approach the podium. as i said, i was special education teacher for a long time. it's really good. one because i was raised in the projects. you know what, chief? we knew everybody who killed everybody when we were six, eight years old because we were invisible and we were running around the, the, the scenes of these things, from the time whatever. some of some of the kids carried guns, call them poppers, a six year old kid carrying a gun on the side, you know, the adult is going to use it won't get busted. but, what i was thinking was, miss brown, my condolences, but, this is 2006, age. the 12 year olds in that era, and i taught i taught middle schoolers, and i had them

write, to write, write about all kinds of stuff. what's been happening, what's going on? some of them wrote about witnessing murders. this is over a long time, from south carolina to san francisco. but, from take 8 to 12 year olds in the period when your son was murdered, go to mission high, may do a mailing to about 4000 people who would be 26 to 30 years old now. okay you shouldn't do that, miss brown. the department actually should do that. all right, give them give them a nice blog or glossy, piece of mail, a letter that they won't throw in the trash. but it's been a while. okay, there might be people. when i went to my 50th anniversary, we had a couple of guys in that class who were went on to be police chiefs. one fire chief and several contract killers, at that 50th reunion,

we're all sitting around bullshitting, and people started saying, hey, chief, you know, i knew, i knew, somebody who got murdered. i knew their killer. i like to use the overhead again. so we have this one that you just did a presentation on. this one was from 2022, and it's the same information. you just formatted it. it's the same stuff. and i didn't want this. it's the same stuff. even some of the articles in here is the same from 2022. so what's being done here? it again. and even

what you read here and it says, $0 having been paid for a decade, i circled this is right here. it says neither city officials nor their families are are allowed to receive rewards. neither are those who help the case as part of a plea bargain or settlement. people wanted by law are who who turns over information. so their criminal rivals can go to jail. you have the same stuff here. again here's another article where it says robert, san francisco police spokesperson robert rerecord me, meanwhile, told that the standard that the department has no record of ever paying a reward. and he also

said that the department has no record of how much money has been, has they have in the bank for the rewards. so where's that money going? where's the money at? how i mean, or how that the money has been made managed? have it been managed? here is another article. what you guys did back in 2023 about gun violence. the same thing is being said over and over again. and like you mentioned, it's a lot of talk but no action, a lot of talk, but no action. what are we going to do? i, like i said, i'm tired of coming here having to do this. i should be going to my grandchild graduations. but no, i'm coming here getting the same thing over and over again. action needs to be taken.

that is the end of public comment line item nine discussion and possible action to approve the police commission statement of purpose and forward to the mayor and board of supervisors for approval, discussion and action. mr. allen, come on up. mr. president. he is. hello. good evening. good evening. thank you very much. i'm tempted to take a little bit more than my two minutes of time to which i'm accustomed, and i might go slightly over that, but not by much. well, before i let you begin, i'm going to actually turn it over to. no. okay. we're going to let you begin. and then i think vice president carter, i was waiting for an introduction, but i was giving him i wanted

him to introduce you. since i hear none, i will proceed. you really need no introduction. you require no introduction in this chamber, well, i hope that's a compliment. thank you, president elias, good evening, commissioners. chief scott, i'm honored to present for your consideration a draft of the police commission's proposed statement of purpose. and i thank vice president carter. carter oberstein, who has been my drafting collaborator for the opportunity to do so. as you know, the city charter requires boards and commissions to adopt such a document annually. and in the words of the statute, a document that outlines a commission's quote, jurisdiction authorities, purpose and goals, jurisdiction authorities. purpose and goals. too often, the statutory requirement, at least in san francisco, is honored peremptorily by, as treated as no more than a box to

be checked with all the forethought that goes into checking boxes. that sort of failure, in my opinion, disservices both the relevant commission and the public for two reasons. first, in the process of identifying a commission's purpose and goals, one assumes that the members of the commission will engage in some sort of introspection as to what it is they are trying to accomplish. what are the principles and standards that will guide their decision making? and i assume that was in the minds of the drafters of the statutory provision. and secondly, and equally important, if not more so, is that the articulation of these principles and standards, these goals, if you will, might enhance public understanding of what it is a

