Acknowledge the untimely passing of uh Christopher Shea.

Christopher Shea was an attorney who appeared before the commission and represented officers before the commission and represented them zealously and demonstrated unwavering commitment to his clients.

Um he will be uh he will be deeply missed.

Good evening.

The chair has called the meeting to order.

If you could please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Vice President Carter Overstone, I'd like to take roll.

Was he?

Yeah.

Commissioner Walker.

Here.

Commissioner Benedicto.

Here.

Commissioner Yanyez is excused.

Commissioner Byrne.

Here.

Commissioner Yee?

Here.

Vice President Carter Oberstone, you have a quorum.

Also with us tonight, we have Chief Scott from the San Francisco Police Department and Executive Director Paul Henderson from the Department of Police Accountability.

For members of the public, line item one, the weekly officer recognition is going to be postponed until November 1st due to this sergeant is uh away at training and is not able to be with us tonight.

Line item two, general public comment.

At this time, the public is now welcome to address the commission for up to two minutes on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the police commission.

Under police commission rules of order during public comment, neither police or DPA personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions by the public, but may provide a brief response.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways.

Email the Secretary of the Police Commission at SFPD.commission at SFGov.org.

Our written comments may be sent via U.S.

Postal Service to the public safety building located at 1245 Third Street San Francisco, California, 94158.

If you would like to make public comment, please approach the podium.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Paul Allen.

Uh five months ago I brought to the Commission's attention that it has failed to comply with Section 4.1022 of the city charter that requires the Commission, quote, to develop and keep current an annual statement of purpose outlining its areas of jurisdiction, authorities, purpose and goals, subject to review and approval by the mayor and board of supervisors.

After inquiry on Monday, I was told that Commission compliance with this provision awaits the hiring of a policy analyst.

This is a laughable excuse for delay and it really an abrogation of the committee of the commission's statutory duty.

Commissioners, with respect, this is your job, not that of a not yet hired policy analyst.

The first order of business, as I suggested in a memorandum to you two months ago, should be to direct counsel to prepare a legal memorandum on the commission's quote areas of jurisdiction and authorities.

Indeed, one would have thought that that document would already be behind tab one of a commission briefing book.

Then there is their articulation of the commission's purpose and goals.

That's your job.

You should take pen to paper and write down what you understand to be the purpose and goals of the commission within its statutory responsibility.

Importantly, 4.1022 declares that the annual statement is quote subject to review and approval by the mayor and board of supervisors.

Intentionally or not, the absence of such a statement necessarily forecloses such review and approval, at least under that provision of the charter.

It is your job, in short, to prepare the annual statement, not anyone else's.

At every meeting of the commission, we hear about police SFPD accountability.

Is this commission subject to the same standard?

Let's dispense with the excuses compliant.

Hi, this is my first time doing this, so if I do something wrong, let me know.

My name is Angela Tickler.

Commissioners, it is very disappointing that you approved DGO 5.25 last week.

Because DGO 5.25 begs a very dangerous question.

What will prevent this anti-law enforcement commission from using officer safety as grounds to stop the police department from enforcing further laws?

It's common knowledge that most of what SFPD does is or can be dangerous, but so is your plan to micromanage the SFPD out of existence, which I'm pretty certain is the goal of at least some of you.

At a bare minimum, data on the number of officers hurt during foot pursuits should be provided to the public to see if such a policy is even worth pursuing.

And if I were an officer, and instead of being able to use my training judgment and experience to make a split second decision about doing my job, I had to go through a pages long decision tree on how to react and then run the risk of having my career jeopardized because seven non-police officers with no experience have made yet another policy.

Well, I would either quit or not chase the suspect.

Not worth it.

But that is the end goal for some of you, right?

Less criminals going to jail when there are less ways for the police to respond to the crimes they commit.

Meanwhile, San Francisco's international reputation and financial stability are in a shambles.

Uncuff the police and let them do their jobs.