project. the purpose of the administrative code amendments is the community facilities act.
6:09 am
in general, the law allows the financing of real or personal property with a useful life of five years or longer. if it's publicly owned and is a facility with the life of five years, it can be financed. the process is identified for community facilities district or a special tax district. the board of supervisors adopts them and lists them. >> there was a list that you said -- recreation, p.d.r., affordable housing. how does that fit into what you described. >> this is amending the special tax financing law to allow things that the melruse does not allow. the board of supervisors will
6:10 am
consider an intention to form and attach as an exhibit will be two categories of special tax uses. one, a list of capital facilities. secondly, a list of ongoing services that will be paid from annual taxes. >> i know there's a lot of conversation around p.d.r. and one of the things, the stated goals, is that any p.d.r. that's demolished will be replaced and then there's a gap, so what do you do with that space? thinking about the creative ways that you can use this money. so i wanted to hear this a little bit more because that's specifically in front of us today, the special tax revenue and how it can be used. and then i have another question. >> to clarify, while p.d.r. preservation and ensuring no net loss is part of the benefits
6:11 am
package, it's not funded by the special tax district. >> cannot be funded at all? >> it will be through new development. large office projects, certain size over 50,000 large cap threshold. 45% of the ground floor will be allowed for p.d.r. on top of that, proposition x, planning code 202.8, which requires replacement of p.d.r. in all types of uses, residential and nonresidential. >> supervisor safai: okay. that's good. i had another thought. oh, just kind of going back to t the bay with@ supervisor yee say and how the money should be localized to the area it's created for. i think that's an important conversation. any time we have peripheral concerns as much as i want to support new schools and so on if they're not within the area plan, i think that they should
6:12 am
not be considered. i think this money should be localized to other comments that were made. i think that's really important. but the other conversation is when you are generating this revenue -- and i understand hindsight is 20/20 and we'll get into this conversation more in land use, but i think about the idea that when you're creating these special tax districts, you only have one shot. in my point of town, our district, we don't have the opportunity to create a melruse. we will not have an engine of development, so these financing tools need to be utilized to maximize what's in front of us. i see that 10 years down the road we have a plan in front of us. 33,000 plus office but only 8,000 affordable. i get we'll not send it back. i'm in favor of moving it forward, but we need to think about it going forward. this housing crisis didn't just
6:13 am
pop up in the last three or four years. the housing crisis has been going on for decades. i just wonder what the thinking was at the time and inception of the plan and thinking about the housing crisis. i understand fully from a planning perspective, why you want to localize office development. you cannot build 200-feet-tall offices in the sunset. it has to be downtown, where it's transit-rich. i think it's housing, in particular, middle class housing, that you cannot finance any other way, there are limiting financing tools. i just want to hear what some of the history and thought was behind that. >> thank you, supervisor. on the broad topic of the things we can finance with the c.f.d., the -- through the addition of the amendments before you today, the city will have broad
6:14 am
authorization to expand money on tangible capital infrastructure and property as well as on social services and things like grants and nonprofits and other things that can broadly fall under that bucket. so while the plan that's been crafted has the set of funding priorities that would be endorsed by the board to move forward, we would have the legal authorization if in the future we would like to spend some of the funds on support for services that relate to supporting p.d.r. businesses or building p.d.r. buildings if we can rationalize that as a legitimate, public purpose, under the law. so we can legally do that. the package before you, achieves the policy goals using a broad variety of mechanisms, including the direct provision of p.d.r. and affordable housing and so forth, so it's the suite of
6:15 am
these measures. in terms of achieving our housing affordability goals, the broad mandate was to achieve the minimum 33% low and moderate income in -- as a result of the plan. so we're able to achieve that through the mechanisms that didn't include the c.f.d., including our section 415 as well as the jobs, housing, linkage and other -- >> supervisor safai: 33% of 800, right? >> correct. >> supervisor safai: we can talk more at land use. those are my comments. i wanted to clarify. i think p.d.r. is pretty straightforward. any other comments? that was before. okay. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: i would like to make a request to the committee that we refer items 1
6:16 am
and 2 to land use committee. >> supervisor safai: we will do that, so we can have the whole package. anything else? okay. we'll send it to land use on the 16th. july 16, land use. >> supervisor yee: so i can make a motion? >> supervisor safai: without recommendation right now. >> supervisor yee: okay. i will make a motion to send it out of commission without recommendation to land use. >> supervisor safai: on july 16. great. thank you. so moved. thank you, everyone. and thank you for your hard work, to the staff, i meant to start with that. we'll see you again in land use. please call the next item. >> clerk: item 3 to amend the charter of san francisco to adopt a privacy first policy on an election november 6, 2018. >> supervisor safai: maybe we can skip this item -- can we come back to this item?