commission is trying to accomplish, and in doing so, increase public acceptance of what it is the commission decides to enact or decides to do. in short, it seems to me there is merit in both internally in terms of in inside decision making at the commission and perhaps more importantly, serving a larger civic purpose, turning to the document before you, san francisco is not unique among american cities in requiring some sort of statement by its police commissions. and we've looked at other cities philadelphia, chicago, new york, among others. but of course, the heart of the statement is the or are the goals and principles, and sergeant, if we could show the overhead on that. we i guess

you can't see all of these on one document, i'm not going to go through these. every item you've had, the had this in your advanced materials. there's no reason for me to go through them. but i would suggest to you that in looking at these eight, there are, at least in my view, four themes that come through. and those themes are public safety, professional realism, accountability, and transparency, professionalism, public safety, professionalism, accountability and transparency. it seems to me those are the themes that are embedded in all of these. so in short, adoption of this sort of statement i think is in the best interest of the commission. and i think more importantly, it might enhance public understanding and acceptance of what it is the commission does, if adopted,

ideally with the cooperation of those who run the website, it would be prominently posted on the website for the public to, public to view. finally, a i will observe that a tenacious researcher of section 4.102 statements might well conclude that this particular one, is among the most concise, comprehensive, and lucid. of any in the city. and that is appropriate for the police commission, which, after all, is among the most influential and powerful commissions in the city, probably second only to the planning commission. so with that, i conclude my comments, and i'm sorry i ran over by three minutes. no, first of all, i want to thank you for your commitment and dedication to this process. when i first met you, we were discussing 9.07 and

you were very diligent in bringing it to our attention that we were missing our mission statement, and i really want to thank you for your commitment to this process, because i really appreciate the fact that you do two things. number one, you actually read the material and understand what you're talking about. oftentimes we have people who want to engage, but they don't read or understand the process. and so it makes it, you know, a little difficult to move forward. and so i really want to commend you and thank you for taking the time to do that. and number two, just for taking the time to, be patient with us in terms of getting this mission statement done. so i do want to thank you and i want to thank vice president carter overstone for working with you in this process and producing, i think, is a great document. thank you. yeah, i just wanted to recognize paul for his important work on this, for those who don't know,

paul allen, i mean, paul, i think is fair to say is a frequent critic of a lot of what the police commission is doing. and and i think that an important part of every commissioner's job is to listen to criticism, listen to public feedback, especially from feedback that's critical from folks who disagree with us. i think it's a core part of our job. what paul did, i think that's different than a lot of the feedback we get is he pointed out, not just pointed out, a problem, but he also offered to enlist himself in providing a solution, and, and spent a lot of his own time researching and drafting this, statement of purpose that we now have before us, paul and i don't always agree on every issue relating to public safety, but paul, i think, is an independent

and rigorous thinker, and his ideas are always well reasoned. and i think we've we've we the public and the commission has benefited from him, his thoughts and comments and reactions, so tonight i'm very happy to have the statement of purpose. it was great collaborating together on it. and i urge my colleagues to adopt it. i take that as your motion. can i get a second, second, second for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item nine, please approach the podium. there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner benedicto, how do you vote? yes. mr. benedict was. yes. commissioner young. yes, i commissioner yanez, is. yes. commissioner yee, no. commissioner yee is no. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter is. yes.

and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have four yeses. line item ten. presentation and discussion on sfpd and dpa. sparks report first quarter 2024 discussion. he's got the budget. hello. hold on. we get started. we're going to put a timer on i appreciate that. i know that you are definitely going to be adhering to the time i worry about others . okay. good evening. sorry no, it's a powerpoint. my name is ahsha steeves. i'm the policy development division manager with sfpd, and i'm here to present our quarter one sparks report for 2024. and this just covers the data from january to march 31st. and we will also provide some update information of policy updates from. i'm

starting march 31st to date. that's it. thank you. you can just go to the first slide. thank you. can so as you know these reports are required per the resolution which we call the sparks resolution. it's 2706. this again this resolution came out in 2006. so it would be lovely if this commission would consider reviewing that that resolution and potentially updating it so that it aligns with our current terminology and also your current needs with how to review policy. in the report that we submitted. that should be in your packet. we went over 32 manuals and also updates relating to 39 ns. we also provide information about those ns on whether they are going to be reissued or rescinded or archived. next slide please. so here are some policy updates

