I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God and invisible with liberty and justice for all the President Clay, like to take role.

Yes, please.

Commissioner Lowe.

Commissioner Scott.

Here.

Commissioner Leo.

Here.

Commissioner Benedicto is in route.

Commissioner Elias is in route.

Vice President Techie.

Yeah.

President Clay, you have a quorum.

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

All right, thank you.

I welcome everyone to the January 10th police commission meeting.

We're going to begin our meeting at this time.

Sergeant.

Line item one, weekly officer recognition certificate.

Presentation of an officer who has gone above and beyond in the performance of their duties.

Sergeant Jesse Farrell, star number 789 from Burglary.

Good evening.

Sergeant Farrell joined the San Francisco Police Department in 2002 and has served with distinction throughout his career.

In his career, he has worked at the following assignments Bayview, Mission, Park, and Terraville stations.

Since 2017, Sergeant Farrell has been assigned to the investigation bureau's burglary unit, where he has solved hundreds of cases, the majority involving complex burglary investigations, such as home invasions and hot prowl burglaries.

Over the years, his meticulous investigative work has led to the arrests and successful prosecution of numerous violent offenders.

His case files, often consistent of extensive binders of evidence presented to the district attorney's office, have consistent consistently demonstrated his exceptional attention to detail and commitment to justice.

In addition to his investigative accomplishments, Sergeant Farrell has served as a mentor and guide to countless new investigators, sharing his knowledge, experience, and dedication to professional excellence.

A recent example of Sergeant Farrell's outstanding investigative abilities began with a garage burglary arrest made by patrol officers from Terra Ball Police Station.

While reviewing the circumstances of the arrest, Sergeant Farrell recognized a distinct pattern of consistent with recognized distinctive pattern consistent with 21 outstanding garage burglaries, cases he had been actively investigating, many of which were high-risk hot-prowl burglaries committed middle of the night while residents were home and asleep.

In each of these cases, the suspect employed a unique method of entry, drilling a small hole into the garage door and using a tool such as a vehicle antenna to manipulate the emergency release mechanism and gain access to the residents.

Drawing upon his keen investigative instincts and unwavering attention to detail, Sergeant Farrell obtained a DNA arrest warrant, DNA warrants, and coordinated with the San Francisco Police Department Cram Laboratory to compare DNA evidence from the arrested suspect to evidence collected from 21 outstanding burglaries.

His efforts resulted in the positive identification of the suspect and the individual responsible for all 21 crimes.

As a direct result of Sergeant Farrell's thorough investigation, the suspect was successfully prosecuted and held accountable for all associated offenses.

His hard work, professionalism, and dedication to public safety have made San Francisco a safer place for all its residents and reflect great credit upon himself, the burglary unit, and the San Francisco Police Department.

While this case represents just one example of Sergeant Farrell's exceptional investigative work, it reflects the dedication, persistence, and professionalism he brings to the job every day while serving the people of San Francisco.

It is my distinct honor and privilege to present Sergeant Farrell, star number 789 of the San Francisco Police Department Burglary Unit with the Officer of the Week award.

Congratulations, Sergeant Farrell, and thank you for your question.

Sergeant Farrell, you want to say a few words for everyone?

Uh I was prepared to speak, but that's okay.

You can do that.

Thank you for the award, I appreciate it.

Um, but in investigations, it's not just one person.

I mean, it's patrol, it's DMAC, it's the citywide plain clothes, it's the crime lab, which runs super efficient.

So all that combined, but I thank you.

Make a good investigation.

Well, thank you.

Thank you for your service.

Thank you for using your ingenuity from in the field, understanding things that happened during the course of your career and putting them all together to do what you did.

This is amazing.

I mean, uh as you said, you know, that was just the twenty-one that day, but other things you have done in your position has put you here today.

Everyone's been to do their job to make something special happen.

But it's the totality of all of the that you've done during your career and where you're at.

So we really thank you and appreciate your service.

I know the people of San Francisco do.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Liu?

I mean, excuse me.

Uh Chief Lew.

Get a haircut, that's what happens.

Got it.

Um, Sylvia, thank you for nominating Jesse.

Recognizing recognizing his strong work, Jesse.

Uh classmates.

So, awesome work.

Uh, just wanted to say, um, thank you.

I'm not I'm not surprised that you're here.

I've been the recipient of your lander cases.

Uh, very thorough, super detail oriented investigator.

So again, not surprised you're here.

Uh, thank you for your twenty four years of service, and thank you for this case.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item one, the weekly officer recognition, please approach the podium.

And there is no public comment.

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 SAPD.commission at SFCov.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'd like to make public comment, please approach the podium.

This lack of responsiveness undermines the principles of accountability and transparency that this commission must uphold.

Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that it is critical importance for the inclusion of the police commission meetings following the Department of Justice reforms initiated by concerns reported by the officers for justice meetings were to be held in various districts within the city to ensure the broader community access and participation.

However, since the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, conveniently all meetings have been centralized at City Hall.

This possesses a significant barrier and limited and costly parking, which disproportionately affects community members' ability to attend in person.

Moreover, the discontinuance of the interactive virtual Zoom meetings further restricts the public engagements.

These practices hinder the commission's commitment to inclusivity and open dialogue.

Lastly, we are deeply concerned that the current chief of police has yet to meet with the officers for justice, which can which counteracts the agreement made with the consent degree order, which is terminated by Mayor Brown's administration.

He is also not connected with the NAACP.

This raises serious questions about this administration and this department's questions about its dedication to reform and community partnership.

Additionally, the demographic composition of this department and the visible detachment of uniformed officers at commission meetings suggest a gap in meaningful community connections.

We urge the commission to ensure the uniform officers present here engage openly in the chamber.

All right, you can start my time, please.

Hi everyone.

I attend these meetings regularly because I believe this commission's work directly shapes safety and trust in our community.

On scheduling tonight, we know that there's the NBA finals.

All right, game four, Nick's versus Spurs that tips off at 5 30 p.m.

The exact time of this meeting.

I respectfully ask: could we please reschedule the police commission meetings to avoid conflicts with major sporting events, cultural events, and community gatherings?

Civic engagement shouldn't come compete with community life.

More residents would be able to attend these meetings and be able to focus during the meetings.

Because I know I'm gonna be looking at my phone at times, and I'm sorry if I do.

Now, on improving how SFPD conducts its investigative process, I have several concrete recommendations.

If that's okay with you guys, tell me what you think later on.

All right.

One, the investigative protocol.

We have to create a quiet place for victims.

For example, when police are on site, they should have a quiet private place to speak with victims.

Trauma informed interviewing requires separation from chaos, noise, and the alleged aggressor.

This is a standard in health care, and it should be a standard in policing.

Number two, crime police documentation, screaming for appropriate photography.

Officers should be trained and required to screen what they photograph at crime scenes.

Number three, uh, there should be um separate interviews with the alleged aggressor.

Officers should conduct separate structured interviews with the alleged aggressor.

What I want to say is that we are really honored and privileged to celebrate this here in San Francisco as one of the places in America where, like it or not, we're celebrating the emancipation proclamation.

On the 19th at the Heritage Center, 3030 Fillmore Street.

We are honored that your presence will be there with us, with former mayor, London Breed, the first black mayor of the city and county of San Francisco.

None other than the Speaker of the House, Willie L.

Brown Jr.

Along with Emeritus of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Emeritus of just retiring from Third Baptist Church.

Have come together with Sug to give them their flowers before they're gone.

It's extremely important to honor those while they're here.

They have agreed to be present.

And we hope you can be present as well.

Because one thing we know about the emancipation of proclamation, it is still the final point of this nation's beginning of inclusion.

So if we can all be included on this national holiday, it would be great.

I think everybody gets paid.

I don't know, but uh it's a nice thing to have that on the holiday.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh it's my first time in a little while.

I go way, way back if you rewind the tapes, and there's a few people up there.

Okay, use the oh, I'll let you know, but not right now.

No, shine on me first, okay.

Ace on the caseless.

Okay.

Ace on the case, ace wash.

I am the Fillmore Corridor ambassador.

And um, I'm here to request uh special uh uh not uh request if we can have the police department assist us on our event that's going to be on the 19th, as the gentleman said before, and I'll try to make it fast here.

We're honoring uh Sugar, she's gonna be the Grand Marshal of Willie Brown Jr., the first black male uh mayor um and uh Amos Brown, historian, and uh the lovely Queen of B, London Breed, the former first black female.

So we have the opportunity to work with them and celebrate the emancipation of approximation.

So I don't have time here, but we're going to request if we have the police department to help us uh with the flags and try to get us a white horse.

If we can get us a white horse in the parade that we get a pledge to have uh from the culture center, and I could give you more information about it, but that's my purpose and my ex, our ex, is that the police department participate in supplying a white horse so we could go down Fillmore Street where Wesley Johnson used to be.

So basically that's my accent, uh I uh appreciate, and I I see Scott and Chief Paul and a few others that I know from years in the West.

My name is Ace.

I'm on the case, I'm Fieldmore Corridor Ambassador, and I'm trying to put the feel back in the mo.

We used to call it the field mode.

So, what I'm trying to do is bring the community back together.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

Um, as usual, I'm here concerning my son Aubrey Abracassa, who was murdered August 14th, 2006.

Um, he was shot with a semi-automatic gun.

I like to use the overhead.

Um, 30 rounds of bullets from a semi-automatic gun, uh, was shot at my son, who was only 17 years old, just turned 17 years old.

There's a 250,000 dollar reward uh for the capture of the perpetrators that murdered my son, and to this day I um I come here every year.

This is the last graduation picture I saw of my son.

Isn't he handsome?

All I see is those teeth and his smile, and I love him, and I miss him.

No one wants to stand over their son in a casket.

No one wants to.

It was a hard time for these pictures to be taken that day, and I didn't even know they were being being taken.

This is what the perpetrators left me.

A lifeless 17-year old corpse.

That I am not to show to the world.

I think about Emmett Till's mom, how she showed his burnt body to the world.

I want people to see what I'm going through.

Mental health is not a joke, and I've been dealing with this for 20 years.

Actually, it is going on 20 years.

And I'm still seeking justice for my 17-year-old boy.

He died saving someone else's life.

Everybody think that a black boy is in a gang all the time.

He was not in a gang.

And if he was, he didn't deserve to die.

Thank you.

That is the end of public comment.

Line item three, consent calendar, receive and file action.

SFPDs and DPA's document protocol report.

First quarter 2026.

Is there a motion?

Move to receive and file SFPD and DPA's document protocol report first quarter 2026.

Second, second.

If you have any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding the consent calendar, please approach the podium.

There's no public comment.

On the motion, Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Lowe is aye.

Commissioner Techie.

Aye.

Commissioner Techie is aye.

Commissioner Scott.

Aye.

Commissioner Scott is aye.

Commissioner Leong.

Yes.

Commissioner Leo is yes.

Commissioner Lyas?

Yes.

Mr.

Lyas is yes.

And Commissioner Benedicto?

Yes.

And President Clay.

Yes.

President Clay is yes.

You have seven yeses.

Line item four.

Chief Support.

Weekly crime trends and public safety concerns.

Provide an overview of offenses, incidents, or events occurring in San Francisco having an impact on public safety.

Chief Liu.

Good evening, President Clay, Commissioners.

Starting off with weekly crime trends as of 6-7-26.

Overall crime is down 22% year to date compared to 2025.

Total violent crimes are down 11% for the year.

Specifically addressing homicides as of 6 7 26, there are 17 homicides year to date compared to 10 in 2025.

Looking at gun violence, defined as the number of people injured in a shooting incident, added to the number of persons killed by a firearm.

We are down 15% compared to 2025.

Incidents of reported rapes, which include attempted enforceable rapes, are down 10%.

Robberies are down 19% with robberies using a firearm declining by 31%.

Human trafficking incidents are down 38% with eight incidents being reported so far this year compared to 13 last year at this time.

Total property crime is down 24%.

Burglaries are down 26%.

Motor vehicle theft is down 26%.

Larceny theft, which includes vehicle burglaries are down 23% overall.

And looking specifically at auto burglaries, there's a 42% decrease over 2025.

Moving to significant incidents, there are two non-fatal shootings to report this week.

Officers responded to Webster and Turk Streets regarding a shooting.

Officers arrived on scene and located a victim suffering from an apparent gunshot wound.

Officers rendered aid and medics arrived on scene and transported the victim to the hospital for non-life-threatening injuries.

This is currently an open and pending case.

Officers responded to the emergency room at SFGH to interview a victim who had gunshot wounds.

The victim provided little information prior to leaving the hospital, and we were unable to uh locate a crime scene.

This is still an open and pending investigation.

There were no homicides reported this week.

In terms of large events, uh the department has been preparing for the FIFA World Cup, which starts tomorrow and goes through July 19th.

There's um we have been uh we have been planning for increased staffing for every single game, and we will be continuing to monitor um uh staffing needs as the tournament progresses.

And lastly, I would like to invite the commission to the 288th recruit class graduation.

That's this Monday, June 15th at 1800 hours at the Scottish Rights Center.

That concludes my report.

Chief, uh, as it relates to the FIFA games.

Uh is that us in conjunction with the other agencies around the Bay Area?

That's right, yep.

We're uh in close contact with other Bay Area jurisdictions, um, in particular Santa Clara and San San Jose where the games will actually be played, and then of course it'll depend on who's who's playing, um uh that'll dictate a little bit of what our manpower looks like, what games are are continuing, and then which which rounds, uh how the rounds turn out.

Commissioner Scott.

Thank you.

Um Chief, um, I'm happy to hear that I'm happy to hear that we had no homicides.

That's good good news.

Um, and I'm just looking at the uh burglary and the auto theft.

Um I'm just watching that because I know this this is summertime, and San Francisco has a lot of tourists that come to the city, and we also have a lot of events that's coming up, Juneteenth, etc.

Uh pride and other uh celebrations, and so I know that's a time when we have a high ratio of of uh burglary and also motor vehicle theft.

And so I'm just uh wondering what are we doing in that area to alert the public and and our tourists um about that.

Yeah, so our district stations continue to work with uh the community and getting getting the word out that it's always a part of the newsletters to continue to lock your vehicles, uh not to uh leave valuables in vehicles.

It's something that we've done at the airport as well uh to work with rental car agencies to get the word out for tourists who may not understand the uh the crime picture um, but just in terms of uh enforcement, we continue to have a lot of success, especially through Arctic, uh, with regard to uh car break-ins and uh making some good arrests that are continuing um the D decrease, particular in particular auto boosts.

Thank you for that.

And also uh just wanted to suggest, um, I know some cities are doing it, um, for because San Francisco, we're a touristy city.

Everybody loves to come here, and the last thing we want is somebody to be burglarized, or car uh broken into.

So um I know there's a little car that people are uh receive when they check in a hotel, you know, from SFPD, I mean from other stations.

So I'm just wondering if we're doing anything like that that would be helpful to our tourists and uh folks that's coming here to visit to make sure that they're aware to not leave their belongings and things like that in a car.

So just wanted to throw that out there.

Thank you, Commissioner.

All right, if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item four, the chief's report.

Please approach the podium.

Yes, um, I was just coming back again to talk about the ways to pay Tipsters, and uh I like to use the overhead again.

Um we're talking about all the unsolved homicides.

Again, Miss Maddie, I don't mind.

I hope you don't mind me showing your son all the time.

This is our children, and all of these unsolved homicides, all of these homicides aren't solved.

People need to see who these children are.

All of these homicides aren't solved.

Here is the new policy that ways to pay new tips to pay tipsters.

They don't have to, they can be anonymous.

They can be arrest been arrested before or convicted of a crime.

They still get paid 250,000 dollars or share it.

But this is not out there.

I know it's on the police uh uh thing, and but no, we need to get it out there more because like you said, there's 17 homicides, and I don't think everyone knows about this issue about this uh policy that's been changed.

You have all the names of the perpetrators who murdered my child.

I bring this with me all the time.

These people are still walking the street to kill again.

Hannibal Thomas, Paris Moffat, Andrew Badu, Jason Thomas, Anthony Hunter, and Marcus Carter, all of these people were there that murdered my child.

I don't know who pulled the trigger, but some one of them did.

Shoot shot my son with a semi-automatic gun.

What do we do about this?

It doesn't matter if it was yesterday, the day before yesterday, or 20 years ago.

We're still hurting.

I'm still hurting.

I didn't come here to to to entertain.

I I I love talking to you guys, but I feel this.

I need justice.

Uh start my time.

Alright, this is Jessica Pesico again.

Um I would like to say congratulations on you know, no homicides, this is great.

Um, that's awesome.

Um I would like to make some more recommendations.

Um regarding the reporting.

Okay, so can we make sure that we take uh reports on site every time?

One of the most common complaints I hear from district 10 residents and outside of our district is that the officers fail to take a report at the scene.

This has to change.

An on-site report is the foundation of any investigation.

Without it, victims feel dismissed, the case goes cold and accountability disappears.

SFPD should establish a clear enforceable standard that reports are taken at the scene with no exceptions, absent of extraordinary circumstances.

One number two, um, can we coordinate better with outside jurisdictions?

Many cases, and especially in district 10 and other areas, um, they cross jurisdictional boundaries or lines involving bar police, um, the uh uh count state police, and some of these crimes that occur where there's theft often go to other areas because some of the items are moving.

So if um SFPD could um improve their agency coordination protocols so that reports are shared and the cases are not dropped at outside jurisdictional boundaries, and victims are not told to start over with a new agency.

Um, thank you.

Seamless coordination is essential for justice, and then also, um, can we also coordinate with the victim when making the report?

The victim must be an active uh participant in the reporting process, not a bystander.

Um, officers should walk the victims through what is being documented confirmed accuracy and questions.

I don't have time to answer.

Thank you.

And that is the end of public comment.

Line item five, DPA Director's Report, a report on recent DPA activities and announcements, as well as DPA's introduction of interns.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh, I'm gonna start off with uh the information just from the agency.

