Violence d. G. O. And the deaf and hard of hearing which is coming up for a vote later this month. But you should know that we were meeting on the d. V. Domestic violence d. G. O. For four years before this, before the new process was put into place, and so those meetings were not happening without sfpd, those were meetings with the d. P. A. , the Domestic Violence consortium and other shake holders and sf stakeholders and sfpd for four years, and we could not get this to the commission. Now were starting over, or theres a chance to start it over in this new process, so we support this resolution. Also, the deaf and hard of hearing, which we talked about a month ago, thats been worked on at the table for two years. Every day that sfpd does not have these updated d. G. O. S, san franciscans are in jeopardy. This must happen. I also signed onto a letter that was not available to the public that really delineated the process from bay area legal aid. We were honored to sign onto it, and we want the public to know that the community is engaged in this process commissioner hamasaki i just want to briefly thank miss upton. She represents the consortium and has worked with a number of people in the Domestic Violence community. I think this letter is available in the Vice President taylor every letter that we get is not part of the supporting documents for each meeting. Commissioner elia Commission Commission commissioner elias you know, this is really disheartening. All i want to do is move this along. The deaf and hard of hearing d. G. O. Has been in concurrence for two years, and the Domestic Violence d. G. O. Has been in concurrence for four years. The fact is, some of the amendments that we put recommendations that we put in were taken out of the d. G. O. Its just its a sad, sad thing to me, but those are my personal feelings on the matter, and, you know, this isnt a personal process, but i wish that we could make reforms, you know, a little bit quicker, and not be justice delayed. Commissioner hamasaki yeah. I just want to clarify, commissioner taylor, the delay with deaf and hard of hearing wasnt delayed in concurrence until the very end. Is there still Public Comment . Clerk yes. Commissioner hamasaki oh. Clerk good evening, caller. You have two minutes. Hello, caller. Youve been unmuted. You have two minutes. Commissioner hamasaki if i have to adopt a resolution, my motion would be to adopt the comments incorporated into the letter. Commissioner dejesus its Vice President taylor its already been seconded. Sergeant youngblood . Clerk on the motion to adopt the resolution with the comments incorporated into the letter [roll call] commissioner hamasaki just to be clear, you can bring the motion for the resolution as drafted. Vice president taylor but thats the whole point, you know . We still have 5. 01 to deal with. We have other ones lined up, and its making things more difficult to circle back. This is why we cant get anything done. With all due respect, d. P. A. Reports to the commission, not the other way around. Commissioner dejesus stop making it personal. [inaudible] commissioner dejesus you keep saying im rubber stamping it, youre sandbagging me, youre making it personal. I did my review. [inaudible] commissioner dejesus you have to stop badmouthing us if you dont agree with us. I did my homework and i reviewed the revision. Vice president taylor stop yelling at me. I wasnt yelling at me, i was giving my opinion. This entire time, im not yelling to you or at you. Im giving my views on what i think is a fair result, and we all have the right and the entitlement to do that. Commissioner dejesus your comments your comments speak for you. You have been making it personal. Just talk about the facts. Vice president taylor i have not yelled at you, i will not yet at you. Thats not what it is about for me, it is about the resolution. So, you know, it is a sad day for me. That is the truth, and im allowed to have those feelings. Those feelings arent about you, those are mine. So with that, ill move on. Commissioner hamasaki i think i would like to note, as well i appreciate that. I think this was a real moment where we came together, and the d. P. A. Worked together with the Police Commission and brought forth a letter that delineated all of these. So we could have voted on it all tonight. We could have adopted it. We could have moved forward on it with a speeded up concurrence process, but also other issues that impact them moving forward. So, you know, i think that im disappointed, as well. I expected the resolution with the d. P. A. S to pass. I think weve all learned a lot through this process and being on the commission. I would ask that we treat each other respectfully during this process. Vice president taylor i agr agree. I agree. I dont know if its worth putting forth the resolution as stated for a vote, yeah. So with that, lets move on. Next line item. Clerk line item 4, discussion and possible action to Issue Department bulletins clarifying language for department general order 5. 01, use of force policy, discussion and possible action. Thank you, commission. And if i could ask Sergeant Youngblood to put up just a short slide, powerpoint, ill be very brief in presenting this for the commissions consideration. Clerk pardon me, chief. Its taking me just one second. Okay, chief. Its up. Before i start this is a brief powerpoint. I just want to, in the spirit of some of the discussion tonight, point out that the department of Police Accountability and the commission had asked for this to be expedited given that the department was tasked with coming up with some weve done that, and d. P. A. Turned this around quickly, so weve present this to the commission. So if we can go to slide 1, i just want to highlight some of the features of these policy updates. So the purpose in line with our strateg strategic plan, you know, really, our strategic initiatives, we have several. I just want to point out the ones directly that this policy update directly speaks to. Our strategy, too, in terms of responsiveness, strategy four, ability to