relating to activity that happened after march 31st. so in the report there are some stagnant information. so dgo 207 and dgo 513. they have completed the concurrence process, as you know, the concurrence process is when, leadership and sfpd and dpa get together to discuss the edits, the most recent edits to a particular draft dgo or policy before it is sent over to the commission. so again, 207 and 513 have completed concurrence, and they are currently in blue folders. we call it a blue folder because we literally put the document in a blue folder with a tracking sheet, and it's reviewed by the sgm. sometimes the executive sponsor and the chief of police and chief of staff, and sometimes also labor relations will check it. so we get that sign off from the chief before we package it, and we send a digital package to the police commission. dgo 610 we are currently seeking executive sponsor approval of stage one, we're ahead of schedule. the

deadline for stage one is may 21st, so we just sent out an email on monday seeking the approval from the executive sponsor for dgo 1011, our final concurrence meeting was held on friday, may 3rd, so that two is being packaged for blue folder routing, and then we have some dgos that were clearly named in property that are taken out of if they were part of the 2024 or 2023 list, are taken out of that as those need to be approved by october 1st. next slide please. so as a reminder, dgo 301 requires an annual general order review list. so every year we have to get a new list approved. ours was initially submitted in november and approved in february. so this sets the work plan for the department as well as with dpa. so we put forward 15 dgos for review and update this year. and we carried over a few from 2023. so this is just a

snapshot. this particular slide of the dc determined timelines, while dgo 301 allows for a 90 day timeline, many of our deputy chiefs chose 60 days just to, kind of quicken the pace. and now that we have a centralized policy development unit, it's easier to actually have version control and work with smes and get that information to dpa and get an exchange with dpa. since the documents aren't kind of all over the department. right. so, so this is again, this is just a snapshot on where we are with, the notifications that we sent out for stage one. there's an update. since this was submitted last week, we've sent a notification out for dgo 607 dog complaints that went out on the sixth, and then our notification for dgo 1102 secondary employment went out on the seventh. so next slide please. so this is just an update on some of the 2023 dgos. again, these were on the 2023 general order review list. and they

carried over into 2024, some highlights here is 310 serious incident review board is tentatively scheduled for the concurrence meeting on may 17th. dgo 612 arrests of persons on parole or probation. that's currently in stage two. our, we received recommendations from dpa and our responses are due to them on the 21st of may, 614 psychological events. excuse me. evaluation of adults concurrence had concluded a while ago, but sb 43 was effective in january. and recently the department issued a department notice relating to sb 43. so we're trying to incorporate that information into the dgo before we send the digital package to the commission. so it's essentially in this place before the chief allows us to go ahead and send over that digital package. dgo 701 juvenile policies and procedures. i know that one's been of interest to this body here, we did hold our

first concurrence meeting on the 19th of april, and our concurrence deadline is in june. 0803. that went to a working group. that working group has concluded. we're trying to get this item posted uyghur 0803 the draft, for public posting this friday. so that'll be posted for 30 days. 906 vehicle tows. that is right now are posted for public. so we encourage members of the public and department members to go on to our website and review the document and submit comment if wanted. and 1011 body worn cameras. that is done again with concurrence. and we are blue foldering that as well. next slide please. quick update. we have some updates also with this one, so we are coming back to this body to propose the 2024 working group list. it does require full commission approval per dg 0301. we were initially scheduled to be heard, i think back in

february, and then it's been rescheduled a few times. i think now we're actually scheduled for june. the presentation says may, but i believe it's being pushed to june, so our working group coordinator that we have full time has solicited feedback from dpa related to the proposals that we were put in front of this body, and then we are proposing as a department, three working groups to take place in this year. and if approved by this body, we can hopefully start as soon as june. i know the presentation says may, but it looks like we'd have to start it in june, it is. there is one that we are proposing that is already almost completely done with stage one. so this delay with the commission approval will impact the stage one. stage two timing, but we have already done a lot of the legwork with seeking out community interest and stakeholders that are interested in participating as well. so i think we're we're pretty set to start that work, so that's all i had for the

overview for the report, and i will take questions, i think after dpa does their presentation. thanks. thank you. president elias, i will be extremely brief. i started doing policy work full time for dpa the last two weeks of the first quarter of 2024, so i will keep my comments extremely brief. two things i wanted to note, from the dpa report that, were of interest, the crowd control working group, we did something a little bit different in dpa this year, we ran an internal working group that included, feedback from several of our several senior investigators and investigators with experience in crowd control, it was a wide variety of backgrounds, including former law enforcement