DPA attended uh a couple of the mayor's events uh this week since our last meeting, both for Juneteenth and for the kickoff and start it of pride with the flag raising.

Uh so we're looking forward to the ongoing engagement with community events throughout the summer.

Uh we also started our well, we concluded and now we're moving past our preliminary conversations with real estate division.

Uh it was approved last week.

Uh, the new lease from the board of Supervisors.

So we'll be moving again uh into uh a new building, 1455 Market Street, and I'll give you guys updates as we get them from the city.

Um during this last one-week period uh from the last meeting, DPA opened 18 more new cases, and we closed 17.

Uh, the most common allegation involved officers uh beh allegations again.

These are allegations, officers behaving or speaking inappropriately with members of the public.

We have one item on consent calendar that may be relevant.

It's already been filed.

Folks can see those records.

They're here available tonight, and they're also on our new website, which has this information readily available for anybody that wants to see, particularly the document requests is in this consent calendar that may be an issue for people or maybe people may want to be following.

Tonight, we have our interns.

I'll get to them in a moment, and some of the staff were also uh represented DPA by senior investigator Helen Calderon.

Uh so if issues come up during tonight's uh meeting, she can be reached uh particularly for members of the public.

Uh folks can contact us at sfgov.org forward slash DPA or contact us directly at 415 241 7711.

There's a couple of items on the agenda this evening that involve DPA, so I will just I'll hold my comments until then.

Uh the last thing is uh last week there were a couple of questions about the new quarterly reports and how we're filing them and the information that was there.

I can't remember who raised the issue, uh, but the issue is in the weekly statistics where the allegations types were listed as other.

It was explained uh in the report, it's just on the back of the page.

I just didn't turn the page to finish explaining what and how it was.

But I had a meeting with the staff, but just to clarify, it's very similar in this week's allegations as well, where there's an allegation summary, and the category of other is 46%.

That category of other is 46% as the top category.

It's listed as other because it's the uh amalgamation of all of the complaints that came in that didn't qualify as a singular topic, all put together.

And I wouldn't I wanted to make sure that I was accurate when I explained what the other was last week when we raised the questions, that's why I wanted to just raise it.

This is all explained on the very next page.

That's what the asterisk was, but I hadn't flipped the page to confirm that.

Uh, but it is in our reports uh so that people have that information moving forward.

I didn't just wanted to clarify it.

It was an issue that was raised last week.

I just wanted to explain both to the public uh and to the commission.

I want to end uh my report uh this week.

I know we had a longer, much longer report last week, but I want to end this week's report by acknowledging and welcoming our 2026 law and social justice reform interns.

Uh as I mentioned last week, the cohort includes both undergrads and law students from around the country who are placed with DPA and several other city agencies through DPA's program.

I want to take this moment to thank Taneta Thompson, our director of racial equity and recruitment, and also one of the senior trial attorneys for DPA for once again coordinating this year's award-winning program, uh, and invite her up to the podium to introduce our interns.

I also just want to mention and thank uh Commissioner Benedicto uh for his time today and meeting with our interns.

Uh he did not bring snacks or treats for us, but we appreciated his time.

So you bought me treats, thank you.

Yeah, that will be on my form 700, just so we're clear.

Good evening, commissioners, Chief Lou, Director Henderson, Sergeants Young Gled, and Reynolds.

It's so great to have you here.

Um, it's so great in the community, thank you for being here.

Um, it's that time of year again where DPA has their summer uh summer cohort or law and justice social reform cohort.

I am so proud of this year's class.

We have a very diverse class.

We represent 11 schools.

We have one high school student, six undergraduates, and four law students.

They represent Lick Wellman uh Lick Wilmending uh in San Francisco High School, Columbia University, Howard, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Go Bruins, UPenn, University of Washington, Georgia State College of Law, Southern University Law Center in Bat Rouge, Louisiana, UC Law SF, formerly Hastings, and USF School of Law.

Four home states are represented California, Georgia, Colorado, and Missouri.

Seven law students, seven undergraduates.

We have uh again one high school student.

We have seven partner agencies.

We are pleased to announce that we are excited to be working with police legal, adult probation, power and utilities commission, Judge Fleming of the San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Seetis of the San Francisco Superior Court, the Mayor's Office of Victim Rights, the Department on the Status of Women.

We have two first generation college students, six first generation law students, four HBCUs representative, Howard University and Southern University Law Center, and we have 11 identified as persons of color.

I just want to say I want to thank the DPA staff who are helping making and shaping and supporting our program.

Of course, our executive director, Paul David Henderson, Nicole Armstrong, Reza Rodriguez, Cashey Reid, Victoria Wilhammer, Kieran Turner, Stephanie Wargo, Jamal Anderson, Sarah Monder, Marianne McCormick, Marshall Kine, Sharon Wu, and all of our staff members who are mentors to our entire cohort.

That's all 21 students.

I do want to say a special thank you to Ms.

Brown, who has always shown and shared so much wisdom and support for our program and students.

Thank you for being a voice for the voiceless and showing up continuously week in and week out that we have police commission.

And again, we want to thank you also to OFA and Human Rights Commission for help for partnering with us and providing some additional funding for our students this summer.

Thank you and welcome to any questions.

I'm really excited to be here.

And hopefully one time, one year we can have uh Commissioner Elias come speak to us.

I've been trying to get her to come for years, yes.

It's getting directed to Kevin.

I don't understand what's happening.

He didn't bring any snacks.

Right.

Oh, I'm sorry.

If you would have invited me, we would have had a board from snack.

But I'm not even, this is not even about me.

My interns are gonna come up and introduce themselves.

How did I forget that?

So come on up, and they were going to introduce themselves briefly.

It's the best part.

Yes.

Greetings.

My name is Roxanne Mosley.

I'm from Brentwood, California.

I'm a rising 3L at Southern University Law Center.

I'm currently interning with the DPA and police legal.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commission.

My name is Sydney Carter.

I was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia.

I'm currently a rising 2L at Georgia State University College of Law.

And this summer I'm in the Hall of Justice with Judge Justine Seafis.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Adrian Sanchez Alvarez.

I'm originally from San Diego, California, and I am a rising 3L at UC Law San Francisco.

This summer I'm interning with the DPA as well as Judge Eric Flemings down at the Hall of Justice.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Catalia Roche.

I'm from Lick Boomerdine High School as a rising junior.

I am originally born in SF, but I'm raised in Enyaq, and I'm going to be placed at DPA during the summer.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Marquise McLeod.

I'm an honors legal communications major, political science minor at Howard University, and I am currently placed at the Department on the Status of Women.

Hello, everybody, nice to meet you all.

My name is Chate Pess.

I am a second year junior at Howard University studying psychology and legal communications.

And I am from Richmond, California, and through DPA, I am placed with the PUC.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Ollie Leek.

I'm from Dunberg, Colorado, and I am currently attending USF Law, and I'm placed with police legal.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thank you very much for opening the floor to us this evening and for having us.

My name is Kevin Hornbeck.

I'm a rising toel at the USF School of Law, and I'm placed at the Department of Police Accountability this summer.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Sean Vazano.

I'm from Los Angeles, California.

I'm a rising to L at USF Law School, and I am placed at the DPA.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thank you for having us.

My name is Thomas Stewart.

I'm originally from Fresno, California, but I'm currently a rising senior at Columbia University studying human rights and creative writing.

And I'm lucky to be placed at the Department of Police Accountability this summer.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Lyndon Jones.

I am a current sophomore at Howard University majoring in communications advertising and double minoring in journalism in Spanish.

I am originally from Atlanta, Georgia, and I am interning at the mayor's office for victims' rights.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Karen Ramos, and I'm a second year student at UCLA studying linguistics.

This summer I'm placed with DPA, so at the Department of Police Accountability.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Sammy Trippassuri.

I'm originally from San Ramon, California.

I'm currently a rising senior at UC Berkeley studying political science and public policy.

And I'm excited to be working at the DPA this summer.

Hi, good evening.

Thank you for having us.

My name is Saskia Lee.

I'm from Oakland, California, and I'm an incoming freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

And this summer I'm interning with DPI.

Council, is it my understanding that all some of them are staying at the UC Berkeley campus?

I mean, excuse me, UC San Francisco campus.

Not this summer.

Not this summer.

Yeah, not this summer.

So we got a report from the uh the chair of finance, good, and told us that they were providing housing lease.

I guess it was last year this year they did not.

Last year, yes.

A little complicated.

I have a board meeting tomorrow day for the for the quarterly board meeting, so I was gonna ask about that to them, and now you've told me.

So I'll ask them questions tomorrow.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

That said, we do want to be with them.

We'll probably be back next year.

This year there were complications.

There are several layers to the budget process involving OFA, HRC, we've got to find out tomorrow.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

I don't know.

We want to come back.

And that concludes.

Thank you, Ms.

Thompson, for uh appearing.

This is always such a treat to have um young fresh blood before us and to see the enthusiasm that you have.

And I also look forward to the end of the summer presentation that all of you will be doing, which will outline the amazing work and accomplishments you've been able to achieve throughout the summer.

So welcome and congratulations for participating and being a selected to this process.

I have no doubt that you will learn a lot under the tutelage of Miss Thompson.

Uh she is very strict.

Uh I used to go against her uh back when I was a public defender, and there is a lot to learn from her.

So I would welcome you to uh engage in that process.

Um, and so thank you, Director Henderson, for always uh highlighting the great work, especially when it comes to uh the young uh people and their involvement in civic engagement and government.

We do really uh appreciate that.

So thank you so much.

And again, I look forward to your end of the summer presentation.

Commissioner Lowe.

I just want to applaud uh all the efforts to bring mentorship to the next generation.

It is terrific.

Uh it's a great uh sacrifice, it takes a lot of energy, but the but the rewards are fantastic.

Equally so I just want uh the class to know how inspired I am by all of you who are interested in public interest work.

I think it's uh terrific, and I wish you all the best in in your pursuits.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Appreciate those words.

Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Ms.

Compton, and uh for all the hard work that you do every year and for all of you beautiful faces.

My goodness, it's such a joy.

It's it just warms my heart to see so many young people involved, um, and become an educated in the law and policies because we need you.

You're the future.

Um, we see the situation in our country now that you're greatly needed right now.

Um, and so I just want to applaud you, welcome you, and uh if there's anything that we can do as commissioners to support you, please don't hesitate to reach out to our president.

Judge Clay.

Um, we're here to help you, and we hope that you and have a good summer.

And um it's so excited and so wonderful to see so many young, diverse group of people involved in what you're getting ready to do.

So I applaud you, I thank you, and um oh my goodness, it just warms my heart.

So glad you're here.

That means everything, Commissioner Scott.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Benedicta.

Thank you, President Clay.

Um, it was uh a privilege to get to spend the afternoon with uh the interns today.

Uh asked a lot of tremendous and great questions, and I'm looking forward to seeing the their presentation as well.

As I told them, uh no pressure, but I think every DPA intern presentation for the last few years has in some form found its way to a DP uh to a DGO or an app the policy.

So we know it it really is really meaningful work.

You're you're getting all to do.

And um, you know, I shared some of this with you all when we spoke earlier today, but I wasn't I was a pretty junior lawyer the first time I came up to that lecture and presented to the commission, and eventually one thing led to another, and I found myself here.

So you'll never know where your paths will lead you, and so be be open to where those go.

So thank you for letting me spend the afternoon.

It's always the highlight of my summer.

Thank you, President Clay.

Um, just want to tell you guys don't be shy.

People are always happy and willing to help you, and also always keep your eyes open for snacks because they're everywhere.

Chief Chief Liu.

I just wanted to send my best wishes to all of you and uh thank you for your service.

And in particular, I wanted to thank Paulie and Roxanne for coming in yesterday.

Um you guys were super articulate and very, very thoughtful.

Um, so keep up the great work, and I hope you got out of it as much as I did.

Well, to the end, I'd like to echo all of what my colleagues have said here, but I just want to thank you, youngsters, for doing what you're doing.

And just remember it's just the beginning for you.

This is just a start.

And it it's as I always tell my kids who are I say it's your world, we just live in it.

It's your turn to step up and do what's right.

And you've got that beginning, you know what you want to do, at least start to do, and don't forget that.

Don't forget what you've thought of, your values, and keep doing what you're doing uh because it's your time.

It is your time.

So have a wonderful summer, and we look forward to seeing you at the end of the summer and get the report, all right?

Enjoy.

Thank you guys so much for indulging us.

This is the uh ninth year of the program.

There we DPA and OCC never had an intern program uh before this, so we're really proud uh of this work, and I do think the program gets better and better every year.

Uh there have been really some challenging years, particularly this year with the budget and coordination uh to get all of this up together.

So it's a big deal.

I try to present, and I think you see even this presentation was different where we have the statistics that you have asked for in the past ahead of time so we know what the program is doing and how broad and diverse the program is.

Uh and also take the opportunity.

We'll be following up with all of you as well.

If you have projects, uh, we'd love to work on them with you related to the work that we're all doing in police commission as well.

And you'll hear from us shortly, but after this introduction.

So thank you guys so much for your time, and that concludes my report for the evening.

Thank you so much.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item five, the DPA director's report, please approach the podium.

And you know, just wanted to say that.

And I I when I looked at my son's picture, I was saying all of those, and I said the last graduation picture I saw of my son, and here are you all graduating.

And I'm not your mother, but I'm very proud of you all.

And yes, you know, um, take care of yourselves.

Um beware of your surroundings and your friends, and pay attention uh what you call it, um, to your parents.

Listen to them.

And not that my son, my son was a mama's boy, so um, yeah, I am very proud to see this and to see you all and and your future that you continue to do what you're doing.

And thank you, Mr.

Henderson, for bringing them up in you all so dear.

Thank you.

Jessica Pescicle again.

Uh, congratulations to the interns.

Thanks for doing your job.

Hopefully it goes well.

Um, okay, so in regards to the weekly statistics regarding the um different allegations for police officers, like uh conduct.

I'm sorry, I have I have stopped your time.

We are only talking about the um DPA line item at this time.

We're not doing public call.

Oh, I thought it was number five.

Yeah, we're only talking about the DPA director's report, what he discussed.

Is that what you're discussing?

Yeah, yeah.

It's on the director's report, it's on um this is a director's report, right?

Yes, yeah, okay.

All right, continue.

Thank you.

So um, this is in regards to um some of the allegation types like neglective duty and um more.

So um I see that you know it lists the percentage of um how often these allegations occurred.

Um, if we could please work together to um not only um retrain some of these officers when some of these allegations do occur because we want them to not only get justice for the victim of wherever happened, but also retrain the officer to better do their job.

I would really appreciate it.

I'll give you my guys my email address later on.

Um also if we could have them when an incident occurs, um, we know that sometimes trauma and other things that are going on in the police officers' life may lead or may increase the likelihood of some of these um neglective duties happening because sometimes when you have trauma, sometimes you can't always think clearly about what the um investigative process or process for helping somebody out is.

So that could lead to some type of neglect, right?

So if we could please have some more um mental health counseling to help, you know, kind of reduce some of these factors, you know, especially regarding trauma and how it could increase the likelihood of neglect of duty.

Um, maybe get somebody counseling maybe once a week or a couple times a week to help them when they are neglecting their duties because there could be some other factors going on at their home that you know might hurt them and hurt their job more importantly, right?

All right.

Uh my uh email address is uh Jay Pesico at gmail.com, or it's uh Gov.

It's a long one.

I'll give it to you later, okay.

All right.

And that is the end of public comment.

Line item six, commission reports, commission presence report, commissioner's reports, and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting.

Just a few quick things.

First, the chief took away my thunder.

I want to remind everyone on the 15th.

Next Monday, we have our graduation of class 288.

I think there's over 30 in this graduating class also, Chief.

Don't worry, but I know it's over 30.

I want to ask you to go to the script.

And then finally, uh there are we I want to let everyone know we have no backlog of discipline cases.

Everyone has been assigned, and we have a protocol with the the sergeants.

They let me know at the beginning of the week anything that comes in and at the end of the week anything that comes in.

We make sure they're moving.

So that's my report.

Neil?

Commissioner Benedicto.

Thank you, President Clay.

Um, I want to report that I spent the afternoon with the DPA interns, which we'd already discussed.

Um I'd like to uh thank and acknowledge uh Commissioner Lowe.

We're gonna team up on a couple of visits soon.

We're going to do an airport visit later in the summer and a ride along with tenderline station sometime soon.

So I want to thank commission staff for helping us to organize those um having done a number of those in my day.

It's always fun uh to have a fellow commissioner uh to go along.

I'll I'll bring snacks, I promise.

I remember when I did my ride along with the mission at one point.

Um the officers uh took me the ride along, stop for a donut, and one of the officers I was with said that she swore when she first got out of the academy that she's not gonna be a cop that stops for donuts because it's it's such the stereotype, which is like, but they're so good and they're open late and the mission is great, so there we were, yeah.

Um, had to go ahead and do that.

Um I will be traveling and will not be able to make this graduation, but Chief, please extend my congratulations to the recruits.

I do look forward to joining the SFD contingent and OFJ at the Juneteenth uh parade as well as uh the pride parade.

And that concludes my report.

Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, President Clay.

Um, yeah, we um it was an honor to attend the Juneteen kickoff here at City Hall, and uh we're looking forward to participating in the June team with our city officials, including our chief.

Um, and um so and also we are now uh recruiting um in our neighborhoods.

We're talking to young people about joining a SFPT police team, and so we're doing that and uh constantly educating folks about um recruitment because we definitely need more officers, and so um let's continue to do that.

Uh, we're doing it with the churches and the schools and just community period.

Um, so we're hoping to get more offices in our community.

We're asking folks to look into becoming an officer here in San Francisco.

And so we hope that you join us and spray the network.

Okay, all right, because it's about all of us and none of us, and the more offices we get, the better.

So thank you.