intervene. Prohibit the use of chokeholds, which is already a d. G. O. And a feature of this bulletin. We want to go back to the policy that the commission has in 2016 to remind officers of their duty specifically to intervene. [inaudible] really speak to us being a better and stronger department. And thats prohibiting the use section 4, wed like to amend and add a section that prohibits the use of physical control to the head, neck, and throat area. Then section 5, we added a section consistent with the theme and the strategy statement of safety with respect, and thats to safeguarding the people that we come in contact with, and this speaks specifically to not putting people unnecessarily on the ground or seating them on the curb. It also speaks to when we have the typical facts, to lay somebody a person on the ground, that we get them up immediately when that situation has been considered stable. So, you know, leaving people on the ground is something we can do better at. We see it across the country, and its we can do a better job. We can do it here in San Francisco, and we can do it in other parts of the country, as well. Were also requesting a title change, d. G. O. 5. 01 that clearly describes the scope and purpose of these d. G. O. S and recommended provisions. And also, one other thing, in part four, we can go to the bottom of yes, the bottom of the slide. Part four, prohibiting the use of physical controls to the head, neck, and throat, to add language to prohibit applying pressure while using force to the head, neck, and throat of the person, and that was what we saw in minneapolis, and this was a change that was cited in our policy that we believe will make a clear bright line to this issue. Section 5, safeguarding the dignity. As i mentioned, we ha the policy explains that. Next slide, please. The next draft policy will be forwarded to the meet and confer process, and i know theres been a lot of discussion about that. And really, the discussion is impact, whether this policy has impacts on a lot of those associations. We do have we have a let me say this weve hired two people from d. H. R. To stream line this process. Part of the delays, they were involved in other work other than the police department. We brought them in. They understand this work, and we believe this will help stream line this process when meet and confer is legally required, so i wanted to add that to one of the things that were doing to try to speed up this process. And the last thing, as far as next steps, we have basically works with all the parties, including d. P. A. And the commissioners assigned commissioner brookter and commissioner dejesus to work on this together so we can turn it around quickly and implement the changes. So thats the last slide. If you have any questions for me, im happy to answer them for the commissions consideration. Vice president taylor yes. Commissioner hamasaki . Commissioner hamasaki yes, chief, youre saying that this amendment needs to go to meet and confer . So i know theres going to be further discussion about this, but yes. We as our processes go, any d. G. O. Policy change, bulletin, those before now, went to d. H. R. For review to see if that triggered a meet and confer based on advice from d. H. R. And from the City Attorneys office. It still goes through that process, except miss choi and miss preston do it now as members of the department. Like every d. G. O. Or bulletin, they review it, and they give us advice on whether these policy changes trigger meet and confer. The advice we were given was yes, this one does. Commissioner hamasaki chief, just to be clear, the commission makes the determination as to whether something goes to meet and confer, correct . The advice has been, from d. H. R. , a d. H. R. And miss preston is on the call to answer any questions, but the advice has been to send it to d. H. R. , and d. H. R. Gives advice when appropriate as to whether those policy changes should go to meet and confer, and they give advice to the department, as well. Thats been the process. Commissioner hamasaki sorry. I understand that process. When youre saying that its going to meet and confer, thats a conclusion that i dont think weve reached yet because ultimately, the Commission Decides whether it goes to meet and confer, and i cant imagine this one would. Thats all i have to say for this. Yeah, understood. I dont understand why this doesnt go to meet and confer. Commissioner elias ive told the chief with respect to 5. 01, this does not go to meet and confer. There was a court case where the p. O. A. Served the department over the original 5. 01, and they lost. And the court found that it was not subject to meet and confer, so for us to if were making amendments or resolutions to a d. G. O. That is not subject to meet and confer, why would we backtrack and have it go to meet and confer . That makes no sense to me. Yeah, thank you, commissioner elias. We feel that as far as i know, we still refer to the Human Resources people to make a determination to advise the department and the commission and also the City Attorney, which we do on every d. G. O. , including this bulletin. So i know Sergeant Cabrera is on the call, who wrote some of this resolution, and the City Attorney is on the call. Commissioner elias i know were going to discuss some of this next week, but this meet and confer is a problem for most of us. So im still not clear on why things get sent to meet and confer. It seems that everything [inaudible] theres this deference that shouldnt be, and i think thats the point. Its this deference thats been happening no longer happens. Commissioner dejesus so i was there you know, i was there in 2016. And we passed the use of force, and we put it into practice, and they sued us, and they lost. This is a policy decision, and the policy the city of San Francisco doesnt want their officers doing the carotid restraint and doesnt want that as a policy decision, that is a meet and confer. Now, there was something about training, and they wanted to change the policy, and they lost in court. So when its a pure policy, it