officer who's actually a former british police officer, two former journalists, one of whom was involved in several protests , and a former former federal investigator, we had some pretty robust discussion between in the group, so that really helped us iron out, our position on some recommendations as we brought those recommendations to the crowd control working group. and they were very well received. and, so i think moving forward, i'm going to continue to solicit, information from people within dpa and just try to lean on these subject matter experts that have been working in the field for a while, second item i'd like to present is on the pending general order on the use of social media, as commissioner yanez mentioned, we've met a few times and talked about the draft general order that the

department has, we kind of broke down a list of questions we had, and we discussed them with a member of sfpd's legal team, i'd like to thank our sfpd for making several subject matter experts available to discuss the draft. and my questions. so, in short time, i hope to get through some more, experts who utilize this technology every day and, come forward with some solid recommendations. and i have 50s left, so i'm going to stop there. president carter. thank you, president elias. i'm having some difficulty pulling it up, but, in its report, dpa linked to another report, which was, sfpd's and dpa's, i guess

responses to dgos that have been what's the what's the new term that we're using? not it's not languishing. we've got a new term delayed to believe we used the word stalled. stalled. okay. the stalled dgos, wanted to ask about dgos 1.061.07. concurrence was completed in may of last year, so it's been a year since concurrence. it's been so with the chief. from the comments, it appears that there's more or less agreement on the language. what's what's the holdup for those two? i believe with 106, 107 was one where the dpa requested a meeting with the chief after concurrence had closed, and there were comments

that they provided, which i believe were minor in nature, and, we didn't receive any written directives. and the policy development division didn't receive the comments in order to incorporate them into the draft. dgo so there was a kind of a stall between receiving the comments, and then once we receive the comments, we prepared it for blue folder, part of that routing is labor relations. labor relations provided some comments, additional comments which now need to be incorporated. i do believe no, that isn't one that i've asked. i have submitted a memo to the chief where i've requested a few to be put on hold so we can concentrate on the work plan here, but i believe 106 107 is just waiting for additional edits, but it's in the blue folder phase now. it was not in the blue folder phase until probably, i think february or march. it was put into the blue folder phase. it's waiting for additional edits. from whom,

there were some concerns from labor relations about, about the two sentences that were. no, not about the new edits. it was about some of the edits that were not related to the comments that dpa had provided. and typically, does labor relations weigh in after concurrence? that's correct. they've been added to the tracking sheet of dgos that go to the chief for signature, and dpa has recommended that sfpd submit an extension supported by good cause. does sfpd intend to submit a request for an extension supported by good cause? so it's currently in a phase that has a non-designated timeline. so asking for an extension? sure. i i'm hesitant to start adding or submitting any extension requests on a non-designated timeline because it can't be duplicated and it would just be an arbitrary request that, again, if someone else was to take my place or to be an officer in charge, they wouldn't know why that extension request or what it tied to, i

see. but to be clear, this new term non-designated timeline is a polite word for a pretty radical interpretation of 3.01 that did not exist until you took over pd. correct? you said just now that they wouldn't know why they'd be requesting extension, but that's not true because they routinely requested extensions in such circumstances before the new this new this brand new interpretation of 3.01 took hold. so, to be clear, dpa and sfpd and the police commission all used to agree on what 3.01 required, it's just this new change. so, so in the ordinary course, an extension request would have been submitted, but now this is one of the many. what is the term non-designated timeline. correct, where for now, the department's new interpretation

is it has unlimited time. chief, is this are you signing on to this new interpretation? because you used to have a different view of what, 3.01 meant? i don't disagree. oh, i'm sorry, i don't disagree with the letter. of what, steve's manager, steve's, is saying. however if your question is, is this timeline designated in a dgo? it's not. but we need to get the dgo completed. i mean, that's the bottom line. so you also agree that you have an unlimited amount of time, to hold things, post concurrence? no. at the chief's desk. well, that's the interpretation. so i want to just. well, that's the interpretation that miss steve's has adopted, and that's why she's not asking for an extension. so i just want to make. no, i don't agree with that. you don't agree with that?

