[00:00] Speaker 1: Pledge allegiance.
[00:14] Speaker 2: President Clay like to take roll?
[00:16] Speaker 3: Yes.
[00:18] Speaker 2: Commissioner Te.
[00:19] Speaker 3: Here.
[00:21] Speaker 2: Commissioner Scott is in route. Commissioner Leon.
[00:23] Speaker 4: Here.
[00:24] Speaker 2: Commissioner Yee.
[00:25] Speaker 5: Here.
[00:25] Speaker 2: Commissioner Elias is accused excused. Vice President Benedicto.
[00:29] Speaker 3: Here.
[00:30] Speaker 2: President Clay. You have a quorum. Also with us tonight are Derek Liu, San Francisco Police Department Chief, as well as Paul Henderson, Executive Director of the Department of Police Accountability.
[00:39] Speaker 3: All right, Good evening, everyone. Thank you for being here for April 1st commission meeting. this time, we're going to start our agenda.
[00:46] Speaker 2: Sergeant, one housekeeping item. We are removing line item one. For tonight's agenda, we are going to go on line item 2. 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 nor 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@sfpd.comissionfgov.org or written comments may be sent via U.S. postal Service to the Public Safety Building located at 1245 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA 94158. If you would like to make public comment, please approach the podium. Appears we have no public comment. Line item 3, Consent Calendar receive and file action Safe streets for all fourth quarter 2025 update and Police Commission report of disciplinary actions first quarter 2026.
[01:55] Speaker 3: All right, is there a motion move
[01:57] Speaker 5: to receive and file the Safe Streets for All fourth Quarter report and the Police Commission report on disciplinary actions for the first quarter of 2026.
[02:05] Speaker 4: Second,
[02:07] Speaker 2: if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item three, please approach the podium.
[02:11] Speaker 3: I object.
[02:15] Speaker 2: There is no public comment on the motion. Commissioner Tekey, how do you vote?
[02:18] Speaker 6: Yes.
[02:18] Speaker 2: Commissioner Techie is yes. Commissioner Scott?
[02:20] Speaker 7: Yes.
[02:20] Speaker 2: Commissioner Scott is yes. Commissioner Leung?
[02:22] Speaker 5: Yes.
[02:23] Speaker 2: Commissioner Leung is yes. Commissioner Yee.
[02:24] Speaker 8: Yes.
[02:25] Speaker 2: Commissioner Yee is yes. Vice President Benedicto.
[02:27] Speaker 4: Yes.
[02:27] Speaker 2: Vice President Benedicto is yes. And President Clay?
[02:30] Speaker 3: Yes.
[02:30] Speaker 2: President Clay is Yes. You have six yeses. Line item four, Adoption of Minutes Actions for the Meetings of February 4th and 11th, 2026.
[02:39] Speaker 4: Is there a motion motion to adopt the minutes?
[02:42] Speaker 2: Second, if any member of the public would like to make public comment Regarding line item 4, please approach the podium and there is no public comment on the motion. Commissioner Tekey, how do you vote?
[02:53] Speaker 6: Yes.
[02:53] Speaker 2: Commissioner Tekey is yes. Commissioner Scott?
[02:55] Speaker 7: Yes.
[02:56] Speaker 2: Commissioner Scott is yes. Commissioner Leung?
[02:58] Speaker 5: Yes.
[02:58] Speaker 2: Commissioner Leung is Yes. Commissioner Yee?
[03:00] Speaker 8: Yes.
[03:00] Speaker 2: Commissioner Yee is yes. Vice President Benedicto.
[03:03] Speaker 4: Yes.
[03:03] Speaker 2: Vice President Benedicto is yes. And President Clay?
[03:05] Speaker 3: Yes.
[03:06] Speaker 2: President Clay is yes. You have six yeses. Line item 5 Chiefs report 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.