That concludes my report.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item six commission reports, please approach the podium.

There is no public comment.

Public comment, public comment on commission reports.

You know, reports and the way I've been treated by the San Francisco police.

I'm sorry, we've already done general public comment.

This is only on commission reports.

Pardon?

We have already done public comment.

This is on commission reports.

Well, I have to miss on that.

You're gonna have another uh public comment session later in the hearing next Wednesday.

Okay, line item seven discussion.

We don't have an agenda over here.

It's in the binder.

I think he said he has a complaint that he wants to make it.

Line item seven: discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 5.23.

Interactions with deaf deaf and hard of hearing individuals for the department to use and meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law.

Discussion and possible action.

Good evening, commissioners.

We're gonna get our presentation set up.

Um my name is Aja Steves.

I'm the director of the policy development division here to discuss DGO 523 interactions with deaf and hard of hearing individuals.

Give us just one second.

We did update an actual slide, so I will point to it when we get to the updated slide.

What you received in your packet is a little bit different, but we'll point it out.

Okay.

We're just all right, we're all set.

So we're just going to go over a quick recap of the working group activity, the outcomes, go over the review and the changes, and ultimately request your approval to move it forward to meet and confer.

Next slide, please.

Next slide.

So I do want to talk a little bit about the working group process.

We completely revamped the working group process in 2025 based on feedback that we received in 2024 or based on the 2024 surveys of working groups that we held.

So this really does establish the gold standard that we'd like to continue moving forward.

We did the same working group process with the DGO 609 working group as well.

So a few things changed.

Gets more community members to the table.

So we have organizations, but really we want more community San Franciscans, residents, business owners to come and work with the working groups.

And we also have a panel of officers.

We do a QA with officers and our community members so that they can all have an open discussion where community members can discuss or ask specific questions to officers and understand operations a little bit better.

So reciprocal conversation and really humanizes all sides in the working group.

We also have the policy team present, so the policy team remains version control.

We take all of the comments that are made during the working group and then we implement all of the changes in the policy.

So there's no concern about edits or redlining during so it's with policy team.

So those are the big changes that happened.

Again, it just is a model for collaboration.

Next slide.

So recap of the actual working group.

We had eight community members.

We had our board of supervisors districts two, five, seven, eight, nine, and ten represented.

We had the representation from the DA's office and the Office of Disability and Accessibility, ODA, and Access SOS, and they tackle equal access to emergency services.

It's an app.

We had seven working group meetings between August 2025 and January 2026.

You saw in February they all came.

We had them volunteer their time and come and provide testimony to the group about their experience, which was really important.

We also filmed the training video, and we do want to show you a quick snippet of it later on in the presentation.

And a few members of my team are going to attend the National Association of the Deaf Conference, which is starts in the end of June, but we're collaborating with ODA on a presentation in July.

Next slide.

So this is the slide that we have swapped out from what you have in your packet.

But I know we've talked about it several times, but this is a perfect example of a tool that came out of the conversation of the working group.

This is why this is a gold standard.

This was an officer idea, so this was came from a sworn member and was perfected through our discussions with our working group members.

And this is a perfect example of things that could have been a battle about what goes in policy and what doesn't go in policy and where does it live?

We found a home for it.

Where an officer said, listen, I have a non-perishable skill, which is if I have interactions with people that don't speak English.

I do this every single day.

So why don't we use something that we do every single day and pair it with something that might only happen once or twice in our career?

And this the creation of this again was the perfect marriage of SFPD sworn and community member and the policy team coming together with the visor card.

And then we also, with the video that we put together, we go over a few interactions that we want officers to be aware of where you could encounter a deaf and hard of hearing person.

And then also we worked on our public-facing website.

This came from feedback directly from the community members that it would be really helpful if on the website about the deaf and hard of hearing there was an ASL interpreter.

I don't know why it didn't occur to us, but uh based on the feedback, we did it.

So we now have an ASL interpreter on the public website to actually just um communicate with any deaf and hard of hearing member that's on the website telling them how to navigate the website.

Next slide.

And I won't go too much into this, but I do want to again thank the members that came on February 11th, volunteered their time, provided testimony about their experience, everything they said was critical to moving the policy forward.

Next slide, and I just added this one in because it's a great photo.

Again, February 11th, and it was uh all of the applause for all of their statements.

Next slide.

Just a quick snippet of the academy training.

Next slide.

So what are the major policy approvements?

We did condense it down to four pages and focused on the core legal requirements with clear direction for officers.

We distinguish criminal and evidentiary matters from routine community interactions.

We provide guidance where the person's preferred communication method is unavailable or impractical.

And we allow members to use reasonable methods to achieve effective communication when standard options are not available.

Next slide.

But also the officers that attended and were part of the QA panel panel were critical to the update as well to make sure that we stayed clear and they understood what the direction was, and let the community members know that.

Next slide.

Before we go to this, before I go to the ask, I do want to show you just a quick snippet of the training video, if we can, uh, where we show you what we're going to show officers.

So this is what is required.

We're going to align this with 520, the language access video.

We'd want the 523, the deaf and heart of hearing, to go along with it.

This one's just further down the production um highway.

So again, we go over a few different interactions.

We go over a traffic stop, we go over a witness and victim um interaction.

I don't know if we have sound.

Many forms of communication, including ASL, lip reading, writing, hearing aids, and assistive devices.

During police interactions, communication barriers can increase confusion and stress.

This video helps officers recognize communication needs early and use strategies that improve safety for everyone involved.

So we won't go through every single uh example, but again, we have a witness and victim statement, we have the traffic citation, we'll just sort of speed through.

But what we're really proud of with this whole thing, and again, the community members that were a part of our working group volunteered to be a part of the video, which is awesome.

Uh, we also had an example of a hard-of-hearing individual, so not necessarily someone who leans on ASL, but someone who can't really hear.

So it gives tips to officers to get closer, remove extra sounds, things like that.

But we also added a section with um key phrases that might help our officers.

So maybe we give a quick example.

When you are interacting with a deaf individual.

Hello.

Hello.

The sign for do you need an interpreter and ASL?

Grammar is different.

It's reversed in this concept.

So you would sign interpreter, need, you, interpreter could be signed with your thumb and index finger together with one hand twisting.

Interpreter, need would be your index finger curved into a hook in a downward motion.

Need.

You interpreter need you.

And if you raise your eyebrows, that puts it into the form of a question.

Interpreter need you.

We also have a few other signs for thank you.

Uh, do you need help?

Wait here.

Uh so we just wanted to put in a few signs that might actually help officers during their interaction uh with a deaf and hard of hearing individual.

So that'll be part of our training guideline.

And you can cut to the next.

We can just go back to our final ask for the commit.

Actually, we can go ahead and cut that off.

But it's a great video.

Um, but we can just go to our ask to the commission and we ask that you consider moving this forward to meet and confer.

Well, let me just say what a great job of the collaboration between the parties here.

This is exactly what these working groups should do.

Yep.

And I remember the presentation that was brought here.

Commission, everyone came in, and it was wonderful to see how things develop from that to now.

And the the way this is done.

I mean, you're looking from a 17-page document to a five.

Remember, and I think uh sergeants, no, when I first came on this commission, I got the DGOs or G D O J O D's or whatever.

That's what I call them.

I didn't know.

But I was like, I read them, I read the whole thing, the book.

And I went to this because I it kind of not to this one, but the the DGOs in general.

I said, How do you expect an officer to understand this?

Okay, you send these things out, these notices, and they say that we expect you to read this, and you go to DGO.

It's uncomprehensible some of these things.

And that's a different time when they're written.

Now we're moving to this time.

Modern day writing, how you get access to other stuff to help you there.

But I looked at that, I did law in motion in the criminal for the felonies for 10 years and two years of law in motion for civil.

My writers look at this stuff, and we say this is not, this is not intelligible.

But what you've done, you really have synthesized and put the necessary essential things that you need to do this, to do this to communicate to the officers to help those who need the help.

And you did it because you took all the stakeholders together, you put them together and said this is what we can, this will help us.

This is what every day you learn every day how they go about using things, and it's a beautiful job in doing it this way.

Thank you.

And I congratulate all of you, all those stakeholders who participated, and yourself and your group putting it together and working it out and taking the time and grinding, and it's a good product for us.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, President Clay.

Uh thank you, Dr.

Cs for that presentation.

I I think I I echo what President Clay said that uh and and what you said in your presentation that this really was um a model of a working group that worked very well.

I thought that your line in the slide that said progress through partnership, I think is one that I think like that should go on the wall of PDD because I think that's exactly how we should be thinking about how we advance our these policies, which is progress through partnership.

I thought that um, you know, if more working groups worked with this collaborative model, I think a lot of our policies would be improved for it.

Um I had a quick question.

The training video is that format of the delivery is that going to be uh at the academy, is it a lineup?

Is it gonna be sent out for officers to go into the the document system and watch it?

Like what is going to be the delivery format of the training video?

So we're gonna use several delivery formats.

Uh the language access liaison now reports to PDD.

So she works directly in our division.

Um, so she does academy training with new recruits, so it always goes to the new recruits as a video at the academy, right?

But it also will be in conjunction with the video that's related to 520, and then she also does a PowerPoint presentation related to language access, how to access her in order to get translated materials or interpreters or ASL interpreters.

So there is a new recruit training at the academy.

Uh there will also be the video available through Power DMS, so officers can check in.

Uh, and so we're also thinking about potentially adding just a short quiz in Power DMS related to 523 and 520.

Um, and then there's also potential of adding it to AO.

So there's several different ways to do the training.

Thank you very much.

Um, with that, I will make um motion to uh get Commissioner Scott would like to.

Yes, no, but I'm I'm just making a motion.

Yes.

So we can be seconded.

Yes.

Uh congratulations again.

I'll make a motion uh to approve the revised general order of 5.23 for use of meeting conferring pursuant to this commission's labor relations resolution.

I've seconded.

Commissioner Scott.

Yes, I just wanted to commend you and your team and everyone that was involved in this.

Um I am communication for me is key.

It's key, particularly in communities that are impacted with mental illness, a lot of mental illness and a lot of disparities.

Um, you know, which I have in my community, um, and a lot of communities of color and poor communities, period.

So communication is key across the board.

Um, and we talk to our um neighbors and young people about how to communicate effectively with law enforcement, not to be afraid and how to approach and what to do and how to uh use your body language and everything so that you can communicate effectively and particularly because I'm a person of hard of hearing.

I wear hearing A's.

I'm dealing with a pair right now, just driving me crazy.

However, um, this is just amazing because um so many.

I remember some incidents um in my community um as a teenager.

Well, a young man who was deaf.

And thank God the community was there when he was approached by the police because he was scared, he didn't know what to do.

He and he was using his hands to do different things, and yeah, because that's how he communicates.

But um this is technology that has come forward to help us, and I just applaud everyone involved in it, and as uh uh Commissioner Benedict do said um will this be part of the training for uh SFPD and for police officers.

I see it's something that's gonna be a model for the whole country and is definitely needed.

So I just want to commend you and everybody who was involved, and um, I know we're gonna utilize this and continue the great work we we're doing in our city with um our police department.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Turkey.

Thank you.

Thank you, President.

Um, it's okay.

Um, great job with the um not just you but your department and also the working group who put a lot of energy and time and thoughtfulness, and also the officers who participated in it.

Thank you very much for all that work.

My my just um for my own sake, I just wanted to I had a doubt about you know the public common grid that you have in general.

I'm talking in general terms.

If you have if you if your responses, it's gonna be analyzed further, or there will be further discussion around it.

So I'm just curious as to when the discussion happens.

That's a great question.

Thank you.

So uh in both of the grids, there's the public comment grid, and then there's also the uh working group grid.

The working group grid gets updated really after it goes to commission or before it goes to commission because it's still under development, right?

So we've ended the working group activity.

We might have listed something as requires further analysis.

I think you have some responses in the grid that you have.

There's maybe has two left that says requires further analysis.

We have updated it.

So our goal is to update it and then post it on the working group site as a post uh working group grid, and that has the final like the final responses.

So that stays live really until it goes to commission.

Um I don't believe there are any left in the public comment one.

That's a joint response with DPA where we try to finalize the responses after the concurrence, the leadership view.

So that stays that grid stays live until it goes to commission.

But so whatever you have might have been updated and on the working group site to capture anything that we provided the the policy decisions that were sent to commission.

Thank you so Commissioner Lowe.

This is my first exposure to the development of a DGO.

So hope you uh don't mind a naive question.

Obviously, the success of this work uh sets a high bar for me.

Um, and it's has a initial exposure to the development of new policies.

It's it's a terrific to see the collaboration that went into this.

I was actually gonna save this question for the next agenda item, but since it's um uh you've demonstrated an extremely successful example of working groups.

When do you employ working groups?

I as I read 301, it's not always uh a requirement.

It's right, but but it's uh it's uh obviously an option, and I was wondering what standards you apply.

How do you how do you implement it and uh if you could just take a minute?

That's a great question.

It applies to this agenda item and the next two uh agenda items, actually.

So it's perfect.

So our team right now, DGO 301 requires us to come to full commission and have full commission approve of our proposal of what goes to a working group.

Um, and our team uses a few things to determine the proposal.

So, first we look at did this policy, was it previously assigned to a working group?

Because if it was, we'd like to keep it within the working group realm, right?

So there are some DGOs that actually didn't even exist until 2020 or 2018, and they were initiated with a community working group.

If we update it, we'd like that to continue with a working group.

So that's one.

Two, we like to see is does this DGO, is it highly procedural or highly administrative in nature, where community members might not have a lot of say in the change?

We'd rather that not go to community because that then they could feel like they're not being heard because we are limited with what we can change in the DGO.

Uh, are the procedures tied specifically to local, state, or federal law?

In that case, we might not bring that one to a community group because again, they might feel like they're not heard because we can't take their comments and really impact uh policy.

Um so we use, or does this have high interest, high community interest?

Uh maybe it's never gone to a community working group before, but this should have community feedback.

So we have discussions before we even bring the proposal.

So we use that same criteria when we bring it to the commission and propose our idea, uh, but it has to come from the annual review list.

So the annual review list is determined early in the year by the um commission president and the chief.

So we source it from that list, we pick one of those DGOs, and that's what we propose to the commission.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item seven, please approach the podium.

Hello, I'm Gavin Impett.

I'm well that's exciting.

Um I'm one of the participants in the program.

I'm on the civilian side.

And I have to say it was a wonderful experience working with the group as a whole.

I'm uh I'm a hearing person.

Um I was selected for this because I had a my mother was um deaf and ultimately had a cochlear implant.

Um, and she did have some run-ins, not just with police but with um fire departments, you know, because she couldn't hear the sirens and things like that, and there's a lot of other challenges from just going through day to day, and one of the things that really came out during this was a lot of people are just hard of hearing, they aren't necessarily deaf, they aren't necessarily, you know, ASL speakers, and that's a very challenging thing for officers when they have to be able to communicate and trying to determine whether they can speak English, because not everybody in San Francisco does, and whether even if they do speak English, does that person really understand what's being said to them?

So it was a wonderful experience for me participating in it, and I think that's all I have to say on the subject.

Cheers.

Good evening, commissioners, uh Chief Liu, executive director Henderson, Eli Gillardin, director of the Office on Disability and Accessibility, your city's ADA coordinator.

And um, I'm just here to throw my full support and excitement uh around DGO 5.23.

Uh, as mentioned, this comes at a really critical time in our city and our world.

Um we are hosting the National Association of Deaf Conference in a few weeks.

We will have over 1,500 uh deaf individuals and families and hard of hearing families from around the country and around the world.

And really, we are kicking off uh in disability pride month next month, July.

Um, next year's celebration of the section 504 sit-ins, which really were the precursor for the signing of the ADA.

It kicked off the disability rights movement.

San Francisco really holds an important place uh when it comes to disability rights and accessibility, and this policy presents innovation and an opportunity to reaffirm and strengthen our place and our leadership in disability rights.

Uh Oda is certainly committed to partnering with the police department, with the DPA, with all of you in furthering this work, if approved.

You know, we are very much recognizing that serving our deaf and hard of hearing community is critical at this time.

And you know, we uh as the city's ADA coordinator recognize that language access, specifically American Sign Language has been an ongoing underserved resource for our community.

Um in short, just very excited uh to support this and excited to collaborate uh and continue the good work that we've started.

Unfortunately, you're getting me instead of John Kosky, who was on the work group uh and is from our office, but really also a thank you to uh all of the work group members who participated and lent their expertise.

Thank you so much.

And that is the end of public comment.

On the motion, Commissioner Lowe.

How do you vote?

Hi.

Commissioner Lowe is aye, Commissioner Scott.

Aye.

Commissioner Scott is aye.

Commissioner Leon?

Yes.

Commissioner Leoung is yes.

Uh Commissioner Benedicto?

Yes.

Commissioner Benedicto is yes, Commissioner Lyas.

Commissioner Lyas is yes, Vice President Techie.

Vice President Techie is yes, and President Clay.

Yes.

President Clay is yes, you have seven yeses.

Line item eight discussion and possible action to approve, revised department general order 3.01, department written directives for the department to use and meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law.

Discussion and possible action.

Okay, we'll get the next presentation up.

Um again, my name is Aja Steves.

I'm the director of policy development division here to talk about the proposed revision for DGO 301, department written directives.

Uh, which was a ballot measure approved by the voters and took effect in 2024.

Some of the challenges we've had with the active 2022 version of DGO 301.

I'd like to provide a DGO development overview, and then just a brief overview of the major improvements in the proposal.

I think we also did another change on a slide here, so I'll let you know which slide has changed.

So proposition E that actually translated to SF admin code 96i.

In terms of policy, SF Admin Code 96i requires the department to be more administratively effective and efficient, specifically as it relates to patrol.

I think San Franciscans were really feeling uh officers being stuck in district stations doing paperwork and they weren't on the streets.

So that is what proposition E was trying to impact.