so then you do think that that an extension should be submitted. is that right? a request for an extension? i'm sorry. i think we're talking as a matter of policy. i don't agree that we have an unlimited amount of time, but i do think that that needs to be buttoned up in this policy, which which we're working on, we're working on a revised draft of 3.01. and that's that's great. but that's not what my question is about. so should a request for an extension of time be filed under your understanding of 3.1 as it's currently written, you used to think that the answer was yes, but now we're not getting these extensions anymore. and instead we're hearing actually the department can take as long as it likes, no, i don't believe that's exactly accurate because we've never run into this situation for this phase of the dgo development, for this phase, we've never had concurrence under 3.01 before. no, no, that's all we're talking about now. no concurrence has a timeline. chief before. okay.

just to back up for the public after concurrence. it technically it goes the dgo goes to the chief's desk and the chief has to send the dgo to the commission. when 3.01 was initially revised, the common understanding that everyone held was that this was a purely ministerial step, and that this should take a couple of days and basically existed for the chief to give it one more once over and to catch anything that maybe wasn't caught. despite the exhaustive review the dgo had already gone through, it was never a time for a bunch of new substantive things to happen, and it was never a time for the dgo to just be held for at for a year. it would have been inconceivable at the. at the time, 3.3.1 was revised. if you ask the drafters at the table, nobody would say that it would have been appropriate for a dgo to be held for a year post concurrence. certainly with no

request for an extension, is do you disagree with that? you what is your what's your question, commissioner? i made a comment and i'm going to invite your reaction to it if you like. what is your question? okay. let me rephrase the question. the it would have been inconceivable double okay, that the drafters of 3.01 would have envisioned that a draft dgo could sit on the chief's desk for a year without sfpd asking for an extension of time. is that true or not true in your view? if your question is if it would have been inconceivable. did you used to believe that you would have had to ask for a request for an extension of time in this circumstance or not? no, because it didn't come up. i mean, i don't i don't recall the

situation where this instance has come up post concurrence other than this particular case. so you just speaking for yourself, you're going to as you're sitting here today, you're going to represent that. you're understanding of how 3.01 works is not evolved in any way since it was recently overhauled . commissioner, what is your question, your point? i that was a question that was a one sentence question just now. this issue came up because of this dgo. mr. steve's interpretation is not wrong. and i'm not saying that the department gets the right to just indefinitely hold on to a dgo, but that is what's happening in this case. and we have covered that and said that we need to do better. so i mean, i don't understand what your question is. you made a statement without a question. no, the my last question was one sentence. i asked if your

interpretation of 3.01 has changed since since the overhaul , because it used to be we got extension requests in situations where we're no longer receiving them, and instead we're being told that we don't. the department no longer needs to send requests anymore for an extension that they can just take as long as they'd like. well, that's not exactly accurate, that you're no longer receiving extension requests. i think we're talking about in certain in many circumstances, we are no longer receiving requests for an extension during the situations where we previously did that, that, that that is that's not a true statement. that's that's absolutely correct, i think. okay. okay. hold on. let's take it step by step one. you've agreed that with respect to this dgo, a request, an extension request should have been asked for. it was not at this point, no. the chief did not say that. well, he said that he didn't agree with miss steve's interpretation. no, let the chief. that's not what i heard. so just if what i said is her interpretation is not wrong,

this situation did not come up before. where post concurrence a dgo was in question about the timing of it. this is a unique situation, so i and we just asked for an extension last or two weeks ago. so i mean, you're saying a couple of things, but the fact of the matter is we still request extensions and you do still request extensions, but there are several situations now where you used to request them and now you don't because of this new innovative term we've heard tonight about non-designated timelines. this is a new concept that never existed, that no one ever talked about before. and i'm saying now that whenever we run into a quote unquote non-designated timeline, you don't ask for an extension request, whereas previously you would. can i can i jump in? so when we took over, as you know, there have been extensive workshops and we did a

bunch of group exercises going over the dgo, which hadn't been done before, and when we looked at and assessed the work that was going on before, we were not able to with extension letters that had gone out, tie it to a part of the dgo and part of my responsibilities. i have to train staff in order to train staff on a policy. i have to make it something that can be duplicated and standardize. and if i have a set of extension letters that have gone out that do not tie to any part of the dgo, it makes it challenging to duplicate that. so what we did is we looked at all of the timelines that are prescribed in dgo 301, and those are the ones that we are able to duplicate when it comes to requesting any kind of extension request. unfortunately, in things that we have already pinned for, clean up for dgo 301 review is to provide a prescribed timeline for things like this. so if concurrence, the meetings and concurrence have to end in 40