6:17 am
can you call item 4? i want to make sure that supervisor peskin's office has an opportunity to come for this item. >> clerk: item 4 is a motion approving or rejecting the mayor's nomination for the reappointment of joseph marshall to the police commission for a term ending april 30, 2022. >> supervisor safai: thank you. mr. marshall, please come forward. >> how are you again? >> supervisor safai: good. how are you, sir? >> good. i think i sent everybody some information, once again about my willingness to serve another term on the police commission. i've been calling myself the
6:18 am
commissioner in limbo for the last weeks. i'm glad it's before the rules committee again and hopefully it will go to the full board. i think i spoke last time of the culture that needs to change and the things we have done. i've been part of in the last few years to make that culture change. the things that are still on the table, in particular for me, that i want to contribute and finish. so i'm looking forward to any additional questions that you might have from previous. and i'm ready for them. thank you very much, all of you. >> supervisor safai: checked your head, ready to go, ready to do this? >> yeah. [laughter] >> supervisor safai: just trying to get you to laugh. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: just quickly. how many terms have you served?
6:19 am
how long have you been on the police commission? remind me. >> 14 years. two, four, four, four -- and anyway, adds up to 14. >> supervisor yee: just so that -- in case there are new listeners, remind us -- in 14 years, what were your biggest accomplishmen accomplishments. >> say that again? >> supervisor yee: in the 14 years on the commission, what were one or two of your biggest accomplishments? >> i actually sent you a whole -- but to sum up, looking back on it, one of the early things that i think is important, when i got on the commission, there was a tremendous backlog of cases. and maybe early on, completely new body at that time,
6:20 am
recommissioned after prop h. i have been off for a couple of months, so i haven't seen the latest figures, but we had it down to about 10 cases that have to be resolved. that was a huge, huge move. it took a lot of work with all the commissioners that i served with and also the chiefs i've been able to work with. and i consider that a huge, huge boon to getting the cases down to the relatively few we have now. beyond that, the body cameras, these things happened in the last few years. c.i.t., and then probably it is something we've been working on in the last couple of years, is all the policies with d.o.j., recommendations to d.o.j. that have to be put in place. and we moved post-haste to get
6:21 am
those things done. you know, things have been trending downward, at least the reports that i have had. use of force is down. complain complaints are down. like i say, it a takes a long time to change a culture. and the big thing is that progress is being made. progress is being made. it's not perfect, but that's what we're working on, is to get this -- to make it the model department for the united states. yes, sir. >> supervisor yee: i guess 14 years, so you were here in 2008, the police executive research
6:22 am
forum? >> perf, yes. >> supervisor yee: they recommended a bunch of things. as of today, i guess, how do you -- explain how the commission really stays on top of all these reports and recommendations and what -- there seems to be some outstanding recommendations that haven't been addressed. can you say something about that? >> you are talking about the perf report done back in 2008? >> supervisor yee: right. i guess some of the issues that they highlighted have not been dealt with. >> yeah. i would have to specifically see and take a look at the perf report to see what you are referring to. i know -- although the perf report exists -- and i would have to look at it. that has not come back to the commission table. i don't remember it being at
6:23 am
commission table for a while other things took precedent, especially around the shootings, the chiefs we've had since 2008, hiring new chiefs, hiring new p.a. person. so i cannot specifically answer that question unless i have a look at some of the recommendations that you are talking about. >> supervisor yee: i guess there was an overarching one that asked for a blueprint to follow, in other words, a strategy, to improve the police department and that seems not to have been developed. >> you are talking about a strategic plan for the department? is that what you are talking about? i know we worked on that. i have to see the specific thing you are referring to. >> supervisor yee: okay. let me change direction then.