There are several other components in the legislation, but as it relates to Proposition E, we'll get into the revisions that we made for 301.

Uh so DGO301 is specifically cited in 96i.

The other DGOs that were specified were 501, 503, 505, and 506, all of which were updated and approved by the commission back in 2024.

We did submit a revision of 301 in 2024.

It just wasn't agendized.

So we took that opportunity to continue uh the revision, and now we have it here in front of you.

Next slide.

Um so just to level set, we talked about it earlier.

So DGOs are really intended to remain general in nature as much as possible.

So in military and in this case, paramilitary organizations, uh, DGOs are the most permanent orders that are binding on all personnel under the command of the chief of police.

And they really are meant to remain general in nature because we have so many.

Actually, we have around 120 of these, because they are supposed to be easily recalled in the field by all members, even your most junior member.

So the more convoluted it gets, the more specific it gets, the more opportunities there are for errors in the field.

And those errors, when you're talking about law enforcement, um, can actually be critical and can be harmful.

So our job is to really make sure that the DGOs are general in nature, but we don't want to lose the benefits that we've gained from some of the specificities of an added in policy over the years.

Next slide.

So some of the major challenges with the active DGO 301.

When I say active, I'm just talking about the 2022 version.

The standard development process is pretty long.

It takes over a year.

The department right now is unable to make focus changes to policy without opening it up to the full standard timeline of for the update.

The DGO itself contradicts itself and has references that don't exist, so it's a little cumbersome.

The procedures are overly administrative while not considering the infrastructure.

So right now the 2022 version puts a lot of the administrative onus on the deputy chiefs.

So the deputy chiefs who run an entire bureau, we're talking about field ops, investigations, special ops.

They are named in 2022 as sort of being the group that moves the policy along.

And so that's challenging when they have an entire job.

And they also typically will offer or excuse me, assign the writing to a sworn member who also has a full-time job.

So it makes it a little challenging.

There were challenges in terms of keeping policies going because the administrative burden was so high.

It starts with stage one and then stage two, and then it goes into commission led, it goes into public review, and then it goes into concurrence, and then it goes to submission to commission, and then it comes back to working groups, and then it goes to expedited, so it's just a little disjointed.

And also there are procedures that require DPA actions, while they're not beholden to SFPD policies.

That means that the DGO really directs activities of SFPD employees, not DPA.

So when we do in this new revision, have DPA, it's more of SFPD will you know accept a recommendation from DPA in this way instead of DPA does A, B and C.

Next slide, please.

Just to give some example, I believe this is the slide that's been updated in your packet.

Current 2022 version, the standard timeline.

So there's 90 days in stage one.

Well, at least it's not to exceed 90 days in stage one.

Stage two is 55 days.

The public posting period is 30 business days.

Then there are in that section, there are administrative requirements, but no timeline associated with those requirements.

The only timeline is how long it's publicly posted, but then we're required to consider those recommendations and potentially change the policy.

So there's no timeline aligned with that.

Then simultaneous concurrence, that's leadership review, is 40 days.

But in that section also, DPA has five days to request to meet with the chief if they disagree with some of the changes that were happening, but there's no timeline for when that meeting can happen.

So that meeting can happen that week, the next week, three weeks from then.

And then there's also blue folder routing, which is just an administrative process that this policy didn't necessarily acknowledge that we are still a paramilitary organization.

Written directives does not have the authority to send something directly to the commission, nor do they have really the ability to send something directly to the chief.

So there is a process to get chain of command approval.

With the working group, so again, that ends up to be 230 business days.

And I would do want to mention that's the minimum.

So that doesn't tie in those non-designated timelines.

With a working group, again, 90 for the stage one or not to exceed 90.

There's a working group preparation, you have to get working group members recruited, right?

There's no time for that.

The policy right now says it's 120 business days just to meet.

So again, it doesn't uh include any of the administrative processes with updating the policy, getting it approved.

It's just the meeting time frame is 120 business days.

Then there's 30, again, we're right back to the standard, the 30 public posting days.

I do want to mention that the policy also says that if DPA sits on the working group, you skip stage two.

But if they don't sit on the working group, they get a stage two.

So that adds an additional 55 business days if they're not on the working group.

Fortunately, they've been on all of our working groups.

Um, and then it goes right back into the standard deadline.

So that's a minimum of 350 business days.

So that's not calendar days, so that's well over a year.

That means that every year when we give you an annual review list, we're carrying over policies from the last year.

Next slide, please.

So this is just really an animation to show you how cumbersome it is and what our team really had to do to figure out how to implement this policy.

So with the assumption that we're starting this on March 2nd, 2026, we could potentially end this in around June 2027, right?

With all the steps that are put in place.

So in stage one, there's several requirements, administrative processes that we're supposed to follow.

In stage two, there's several, and so on and so on.

So we just really wanted you to see what our team had to figure out how to implement 301 because there wasn't consistent implementation before PDD's establishment.

Next slide.

So this is with our proposal.

We clean it up.

We can't get rid of everything here, but we do clean it up so that really the timeline that that 65 days or that 45 days applies to everything that happens in that in that timeline instead of breaking it out within the uh actual stage.

So our hope with this is again assumption of March 2nd, we can end it November 9th in the same calendar year.

That's really our goal is to end it in the same calendar year.

Next slide, please.

So some of the major improvements.

Uh we did codify the policy development division.

That's the biggest thing.

Is that many of the pain points that the commission was feeling that DPA was feeling, that the deputy chiefs were feeling came because everything was decentralized.

There wasn't one uniformed group that dealt with all of the policies, tracking the policies, reporting on the policies, deconflicting the policies.

That's what we do.

Moving them along.

We are the conveyor belt as well.

We now are under the chief of staff.

So we have the authority to go to chief of staff and then the chief, and then we also can communicate easily with deputy chiefs.

Where it was buried before, that communication wasn't happening, or at least easily happening.

Um now SAPD members are provided an opportunity to give input early on the development process, and because of our establishment members know who to go to.

So they can easily come to PDD when they have issues or concerns or feedback that we can easily implement into or consider into policy.

We now do call out the 96I requirements because there are several that relate to policy development.

Uh, the business days are being changed to calendar days, so we hope that that actually speeds things up also.

Um, and the development process is largely organized in sequential order.

So that's the biggie.

And that's it.

So I know that there will be several questions, and I hope I can answer all of them, but I really truly hope we are able to move this forward to meet and confer because it would really uh improve our policy development process.

Commissioner Benedicto.

Thank you very much, President Clay.

Thank you so much for that presentation, Ms.

Steves.

Um for our newer commissioners or members of the public, DGO 3.01 has been uh a long point of concertation.

I think the director Steves and I have probably talked about DGO 3.01 more in the last five years than any other single DGO.

Uh, it's not usually the flashiest of our DGOs, uh, because it is a one that is a process CGO, and so unlike something like 5.01, which are useful force, which is still probably the most important DJO that we have.

It it really is up there given that it affects the development of all other policy that this department undertakes.

Um, and so I'm glad that we're revisiting some of the of the changes and some of those pain points of DJO 5.03.01.

Um in particular, uh, and and I do want to thank you, Director Steves, for you and your team.

I know a lot of the points that we've spent a number of years discussing have been addressed here.

I particularly want to uh compliment that it I like the structure of it.

I think that it's more streamlined, I think that it's shorter, which is good.

Uh obviously there's been a lot of discussion at this commission about undefined timelines and those sort of black holes that thing is can fall into in the DGO, and I think that pretty much the undefined timelines have been removed in this pretty comprehensively.

So I'm very glad to see those undefined timelines.

And I think that the reorganization and structural centralization at PDD, I think is a positive step because it really centralizes that ownership, and like you said, gives you that clear chain of command.

So I'm very grateful for those changes.

I do have a number of questions, uh, because I do think that, like I said, 3.01 represents um a huge part of what of how all the rest of the department CGOs look.

So I want to go through a couple categories.

I'm gonna start with a couple of questions about changes in the role of DPA.

And I understand that some of the changes were made to reflect that this document is an SFPD document and you know is meant to govern the role that SFPD and binds SFPD, and it shouldn't be used to bind other departments.

So I I'm cognizant of that.

That being said, I I want to get to explanation on a couple of changes.

The former version of 3.01 had a category of initiated DGO.

I know that now there are, I know they weren't called this in the old one, but now you have the chief initiated, the commission initiated, and the member initiated.

There was a category in the prior version for when DPA wanted to initiate a DGO that is no longer present in this draft.

Can you speak to that a little bit?

Sure.

Even in the current draft, the 2022 version, while it's under initiation, DPA doesn't have the authority to initiate.

But they even the way it's written in 2022, they'd have to go to the chief, and then the chief would initiate.

Or the commission.

Or the commission.

So that can still happen.

Nothing has changed that process because DPA has that charter authority.

And even we've expanded it instead of having the recommendations just be purely the recommendation grid, we're also saying whatever they report out to the commission, PDD will consider.

So they have a different format for how they report policy recommendations, we'll accept that as well.

So really we're just cleaning it up.

But also, if you notice in the 2022 version, DPA is only able to initiate uh to the chief under very specific circumstances.

We've removed that because DPA has the charter authority to provide policy recommendations about anything.

So it was just sort of a placeholder that didn't make a lot of sense to the policy team because they can come to commission, they can come to the chief still, and they can also come to PDD, and we can initiate because we believe in it, or we can advocate for it with the chief, or the commission can.

So that hasn't changed anything.

We just cleaned it up in policy.

That's very helpful.

Thank you for that.

So it's your understanding that changing, and I think we're in agreement on that, that removing that language doesn't have any effect because nor could it have any effect on DPA's charter authority.

It just makes it clear that there's not a specific process for that.

Okay, that's very helpful.

Thank you.

Um next, I'd like to talk about still on the topic of DPA.

Um, one issue that this commission had flagged, particularly prior to the 2022 revisions, was uh where a lot of DGOs kind of sat in concurrence for a long time, as as something you and I have talked about.

You and Chief, we've talked about that as well as well as your predecessors.

One uh, and there have been many attempts to improve concurrence over the years.

Uh, one move to simultaneous concurrence, I think really helped because for a long time it would just sort of go on the merry-go-round of not simultaneous concurrence for months or years.

Uh, one change in the 2022 version was to explicitly carve out a role for DPA at concurrence.

I noticed that that language was not in the current one.

Can you speak to that?

It's wide open.

I think because the precedent had been set, it is helpful to have DPA there.

However, concurrence is a really good opportunity for SFPD leadership to have discussions about operations that aren't necessarily related to just DGOs because manuals will go there as well, other procedural documents that might not come directly to the commission, and it is really their opportunity to have as much psychological safety as possible to really cess out um situations that are procedural in nature.

So there are opportunities where DPA may not be in concurrence, but we define the concurrence group pretty loosely, and because DPA is already in concurrence as it relates to DGOs, we'd like to continue that, but we do want to open that choice up to discuss other procedural documents, not just DGOs.

Would it be your uh that's helpful, thank you?

Would it be your expectation that for DGOs DPA would be involved in likely the same number of concurrences as they are?

Just continue inviting them, yes.

And that the things that they wouldn't be included if they weren't because they're not DGOs is something they're not included in right now because it's not spelled out in 2.01.

So we already have some of these documents, like in our it's getting in the weeds, but in a power DMS, right?

Our system and how we do some documents through.

DPA isn't a part of that, right?

So there are sometimes we'll have DGO, not DGO concurrence, but concurrence meetings that might be manuals.

It would be like Power DMS essentially, but in person or on teams where DPA might not be invited.

So uh, but because they've been a part of the DGO process, I don't foresee removing them specifically from that.

That's helpful to hear.

So if in, you know, because I think one thing this commission's tried to do is be nimble and be willing to make changes, as we just talked about last week when we approved the expedited changes to 10.11.

So if let's say after this goes through meeting conferred ghost implementation one year after implementation, because again, like all we have right now are what predictions we have, we hear from DPA that, oh, we've been invited to half as many concurrences on DGOs as before, that would be something that the commission could like.

If that were to happen, would that be a sign that something had gone wrong in the relationship?

Like what would that mean to you if if DPA was if was that invited.

So right now, and not even right now.

Since PDD was established, we have had consistent um communication with CPA.

It's part of why this works, right?

And so even there are things in 301 where it doesn't, probably some partnership.

It doesn't require DPA where we reach out to DPA anyway.

We want to give them a heads up that we're doing things.

We want to ask for their feedback.

This particular 301 update did not require DPA feedback because it was due to legislation, but we reached out to them early in December and then reached out to them again.

So they're they're part of the fabric of it.

Um so I again I don't see how they would be completely removed from concurrence, but certainly if there was that complaint, if we play that out, they could certainly request the commission to change or they could ask the chief to consider amendment, and then we could initiate either through the commission or the chief.

Okay, that's very helpful.

And so just to to wrap up the our concurrent discussion, so it's your understanding that the new language of G under concurrent group gives SFPD flexibility to invite DPA to concurrence groups for where it make for some but not for others, including for DGOs and for not DGOs.

I think it stays standard and as DGOs, but there's a recognition that concurrence might include other documents outside of DGOs, where DPA is maybe not as involved in the development process, or is it the document that might not go to the commission?

Okay.

That's helpful, thank you.

Okay.

Um I have oh no, I still have yeah, I have a couple of categories questions.

All right.

Um I also noticed that in I think this one is just a matter of it moved in the prior version under the working group process, DPA has a role there, whereas now it's it's just in the definition of working group.

Do I understand that correctly?

So DPA is still invited to all working groups?

Yeah, yes, they're part of the working group.

Okay.

They're actually, I think, in the definition of the working process.

Yeah, so I don't know if they've been moved to the definition of the working group, as opposed to the old section on the working group procedures.

Correct.

Okay, good to know.

All right, my next category of questions relates to the role of the commission.

Um I noticed that in section 301.05B on determined timelines.

There's a process to determine timelines for chief initiated, for employee initiated, but there isn't a uh what is the process to determine timelines for when the commission initiates a DGO?

We're following the order, the 30301, essentially.

So with commit you're talking about commission initiated, correct?

Yeah, okay.

So the idea is that it would take the body to vote on the initiation, it would the information would be in the resolution, and then it would come to PDD, and then we would follow the standard uh timeline that's in 301.

But isn't the first step on the timeline before stage one number one is determine timelines and where based on executive sponsors, a timeline will be draft.

Yeah, so commission any commission DGO would still require an SME and an executive sponsor.

You'd still need the uh subject matter expert, you'd still need like let's say it's a DGO that you've initiated that's field ops.

You would still need the deputy chief as your executive sponsor because they are the subject matter experts.

So we still need the subject matter expert assigned.

So it would still rely on all of the timelines that we'd put in here to present.

We would still PDD would present a or propose a timeline to that executive sponsor based on the other workloads that we have.

That makes sense.

I guess just my my biggest concern was more of a textual one for this one where it says commission initiated will follow the development processes outlined in this order, but then when you get to B, one, there's not a process for commission related within the order.

Because when you go to the commission initiated, just says the PDD will follow the development processes outlined in this order.

So the idea is that we just go to standard process.

Okay.

It defaults to that.

Um you mentioned in response to a question from Commissioner Lowe that right now the working group list is determined, it's it's it's our next agenda item.

It's determined by a vote of the commission.

Uh that's changed in this order, right?

So could could you explain that change?

It's changed only in that uh it makes it easier for us to determine the annual list and the working group list earlier on in the year.

It's been, I mean, we have come to you for the last three years to make this request, but it's been later on the year when we can get on calendar.

Sometimes your meetings don't happen.

So it pushes it further and further out, and that does put a bit of a burden on us to get everything gathered.

So, in the name of efficiency, what we'd like to do is work with the chief and the president of the police commission to come up with the annual list, and then in that annual list, we will already have the proposed working group.

So ultimately the president of the police commission and the chief can determine if they agree with that proposal, and then we'll know by February 1st essentially, or by December 31st of the year.

And so that's a change because right now that the chief and the president of the commission come up with the annual list, but the entire commission approves, which goes into a working group.

Correct.

So now that would be the it would just be the chief and and whoever the president of the commission is for the.

Because it's based on the same proposal that the whole commission has been getting from PDD, but we would like to communicate it.

The requirement, once the annual list is defined and determined, we have to communicate it to the police commission as a whole and to the president, excuse me, the employees and to leadership and to DPA.

So we've required that communication so everybody understands what that annual workload is.

Right.

Communication is required, but not commission approval.

Because the annual list is not subject to commission approval, just the working group list.

So now neither of those things will be subject to commission approval under 3.01.

Okay.

I like to talk about memorandums of understanding.

Sure.

The prior DGO had uh some of this is as I know is cleanup, but uh, do you understand the changes in the DGO to include substantive changes to what the processes for member and understanding?

Yes.

You're saying did you are there?

What are the changes to the MOU to that process?

The primary change is that the pain point I believe that the commission was feeling at the time of the 2022 um update of 301 was there was a concern that MOUs were impacting or diverging from policy.

Okay.

So now what we've done is we've added that last section in this proposal that if there are agreements that affect directives, PDV and the chief's office have to be involved so that we can get ahead of that.

So there is no divergence of policy.

So we ensure that if there is an MOU or an M or of agreement that we make sure that that can't be executed if it is asking us to diverge from policy.

We get involved early, we can update the policy, that would then come to the commission, and that discussion would happen at open hearing, essentially.

So it's a step ahead so that the commission doesn't have to manage that administrative burden to determine that policy won't be diverged because of an MOU.

So we don't remove the charter authority that the commission has to review that for sure.

We just put a step in so that that doesn't have to be fixed by the commission.

Do you see the agreements affecting directives that this section?

I think what seems to me a substantive a substantive difference is that the 3.0108 language, and I do agree that I think PDD should get involved earlier with these MOUs that impact, I think we're in agreement on there.

The language in the draft says that prior to execution agreement, the chief of the chief's office shall meet to review and determine whether they need to modify like uh yeah, what you just described.