days. we also want to put a timeline on the chief's review that currently doesn't exist. the next step after that is there's a timeline on written directives for once we get the chief's approval, but there is no current timeline between the end of concurrence and the chief's approval. all i am trying to do with my team and this isn't a term that i created in a silo or by myself. this came out of almost a year of workshops with a team that is currently working on policy development. so all we're trying to do is tie it to a document which is 301. it exists and create timelines that we can always ask for extension requests on. okay. do we have a timeline on this one. can we can we just get a timeline on this one? we can get a timeline on this one, but do you think we'll have it? i can provide it to you after this meeting. after i talk to the executive sponsor. okay, great. why don't you do that last time i asked you about this, at the last sparks report, you said that prior to pd's interpretation, everyone else had been misinterpreting 3.01, does that include dpa? i don't

believe i said everyone else has been misinterpreting 301. well i'm paraphrasing, but that that's you know, you're you're saying you didn't say that. i'm saying i do not think i ever said everyone else is misinterpreting 300. you said the folks who didn't adopt this non-designated. i'm saying based on the chronological and based on all of the written documents that i had to come into the it was clear that the timelines that were being put in writing from both dpa and on our side as well, did not tie to dgo 301. okay, so they were not they were not faithful to 3.01. in your view. i'm saying based on all of the chronological, based on all of the emails that i had to go through, everything that i had to track in order to create a centralized tracking system, there were a lot of, direction that was coming from internal as well as external, where i couldn't find the tie and my team could not find a tie to 301 as it as it stands in 2022. so

the way it was being done before was wrong. that that's what you said i couldn't find i couldn't find what the tie was. so dpa was wrong. the commission was wrong. the chief was wrong. you're saying that? i'm not saying that. okay. well, i guess i'll just ask one last time. i just. and then i'll. i'll spare everyone, chief, do you now agree with this new and inventive non-designated timeline theory that gives the police department unlimited time to hold the dgo for any reason or no reason in the process? yes or no? i don't agree with the police department having unlimited time. i mean, the way you phrased that question, i'm going to answer it. i mean, i don't agree with the police department. i don't believe that

it was ever intended for in any body's interpretation, for the police department to have unlimited time. this, this case that we're talking about, this one, dgo was an anomaly. so no, i don't agree with the police department having an unlimited time. yeah. have you communicated that to pd? yes. and they're following that direction because it doesn't seem like they are from this update. unlimited time. yes. i think we are following that. okay, okay. commissioner yanez, you said one question. thank you, president elias. for the record, there has been a new interpretation of 301. i wasn't here when 301 was written, but i think the spirit of 301 is for us to get these dgos sponsored, authored wordsmith and then approved by this body in

conjunction in collaboration with the chief and your office, so that we have clarity moving forward. right. and so it doesn't feel like the spirit of that dgo is still, guiding us, but i hope with the rewrite and the edits that president elias will introduce, this will no longer be a confusing issue. it won't. that's why. perfect. that's why i love it when, president elias is assertive. let's gavel this thing ahead, my only question is, social media dgo 2.09, we've been working hard, we had separated those. there was only one social media dgo for a while in february of last year or march of last year. a dbi a bulletin or. yeah, a bulletin was introduced that

then led to the creation of an investigative social media dgo. but what started this was just the social media, personal use of social media, which i was expected. and i've been in conversation and dialog with you around, spearheading, improving, evolving, developing. but i've not heard anything from that since some point last year, and i don't see it reflected here. so i just want to know where that stands. so that has been, on hold and asked to be put on, not asked. we've decided to put that on the 2025 annual list in our conversations with you and i, these are two very different issues. dgo 209 is very different than the proposed dgo 621, which again, the bulletins again about investigation 209 is about members and members use of social media. when you and i last spoke, and i believe i'm not sure if sergeant youngblood was on that call, when we spoke,

i think initially was slated in 2023 to go to a working group. and then when we talked, you didn't want that to go to a working group anymore and had decided that you wanted to actually work with the station captains and do a survey instead of 209. there was and then i believe you sent a follow up email with janelle. janelle caywood, and got some her information about working with station captains to address getting messaging out to members of the public. so our last conversation, your concern actually wasn't necessarily about members and their conduct with social media. it was about how we get messages out to members of the public. so we discussed something completely different, which put 209 on the back burner. well i have an email where i think i summarized that we wanted to do an internal working group for 209. we wanted to obtain feedback from captains and anyone that uses social media for personal or for department messaging to improve