doesnt go to them. They dont make that decision. When it affects their working conditions, such as training, then perhaps. But that training doesnt change what they try to do, when they take it in, is they try to change the policy itself. Thats the doubleedged sword that im saying, if were not going to have it enforced, they have 30 days. But theres this policy deference that were told that everything has to go in there. But the case is very clear, if its a policy decision, management decision, it doesnt have to go there. Commissioner hamasaki commissioner, may i ask, were you given advice that that doesnt have to go into meet and confer . Commissioner dejesus there was a training that was resolved very quickly. As far as the rest of it, it was pure policy, and they implemented it, and thats when they sued us and they lost. [inaudible] commissioner dejesus we should talk about whether our policy is open session. Theres no closed session for policy. [inaudible] Vice President taylor what can you tell us . Commissioner hamasaki youre muted oh, youre calling on a phone. Commissioner dejesus its on the bottom, the mute button. Commissioner hamasaki there you go. Hello . Commissioner dejesus hello. Hi. Good evening. This is lawanna preston. Thank you. So bwhat needs to go to meet ad confer are items or policy decisions that fall within the scope of representation. Pursuant to the brown act, if there are changes to the working conditions that fall within scope, they are required the city is required to provide an opportunity to the union to meet and confer over those impacts. You all may remember that, on march 23, 2018, the City Attorneys office sent out a memo to the Police Commission regarding meet and confer requirements. It was brought to the commission for discussion by katie porter, whos the citys chief legal attorney, and so there are things that we are legally required to meet and confer about. Wh about when it comes to changing working conditions or it impacts the working conditions. Its kind of a catchall descriptor, but why would the bias need to go to meet and confer . Just everything gets swallowed up into that definition. Its covered so broadly such that everything we do ends up there, and i still dont understand why. Commissioner dejesus and i agree, not everything has to go there. Weve carved things out that weve not negotiated on because not everything is in your purview. Yeah. Sometimes, it needs to be litigated. The City Attorney needs to defend us when look, its a policy decision. Its not subject to meet and confer, and we have to take that stand and allow that litigation process to take place and not be scared of it. How is the bias d. G. O. Not an absolute policy decision . Its us in terms of employment, its everything in terms of employment. Theres nothing for us to be able to rely on. You know, since i joined this commission, i have been frustrated by this [inaudible]. The bias policing d. G. O. Is scheduled for the july 8 closed session; that there arethat is i is there are that is sent out for the next meeting. Someone makes the decision [inaudible] are we able to say commissioner elias i think, commissioner taylor i think some of those questions will be answered in our closed session. What im going to ask at this point is im going to make a motion, and im going to ask you, all of the commissioners to join me. Given the fact that 5. 01 was already litigated in the courts, and the court decided that this was a policy decision and not in the purview of meet and confer. Given that, and given the fact that were making amendments to 5. 01, im making a motion that the chief not send this to meet and confer because its not something thats subject to meet and confer. Im going to make that motion, and im going to ask someone to second me and we pass it so that the chief doesnt send it to meet and confer. Commissioner dejesus i want to make a couple of amendments to it before we commissioner elias im saying i want to prohibit the chief from sending this to meet and confer. Im making a motion. Commissioner dejesus ill second that. Commissioner elias so that it doesnt go to meet and confer. [inaudible] commissioner dejesus youre breaking up. Commissioner hamasaki breaking up. Vice president taylor is this right, that meet and confer was found to go policy . Commissioner elias theres a court case on it, p. O. A. Vice president taylor is that right . Commissioner elias City Attorney cabrera. Vice president taylor or miss preston, is that correct . This is alicia cabrera. I provided a memo that was distributed yesterday, and in there, i talk about that particular decision. So unless you want me to disclose my legal advice in public, which i dont advise, that is not what i said, so i refer you back to the memo. Commissioner dejesus you can you can tell us theres a court case on it. Its a published opinion. Right. And we engaged in effects bargaining, and we reached an agreement with training and discipline. Commissioner dejesus i said that. We reached an agreement with training, but they continued to say we had to meet and confer on shooting at cars, and we said no. An important part to remember is we engaged in bargaining, and commissioner dejesus i agree with you. We did around that one issue that was resolved rather quickly, but then, it still got bogged down and we implemented it. Commissioner hamasaki you know, the challenge here is weve got three trial attorneys, and were ready for trial. And i think the City Attorneys Office Commissioner dejesus no, i think we have to parse commissioner hamasaki no, no, no. Im not just saying commissioner dejesus what falls within the meaning, and what doesnt. Commissioner hamasaki like, thats our role as commissioners, is we need to be ready to pull the trigger even when other parties that are involved are not motivated in the same way, perhaps. Commissioner dejesus no, i think we need to im sorry. Let me finish. I think we need to understand what falls within the pr parameters of policy. Go on, alicia. Ultimately, whether decisions go to meet and confer are done by d. H. R. I wanted to