That is still a change from the current language, which is 3.010, which requires any MOU that has that impact be submitted to the commission for for approval.

So, like that you the so we are in agreement that there was formerly an approval process required, and now it's an internal confer process as to whether it goes to the commission at all.

But the approval was there to ensure that there wasn't a divergence from policy, right?

So that's why it was folded into the 2022 version.

Because again, there was no PDD.

There was no one group managing this process.

So, in a lot of ways, the commission was taking a lot of that work on, right?

So now, again, the purpose in 2022 was to ensure there was no divergence.

Now that's our job.

So we make sure and then we update the policy to ensure that you make sure, right?

This is where we give you the opportunity to see the updates to align with the MOU.

That's the purpose of that.

Because the department head still has the authority to sign off on MOUs, but we're not removing again the commission's authority to review if the time comes.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

I'd also like to ask in the prior version, there was a requirement, and I know we've struggled with this requirement, so I I but I'd like to hear a little bit more.

Uh I noticed the language requiring um regular updates has been removed from the current drafts.

Regular updates?

Yes, so the use of there was prior language on at DGO 3.01.

3.01.04 at B, this was this at page seven of the red line requiring regular updates of existing general orders, and this was put into place in response to the DOJ reforms that a lot of the SFPD DGOs were had not got updated a long time and imposed some update requirements.

I understand that sometimes the problem was we weren't meeting these requirements.

Sure.

But is this language, yeah?

Is there an equivalent to this in the final?

So we fixed it because now we're doing an annual review.

So we wanted to make it clear that in order to create the annual update list, right?

PDD will be doing an annual review of every single DGO.

So not on a tiered list, not every three years or every five years or every one year.

It's every single year in order to determine what our updates are for that calendar year, we're looking at every single one.

We're doing department surveys, we're doing leadership review, we're doing questions to specialized units to make sure that we're staying on some type of we're not having these DGOs that haven't been updated since the 90s because we're looking at them every single year.

So we've actually moved it up.

Okay.

And then I think it's my last question I see on my notes right now.

I know that currently in the uh I'm looking at page 13 of the red line that the former section on working groups required um quarterly updates uh to the commission, DPA, and and working group members on the status of the draft, which shall include a summary of any of all substantive changes until the DGO is published.

I think I know a lot of working group members have really appreciated that because sometimes, as you know, they it can go kind of quiet.

Uh and then I know the commission appreciates that because sometimes DGOs will go through a process and we won't hear from them for a long time.

I notice that requirement is no longer.

It's not a requirement because also we've changed the process, right?

Where uh we are still the owner owner of the document, and I think there was a lot of um concern when the community members were part of the drafting and they wanted to know what had changed since.

But because we are uh still the owners of the drafting and it's due to the synthesized uh community feedback, and we have an Emily also who consistently stays in touch with community members until all the way until commission.

If you do want consistent updates, we also put it in Sparks.

So when we do our Sparks reports the commission, it's folded in there.

Um, but always we can do a unit order for PDD specifically or for the working group um unit and have us have more consistent communication with the commission office that can be forwarded to you.

But we figured since we're already doing reports to the commission on DGOs, we're already doing reports with Sparks, we wouldn't have to fold the commission in, and because now we have more of a consistent relationship with the community members, we don't have to do this quarterly update.

Okay, that's helpful.

I I and I I I do see one more question in my notes.

I apologize that I said last one, but this is my last one before.

I'll hand it off.

The current draft, the 2022 draft also has requirements regarding um, wait, where were my notes here?

Oh yes.

Um, again, in response to one of the 272 Department of Justice recommendations, there was specifically language about department notices both being posted internally, but but to the extent possible also posted on the SFPD website because one issue for as you're familiar with was back when they were called department bulletins.

Uh, they weren't as accessible to members of the public, even if they were and I noticed that requirement was removed.

Is that that requirement was removed, but also there's a penal code that was updated like I think a year ago or two years ago that we've been working on on our website, public facing.

There's a requirement for law enforcement agencies to publish all of their policies.

Um so that falls into that.

So we want to publish that in compliance with that penal code.

So that doesn't necessarily need to be here.

Uh that's just a general requirement for all of our policies being publicly posted.

So, like my question earlier about GPA and concurrence, if it if it you wouldn't expect that the accessibility of department notices would be affected by this change of the DJO.

I don't see how it would be impactful.

So, like whatever we're publishing would would you think even though the requirements gone because the uh of that other requirement, the same number of notices that are online should remain that way, correct?

State law requires that whatever policy and procedure and I think training documents as well is posted publicly.

So I don't think that impacts anything.

Okay.

Thank you.

Those are all my questions at the time.

Commissioner Lyas.

Thank you, Miss Stees, for um your hard work and your depart the uh unit's hard work on this.

I just had a some clarifying questions.

Uh on the DGO that we are provided in our packet, there's red lines and then italicized uh markings.

And strikeouts.

So uh is it my is my understanding correct that the red lines are additions that you that you your team has added uh to the existing DGO is that?

Red lines are new text, yes.

And what about text that are in black underline and italicized?

What do those represent?

Sure, that is text that's already in uh the current version of 301, it's just been moved to another location.

So it's it's current 2022 language that's been moved in the proposal.

So, for example, can we go to oh and I don't want to sort of back up a little bit before I think we get into specific questions because I think it's really important, especially for the new commissioners and the public to know that 301 is sort of how the sausage is made.

Sure, right, and and these are the rules that the police officers um adhere to, and I think that this was a huge area of contention from uh part of the DOJ recommendations in terms of SFPD not having consistency when it comes to how policy is made, especially DGOs, department bulletins, notices, and they indicated that there has to be a streamlined process.

Um there's also was feedback from the community members and other individuals that indicated that um SFPD wasn't receptive or open to community input.

The process wasn't uh clear or transparent to the public.

And so I think there was a huge effort to fix 301.

Uh, and also too, I think as Commissioner Benedicto points out that the DGOs were taking forever to do, right?

And so that's why there was a huge effort to revise uh the this DGO uh back in 2022, and even before then there were it there were issues and revisions that were made to it.

And and I think that the goal or my understanding is that the goal of your revisions for this DGO is to uh create a uh system where DGOs continued to uh get processed and uh developed through the process in an expedited fashion, right?

Yes.

Right?

Because before 2022, there was a huge um lag in the ability to get DGOs out and updating them, right?

Correct.

And we still even have tons of DGOs that are from the 90s that we still haven't fixed, right?

They're on our list.

So I want to share.

Can you put this on the um Sergeant?

Can you put this on the uh overhead to share?

Because I think it's good to see uh in context and historically how DGOs, how many DGOs have been processed and sort of the what this means in terms of numbers of when we revised 301 and what an effect it had on the ability to get DGOs through the process, get these uh general orders updated um so that we have new uh DGOs that are consistent with modern day policing, right?

Because you know, it's like sports, right?

If you have a playbook from the 80s that and you're in the 2000s, that's not really helpful, especially for policing, which is an ever-evolving sort of profession.

And um, you know, with AI, with with technology, it's like we have to be able to be nimble to revise these policies so that our officers are put in the best position to know how to deal with situations, and also too that they have the information in terms of best practices when it comes to modern day policing, right?

Okay, fair to say, Okay, so I I want to turn your attention, and I and I noticed, you know, again, I mean it's a little blurry, but this also may be my vision.

I also don't know.

You'll see that in 2022, when this policy was revised, there's an uptake in the number of DGOs that um are uh that have that have been processed by the department and that come before the commission in order to uh update the policies of the department.

And while I appreciate some of the uh changes that you made to the version that's before us, um there are areas that cause me grave concern because I feel that some of the changes take us back to things that have happened before the recommendations and the reform efforts that the department spent a lot of time and a lot of money uh to try and adhere to.

Um and one of the and we saw it actually, I think a couple months ago when the death and hard of hearing um community members came out and they told us that certain things were happening uh at the working group and that they weren't being informed, and the community was really upset, and um, you know, you had even admitted that there were some, you know, um some downfalls that the department had had, or or some, you know, they had missed the mark on some things and weren't as communicative with the community as they needed to be, and you know, we had an outcry, they came, we listened, we had to put it over, we made changes, you went back, talked to the community, worked out a lot of things.

Just for clarification, are you talking about 520 or the deaf and hard of hearing?

The deaf and hardened.

I think you're from the language access.

Sorry, yes, you're right.

Language access, sorry.

Yes, yes, that one, thank you.

Um, but it being that the community was uh sort of upset.

Can you put that back on, Sergeant?

Sorry, I was looking at those numbers.

Um, and so I and I think that that one was also passed in 2026, um, that one, but I I say that to say that um again the community, you know, one of the the revisions that took place in 2022 when the when 301 was revised was to incorporate um in writing clear expectation of how commu how the community can be involved and the transparency that needs to oh thank you that needs to happen um during during this process, right?

So um one of the things that I appreciate, and I I hear your answers to Commissioner Benedicto's questions is oh well that we it it's the practice or or yes, we'll do it, even though it's not in writing.

And I've learned being on this commission as a lawyer, if it's not in writing, then it's up for interpretation, right?

And so it's always good practice to have things in writing and to be clear on you know, sort of what's gonna happen rather than just saying, oh well, DPA is invited, or we can invite them, because I think that was a reason why the revisions were made to DGO 3.01 in 2022 is because of that attitude where there was practices, but they weren't memorialized in the DGO, and they weren't memorialized so that when we go to it and say, Oh, how does this work?

Well, who gets to come?

When does this happen?

It wasn't in there.

Yeah, and I think the answer was, oh, well, that's the common practice of the department, or that's the common practice of DPA, or that so it was just hard because there was that sort of subjectivity that existed.

So right, and so for example, I want to go back to what you said, which is um if there is a word that's in the DGO that's underlined and italicizing in black, you say it's moved from a different section, right?

So let's start with page one of the red line version where it says document on 3.01.02 definitions, the annual review list where it says re annual and then review list is added, and then it says the document that determines so the word document, where is that coming from?

Where is it moved from?

From the annual review list section that's in the current 2022 version.

So that's the content that we took from the annual review list section.

Okay, so it's just a word, it's not necessarily a whole um procedure then.

Then is that right?

It's just a word in this case, yes.

Okay, can I before you keep going?

I do just kind of want to back up a little bit.

So as part of PDD's function, right?

Is we make sure that some these information, I said this earlier in the presentation about um deaf and heart of hearing.

But our goal is to make sure that whatever we have gained benefit from lives somewhere.

The DGO might not be the most appropriate place.

PDD has several unit orders.

We have working group unit orders, we have the chief's uh directive as well.

So that's all a guideline in those unit orders.

That's where we get into the detail of this is where the coordinator will reach out to the like specifically with the working group one.

The coordinator will reach out to Wreck and Park to use their uh email distribution list, then they will reach out to the library to use their email distribution list, they will go to captain's meetings.

That doesn't belong in the DGO.

It also includes when we invite DPA.

So all of the nitty-gritty procedural uh information lives where it is supposed to, and that is in a unit order or in a bureau order or in a directive.

But as it relates to policy, we're moving all of that very, very specific step-by-step information that lives in the current version into unit orders so that we can follow that and codify it.

And I'm glad you brought that up because that actually is problematic because the DOJ indicated that Bureau orders and department notices that, you know, because that was one of the criticisms, right?

That the DGO has information, but there's other information that's pertinent, but it's not in there.

It's in the department bulletins, the bureau orders, unit orders, and all these other places.

And if you look at the DOJ recommendations, one of the recommendations was no, it all needs to be in one place so that when people come and look at it, it's all there, and we don't have these ancillary documents out there that explains the nitty-gritty as you say.

So the fact that PPD has this stuff, that's great, but it doesn't help us because right now what's in front of us is a DGO, and I don't know what those unit orders that PPD has, so that we can look at them and see is it incorporated, is it covered?

Are our concerns in there?

So that's so the DOJ concerns really don't consider again.

I'm sorry, wait, hold on, hold on a second.

I I didn't I didn't hear the first part.

The DOJ concerns and the concerns that you're expressing now all miss a really key point, and that is the infrastructure.

The department for decades has been building policy in a decentralized way, where there was no one formal way of tracking, there was no one reporting, there was no one group that handled the deconfliction.

None of that existed.

So something they were happening in silos, and what you were receiving were siloed information, right?

And none of them connected, which is what the DOJ was really bringing up.

And what you're actually talking about is this decentralization and the impacts of that, their effects of that is that the commission doesn't have access to that information, members don't have information that access to that information.

Leadership, DPA doesn't have access to that when it's decentralized.

The biggest piece that fixes all of that is PDD.

It's that we are all under one umbrella.

Policy isn't being cooked in FOB, it's not being cooked in the investigations unit, it's not being cooked in SOB, it's all under one umbrella, so it's much easier to locate.

So if you ever have those concerns, you can simply ask Sergeant Youngblood, can I see the unit order?

And we can send it to you.

Because we have it all there.

I think the challenge that DOJ was trying to impact, and what you're saying the 2022 version of 301 was trying to address was that it was an octopus, right?

And so the policy, you can't address one singular issue without acknowledging that it was decentralized.

No, and I think you're right, and I think that's why Chief Scott worked to create the professional development unit and other units to do to address exactly what you had, which address exactly what it is that you're raising now, because I know that PPD was recently developed and there are other things that were brought into it, but there was a uh a centralized uh unit that actually handled this.

It wasn't the other not in reality.

The reality was they were farming out the policy throughout the department.

All they did was uh have a written directives unit that was made of assistance, like uh civilian assistants that do not have the authority in a paramilitary organization to have any impact on deputy chiefs or chiefs's decisions makings.

The highest ranking was a captain who can't then urge deputy chiefs to do any work.

So what they were doing was farming it out.

It was still an octopus.

So what is fundamentally changed is now there is there is no octopus.

I'm under the chief of staff, so I have the ability to go directly and urge deputy chiefs and have and she and she and the chief have the authority to move things forward.

Everything's under the umbrella.

So these individual issues can't really be talked about as they're on an island because they are no longer.

I think there was the idea of that before, as it was a good idea, poor execution, wasn't able to actually do the work that we're doing.

No, and I think it's great that now execution wise it's there, but I think the idea was there, and I I mean we've had numerous calls with the chief, you and other commissioners about sort of policy, and you know, you were you were brought in early and looped in, and so was the commission office.

But I think that again, going back to the DOJ recommendations that infrastructure was important because they also addressed that in the 262-page um document, but they also even with infrastructure, I think the key centralized point is that it needs to be in one place so everybody knows, not we have a DGO and then we have unit orders that we have to ask for or Bureau orders that we have to ask for in order to supplement and give us full context.

But I want to turn your attention to a few um things.

Uh first on page um five of 21.

Uh it's C that's crossed out.

Um, and it talks about the community policing working group, the working group list, and the annual review list.

And the reason that we that, you know, Chief Scott and other uh leadership in the department as well as DPA included that section there that you've crossed out, is because you know, while the the president of the police commission does have the power to set the agenda, um, you know, there other the other powers there there really aren't many because it's a full body and it's a full commission that make decisions when it comes to policy and discipline of the police department, and one of the reasons that we included this section is to have that annual review list.

Yes, it would be curated by the chief of police and the president of the police commission, but we would agendize it every year in front of the full commission so that all commissioners could look at that list and provide input at that time and say, hey, you know, Commissioner Benedict or Commissioner Scott, you know, uh I some of the people that reach out to me or the community groups I go to, they have concerns about you know this DGO or this policy or this practice of the department, um, you know, that's important to them.

You know, why isn't that on this list?

And without that, we don't have that ability because it's not like we can, you know, because of quorum issues and the Brown Act, we can't have that open fluid discussion uh outside of the commission.

So that's why we put it here because we need that one to be able to exchange ideas as a seven-member body to talk about, like, okay, this is the list, or you know, hey, what about this, or you know, what's the priority?

And that we have the discussion also too, transparency to the community, so that the community knows what we're working on and we're you know what we're talking about in terms of um assisting, you know, the department however we can.

Um, and so it also cuts out community engagement.

Another main reason why we had that here was so that we could have community come and give their input because I think that you know we are beholden to the community, right?

And so we we need to listen to them.

And I know that the the issue is oh, well, they can you know they can reach out in other ways, but it's like when or where?

I mean, this is where we we hear it and have that open dialogue because they can come and voice their opinion, but unless it's agendized item, you know, we can't really have full robust conversation about it, and I think that that's really problematic.

So I I while I understand your intention to be streamlined, efficient, and effective, I think that cutting out this section where uh it documents the ability or the requirement that this annual list and deciding which route working groups actually turn into a working group, that we need to have that robust discussion in front of a full commission rather than approval by just the chief of police uh and the and the police commission president.

Can I address just before you continue?

Because you've said a lot of things that touch on two different things.

But I just want to make sure I remember of it.

No worries.

And let me ask my question and then we can talk about it.

So I know that it's cut out.

So I wanted you to tell me where in the policy that you put this um ability to have a um because it says after the issuance of the annual DGO review list as described, the police commission at a public meeting where it solicits input from the department and DPA determines which DGOs from the list will require community feedback.

Where is that in the new or in your revised 301?

Can you point it to point it point it to me in this document?

Just a point of clarification, because earlier you said that um in current 301, the whole commission has the ability to talk about the entire list.

Is that the understanding?

Right.

So they don't right now.

In current in the 2022 version, the entire annual list is approved by just the commission president and the chief currently.

So that hasn't changed.

The only thing that has changed to get to that question is the now the community of the community working group is adopted in that annual list.

So then we communicate with the commission at any time the commission has the ability to agendize that for discussion, and we can come and present to the agenda and tell it tell you what our thinking was, and that can be discussed at that point.

You still have the authority as a full commission to issue a resolution and require a working group that's commissioned uh a commission group.

So we have to do another step.