us. our ability to capture feedback and to convey information to the community. that didn't mean that i did not want to be actively involved and engaged in continue doing, to evolve that social media. dgo we still have incidents, filed with dpa around the personal use of social media, leading to problems. sure. so i do not understand at what point or when i was supposed to be looped into this being pushed back to 2025. so we were awaiting your decision on whether you wanted to do a survey to district station captains. there was choices on the table, and you did not come back with a decision, did you? 0301 requires us to have an annual list and then also an annual working list that establishes our working plan, as there was no set decision with 209, and the focus was really 006 21 initially. that's kind of it didn't really

land on the 2024 priority list. now certainly that doesn't mean it can't be initiated. it can then the chief still has and the commission still has an opportunity to initiate dgos. but in terms of getting the standard list that needs to be approved for the calendar year and based on the emails that you and i exchanged and the discussion we had, it sounded like you wanted to go through either a survey with district stations or to use the district station captains their distribution lists to get information from members of the public of how how they wanted to receive information. the last i saw again was an email to that you had sent to both me and janelle and asking janelle for her feedback. and then there was no there was nothing after that. so this can always be initiated again. but as terms of our 2024 work plan, because there wasn't a decision that we didn't land on, we haven't moved forward with it. so just so that the public is aware, i believe i was

very clear that i did want to engage in an internal working group, not an external working group. the way we engage community and ask for stakeholder feedback, i will pull that email up so that we could follow up, because i do not believe that it should be suspended until 2025. chief, i would love to have your support on making sure that we address this. it is this all came out of the social media. dg oh, and the investigative social media dg oh was a result of a department bulletin being put out. it was a bureau order or a bureau order being put out. it doesn't mean, though, that we put the social media on the back burner. that was never my social media was not on the back burner. 621 is the social media investigations you're talking about as conduct for members. so we're talking about two different issues, and i'm not sure how they intertwine. well, they intertwine because i was

assigned to 209. yeah. no, no okay. the chief's going to give you a date. it's so for six. oh 2209. i'm sorry. 209, not to make a rash decision, but why don't we give you a date of when this can be turned around? perfect. and we're not going to be in 2025. yes, i hope thank you. thank you. you should have that to him by friday. chief yes. okay. thank you. those are my questions. just let us know. commissioner benedicto, thank you very much. i won't ask any questions. i think we're mostly addressed by my fellow commissioners. and so i thank them for that. i do want to echo, you know, i think that to the department and the dpa have really made a much clearer format for the sparks report to continues to improve. so i'd like to thank both departments for that. and note that i think that i mentioned this before, that i think that the audit,

presentations going forward should follow the same format. i think it's very helpful to have both the department and dpa present at those, i do want to take a brief moment to just continue to express, the point that the vice president was making, which is the frustration around this interpretation of undefined timelines. you know, a number of us on the commission, the vice president, myself included, have expressed our our disagreement with that interpretation that that's been made in the public a number of times. i'm grateful that the chief and president and that we're working to ensure that revisions to 3.1 remove that ambiguity, because i think it has been a cause, and that it's at best a strained interpretation of 3.1 and one that obviously there's disagreement on that. won't you know, with no need to re to relitigate that. but i'm hopeful that it will be something that will be in the past soon. on those undefined timelines as, as just being potholes that slow down the trajectory of otherwise

, moving forward, do move forward now much more quickly and efficiently than they have in years past, that that's a testament to policy, the policy development, the written directives team. but, you know, i think it's incumbent on us as policy makers to identify where these potholes are occurring and filling them so they can continue to move more smoothly. and i look forward to seeing a version of 3.01 that eliminates those obstacles. thank you, chief. oh, i forgot to take it off. okay. thank you sergeant. members of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item ten. please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item 11. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 13 below. closed session including public comment on item 12. a vote. whether to hold item 13 in closed session. if you'd like to make public comment regarding closed session, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on line item 13

i'm sorry. line item 12 vote on whether to hold item 13 closed session san francisco administrative code section 67.10 d action. motion to go into closed session. second on the motion. commissioner benedicto how do you vote? yes, mister benedict goes. yes. commissioner yanez. yes, mr. yanez is. yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president stone, i have to. oh, we're not going to have a quorum. vice president carter, what's going on? the motion, yes. mr. is. yes. and president elias. yes president elias is. yes. and a knife. i'm our commissioners. we are back in open session on line. item 14. vote to elect. whether to disclose any or all discussion. and item 13 held in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.12, a action in motion to not disclose closed session with the exception of factual details that are not privileged and will be provided in the minutes.