6:24 am
a lot of us on the board and the public have been focusing on the police department and i assume the commissioners also. in trying to make changes in the police department, whether it's from the d.o.j. or even inte internally and it's been slow. what are the factors that actually causes the sort of slow, cultural change, trying to improve the police department? >> that's interesting. i don't think it's been particularly slow. i think it just takes time to have those things done. there's a whole body of general orders that has to be looked at and scrutinized. one of the things that we're fortunate is that the d.o.j. came to us and asked us to do
6:25 am
collaborative reform. if we did this, it wouldn't have to be a takeover. the structures we have in san francisco, both the police commission and the city government structure that they said, we can do this collaboratively. we don't have to take over. we gave you a whole list of things to work with. they added more things to the list because they wanted to -- they wanted us to be the model. so i actually think that work has gone as quickly as possible and i think we made some major, major changes in the department just in the past three years particularly around use of force, particularly around body cameras, particularly around c.i.t. training. we are moving to implicit bias training. those all of those things are not quick things. it took us a while to get the discipline. a lot of people don't understand
6:26 am
that we do discipline. most police department the chief can fire. our chief cannot fire. he can only recommend discipline. which means all the discipline cases have to come to the commission. so that's why i said, moving that body, that docket, down to the few numbers we have now -- and we have some high-profile cases that take time. so i think all of those factors, i think the commission, with commissions coming and going, and we've done this under a number of chiefs we've had to hire a couple of directors. and people tell me, we meet a lot and do a lot. so i think that the -- while the pace may not have been as fast as folks like, to have lasting change, i think we've gone as rapidly as we could, and we're making, i think, significant process. it's not perfect, but it takes
6:27 am
that long to change the culture. >> supervisor yee: one of the -- actually, one of the regulations that the commission approved was to ban the shooting into moving vehicles. so you created a policy and yet it seems like in the last year or so, there's been several incidents of police officers shooting at moving vehicles. what are your thoughts about that? >> it took a long time to get. we were pretty nonnegotiable at shooting at moving vehicles. there were a lot of challenges, i guess, from -- particularly from the union that said they did not necessarily like that. but we put a blanket policy in place. as those things arise, and i need to know what specific cases you are talking about, they do go back to the chief. they do go back and we launder
6:28 am
them through the policy to see if they're in policy. if they're not in policy, discipline ensues. but i like the rule. i like the zero tolerance rule about shooting into vehicles. i think it has cut down on those incidents, but again, you have to continue the training. we have to continue the selection of officers. and, again, i keep going back to, you are trying to change a mind-set that's been in place for a lot of folks for a long time. as those things come up, i think the commission deals with them fairly effectively. >> supervisor yee: okay. i appreciate your answers. >> supervisor safai: thank you. mr. marshall, i know that you talked a lot about what you have worked on, but what are some of the outstanding issues that you would like to tackle again, just for the record. i know we talked about it last time. what are some of the reasons that you would like to continue on the commission, some of the outstanding work that you said you would like to continue to
6:29 am
work on? >> i work with young people. let's go back to square one. [laughter] i remember when i got appointed, the first thing that mayor newsom asked me, why do you want to be on the commission? i said, my community has enough problems and don't need the police to make them worse, that's what i told him. and i asked him why he wanted me on the commission. he said, because you're fair. so those guided me in my tenure on the commission. quite frankly, young people are involved with police. i'm not a young black man anymore, but i grew up with those issues myself. and i want to have that relationship. there's been a gap traditionally. it's historical. it's exacerbated by incidents here and around the country.
6:30 am
we've seen the incidents pick up in the last few years, everywhere. the cell phone cameras has had a lot to do with that. so it's opened up some raw issues. getting that back, getting that back to a place where, you know, those things are going smoothly as possible. the police are not going anywhere. so we have to make that work. police violence and community violence are the things that i dedicate my life to. i'm a stop-the-violence person. so when i say i see use of force going down, when i say fewer complaints -- and, again, this is happening through constant change in the department. chief fong was there when i started. now chief scott. so, yeah, that's important to me. in fact, people have asked me, do you really want to do this again? i said, yeah, i do, because it
6:31 am
takes a long time. just as it takes time to change the culture of violence in a community, it takes time to change the culture in a police department. so i -- that's what i want to see. there are a couple of things i want to work on, implicit bias was my area. i don't know if they moved it to somebody else in the last few months, but it's my area. that's a new frontier. that's something that has never really been dealt with, the lens that people bring to policing. i know that is what happens at police stopped. there's a lot of latitude. i don't want bias to be a part of that. if there is bias, i don't want it to affect decision-making. that's a big deal for me. and the other thing that is important to me right now is the -- i think we're well aware that we have cases where there are multiple shots fired. and people don't get that.
