Sure the policing is better qualitatively. I appreciate supervisor cohens legislation last week to collect data. That is a very useful tool and want toill cosponsor your legislation. I appreciate the effort but there are many ways we need to do reform work and build legitimacy in the eyes of these people before we get a idea how to stach them at a greater level. And that legitimacy is really lacking and it isnt just the people in this room where it comes from. I havei have to admit to be able to talk about how we do policing is notit doesnt feel popular in the room and doesnt feel popular in the city but it is the hard work we have to do as Public Servants to make sure we do everything we can to make everyone in the city feel safe and not ones believe adding more officer will make everyone safe because that isnt how we all feel in San Francisco. Lastly and my other colleagues have things they want to say as well. There is a concept that has been in this course around Police Accountability and the Justice System called the new jim crow established by Michele Alexander who worked fwr the aclu and she has gaup through the data and history that is in place in the country. We had a huge Civil Rights Movement that was able to change laws and take away the segregation that was happening in our communities especially in the south but cross the whole country. The Civil Rights Movement also led to real advances but then later we put in place a lot of policies that led to more people be incarcerated and disproportioninately people of color African American and latinos. They get into a cycle of disenfranchisement and cut off from housing and get get housing and cant vote so we create what is in place a whole system of segregation and disenfranchise ment that is equal to what was established in the south under jim crow. That is all across the country. If we are looking at increasing the size of the Police Department we know we will put more people and future of young people behind bars. That is what happens. We look at the evidence in the 1990s when president clinton gave pluny for cities across the country to hire Police Offers and what we saw is during that time there was probably 750 thousand people locked up in prison as a result of that higher policing. The policing is picking up people who have been let down by our system of education, housing employment and we have to the look at the front end before we lock people up. Going with the Police Staffing levelthat is excluding the other ways we can build Public Safety and stab what policing should be. It is the wrong way to go and have a resolution that i would like to introduce but ill hear from colleagues first, but really what i think should happen is send this back to committee instead of having any vote on it today what so ever. Supervisor kim through the president and members of the audience, your par tisitation is welcome but prefer it in spirit fingers supervisor kim thank you and thank you for visorarve lose for that good presentation. This is a good discussion to have. It raising a question how we as a body want to make San Francisco a safer city and how we approach this question. One pathway presented by the resolution is increase the size of the police force based on population growth t. Is a one stop solution to address a myriad of issues perceived as Public Safety issue ranging from Violent Crime, graffiti, homelessness, property crime, drug dealing and more. Lets discuss as supervisor avalos did, several premise the resolution is based. One the number of crime incidence in San Francisco is directly relate today the number of Police Officers we have, there are several examples of how the dot point are not necessarily related. Even in our budget and legislative Analyst Report they show sacramento that increased police force in 20 twechbl and experienced a increase in crime. The following year there was reduction in the police force and crime went down significantly. Even in San Francisco we have seen that the size of the police force went down so did Violent Crime. Sfpd is effective reducing crime despite a Smaller Police force each year over the last 5 yearsism the second premise is hiring Police Officers will provide the needs [inaudible] we can and should be r boo more effective how we deploy the resources and be smarter with the dollars. San francisco has one of the highest proportion of Police Offers performing civilian jobs. This means the highly trained and expensive Police Officers perform administrative duties, it, jobs easily performed by civilians. We have a Sheriff Department with increasing [inaudible] support Public Events and do this more affordable than sfpd officersism we go a percentage of the cost for service are regarding Homeless Individuals or individuals with minuteal health issues. We should grow the [inaudible] we should fund a Rapid Housing Program and another medical shelter like the one we are bimding in district 6 in south of market. Thank tooz mayors commitment to the office and budget of 6. 6 million dollars. You can also ask more officers walk the beat. Something more San Franciscoan agree they want to see. Most importantly, the very premise of the resolution before us with the stated goal of establishing a Population BasedPolice Staffing policy. The population growth is the sole factor policy makers should determine the size thf police. This is far too simplistic and not even appropriate. Supervisor avalos mentioned the basing Police Staffing on population is total inappropriate. Yes, it may make sense to link fundsing of transportation or education based on population size. Arguebly a larger pop ulation may need to more riders on muni assuming all the residence dont decide to drive or walk. Crime doesnt grow with population. It isnt like there is a consistent number of a population that commits crime. As the population has grown in San Francisco so thaz the number of property crimes, but at the same time Violent Crime went down. Crimeerate isnt link today population number. We can grow another 200 thousand residence and crime rate may not go up at all. Now lets address the approach to how to make the city safer. I said at Land Use Committee it is easy for me with term limits to promise i will fund more Police Officers. This is a promise i can deliver on during my time, had you ever it is far more difficult to state i will make the city stairf. The statement im about to make can be misconstrued so want to say this careally, police aurfer do not prevent crime. Just as often i hear we need more officers i hear officers say we cannot [inaudible] out of crime. Police officers can respond and detur it by presence or stop or chase the individual after the crime occurred bringing the individual