second, for any member of the public who would like to make public comment regarding line item 14, please approach the podium seeing none on the motion. commissioner benedicta, how do you vote? yes, mister benedict goes. yes, commissioner yanez. commissioner janez is. yes. commissioner. yee. yes, commissioner. yee is yes. and vice president carter. yes. vice president. robertson is. yes. you have four yeses. line item 15. adjournment. >> who doesn't love cable cars? charging emissions and we're

free which we're proud of you know, it's not much free left in the world anymore so we managed to do that through donations and through our gift shops. you got a real look and real appreciation of what early transit systems are like. this was the transit of the day from about 1875 to about 1893 or later, you know. cable car museum is free, come on in. take a day. come down. rediscover the city. you can spend as time you want and you don't have to make reservations and it's important to be free because we want them to develop a love for cable cars so they do continue to support whether they live here or other places and people come in and say, yes, i have passed by and heard of this and never come in and they always enjoy themselves. people love cable cars and there's none left in the world so if you want to ride a cable car, you've got to come to san francisco. that what makes the city. without the cable cars, you lose part of that, you know, because people who come here and they love it

and they love the history ask they can ride a cable car that has been running since 1888 or 1889. wow! that's something. can't do that with other historical museums. rarely, have i run into anybody from outside who didn't come in and didn't feel better from knowing something about the city. it's a true experience you'll remember. i hope they walk away with a greater appreciation for the history, with the mechanics with people are fascinated by the winding machine and i hope the appreciation, which is a part of our mission and these young kids will appreciate cable cars and the ones who live here and other places, they can make sure there will always be cable cars in san francisco because once they are gone, they are gone. it's the heartbeat of san francisco that founded the cable and the slot and without the cable cars, yeah, we would lose something in san francisco. we would lose part of its heart and soul. it

wouldn't be san francisco without cable cars. [bell ringing] >> i'm san francisco's first drag laureate and the first one in the world. the drag laureate program and the position is one this celebrates an artist for being the best in their craft and i'm proud to have received that xroel it it is afternoon ambassador role. a role that represents the lbgtq+ community in san francisco the focus on the drag performers and trans-activists and performers in san francisco as well. when i heard the city was creating the drag laureate role i was so excited because it did foal like they were paying attention to us. and cared about when we gave

culturally and economically to the city >> here is your new drag laureate for the city and county of san francisco! i'm getting the call from the mayor i was chosen was fantastic day. i will always remember. i thought that it would just be about the bay area. because of what happening in the world it became a national story. i hope it can shine a light on san francisco and how they take care of the drag community and the lbgtq+ community. i hope that i can help carve out this position and create a role with programs and events this can be passed down to future drag laureate this is come after me and can set a stage and standard for what this program is in san francisco and national

low and inner nationally. there is a rich history in san francisco. that the drag community has been part of. i'm very proud to follow in their footsteps and able to maintain what the drag community has done in the past and move forward with creating a bright future. my job is to elevate and celebrate

>> [music] very well loved ice cream pallor for the community in san francisco in the outer sunset. opened since 1955. we have a wide variety of flavors. have more then and there 300 flavors available. we always have ready for scooping about 52 flavors every day. we make all the ice cream here

in the store. very fresh and fresh ingredients from the your >> for the customers to choose a flavor and have fun customers say i want to spin the wheel and get whatever it lands on. >> i have always been in love with ice cream since i have memories. i know when i feel when i eat it is unique so -- i than there are a lot of people this feel like that way and i always made ice cream at home. and then i wanted share this passion with more people. so -- it is nothing better then and there doing pen. >> well to edge own little square we are a new culture "accelerating sf government performance - taking accountability and transparency to the next level." the artist and culture of chinatown. as an immigrant giveaway we tell the

stories of chinatown the people that are here and the culture and history our presence and future through arts and culture. it is a 35 community. there is so many to see come come in and buy certify increases and ongoing exhibitions here t t t t

city and county of san francisco public safety and neighborhood services committee meeting this morning at 10:00 am., thursday, may 9, 2024.)