6:32 am
i don't get that. that's something that i want to hone in on and i don't know if it has to do with weaponry or training, but i want it to be common sense that when there's a shooting that there are not 50 bullets fired. and, thirdly, i understand there's an assembly. i'm hazy on this. that the constitutional standard for police officers is if he or she feels for her life. and i would like to -- i understand there's a bill in the assembly that more mirrors the policy we have now that an officer would use force when it's necessary, totality of circumstances. i think that would aid greatly if we could get that and get that to be the community standard. i think that would go a long way toward use of force when it comes to officer-involved
6:33 am
shootings. >> supervisor safai: thank you. any other questions or comments? thank you, mr. marshall. we'll call you back up if we have any further questions. let's open it up for public comment. any member of the public wish to comment, please come forward. you will have 2 minutes. >> good morning, good afternoon, supervisors. i honestly didn't come to speak on this item here. i came to get my credentials for the big event happening wednesday. london breed. okay. i'm focused. i have my time. i know how to work my time. i'm good at this, like trump. i know how to work the tv. right now, i'm supporting dr. marshall. i knew him when he first came to the police commission. i go back further than he did, but he's doing a wonderful job. i talked to him in fillmore and said, when will you retire? he said, i ain't going to retire
6:34 am
until i change things. i said, you will probably be old and gray. because things won't get changed in my lifetime or your lifetime. we deal with a racist part of the city, the police department. but i admire him for wanting to complete it. i'm ace and i'm on the case and i support him. there are some things that he talked about that we'll talk about later, but i cannot say it in 50 seconds, but i'm here to say it to the city and county of san francisco by the bay, where they think everything's okay. but this year and the next year, you will hear what i got to say. i'm going to start my own tv show. it's called ace. i have 30 seconds. don't mess with me, supervisor. that's what i'm doing this. i started the government channel. you go back and ask them. and i will regain that.
6:35 am
i'm coming back to city hall, back by popular demand. ace on the doggone case, whether you like it or not. people will look at my show and i can talk about you, supervisors, as long as i want. my name is ace and i'm on the case. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> jackie varshack, san franciscans for police accountability. i want to speak in opposition to the reappointment of joe marshall. since his 2004 appointment and during his tenure, san francisco police department has become a rogue agency. and unaccountable. in 2015, it was rated to be the ace city in the country to have
6:36 am
the most officer-involved shootings. the depth of bias that exists in the san francisco police department is great. where has joe marshall been? the reason he could not be held accountable for his record and his accomplishments is because he hasn't accomplished anything on the board. when asked about the cases of officer-involved text messaging has been resolved, he wasn't able to answer. he doesn't respond to the racism, the implicit bias that is within the san francisco police department. he is coming up for reappointment because he believes that he can be the tool of the mayor on the police department and that is to carry out the will of the police officers' association. that's his reason and purpose
6:37 am
for being on the commission. so, lastly, i want to confirm in the many police commission meetings i've attended, he had no courage to speak up against the police officers' association. instead, he is often seen sleeping during meetings. thank you. >> supervisor safai: next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm alexander post. co-chair of the justice committee for the democratic socialists of america. i'm here also in opposition to the reappointment of dr. marshall. while i think his commitment to public service is admirable over the past 14 years, i think some of the things we've heard addressed today highlights some problems. i mean, during that time period, you've had sfpd scandals ranging
6:38 am
fajita-gate to racist text message scandal and, obviously, the officer-involved shootings including the most recent one with the man who was shot in the back in north beach. you know, i heard dr. marshall address the 2008 perf study and mention that it became less of a priority because they had crises come up. that's been the problem with his tenure the last 14 years. it's a police commission, and dr. marshall specifically, addressing crisis-by-crisis, without looking at the reforms that need to be undertaken. he mentioned that they made progress the last three years, and that's admirable. we're talking about a 14-year tenure and problems pointing out for a long time and if we're
6:39 am
just addressing implicit bias when we have so many examples of explicit bias that need addressing, that's also a problem. so, finally, i think 14 years is a good time to serve. it would be good to have a new voice on the commission and a more proactive commission that is not bouncing crisis to crisis, but leading on the reforms necessary for this department. thank you very much for your time. >> supervisor safai: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. my name is demorris evans, chairperson for racial justice committee at the san francisco public defender's office. i'm here to speak out in opposition to the reappointment of joe marshall to the police commission. the racial justice committee has worked tirelessly to try to bring about law enforcement reform here in san francisco. i personally have sat in on a number of executive sponsor
6:40 am