Why would we have to specifically request it when we already have a policy that allows this and it's already baked into our yearly practice of having this here so that we can have that robust discussion?

And yes, the annual review list is a tentative, but we do normally have it in front of the full commission to get input because we were assigning individual commissioners to work uh with the department on DGOs to make sure that they move forward because as you see from the document that was on the um prompter, uh DGOs weren't moving.

And so when the commissioners got involved and started um, you know, moving helping the department move the DGOs forward, we started to see an increase in DGOs being revised.

So I guess if it's something that we can already agendize, then my request would be to leave that language in because it doesn't hurt anything, it doesn't put the onus on us.

I'll tell you what it does.

It actually does cause a little bit of an issue in that to get an on the once we get the list approved, uh once we get our SMEs assigned, once we get the deputy chief, so when we do the administrative process, to get it onto the commission keeps getting backlogged and backlogged and backlogged and backlogged.

So then the department, specifically PDD, doesn't find out until March, April, May, June, whether we can have the working group based on the workload of the commission.

And so the whole purpose of that is we want to get the working group started as soon as possible.

So now we're not going to be able to get a working group started till July or August because we were backlogged with commission agendas, but you always have the ability.

We're our idea is to get that list approved by December 31st.

Report out, it's a uh it's a document that we have to provide to the commission.

So you'd have it by January 1 of the next year.

At any point, you can ask for that to be agendized and we can discuss it earlier on.

So we put a new deadline on it to move this in so that we can actually get that working group completed in that calendar year.

What I have noticed since PDD's establishment, and we have been we were established in August and actually May of 2023, but uh had staff in August of 2023.

So we look at those numbers, it wasn't necessarily because individual commissioners were pushing it through, it was because we had again a centralized unit.

But every time we've come to the commission with our proposals, it's been you know a few months into the year, and we haven't been able to start our uh working groups until June or July, and that's pretty late to start it.

And again, that's based on commission um schedules.

So our idea is not only to help PDD help leadership, but help community and help the policy along so it doesn't get languishing based on waiting for commission review.

So that was the idea of just putting it on the list, and that's a list that everyone is privy to, and as you say, it can be changed, it can be discussed.

You still have that ability.

It's just an administrative process that we're trying to trying to streamline so that we can start the working group early.

You bring up two really good points.

One, I think that that's not exactly entirely true because uh we did have a working group uh uh uh liaison or actually someone who was gonna head the working groups.

They started and then they're she never did one today.

I did the first one.

Yes, so yes, we one there was a hard time feeling.

And that list wasn't approved per 301 either.

That one was only approved by the police commission president, it didn't go to full commission, even though 2022 did.

We're talking about the working group liaison.

So what happened was that we didn't have the the department didn't have the staff to uh have a person be the dedicated pinpoint person and run these working groups and do all of that.

They then found someone, but then they left shortly thereafter, then it took them back to the drawing board and they had to rehire somebody, then get the infrastructure built in order to push out and create a system for the working group.

So, so yes, so that that there was a delay, but not because it was because you couldn't fill the position and you needed to create some of the infrastructure.

Not entirely, but that that year was 2023, and uh DGO301 was in full effect in 2022.

September 2022, it went live.

2023 is what you're talking about.

That year, it didn't go to full commission, only the commission president approved that working group list.

Yes.

So I'm but we also had it before the full commission, shortly thereafter.

But I think to address your point, I think that since you already have these timelines built in, why not just put it with the timeline then?

Because here's the thing we can leave this language in and then just implement the timeline so that you can indicate that after the issuance of the list within 20 days, um, it should be agendized, or at the next uh police commission, it shall be agendized.

And with that language, it then forces us to have it on calendar.

Additionally, if there is a request by the department to have something agendized, I know uh President Clay gets it agendized right away.

I don't think that there's, and I also did myself, so I don't think that there was a delay in terms of where we move things because again, the president has the ability to to move things on the calendar, especially when it's uh requested, and the rules actually say that if something is requested to be agendized, it is supposed to go on the next calendar unless uh there is some reason or hardship as to why that agenda item couldn't go on.

Right.

So I think that uh given those safeguards that are in there, again, we can leave this language in, which would require a robust which would require a meeting before the full commission as to which um which DGOs would require a working group and for the full commission, allowing the full commission to have a robust discussion on uh the list with the chief as well, because I think that I'm sure that commissioners also have questions for the chief about like why did you select uh this DGO versus that DGO?

Because all of them need to be updated.

I appreciate that.

But in the last few years, the PDD proposal there hasn't been robust discussion.

Uh, we've told you in all of our PowerPoints every single year, we've told you the criteria for selection.

We've discussed it with DPA ahead of the presentation, we've become become agreement with DPA before we even come to the commission.

We'd use the same criteria, and there hasn't been robust discussion.

There's just been a vote to move it forward.

And so, even like another example with 301, one of the requirements in current 301, like is the extension right to give a if there's an extension uh or excuse me, an expedited policy, we have to put it on the next agendized um full board meeting.

Well, there wasn't any for for three meetings.

So there is sort of this backlog that does happen when waiting for commission approval for just an administrative process.

Separately, the working group itself falls under different rules.

So when a department head uh approves it, which is what we're proposing, um, it's a little more flexible to have the meetings in different locations.

Um the noticing requirement would stay the same, but it's just more flexible to have meetings when a department head issues a working group.

When a commission does it, it has the same meeting requirements as a commission.

So the locations are a little less flex flexible, the noticing is a lot more strict, the agenda isn't as flexible.

We have to take a public comment, which is great and does work, but it's the flexibility that's needed for community, and really where community meetings benefit is with flexibility.

The commission approved working groups has less flexibility.

So again, we're trying to do a lot of things here where we want to keep our gold standard, right?

But we want to have the flexibility of having the department head choose it.

We want to communicate that transparently to the commission, allowing them an opportunity to put on agenda for discussion.

But we want to start that earlier in the year, and that hasn't, in my experience or yours, happened early, and there hasn't been robust discussion.

So the things you're asking for, we haven't experienced.

So we have to look at the evidence to inform how we're updating the policy, and that's what we were using.

No, and I appreciate that, but I don't think that that's entirely true because we have had robust discussions because when after we had this implemented and we had the issue with the working group, we did it, we did have it agendized on a yearly basis.

And I recall that the robust discussion, Commissioner Benedicto was here at the time where we assigned DGOs and asked uh individual commissioners what the status of the DGO was because what we did is again, commissioners had DGOs assigned to them, and then on a weekly basis, they would provide a report to the assigning is a very different matter.

That can certainly happen on a full public hearing and that.

Can we finish?

Sorry.

Thank you.

Um, so but what I'm saying is that you're right, those are two things.

Because on a weekly basis, they would give a report on commission reports as to what the status of the the DGO that they were involved in or responsible for was.

Yes, they did do that, but a separate and apart, we did have this these matters agendized so that before the full commission, we could talk about the list.

We had the list agendized.

Commissioners had the ability to ask questions and to be informed of what was happening.

Sometimes they didn't have we didn't have, you know, the commissioners didn't have discussion and they were fine with the list.

But there were uh there was a year, uh, and I can't if I don't know if it was I think it was 24 when there was an issue with the list, and there was some question as to hey, why is this on why is this under or why did you uh prioritize a certain DGO over this DGO?

Um so there was that discussion.

But in any event, I think it goes back to what I'm really trying to say, which is that with this DGO, we need in writing the ability as a full commission to look at this list and have that discussion and have uh uh a discussion on the annual list, number one, and number two, out of the list, which ones deserve working groups, because I think that not only as a commission do we need to talk about that as a full body so that we don't violate laws, but also two, I think it also again allows the community to engage so that they are involved in the process early on.

So my proposal would be to keep some of this language and then institute the uh dates and deadlines that you indicated so that it's in writing and that we have that ability as a full commission to discuss that.

Uh so that's my request uh with respect to uh the working group list and the annual review list, and that goes um that was in the old section 3.0.

Um, specifically section C.

So I don't know if we can maybe work out some of the wording or figure out a way to reconcile that so that that ability uh is still there, where again there is the ability for the full commission to do the list and the working group list and for us to discuss it and to have the timelines like you are requesting, Miss Steves, with respect to that.

Um, the other question I had was um I think that also goes to page seven, which is the number six, the chief initiated the chief has discretion in consultation with the commission president to modify the annual review list at any point in the year.

Um, but I think that also too we want to have full transparency, and so if we're talking about the annual list, I think that that having it written down so that we have a meeting to discuss that will be beneficial to all parties because as I read some of the chief initiated and commission initiated and even member initiated, it doesn't seem to me to have a marker where we can have it again before the full commission unless we specifically agendize it.

But the problem with that is we may not know, because again uh that we have rules where we can't open, like all of us can't openly talk about it unless we're in a certain setting.

So I just want to remind you that again the current version, the 2022 version has no carve out for the full commission to approve or review or discuss the annual list.

So I hear you kind of I'm not sure if we're just conflating the community group with the annual list, but I've heard you say a few times about the annual list and the commission.

That would be a complete change from the current version and what we're proposing to have the annual list discussed and approved on by the entire commission.

It's reviewed, but no, the current practice is that it's reviewed.

That's not in DGO 301.

That's not in the current version of DGO301.

Okay.

Well, let me let me find that and then we'll get back to that.

But with respect to the working group list again and see, again, I would like to take some of that language that you've deleted and keep that in there along with some some dates.

Um the other thing that also I wanted to turn to was the public review process, and that's on page 10 and 11.

So if I could turn your attention to number 5C, um so the whole point, you know, listening when we did a lot of um we met with members of the department, and you know, one of the things this is at both working groups, because I've attended several working groups, um, and I've heard community complaints, but also complaints from members that I've spoken with, actual um police officers, you know, the the patrol officers, and their number one complaint was like, oh, policy is done in the ivory tower, it's done, and when I first got on this commission and I was doing um, I would go into to the the meetings and listen to how DGOs, it was always the command staff and the higher management of the department that were in these meetings, and there wasn't really a real avenue or for input by actual patrol officers, the actual people that have to implement the policies day to day, and um while what I've learned on this commission is one just because you're a lawyer doesn't mean you can write policy.

Policy writing is a very distinctive skill and it's very difficult.

And number two, you could have a great policy, but unless you have buy-in from your officers, it means nothing.

And so one of the the things the feedback that we got from patrol officers is that some of the DGOs that it didn't compute, it wasn't like it looked great on paper, but it wasn't something they could carry out on a day-to-day basis, and so we created an avenue to allow input uh from sort of rank and file and so from patrol officers to give their honest assessment of the policies, right?

And I know that earlier in one of the questions that Commissioner Benedicto raised was um you had eliminated some of the ability to have uh feedback and you said, Well, members do can still come to PPD and they can tell them uh issues they're having with policy or if they want to initiate a DGO or things like that, but I think the key part that that is missing in that is that some members don't feel comfortable going to um to PPD or other uh units in the department because it's you know, this is their job, right?

And like some members don't feel comfortable going to management and saying, hey, you're doing it wrong, or hey, it's not working because they have fear of retaliation or other they have concerns, rightly so, right?

And that makes sense from a common sense standpoint.

Not many workers feel comfortable telling their boss, hey, you got it wrong or hey, this isn't working, right?

Some people can do that and feel comfortable and others can't.

And so when we created the um public uh or the process to allow this to be online and allow people to anonymously provide input online, it was with that in mind, so that not only community members can provide input, but more importantly, members of this department can freely honestly put in their input on some of these policies, right?

And what they thought of them because they're the ones carrying it out every day, and so um I noticed that in the drafting, um and and also too, I think that the reason we've also put it online also, and we created a grid is so that what would happen is community would come right before DGO would would be on to pass, and they would say, Hey, you didn't take my input, or or we suggested this, and it's not in there.

What happened to it?

And as a commission, we were kind of blindsided because we were like, What are you talking about?

What when did you give that input?

Because we weren't, you know, some uh some commissioners weren't at that particular meeting or they weren't part of that process, so we didn't have an idea of sort of how the DGO sort of came about and what was left off and what wasn't.

And there were some great ideas raised right before we have to pass the DGO, and the commissioners didn't have all the information in front of them.

And so we created that online um portal and the matrix so that when a DGO comes to the commission, we have all that information that says, hey, at this working group, or hey, at this community meeting, these are the ideas that were put forth, these were the ideas that the that the department accepted, these were the ideas that DPA accepted, and these are the ideas that we just said no, but it was all in writing and before each commissioner so that we would be able to see exactly what was left in and what was left out, so then when community comes to us and says, Hey, you know, I gave input and we talked about this, and now I'm not seeing it in the DGO, and we we saw what that looked like a few months ago when the community came to us uh on that other DGO, we have that in front of us, right?

And so I I'm concerned that you the deletions that are happening in the drafting on um section C on page 11 sort of undermine that process because it's you know what's stricken out is that the department and DPA will jointly prepare a public response which shall be posted on the department's website outlining the recommendations, um, and now it says that PPD will consult with the SME to determine what public feedback will be included in stage three draft uh and provide responses on the recommendation.

I guess I have concerns with that because again, like while this is gonna lie with P uh PDD and you may be the centralized unit, it doesn't help me as a commissioner if I don't know the backstory, the context and the history of how we got here.

And so I'm sorry, I have I you're saying a lot of things.

I just want to be responsive.

It's hard to do that when you're kind of free-flowing ideas here.

So can we break this up just a little bit so I can be sure to be responsive?

Let me let me ask my question.

So, where in the document does it allow for the public response for the commission to obtain the drafts and the public responses?

So, in current policy, the active one, you receive it, the draft, the the grid that we're talking about that comes from public posting when we submit it.

That's still here, it's just been renamed.

Instead, if it's been called, okay, I will please I'll let you talk, let me talk.

So now public review is stage three.

Okay, so when you turn and go to the submission to the commission, that whole section.

What's that?

Sorry.

Uh it's stage four, the approval to send to commission.

And B two, we're sending the stage one, stage two, stage three recommendation grids.

We've just renamed it.

So instead of it being public posting, it's now stage three.

So stage three, the grid still exists and still is submitted with the draft and is still responded to.

I do so sorry, because you're losing me.

So you're saying that because it says the jointly prepared public responses.

So it might be easier just to look at the clean version, because the red line is uh is hard to read, but the clean version has public posting, the public review that we call it in 2022, has been renamed stage three.

So then what so on page five of the clean version uh four, so on page five, there's four called stage three, public review.

So then when you turn the page and go to page two.

One second.

So you said page five on the clean version, it's talking about stage three, which is public review.

Okay.

So it talks about the posting, that's the same.

Public review period will be 30 days, it's calendar days instead of business.

The drafting, the thing that's new is that the current policy, the 2022 version says that we revise the policy based on what recommendations we get, but doesn't give us a timeline.

Now we've just codified it to make sure that we do have that review looked at by the SME as well as the AES.

Well, we captured it in it's there's still a grid.

And so when you turn the page and go to page six, and then it goes to the state number six, that's the approval to send to commission, as part of the commission package is stage one, stage two, stage three, that's your public review grid.

So that still is very much a document that gets sent to the commission and posted on the public uh site.

But I do want to back up a little bit because I don't believe Commissioner Benedicto asked a question about officer questions to PDD, but PDD has been making a concerted effort to get feedback from members.

I think a lot of the experience you're talking about are problems you solved again when there was no centralized policy unit.

We have been doing outreach on a monthly basis.

We invite officers to come speak to us, we give surveys in our outreach, asking them to give us feedback.

1011 is one of them, 501 is one of them.

We've gotten hundreds of responses from officers that email written directives directly that come into my office oh weekly to talk to me about policies.

We make sure that not only we're not only talking to the SME, we're talking to stations.

We go to station keepers.

We have been doing a concerted effort to get membership feedback.

Now the issue that we're trying to solve with the 2022 version is the portal that you're discussing is at the end, it's at the end.

So membership shouldn't be only allowed to comment at the end of the development.

In this new version, this new proposal, PDD says as step one in part of drafting is we seek department member feedback early.

So early and throughout, we're reaching out to members to get their feedback so they don't feel like what is this policy?

Where is it coming from?

Current policy only has that carve out when that thing is fully developed and right before it goes to leadership.

That's too late.

So what we're trying to do is carve out that it happens beginning, middle, and in the development of the annual list.

So even in the development of the list, we're reaching out to membership so they can tell us what needs to be updated and how and why and what the pain points are.

So we start at annual list, stage one, stage two, stage three, membership feedback.

Current version, only public review, and that comes after everything and right before leadership.

So that is something that we are fixing.

I understand again the pain point you're talking about because you're right.

That was a real pain point, it's not anymore.

And it's something that we are fixing on a daily basis to make sure the membership gets feedback and we're codifying in the proposal.

So we're not changing that.

Is that also applicable to the community as well?

Are you in um going to or where in the new policy because I didn't see it that you will be uh implementing it or uh putting it out there for the community to give.

So certainly we've been utilizing um our Twitter account and our Instagram to notify the annual lists, right?

But really the real place to get full just anyone who lives in San Francisco or any public person to get their feedback is during stage three.

I want to turn back.

I'm looking at page five of nine on the clean version, and it says here on drafting that PPD will consult with the SME to determine what public feedback will be included in stage three drafting and provide responses on the recommendation grid.

So I take that to mean that the PPD will review whatever's put into that grid.

They will determine what should be included in stage three, and then that uh those responses will then be provided in the package to the commission, correct?

No.

What we do is we're responding to every single one, but the response includes was included in draft, was not included in draft with an with an explanation as to why.

I'm sorry, run that again.

So the way the responses are in the grids, we have an explanation as to whether we included that recommendation or we did not include that recommendation, and then we provide an explanation.

Well, then why does it say that you get to determine what public feedback will be included in stage three?

Because to me that reads that there's some parts that you would be able to exclude because why wouldn't it all so that's what I'm saying?

So that's given in current policy though.

So in current policy and current 2022 version, right?