to justice but they dont prevent crime. Police are respondsing to the opportunity gap, growing inequity, homelessness. We do know this, we know keeping a kid in school prevent crimes. Over 70 percent of our San Francisco county population are school drop out. Chief sursaid keeping a kid in school prevent crimes. Most police aufsers know better than most in the room what it takes to prevent crime because they arrest the youth and adults [inaudible] we also know keeping a family house or adult house definitely prevents crime. So what if we took the number in the resolution which proposes adding 283 officer tooz the charter man date and who cost 175 thousand a year per the controllers report and instead commit those dollars to 283 at risk and low income San Francisco youth at 175 thousand dollarsi didnt get to finish my sentence so im repeat that. Instead what if we commit today those do tooz 283 of most at risk and low income San Francisco youth at 175 thousand dollars per year for the life of a average Police Officers career which is roughly 2530 years. We insure the young person has a secure home, 3 meals a day, the best education tutoring and enrichment program, guaranteed College Tuition and ability to take unpaid internship each summer because they dont need the income . Would that make our city safer . I thipg think it would. So, as we also talk about increasing the size of the police force it is important the resolution also calls for mandating this increase. Before we do that we need to have a a thorough comhensive discondition of what it meads to build a safer San Francisco. Increasing the size of the police may be the right answer, but lets look at it with other known solutions that prevent crime. I dont think this increase should be a mandate. If we decide to fund a greater number of Police Officers let not fund future from investing what they learned or make the city safer mpt the city will continue to change kw one number appropriate this year may not be the right number in 10 years. I also want to stay my vote today which is determined by resolution moves forward is snot reflecting my opinion of the Police Department necessarily or the leadership. I agree with many point made by the public i do disagree with the statement of the police. I think we have a great number of astounding men and women that serve the institution and believe in make thg Community Safer and many are father uncles sisters and nieces. I support supporting the mandate of 1971 officers but dont believe the police alone are the answers. This is a issue that comes up a lot with the topic of police and that is what the police does in the city. Wree accountable for what we fund and invest in. There is a growing concern about how we address Police Sources with Public Safety and when something goes wrong they tend oo blame the recognize officer yet every year we vote to fund the oreshz. We fund the arming of the officer and fund the Training Program that determines shooting and homicide is necessary for Public Safety. This isnt to say this is the wrong conclusion but take accountability for what members of the public are saying what they say on a daily basis and respond to it. I know every member of the board supports funding many things such as housing and schools houv you cannot wrote vote for this resolution as written today and fund all those things. The more we fund the police, the less we fund hozing schools and after school programs. Our budget is a finite number and with a price tag of 49, 525 thousand dollars close to 50 million proposed by the resolution this isnt a small financial commitment. Im not saying im not willing to fund a Police Increase beyond the charter but this resolution is frankly remature. I cant support it today as written. I think as supervisor avalos mentioned we should continue this item and refer it back to committee. If not i look forward to looking that amendments supervisor avalos is prose posing today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Supervisor farrell thank you president breed. Colleagues i want to thank avenue wn for the discussion for those that turned not binary or mutually excluzive. I appreciate the fact that recent incidence atround Police Department has been very sensitive in the city of San Francisco and understand and appreciate that. Whether it is regarding trust or transparency or other issues, i think the board is a body that very much understood that. The chief and Police Department understood that and they are doing everything in their power to address those concerns. It doesnt happen over night and dont expect them to, however as we talked about things in a motion that i appreciate supervisor mar made yesterday at Budget Committee regarding reserving Police Academy classes until additional training, i voted gaens that but the police chief has done the training for his entire command staff and committed to the do the rest of the training this year. To say these efforts are either disengen ws or not happening or are simply a response to the communey without being watt the Police Department intend to do to me is wrong. I know everyone at the board is commit today improving our Police Department as our Police Officers are and they have what i think is one of the hardest jobs in the silty of San Francisco. What i will say is this though, the number one thing i hear and not just in my district, everywhere i go in the city of San Francisco surround Police Staffing level and Public Safety departments. It is something where every member of the board of supervisor ask the police chief for additional Police Officers. I hear it time and time again from neighborhood groups and residence and emails if memberoffs the public cant sit in the galley and sit quite ill need to ask you to leave time and time again we see Public Safety is the top concern if not the number 1 in the city of San Francisco. We may is a difference of opinion on how to approach it but we agree this is a major issue and from my persective we need to approp it in multiple ways. It isnt one way or the other, it is both. I believe the public demand to be the top priority of the city of San Francisco and government and need tew proach it that way. Historically, we have been understaffed as a Police Department whether wherethe last 10 years we have seen a increase in population over 12 percent in the last 10 years, we have seen a decrease in Police Staffing levels of about 3 percent. We can talk about the reasons behind it. I also am onei applaud the fact this year Violent Crime is down. I think everyone in the chambers does, but wont deminsh the property crime happening in the city of San Francisco. In the high double digit and most of the district from my perspective