working group meetings with the police department in which mr. marshall has been present. i have yet to actually observe mr. marshall speaking out strongly against the rogue behavi behavior and opposition to law enforcement reform on behalf of the police officers' association, which is the main culprit, which prevents this city from moving forward much more aggressively in law enforcement reform. they're condemning some horrific behaviors on behalf of the police officer association. it's my understanding that dr. marshall or joe marshall receives funding from the police officers' association, which may explain some of his positions in support of tasers, not speaking out against proposition h, and a number of other things that the police officers association has
6:41 am
done, which has essentially prevented effective law enforcement reform here in san francisco. i'm here to speak out against joe marshall and the police commission. it's time for the police commission to be more active in ushering in really 21st century procedures and policies. and his record here is not consistent with that. so i would strongly urge not to support his reappointment. thank you. >> supervisor safai: thank you. any other members wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment's closed. any additional comments from colleagues. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: dr. marshall? >> supervisor safai: dr. marshall, please come back. thank you. >> supervisor yee: i heard something from the last speaker
6:42 am
and i want to give you an opportunity to respond. she mentioned that p.o.a. somehow supports your organization for funding or something? and if that's so, how do you deal with the conflict of interest? >> p.o.a. would support the organization. i think what people are referring to is there's an organization that has a golf tournament and police officers play in the golf tournament and they -- that organization donates money to a scholarship fund for young people to go to college. when that -- that hasn't happened for a few years. however, when that came about, i actually checked with the city attorney to see if that was a
6:43 am
problem. when asked several times, when asked if there's a conflict, they told me no. they told me no. 5 wanted to make sure that it wasn't a problem. police officers want to see young people to go to college. you are invited also to participate and help young people go to college. that's the only thing i can think of. i don't get any money at all. and let me just say something. i've heard this before and i'm not quite sure why. by the time legislation gets to us, the p.o.a. has weighed in, like everybody else, on every single thing. way get a consensus from the p.o.a., from the aclu. everybody buys into everything. we might get something where 5% has now been agreed upon. at that point anyone -- just like here, public comment can come up and say what, in fact, they want to do. they get 3 minutes.
6:44 am
quite frankly, when i good to make the legislation, i look at each thing. i hear from this group. i hear from that group. nobody influences me. let's get that straight. i just want to tell you. nobody influences me. willie brown told me when i got an this thing, he said, the best thing about being on the commission is to be fair and to be impartial. and all i hear in the end is what this group wants, what this group wants, which has to do with a narrow band of things. after speaking out, you know, people make legislation so that -- and let's talk about the p.o.a., where they're given certain rights it do certain things, like put things on the ballot, like negotiating all that is made by the city and county of san francisco. that's their right. they can do that. if people want police commissioners to stand up and do so and so, then i don't think --
6:45 am
that's not -- maybe other commissions want it do that. that's not what i believe i should do. i believe i should be impartial. look at the facts that they come. i'm in discipline. i'm like a juror. i have to be impartial. that's just what i do, period. >> supervisor yee: okay. i just wanted to give you the opportunity to -- >> and by the way, i do not sleep in commission meetings. if you look at the kids, dr. marshall is always in thought. i hold my head down. i listen and see everything. believe me, i could not do any work if i was sleeping. that is completely -- that's just my manner. >> supervisor yee: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor safai: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: just one question. >> and can i say one other
6:46 am
thing? i think it's important that has people that want to support the chief. >> supervisor stefani: to follow up on the opposition that we did here today. just wondering if you would be willing to sit down with them individually? i don't know if they would be. i haven't had that conversation. but would you be willing to talk to people about their concerns. we learn more from the people that disagree with us than the people that agree with us. going forward, i think having the one-on-one conversations are helpful. i don't know if they're willing, but if you are willing, i would like to know that. >> a couple things. i could have packed this room easily. in fact, people asked me -- kids want to come, city people want to come. i said, it's not necessary. i don't believe in that. it's not my thing. i will talk to everybody. all i do is talk to people. i did a radio show last night talking to 200,000 people. i talk to people all the time about issues. i don't have a problem talking
6:47 am
to anybody. if they want to talk, let's talk. >> supervisor safai: any other questions? okay. seeing none, can we entertain a motion or any further conversation? supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: i think one of the reasons why the first go-around a month ago, i guess, the full board had a discussion around the candidates at the time and they didn't -- and the main premise of why we are selecting police commissioners by the mayor at that point and when we know that there will be a new mayor coming in? there are some -- and i think most of us support that notion.