We say that the department will will jointly prepare a public response, which shall be posted on the website, outlining the recommendations included and not included in the DGO draft.

So there's still that direction and current that there's a decision on what public feedback makes it and what feedback doesn't.

That's in current.

That's we're saying it's the same thing, just uh clearer.

I I guess I don't see it as clear because you're taking you're you're just leaving in included instead of not included in the DGO.

The grid that you get with every DGO says whether we included or whether we didn't, and then we say the explanation.

Right.

Right?

And we get all the information.

Right.

That's not changing.

It's the same thing.

We're just renaming it stage three.

Okay, because it's it when I read your red line on page 11, it it is changing it because it says that the feedback will be included in the DGO.

Meaning, well, determining which feedback is included, literally saying the same thing.

So in the 2022 version, we outline the recommendations included and not included in the DGO in the grid.

Right.

So in the grid, we're gonna say which public feedback was included in the draft or not included in the draft.

Like we're saying what made it, what was actionable.

But I I guess if what I'm saying is that if you're saying that you're gonna include both the included stuff and the stuff that wasn't included in the DGO so that we have it all, why would you just delete the not included stuff?

It says we're so we're consulting with the SME to determine so that it's two parts.

We're consulting with the SME to determine what we're including.

That's the consultation, right?

And we're providing all responses in the grid.

But that's not what this says.

That's not what you're you're saying.

You're saying it does it says provide responses on the grid.

But not all responses, that's what I'm saying.

It's like for the clarification.

No, because what you pointed me to was page five, which is stage three of drafting, and it says that the SME will determine what public feedback will be.

No, we're consulting with the SME.

So the policy team is consulting with the SME.

To determine whether these are operationally sound.

So the public member of the public can say anything.

That doesn't mean that that automatically changes the DGO.

Members of the public and members of the department can suggest anything.

Right, right, right.

So our job is to have the policy team talk to the operational person, right?

And determine what's feasible, what isn't.

Right.

Right.

And then we we capture it in the grid.

The grid with the idea that it's gonna go to the commission and be a public document.

Right.

So that it doesn't change anything.

But I guess the way that it's written, it does change it a little bit because it's saying that yes, you're consulting with the SME, but you determine what public feedback will be included in stage three, stage three, which ultimately comes to the to the commission.

And so the way that it reads, it would uh indicate that if there is something there that you determine not to be relevant or you determine not to be, that doesn't go in the DGO.

That's what we do, then then you would, but that's not how it's written, but what I'm saying to you is that's not how it's written, because the way it's written is that the commission should get all of it.

You will we and you'll receive the show.

It does say that.

We're gonna respond to everything, regardless of it's going into the DGO or not.

That's our responsibility.

It's our responsibility to members of the department, it's our responsibility to community members that are taking the time to give us our recommendations.

That's the responsibility.

But I have to consult, and my policy team has to consult to see whether it's operational.

If it is operational, it will change the DGO, and then we put all of that in the grid.

That's all captured in the grid, and then the grid goes to commission for transparency.

Okay, because that's just I mean, that's not how it's written, though.

I mean, the way you're explaining it is great, and you're right, that's how it should work, but that's not how it's written in this DGO, and that's my concern.

Because that's not what it's saying here.

Are you concerned that PDD won't understand it?

Because we're the ones facilitating it.

No, I understand, but again, it needs to be clearly laid out of what exactly that document or what all the information that we can do.

So would the word all fix it?

If we amended it with all responses, I guess I'm looking for a solution.

I mean, I think I think it's clearer because what you're explaining is great, but what I'm saying is what you're explaining is not what your DGO is saying right now.

That's that's the disconnect I'm having.

So I'm just saying that what you're saying is great, but that's not what I'm reading here.

How are you?

I guess I'm confused how it's being read because that's exactly how I'm reading it, it.

It's actually how the policy team is reading it.

That we take all of the recommendations, consult with the SME to determine what changes the draft, and then we put all of that in a grid.

We put the responses in the grid.

Well, then you could say provide all responses on the recommendation grid.

Okay.

I'm agreeable to an amendment of the word all if that is clarifies.

Thanks.

I think it may need to also be on page four.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but maybe this will be helpful.

I'm going back and forth and tracking all this stuff back and forth.

I understand what both of you guys are saying, but I think what you just summarized right there in your last statement, maybe that can be the amendment was that the department will respond to all of the responses and recommendations.

Well, wait a minute.

This is the commissioner has to do that.

Oh, I no, I I mean I'd like uh but we need feedback.

I mean, yes, I think we have we have a DGO in front of us that you've asked for the floor, and we're letting you have the floor to do whatever is necessary in terms of what you'd like to do.

Whether his thoughts are, somebody else may have an opportunity, put us press a button and participate.

We want to make sure you get all your stuff out.

So she's listening to you, not to him.

We don't want her distracted listening to him.

She should be listening to you.

I understand that, and I I appreciate that, but I think that it is helpful because Director Henderson does have experience writing policy, and they've he's been a part of this process through the entire time, and it is helpful to get unstuck because I I again, and I mean, maybe it's just me, but what you just explained is not what your DGO is saying, and I that's the disconnect I'm having.

So I'm not so if if I'm the one that that like misunderstanding it or not reading it right, then you know, I mean, that's uh we could we can you're the one who's talking, so that's why we no, I understand, but I and I would welcome feedback even from other commissioners because this is the whole process, right?

We have robust discussion of but we don't get to where we this Robert rules the board, you have the floor.

I don't know, we don't I don't want to encourage other people getting in, you and her, because you she has a dialogue with you and she's concentrating on you.

Whatever they used to do on this commission in terms of people butting in, that's not appropriate.

You guys you get the floor and talk with her, and then if after that there's some suggestions, write them down, then they press the button.

No, and I appreciate that.

So I think that this point to the Robert rules of order do allow r robust discussion.

So at this point, I would welcome a suggestion by Director Henderson on how to reconcile this section.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Captured and eliminated a lot of the editing.

Let's not talk about just say it.

Don't let's not get into the.

Let's say what you say, because this is people are ready to go.

Well, I got a commissioner who wants to speak.

So just say this is what you believe that she said, and then we can go on and let her continue.

That's all.

Just say that.

Sure.

Uh what I wrote down was that the department will respond to all responses and all recommendations.

One, two, and I'm adding the numbers, then we will consult with the SME, and then three, all of those responses will be on the grid.

I have an easier suggestion, just saying just adding, um, so PDD will consult with SME to determine what public feedback will be included in stage three draft, and provide responses to all recommendations in the record.

That goes to that goes to commitment.

Done.

I love it.

So so and provide all responses.

To provide responses to all recommendations on the recommendation grid.

So leave so provide responses.

But wait, why wouldn't we put provide all responses to the recommendation grid?

Because we're responding to all res we're okay.

So it's we're responding to all of the recommendations.

Your concern was that we weren't going to be responsive to everything we got.

No, no, my concern was that yeah, you we want you to be responsive, but the second part of that concern is that after you're responsive to all of the the recommendations or the inquiries that you get, that that information then be provided to us.

So that's why I think that it's there's two amendments that would need to be made, which is to provide all responses to the recommendation grid.

So I'm sorry, that's more confusing to me.

To me, it's providing responses to all recommendations, sorry, sir.

So you just say yes or no because this has to be a motion.

Okay, by a commissioner to do all this.

If you if you agree to it and you say I'm changing it, okay, you can do but other stuff, this really has to be the commissioners making a motion right in front of us is this.

And whether or not we accept it as is, or there's amendment, if whatever we do, that's gonna be a motion and somebody's gonna we're gonna vote on it one way or the other.

Well, I think that's the ultimate uh thing, but can I get a point of order?

Can I get a clarification from the city attorney with respect to how we should have these robust discussions in front of the full commission?

I understand my understanding is that if um we want to make changes to the DGO, we can make a motion to make those, but but this is the proper forum to have a discussion with the presenter on what they would recommend, what we think, and have that open dialogue.

But I'd like a point of order.

That's correct, yeah.

That's between her.

So can I make a can I make a suggestion of very specific language that I think might address your concern with the permission of the president and you.

So on page six, there is approval to send the commission.

So that addresses the materials that the commission received.

Wait, I'm sorry, you said you said page six, nine in the clean draft.

And then what what stage six B commission package includes?

Okay, so B2 refers to the rec grids.

So I think you can add some language along the lines of rec grids will include all public comment and responses.

Perfect.

But the record, just sorry, the records only stage three is the public one.

So stage one and stage two aren't public review, stage three is public review.

Okay, so that edit would be a little confusing.

So what did you need to specify stage three?

I think again, my preference is if we just dealt with it in the stage three section on page five.

I think uh Commissioner Lyas is right to make that change, but it's can the what would be most helpful for us if we're trying to clarify it is that what I'm understanding the concern is is that there is a response in the grid to every single recommendation we receive, regardless if it ends up in the draft or not.

Is that correct?

Sorry, repeat that again.

My understanding is that you want a response to every single recommendation we receive, regardless if it's accepted in the draft DGO or not, correct?

Right.

So the way we'd like to address that in this is just provide responses to every recommendation.

Okay, that's it on the record, and then also to in addition to providing the responses to every recommendation, um, some assurance that all of those responses will then be forwarded in the packet to the commission.

So that's already in page six, that's already there.

Right.

You're saying three right to correct.

Right, okay.

And the other thing that I I did um want to talk about that section, the drafting of stage three.

Um, I know that you indicated that you engage DPA in this process, but I think it's good to have it in writing because why, you know, another reason why we did this was also to get DPA's input because DPA I think has another unique perspective that they bring to the table in terms of you know, they do a lot of research and development um when it comes to sort of modern day policing and they have a lot of um insight as to how that works.

And the reason that we we wanted DPA incorporated into this process and to give the department feedback is because DPA on its own can bring discipline charges against officers, and I think that we want um the DGOs to have input from not only the department but also from DPA because they're an agency that can impose discipline on officers, and I we want officers to know what the clear expectation is so that they know that if they could be subject to discipline not only by the chief of police but by DPA.

And so that was why there was a huge push to incorporate their feedback, get their input on this process.

So I I would like to see, I know that you deleted it on the um old draft because it said the DPA, uh the department and DPA will jointly prepare.

Um I would like to have that included back in because I think that again, I know you say that DPA is invited and we work with them, but unless why not just have it in writing?

Sure.

So there are two I do have a reason for this.

So the stage one and the public feedback uh joint response has been removed because of again, we were basing this on numbers.

So I don't know if you're basing on what?

I'm please I just like to tell you it's based on numbers.

So we've provided the grids to DPA, and they have not been responsive on those.

I don't know if you've looked, but on the DGOs that we've submitted where there is a public format uh with the grid, DPA's square is just no response, no additional response, no additional response.

It's created a backlog for this process because there's no requirement, there's no timeline for them.

So we wait and wait and wait for them to respond, and their response is Zed, it's nothing.

So same with stage one.

They haven't provided grids.

So while there's a carve out for it, um, like from 2023 to 2026, there was a hundred and twenty-six opportunities for DPA to provide codified responses in stage one.

This is just an example, and they only did it 20% of the time.

When it comes to the public review, they're responding after several urgings.

Hi, we need this, hi.

Have you looked at this?

Hi, what's your comment?

And there isn't a discussion, and then they provide nothing.

So we're taking the experience of that and saying, all right, the ROI is really low.

This is something that's carved out, it's required by policy for the department to invite them, but there's no requirement for them to participate.

And the end result, they're not participating.

So I think that we remove that because there was no joint response.

There hasn't really been a joint response since really 2024.

So if you look at the grids and you look at our response, DPA has their own uh column that has been non-responsive largely.

So keeping that in policy, I don't understand the ROI on that.

I understand your goal again because of pain points that happened in 2021.

We're in 2026, things have changed.

Our communication style has been a lot more as a partner with DPA throughout, early and throughout.

So by the time we get to public comment, they're not using the portal that was created for them that you talked about earlier.

It's us sending them the grid, it's us sending them our responses and them saying that they've got nothing to add.

So it's just I understand the original idea behind that, but as it's evolved in practical application, it's really grown unnecessary.

And I appreciate you raising that, because if that's the uh reason, then I think that's a huge concern, and I'd like to uh ask Director Henderson to address that um issue because I I recall seeing some of the grids that say DPA agrees with the department, DPA doesn't agree, because I I remember I've recalled seeing some of those some feedback from DPA on those.

So Director Henderson, do you have a uh I am not oh this is I'm just now hearing this about us not responding and or not using the portal.

I will say we have had some changes through uh the policy representative going back and forth with the department.

I thought that our communications were up to date and thorough.

So I'd have to I have to look into that, but I wouldn't.

We are for emails, communications meetings, we're having a lot of free communication, which makes this grid just an administrative burden that doesn't necessarily have to be.

I would agree that there is you just said that we weren't responding to things specifically.

You're not in the column itself, there's no new content, it's uh you agree or nothing to it literally says DPA has nothing to add to that.

That's what I mean.

It's not that they're non-responsive, I don't mean that there's no response in the email.

It's that when they have when they're uh offered an opportunity to provide content, no content is added.

Either that they're in agreement or they have nothing to add.

That's literally what the word says.

That sounds like the same thing to me is that we have not been responsive on specific issues related to policy.

In terms of an opinion, you have not submitted opinions.

You've been responsive.

There's no opinion that's noted in the grid.

So we were just taking uh an administrative process that's codified in the 2022 version that's either not being used or is a pain point for moving things forward and removed it, and also just because we're benefiting on a reciprocal kind of a good relationship with DPA where it's easy.

We can jump on a call, we can jump on a meeting, that happens all the time.

Um that is easier to do than to have this joint public review where DPA has no, they're not beholden to our policies.

I have no way to enforce their response.

It adds to my timeline.

So I can't move forward if they're not responsive or they don't have anything to add, and also the policy doesn't direct their activities.

It directs mine.

And and I recall that being an issue, um, but I I think that the other reason that DPA, because I do recall seeing grids with their input because they had um provided some data on some of the um DGOs, and I can't remember what DGO DGO it is.

I'd have to go back and look, but on the grid it does have some of their input from it.

And the reason it's important to have their input because they do research and they provide greater context of what sort of national trends and what's happening just sort of on a national basis in terms of policing, and I think it gives the commissioners more context of what's happening and a better understanding of what uh the issue is.

Has it provided that in the you have said that those have been valuable?

Yeah, because I think it's a com you know, recently in the last year, which is I can't remember the I mean I have to go back and pull the grids, but I'd like to be able to do that so that we could show the uh commission that um that that input has happened, and I don't know I mean I don't know why Director Henderson doesn't have that data available right now, but I'm assuming that he can get it and and show, but I do recall because I remember their old policy um Jermaine Jones, uh Miss K.

Wood, other individuals that would come and they would provide their input um at this stage uh or provide their input um in the grid as well, and then when they would in stage one or stage two, certainly.

We do get grids from them for those stages for early development, but in terms of the public review, again, by then it's the development of the policy is so far gone, it's right before leadership.

The joint response portion has not been as useful as I think initially intended.

But I think you also cut out DPA in the the stage one and two, right?

Stage one, they but that was in agreement with DPA, they never wanted to give us a grid because they didn't have a draft to look at.

So they prefer to provide us with uh a grid when they have a stage one draft to review.

So that was in discussion and in agreement with DPA.

Um and then the other thing, I'm gonna I have a few more questions, but I'm just gonna ask one more and then I'm gonna turn it over uh to my fellow commissioners who may have questions, but the concurrence part on the red line version on page 17.

Um I guess I'm trying to better understand the issues here because the issues that have come up with concurrence and we saw this uh couple months ago when the community was outraged, and this was a huge area of contention in prior um working groups and prior meetings where DGOs come before the commission is that people come and they take time and they participate in working groups or they participate in uh uh community input opportunities and they have discussions in that uh form.

You I've been with you in several of those um it was the creation of uh the Fourth Amendment DGO I can't remember, it was 507, I think, or 504.

Um what would happen is we would be there and the the community and members and stakeholders would give input and the department would take it, and then what would happen is it would go to concurrence where uh leadership in the department would review the draft DGO and they would make changes, and they wouldn't have the benefit of knowing what happened at the working group or what the stakeholders' input was, and so they would just make changes and then the the working group and the or the community would get the document back and they would see that what they talked about and what they thought had been agreed upon in the meeting was cut out with no explanation or what what happened, right?

Um and so I have concerns with some of your edits to this section uh because I I'm not sure how this would address that concern that we've repeatedly seen.

So I've addressed that.

I I talked about it in the last agenda item that we have changed the format for working groups completely, and it was based on surveys and past experience.

So the way we do working groups now, and again, why those working groups would get um understandably feeling like they didn't know what the changes were is because we were redlining the drafts during these working groups.

We no longer do that.

So we the working groups now are just conversation.

We also have a working group staff who is in constant communication with the working group members.

So the prickliness, right?

The feeling of like I don't understand why that's changed, has completely um changed because of the format of working groups.

So working groups is handled completely different.

Well, we're not updating the draft because uh this community wants this word, this community wants that word, which we've seen with the 520 working group, right?

Um, but that was a 2024 working group.

And 2025, we have our policy team present, it's a conversation, we update it, it's our language, we make sure that it's operationally sound, we present that every single meeting and have discussions about it, and um, and then we when the DGO is then done, we give them updates through Emily, and then also realize that there's a ripple effect.

But the policy, the things that they're really interested in might be forms, might be training, might be something else, and then we invite them into those discussions.

So we really are never done with the community members.

Uh, but we've changed that format completely, and that's separate and apart from this.

And I and you you indicated that that policy change happened in 2025.

And I guess that it's still my my request is that we would then we need to put this in writing that the it's in writing, it's in a unit order and it's in the chief's directives, but we have a unit order specific for the working group unit.

Then can we incorporate it here in the DGO?