this is a serious issue across the city of San Francisco we hear as members of the board oaf supervisors and refuse to brush that off or say it isnt serious crime we need to address. We can talk about the reasons behind it, but to suggest additional Police Officers is not going to help that situation to me is completely wrong. I do believe when beepal commit crimes we need to have consequences to prevent them into the future. The board and this administration and applaud mayor lee for funding the Police Academy classes this year has made a commitment to make sure the Police Staffing levels are where they should be. However, the current Staffing Levels were proposed at a time when the city looked a lot different than today and a population that is smaller. I have been deeply committed and fought for the funding for the police acad 5e78 classes and will do so in the future. I want to give the men and women in the Police Department and the members of San Francisco to give them everything we need to enhance [inaudible] we will hold them accountable but believe this resolution sh absolutely necessary Going Forward thank you for visor farrell. Supervisor mar thank you. Im in total disagreement with my colleagues farrell, wiener and cohen. Every day we get new reports this from the Hayward Burns Institute on San Francisco racism and ethnic disparities and from cj colonel and social justing organization, this is not a appropriate way to look at keeping our communities safe though i know supervisor wiener mentioned that is his approach. I wanted to speak in strong respect to the many people who came out from the Mission District again and again from bayview and fill more and others and all the communities. 283 police are not going to make the Community Safer it is Community Based programs and Youth Programs many people from the chambers work in. How we address the killings of [inaudible] lopez, alex [inaudible] and others is a critical part of what we do as a board. Supervisor avaloss amendments are a multipronged approach to look how we make the Community Safer with Community Resources not just Police Officers. The need for more howding and human safety net are critical. There is a correlation when politic bring up more police and funding for Law Enforcement versus funding the community. The push out of latino district and African Americans from the fill more and other neighborhoods is connected to what is going on today with this mean spirited piece of legislation. I think the avalos amendment are in line with making sure that we represent San Francisco values that respect the communities as we try to make our people and Community Safer so Police Support the avalos amendment. Thank you. Supervisor campos thank you madam president and let me say i respect every one that has spoken on this issue and i understand people feel passionate about this isue but thing it is important for us to listen to one another because i think that there is a lot to be learned from all sides here. I serve on the Police Commission. I think im the only member of the board of supervisors that serve on the Police Commission and the one thing that i would say on the issue of policing, i really believe that it is critical for this body, the board of supervisors to be as unified as we can be when it comes to issues around policing. Whether you are talking about staffing, whether you are talking about training whether you are talking about recruitment, i think it is really important for us to speak with one voice. And i would ask the authors of this resolution who i know feel passionately about this, to please reconsider moving forward with this item. I really believe that it would be a mistake and a disservice quite frankly to the Police Department and communities it serves for us to muchb forward a resolution on Police Staffing where the board of supervisors is divided. I really believe and if you can police hear me out, i really believe that to achieve what i know the Police Commission and chief of police and Community Members said what is needed in San Francisco, we need to have as unified a front as possible and what i can tell you is this, that i think that the symbol of this board of supervisors moving forward this resolution is going to send the wrong message to many communities. So much has been happening around the Police Department in the last few months and this board of supervisors has been silent on those issues. The one effort by supervisor avalos to make a statement about the need for reform was actually not successful, it was sent back to committee and i actually think many people felt hurt by that decision and while i respect the reasoning behind it, i tink in the context of that action for the board of supervisors to act and the first thing that we do as a board when it comes to policing is to pass a resolution that deals with staffing but doesnt address all the other issues that come up. I think it is a mistake. And i actually think that in the end it is going do more harm to the Police Department and the relationship with this communities than it helps. And i will say that i think that there is Common Ground for us to have here but i dont believe that moving this forward is the right decision and i say this as someone who worked with the Police Department for many years as a member of the Police Commission. I came to this board of supervisors advocating for more staffing for the Police Department and one of the reasons we were able to reach that 1971 goal is because of people like mean and others on the Police Commission came to the body and said we as members of the Police Commission who know what staffing is believe this is needed. I spoke to members of the Police Commission now that said they didnt know this was happening and were not consulted on whether or not this was the right move so i thipg is a mistake. Before i talk about had merits of what is being presented, i would simply ask the authors of this resolution to please dont move forward. Send this back to committee, continue it, whatever we can so that we can have a dialogue that includes everyone. I would encourage the Mayors Office because i know the mayor cares about the relationship between police and the communities it serves especially communities of color. Mr. Mayor, you have the ability to step in and say that this is not how we are going to address policing issues as a city. We want to be unit jd we are not going to let something as strongly as people feel in the end is deviseive. That is my ask and so i would make a motion in that spirit to send this item back to committee so we can have enough time to have this discussion and conversation. Supervisor campos made a motion to send this item back to committee. Second by