6:48 am
and then mayor farrell, again, just resubmitted, and put us in a situation is, is this what a new mayor would want? so i think we should have an opportunity at full board to see if a new mayor would want this or not. and i -- i would like to make a motion to send this out of committee with no recommendation. >> supervisor safai: we've been joined by supervisor cohen. and i think supervisor cohen wanted to ask some questions. excuse me, president cohen. >> supervisor cohen: all right. good after than, everybody. i thought it was only fair that i come to the rules committee to share some of the knowledge that i have gained in the last couple of years that i've been working on this particular issue when it comes to police reform. i have, as you know, we had a
6:49 am
long hearing, four hours, and i think it's only fire that -- fair that i ask some of the same questions. so i would like to ask dr. marshall to come on up. good morning, dr. marshall, just a few preliminary questions, as you probably will know the answers to most of them. welcome. so maybe we could start at the top. and if you said this in your opening remarks, my apologies. what is your understanding of the role, power and authority of the police commission? >> the police commission is an oversight body. it helps to make policy, procedures. it selects a chief. selects the d.p.a. it deals with discipline. it helps to shape the way the
6:50 am
department runs. it's a pretty vast and important job. in a nutshell, that's how i would sum up the role of the police commission in general. >> supervisor cohen: what is your position on the carrotid artery restraint? >> we don't have it. it's not part of the policy of the department. >> supervisor cohen: if i'm not mistaken, you took a vote on this and i would like for you to state for the record what your vote was. >> at that particular time, i was concerned that we did not have any options for the department less than lethal, less-than-lethal options. i believe what happened when we came through -- and i have to go back to that particular time and
6:51 am
i have to remember my particular vote -- i think that i wanted to keep -- oh, i know. we took a lot of testimony about was it legal or not? was it a chokehold? i have to remember my specific vote. it was, yes, to keep it, until something else came in play, or in fact, i ended up voting -- i don't remember particularly what my particular vote was, but i know as a whole, the commission said no carotid. that's part of the policy. >> supervisor cohen: i'm only interested in what your position is. >> my position is, we shouldn't have it. >> supervisor cohen: correct me if i'm wrong, you voted for it. so we understand, it's close to a chokehold. it's the hold that the new york
6:52 am
police department did on eric gardner, infamous police case, who is known to not only cut off oxygen, but potentially to kill people. >> i think what happened was, when we voted on the policy, we voted the carotid out. >> supervisor cohen: that's correct. i'm not interested in the body's position. i'm interested in your position. the series of questions help us to reflect on your votes, on your position. and the key indicator that will determine what we can expect from you in future votes. so my question again, is very simple -- did you or did you not vote to keep the carotid restraint? >> at that point, because we didn't have any other use of force options, i believe i did vote -- and at that point, there was nothing that we knew about the carotid causing deaths. we had testimony. so i think i did. it may have been because we didn't have anything else.