And the reason I say that is because um when we had that feedback from the community, we we were all inundated with emails from the community that felt that they didn't know what was happening, and that the uh things that they thought were agreed upon in the working group when they came here before when that DGO was before the commission, none of that was in there and they weren't informed.

So I think that it would be a good practice to put it in this DGO that the department will notify the community groups um after the concurrence process so that they are aware of any changes so that we don't get angry community people coming to us uh when we have DGOs that we're about to vote on, and we don't have to delay it and put it over so that we can figure out what happened.

So I'm um I'm open to sort of language, but uh I know that there's another commissioner on the the diet, so I'm gonna turn it over.

We could just include an E in if your concern is concurrence communication after concurrence, we could include an E and say something along like if there was a stage two working group, PDD will communicate with the working group and notify them of changes made during concurrence, something along those lines, yeah, and then have a timeline so that we can they can have time so that we have time so that they don't come angry to the commission about not being notified.

I don't know that they won't come angry.

Well, that's true.

That is true, you raise a good point.

We can notify them, but I don't know how they're feeling about it.

That is true.

Um and there were some other concerns I had on the latter portion, but I'm gonna again I'm I'm gonna reserve my time, so go ahead.

Um thank you, Tristan.

So um, couple of things.

I just point of order.

Since commissioner is basically mentioned a couple of amendments, not just one.

So should we take uh vote on that or how does that work?

Or is it just a robust conversation between the staff and the commissioner?

Someone would have to move.

Eventually, someone would have to um I think it's probably most clear.

If there's a single motion to make all the changes, um you could make successive motions, but I think it's probably more clear if someone made a single motion that implement any edits, and there's a vote on that motion.

Okay, I mean uh I'm willing to do the motion right now to move.

So with of course with the addition of all that uh vote um two amendments.

Would you like me to read the two amendments into the record?

Well, can I I guess my question would be is or my request to you, Commissioner Techie would be if we could put this over so we could have it in writing so that it's clear, because there's a lot of red lines here, um, and that that way we can have it written out and then we can vote on it and to I can read it into the record and the commission secretary can ensure that it's captured in the resolution.

Can we read it into the record?

Sure.

There was also another amendment with respect to the um oh sorry, go ahead.

So so I I would like to if um either Stacy Sergeant if you can read it to the record or we can't very specific here.

So this would be section clean version when we read the sorry can we do this off the clean version?

Clean version, clean version section three oh one oh five Bourg is the section.

So that's three oh one oh five Bour.

What page is that?

It's on page five of the clean.

Okay and this is under stage three, so four is stage three public review.

C is drafting.

So it already reads PDD will consult with the SME to determine what public feedback will be included in the stage three draft and provide, and here's the uh amendment responses to every recommendation in the recommendation grid.

You ready for the next one?

Ready.

Okay, the next one is it's still the same section.

So it's uh sorry, just want to make sure I get it right.

30105 B.

We're adding a new subsection E, lowercase E.

If a stage two working group occurs, comma, PDD will notify the working group of any substantive changes made during concurrence.

Don't you want to put a time in there?

Uh that it's prior to before it comes to the commission.

Maybe before submission to the commission.

Can you read it one more time completely?

So this is lowercase E.

If a stage two working group occurred, comma, PDD will notify the working group of any substantive changes made during concurrence.

Um we could say this notification shall shall occur before commission submission.

And then there was the third one that we skipped over.

So my motion is to basically adopt those changes and to move this to basically um for gunf uh for conferring, basically.

Meet and confer, yeah, to move it to meet and gun for.

Sorry, that's my motion.

Those two changes do change to it.

Nobody adopt them.

I had three change, the two of them, and then there was one additional change that we didn't.

I already put the motion so you can so people can just vote it down and do it again, I guess.

Because the motion is on the floor.

There is a motion on a second.

We'll have to go we'll have to go to public comment.

Yeah, and second, somebody has to second it, and if then nobody seconds it, then I think commission will be on seconded.

Okay.

And but well before that, can we get a clarification as to what the third issue was so that we know what the vote or the amendment is?

Commissioner Techie's only making a motion with those two, so you'd have to make a separate motion for the to incorporate the third one, which would be taken next in order after the first vote.

Okay, yeah, based on those.

Great.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, please approach the podium.

And there is no public comment.

On the current motion, Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Lowe is aye.

Commissioner Scott.

Aye.

Commissioner Scott is aye.

Commissioner Leo.

Commissioner Leo is yes.

Commissioner Benedicto.

No.

Commissioner Benedicto is no.

Commissioner Lyas.

Yes.

Commissioner Lyas is yes.

And Vice President Techie.

Yes.

Vice President Techie is yes.

And President Clay.

Yes.

President Clay is yes.

I'm sorry.

I so it I guess I shouldn't because I'm gonna change mine to no because there isn't a third amendment that I'll be asking for.

And if I don't say no, then that would assume that I would agree with the rest of the amendments on this.

So sorry.

All right, so Commissioner, so our votes right now are Commissioner Lowe is yes.

Commissioner Scott is yes, Commissioner Leo is yes, Commissioner Benedicto is no, Commissioner Lias is no.

That gives you five yeses and two no's well.

I mean, that's what I was I think one of the public comment on call.

So now the motion was to add that.

Well, I think that because I think I raised the issue I raised an issue that I wanted to be heard prior to the motion, and I think that the recommendation was that we would have to go to public comment first and then make a motion after.

So if that was incorrect, then I still want to be able to raise the other additional amendment which I raised prior to the motion.

So I I think potentially under Robert's rules, you could bring a motion to amend the motion, and if that's sort of seconded and there's a vote, and that passes, it would pass as amended.

So then I wouldn't make a motion to amend the uh vote.

I second.

Yeah, so I I I think that's correct under Robert's rules, a motion to amend, or alternatively, I think under Robert's rules.

If I might suggest another option, is um I believe when there are competing motions, first in order, one can be superseded if it receives more votes under Robert's rules.

So I think maybe the cleanest compromise I might offer is Commissioner Lyas can make the motion that I think she thought she was gonna have an opportunity to make, can make your revised motion, it'll go to a vote, and if it receives six, it will supersede, and if it fails to, then the motion that received five would remain the operative motion.

I think you could either make a motion to amend or you can separately make a motion that would to amend uh to to make your third change.

I think it's cleaner to make a motion to amend to add the third change, right?

I think it's cleaner to make a motion.

Okay, okay.

So that's what my motion is currently on the floor.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

What what the motion is the motion?

The third amendment, in addition to the two that Commissioner Techie um uh articulated earlier, the third amendment that I am requesting pertains to uh, and I'm on the red line draft.

I'm sorry, it's page five, which is the uh request that the sentence in section C be added back instead of uh red line so that we can have this um the list, the annual review list and discussion as to the working group list brought before the commission on an annual basis so that we have the opportunity to discuss it as a whole commission.

So I um would ask to allow um or to strike the deletion where it indicates after the issuance of the annual department general order review list as described in and that's gonna be changed 3.01.03.

The police commission at a public meeting where it solicits input from the department and DPA determines which DGOs from the list will require community feedback.

So I'm gonna ask to have that in there so that we have the ability to again agendize this uh and that the full commission can have a discussion on the list and the working groups uh and solicit feedback from the community.

Can it can I just try to bridge the concern that uh to had in that is that we do that immediately in the first two meetings?

Yes, yes, and if it isn't approved or or heard in the public hearing, then it'll be deemed approved.

Yes, yes, can that just an offer, another offer?

Uh I'm looking at the clean, I'm not looking at the red line.

Um, so on page three of the clean at the bottom when it talks about the annual review list, uh on the top of page four, where it says um once approved, PDD will provide the annual review list to the employees, the commission office and DPA.

We could say employed to we offer that, right?

And then the next sentence can be the commission.

Um something along the lines of the the commission can agendize the list for discussion if needed.

Well, no, I like Commissioner Lowe's uh proposal, which is that we I assume Commissioner Love, I don't want to speak for you, but I assume that you were okay with that sentence with adding in the timeline that it has to happen within the first two meetings of the year, and if it doesn't, do you want to just say in January or within two can I get it at the beginning of the year?

Okay.

So you you're okay with that sentence and then just adding at the end within the first two meetings of the calendar year?

And I think Commissioner Lowe suggested language saying or it is deemed approved.

Or is it okay within first two meetings?

Yes, that's correct.

Of calendar year, or it's deemed, I'm sorry, what was that?

Or will be deemed mute?

Deemed approved.

Deemed deemed approved.

Okay, sorry, I didn't hear that part.

Thank you.

So if we get it approved by December 31st, you were saying the l annual list, you'd want us to bring it to the commission in the first uh few meetings of January.

The first two meetings for discussion for the community working groups.

Correct.

Or and then if if that doesn't happen, then it's then it's approved.

As is, including the one designated for community.

Those first two meetings, if it's not our dress, it's as it's period.

Okay.

Two weeks.

Yeah, I think that's what we've said.

Can we say the meetings shall be agendized within the first two shall be agendized within the first two meetings of the calendar year or it will be deemed approved?

Does the DGO have?

This is a question for the city attorney.

What I think is the desire is that we need to have it approved in order for them to take the action and do the work.

We agenda it and defer it to February.

Okay.

Can I just ask the city attorney a quick question?

Does the DGO can the DGO require that of the commission that they put that on the agenda?

Well, I think we have to approve it.

We were gonna we're gonna put it on the agenda.

So it could uh city and madam city attorney, if we say shall agenda, is what what effect would that have?

Because RDGOs don't bind us, so it would just be that they find the department.

So we could could we say the commission office will.

No, I'm saying shall agenda is would make it a requirement too, right?

Is that no, but it wouldn't make it a requirement on us because we can't impose requirements on ourselves that we can't change ourselves.

Like a DGO can't impose a requirement on like the shall can't.

No, shall agendize means that it's on the department to have it agendized within the well then it should be shall like it's submit, because the only shall agenda is the commission.

So Asha, the mechanics are you submitted to us in December.

Well we can get the approval date is December 31st.

So it would have to be after the December 31st approval timeline.

The first two meetings, we will get a cop.

So submit maybe it's PDD shall submit to the commission office.

For agendizing because that we can require, I just can't require the commission to do anything.

Uh PDD shall wait, but where is this going?

Is this going in the annual review list or is this going?

Yes.

It's both, because it's gonna we're gonna bring it before the commission.

So we as a commission talk about the annual list and then also talk about which ones we would recommend for the working groups.

So I'm request so it's section in the clean 301.

Page are you on?

Oh five.

I'm on the clean on starting on page three, but it will end up on page four.

So it's section three oh one oh five A1.

Uh-huh.

Just the way we wrap up that that sentence or it'll ends with and DPA.

Period.

Next sentence.

PDD shall submit the annual list to the commission office for agendizing.

Uh on the first two meetings of January.

Is that what it was?

Calendar, calendar year.

Calendar year?

Calendar year.

The first two open meetings of the calendar year.

And then I don't know the caveat for the first two meetings of the calendar year or it will be deemed approved.

It will be deemed approved.

Or it will be okay.

Yeah.

Yes.

All right.

Did somebody write that down?

Stacey, did you get that?

Yeah.

I was trying, you were writing so you were talking so fast.

I have PDD shall submit the annual list for agendizing in the first two meetings of the calendar year.

And then we'll submit to the commission office, I think is.

Oh, I well, I think we were also going to include that um the annual, it was this, it was this language, and we were just adding what Commissioner Lowe said, which was the annual review list as described or you know, annual review list as described, and the complete police commission at a public meeting where it will solicit input from the department DPA, uh determines which DGOs from the list will require community feedback.

So I think it has to be that sentence.

So all again, all of that's commission stuff.

So like because I can direct staff, SFPD staff, what to do in a DGO.

What you do when it's agendized is what you do when it's agendized.

So I'm hoping to remove that extra language because I the DGO can't say what the commission does once it's agendized.

No, but I think it outlines what that meeting is for.

Because as a commission, we're gonna talk about the list and then decide as a commission which ones should be as it indicated should be um which determines which DGOs from the list will require community uh feedback.

I think agendizing it captures all that.

I guess what I have to worry about, just truly is that we have that line which we're sort of bound to do something about potentially beyond having a meeting where we're talking about it, and I guess just agendizing it, we have a and it wouldn't bind us anyway, even like even if it stated what it was for, nothing would prevent the commission from ignoring that since we're not bound by it so then how would we put in that it's the list that we review, but we also determine as a commission which ones would be go to which would be I think it would just be agendized for discussion and it would be at the discretion of that commission, if they wanted to.

Okay.

I'm comfortable with that.

Okay, so uh if it's all right, um starting on luggage, do you do you have the proposed text?

We do we think?

I do, but I I feel like you still don't have the carve out that um commissioner low was talking about where if it isn't heard that PDD can proceed.

I think after that language, uh after the first two meetings, or it is deemed approved.

Is the language added?

Yeah, that's not can we do it one more time?

Because that's not what I had.

Yeah, can you read what we have?

I have PDD shall submit the annual list for agendizing in the first two meetings of the calendar year to the commission.

Okay, sorry.

Can we say PDD will submit to the commission office?

Because that's the action that is required for agendizing.

Yes, to the commission office.

Within the first two means of the calendar year.

I I I think that actually it would require a full sentence saying if not approved.

Yeah.

I think it's an active sentence.

I think it needs, yeah.

So I think I think Sergeant, that the new sentence is if the commission takes no action in those meetings, the list shall be deemed approved.

By the commission.

So that puts a clock on us.

And again, it puts a clock on us without binding us, which I think is the I think.

Yes, shall be deemed approved by the commission.

I love it.

So as I understand, uh, that's a motion that has been made by Commissioner Elias and then seconded by Commissioner Lowe to amend the motion as passed to add that third amendment.

So if I understand that correctly, Madam City Attorney, it would just require one vote to amend and it would require a second vote to repass it, right?

It's just a single vote to amend and pass.

Actually, I think no, it's the motion to add this third amendment and then pass all three amendments at once to this DGO, right?

Yes, because that's my question, because it's a motion to amend.

I think there's a motion to amend, and then there is and then we will need a new motion.

The motion okay so we've that's amended.

We will need two votes.

Okay.

Okay.

I think that's right.

I think it's two votes.

Okay, so I made the motion.

Commissioner Lowe seconded in my motion, so we make so now there's a a public comment.

And the motion on the table.

Yeah.

Commissioner Lowe did.

I did.

So this is not final passage, this is just the amendment vote.

Okay.

Right.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment on line item eight, please approach the podium.

There is no public comment.

On the motion, Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Lowe is aye.

Commissioner Scott?

Aye.

Commissioner Scott is aye.

Commissioner Leo?

Commissioner Leo is no.

Uh Commissioner Benedicto?

Yes.

Commissioner Benedicto is yes.

Commissioner Lyas?

Yes.

Commissioner Lyas is yes.

Vice President Techie?

Yes.

Vice President Techie is yes, and President Clay.

President Clay is no.

You have five yeses and two no's.

So now we have before us as a commission the version with three amendments that has now been passed.

So now there's a motion required to pass this version.

So I would make a motion to pass this version with the three amendments as previously noted.

Second that any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, please approach the podium.

There is no public comment.

On the motion, Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Lowe is aye.

Commissioner Scott.

Aye.

Commissioner Scott is aye.

Commissioner Leoung.

Yes.

Commissioner Leo is yes.

Commissioner Benedicto.

No.

Commissioner Benedicto is no.

Commissioner Lyas.

Yes.

Commissioner Lyas is yes.

Vice President Techie.

Yes.

Vice President Techie is yes.

And President Clay.

President Clay is yes.

You have six yeses and one no.

We said 3.01 is how the sausage gets made.

Thank you very much for to all the commissioners and topics.

So you want to do with your next matter?

One more thing.

I promise you're almost done.

This one will be quick.

This one will be quick.

We'll skip through a bunch of slides, I promise.

All right.

Line item nine.

Presentation and discussion on SAPD's community policy working groups.

Proposable calendar year 2026.

Discussion and possible action.

So this is the point of contention.

Here she is.

I can make a motion and save you and save your presentation.

Do you want to do that?

I think that would be easy.

Department proposes 810 to go to a twenty twenty-six working group.

Do you agree?

Commissioners, uh DJO 810 is an important DGO that I think is definitely my top choice to be put before the working group involves first I'm at activities.

It's badly needed for updates.

I will happily make a motion to approve the community working group proposal.

If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item nine, please approach the podium.

There is no public comment.

On the motion, Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Lowe is aye.

Commissioner Scott.

I Commissioner Scott is aye.

Commissioner Leon.

Commissioner Leoung is yes.

Commissioner Benedict.

Commissioner Benedict is yes.

Commissioner Lyas.

Commissioner Lyas is yes.

Commissioner Vice President Techie?

Yes.

Vice President Techie is yes, and President Clay.

Yes.

President Clay is yes.

You have seven yeses.

Line item ten.

Public comment on all matters pertaining to item twelve below closed session, including public comment on item eleven.

A vote whether to hold item twelve in close session, and public comment on item thirteen about whether to disclose any oral discussion on item twelve held in closed session.

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

Motion to hold item twelve in close session.

Commissioner Scott is aye.

Commissioner Leon.

Commissioner Leo is yes.

Commissioner Benedicto?

Yes.

Commissioner Lyas?

Yes.

Commissioner Lyon says yes.

Vice President Techie?

Yes.

President Clay is yes.

You have seven yeses.

We are going into closed session.

San Francisco government television.

Change of the ground.

All right, Commissioners, we are back in open session on line item thirteen.

Vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item twelve held in closed session.

San Francisco Administrative Code section sixty seven point one two Action.

Motion to not disclose item twelve.

All right, on the motion, Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

I Commissioner Lowe is I Commissioner Scott.

Commissioner Scott is I.

Commissioner Leo is yes.

Commissioner Benedicto?

Yes.

Commissioner Benedict was yes, Commissioner Lyas.

Commissioner Lyas is yes.

Vice President Techie?

Yes.

Vice President Techie is yes.

And present clay.