6:53 am
i want to keep in that place until we had something else, so, yes, i think i did vote for it. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. can you speak to the unique san francisco police department struggles within the department? >> the struggles? >> supervisor cohen: struggles. >> i'm not sure what you mean by struggles? >> supervisor cohen: one could refer to it as racist, homophobic text messages. another struggle could be officers that could be found to do wrongdoing but are still employed. there is bias. there's arrest rates. there's the struggle internally about tasers. there are many struggles. i would like for you to articulate one of them. >> there are many challenges that urban police departments face, period. they're historic. they're not only in the san francisco police department. they've been shown to be
6:54 am
national in scope. we have been tackling those one at a time, as they have come up. everything from officer-involved shootings to racist text messages, to just -- all of those things. and we have addressed those things by passing general orders to begin to blunt and stop those things from happening. >> supervisor cohen: i wanted to know specifically -- not nationally -- what are some of the challenges that you identify that exist in the san francisco police department? >> so i began with the backlog of cases that we had. we had to move forward so that we could address discipline and get those down so that officers would not be on the docket for such a very long time. >> supervisor cohen: how long have you been serving? was it 14 years? >> 14 years.
6:55 am
26 to 27 different commissioners since i started. >> supervisor cohen: that's a long time. sorry. you were speaking to some of the unique struggles. >> that was a newly constituted commission. that was a big deal, getting those down from 80 to i think it's about 10 now. discipline takes a long time. as i said before, the commission can't -- sorry, the chief can't fire. so adjudicating the cases takes a lot of work and especially now being a lawyer, i'm one of the few commissioners, one of two, sometimes i've been the only lawyer not on there. so becoming very good at running those things, it's a major, major deal. i'm just thinking of everything moving forward.
6:56 am
the chiefs we've had. the text messages, those are challenges. being able to deal with them, being able to dismiss officers. we have been able to dismiss a number of officers. officers have retired because they felt they would be dismissed by the department. there are procedural things that have developed, where some of the cases were taken out of our hands and moved to superior court. we cannot rule on that until they come back to us. the officer-involved shootings were huge. we've never had anything like -- >> supervisor cohen: the use of force policy just passed two years ago. what are some of the accomplishments in the 12 years prior to serving? >> i could have made a list of all of the things.
6:57 am
>> supervisor cohen: did you put it in your packet? >> i sent the packet to -- yes, i did. >> supervisor cohen: maybe you can just for my -- >> i did send a packet to them. i didn't know that other supervisors needed to be included. i would have done that. >> supervisor cohen: dr. marshall, i've been working on this issue for years. you, of all people, should have reached out the packet would have been helpful. >> i was expecting, supervisor, that the folks that needed the information were those on the rules committee. however, i can certainly send you the accomplishments and the things that we've had happen since i've been on the commission. and there's been a number of things, yes. >> supervisor cohen: okay. please list five. >> use of force policy, huge. very huge. change of direction and how the commission uses force. c.i.t. officers, huge.
6:58 am
they approach things very differently. that's being phased into all -- eventually, it will be phased in through all the offices in the -- in san francisco unified. in the p.d., approaches they're taking -- that's so important that now we have actually a ceremony for those trained in c.i.t. body cameras, a big, big deal. getting footage of what is happening. children of incarcerated parents. that's a general order that we put together. i can actually get on my phone and start to read them to you. >> supervisor cohen: when you say children of incarcerated parents, you mean that the
6:59 am
police department has made an agreement to not arrest in front of their children. >> yes. if you give me a moment here, i can go to them and start to read them to you. >> supervisor cohen: no. i was interested in what you can recall. i think we should move on. i have a few more questions to go through. just trying to garner your understanding of the commonality of police misconduct. how often does it happen? sitting on the police commission, you probably have seen and heard some things in open session as well as closed session. i'm not asking for you to comment on anything that's in closed session. above i want to get a feel for how common police misconduct is. >> it depends on how you define it. serious misconduct is what comes to us. we get less than before. and i think that's because we've been working through the chief and what we've put together, we're getting fewer referrals. i can just say -- yeah, i can say that, because i remember it was 80. now we're down to less than 10.
7:00 am
and i've been off for a couple of months. i haven't seen the documents. but as far as i know, it's been down. some of the big ones, the racist text messages were huge, but we were not able necessarily -- the ones we were able toage out adjudicate and got to us, we did. some were in supreme court. again, i've been off for a couple of months, so don't have the latest stats. use of force is down. what you want to see is the things that are beginning to work. use of force is down. complaints to the d.p. are down. things are trending downward. i think the chief has done a great job, as we've gotten working on the d.o.j. recommendations. if i had a graph and i would put it up there and show whe