[03:19] Speaker 9: Chief Lu, Good evening. Good evening, President Clay, Vice President Benedicto, Commissioners, Director Henderson and members of the community. I'll start this off with the weekly crime Trends. Overall, Part 1. Crimes are down 28% year to date compared to 2025. Total violent crimes are down 19% for the year. Specifically addressing homicides as of 3 29, 2026, there are 14 homicides year to date compared to 4 in 2025. Looking at gun violence, which is defined as the number of people injured in a shooting incident, added to the number of persons killed by a firearm, we are up 18% compared to 2025. Incidents of reported rapes are down 13%. Assaults for the year are down 10% with a decrease of 31% in assaults by firearm. Robberies are down 33% with robberies using a firearm declining by 25%. Human trafficking incidents are down 13% with seven incidents being reported so far this year compared to eight last year at this time. Total property crimes down 30%. Burglaries are down 33%. Motor vehicle theft down 35%. Larceny theft, which includes vehicle burglaries, are down 29% overall. And looking specifically at auto burglaries, there's a 33% decrease over 2025. I'll move into the significant incidents during this period. There were four homicides reported. In March. There's a total of 6 homicides for the year. There are a total of 29 fatal or non fatal incidents resulting in 33 victims, 9 homicides and 24 non fatal. In terms of weapon seizures, we have seized 251 guns as of this year to date and of those are 24 were ghost guns. I'll now move on to a summary of the homicides in the Southern District. On March 27, 2026, officers responded to 3rd and Harrison regarding a shooting. Officers located an adult male laying on the ground and suffering from a gunshot wound. Despite the life saving efforts of first responders and medical staff, the victim succumbed to his injuries. Officers were able to locate and ultimately arrest two suspects in that case. On March 24, 2026, there was a homicide in Ingleside. Officers responded to the 1800 block of Sunnydale regarding a shooting they located A victim suffering from gunshot wounds. Despite life saving efforts, the victim was declared deceased. No arrests have been made at this time. It's an open investigation. In the Taravel, on March 24, officers responded to a residence located on the 2200 block of 22nd Avenue regarding a shooting. Officers located an adult female victim suffering from a gunshot wound. Despite life saving efforts, the victim was declared deceased at the hospital. There was an arrest that was made during this incident and the fourth homicide. This was a tenderloin assault. This Originally occurred on 316 on Market and Charles Brenham. The victim was standing on the sidewalk. When pushed to the ground, the victim struck her head and was transported into critical condition. On 3:20, the victim succumbed to her injuries. There was an arrest made in this incident. I want to mention a notable arrest. On March 25, Mission Station officers responded to a firearm brandishing incident at 24th and Potrero where witnesses observed a driver pointing a semiautomatic handgun at another motorist. Our Crime Gun Investigation center took over the investigation and in cooperation with the atf, they did conduct surveillance of a suspect who was ultimately detained. During that arrest, two handguns and numerous boxes of ammunition were seized. Moving to media or high interest events, There was an attempted Bay bridge takeover. On March 28th, at approximately 11:59am the California Highway Patrol alerts SFPD and the Real Time Investigation center about a large group of bicycles that were suspected of being involved in an attempted takeover of the Bay bridge. At about 2:52pm the group of bicyclists tried to enter the upper deck of the Bay Bridge via the Harrison Street 2nd street off ramp, traveling against the flow of traffic. SFPD and CHP units were successfully able to intervene, preventing the group from accessing the freeway. A mass arrest was carried out. The individuals were processed, cited, and their bikes were confiscated by CHP. A total of 85 citations were issued and 85 bicycles were seized in connection with the incident. And I just want to highlight that I'm very grateful to our officers as well as the partnership with chp. Really, you know, I can't underscore the danger factor that was associated with that enough. Number one, the bike's going against traffic
[09:22] Speaker 8: when
[09:24] Speaker 9: vehicles are coming off the off ramp in their direction at a high rate of speed. And then clearly, if a shutdown of a major artery in the Bay Area had been shut down, there's massive consequence for that as well. So really want to thank the CHP for their partnership in that. Move on to some of the major events on 328 there was a. Let's see, at the airport there was a bomb threat. At approximately 4:09pm dispatch received a call from a subject that stated he had hidden a bomb in the garage and was armed with an assault rifle. A total search of both the international garages as well as the domestic garages were completed by officers and all clear was given. And that was all during a very busy day already. Along with First Amendment activity, a couple different events at the airport. So that was all back to back to back. And then in the city there was a significant no Kings rally that we facilitated from the Embarcadero to Civic Center. There were plans for upwards of 100,000 people that we planned for. Ended up being probably closer to about 25,000, but that was carried out and facilitated without incident. So it was a successful event for all. Talk a little bit about the academy class. Currently we have 101 recruits in the Academy. Tomorrow night I want to invite everyone. There is a graduation of 41 recruits, so it's the largest graduating class we've had, so since 2017. So hopefully see you all there. And I wanted to talk about one last incident and that's the SFO incident that occurred on Sunday, March 22nd at approximately 10pm I think that it's would do some good if I clarified the incident a little bit and walked through some of the, some of the details. I do want to kind of start at a 10,000 foot view. However, number one, I just wanted to put it out there straight for the Chief or the horse's mouth, so to speak, that the SFPD 100% supports and is committed to our immigrant community. And that's the bottom line. I wanted to, to make sure that I underscored that. The other part of this is that we, I know we say it all the time in our releases, but again, wanted everyone to hear it from me that we absolutely adhere to state law, city ordinance and our own dgos regarding our approach to immigration enforcement. Bottom line is we do not coordinate with, we don't plan with, we don't cooperate with ICE and any of enforcement activity. We simply don't deviate from that. And then the last part from this viewpoint is, you know, we're a little bit just at the mercy of what ICE chooses to do. Our officers get called out to these very, very chaotic scenes and are put in very difficult situations and you know, we're forced to be put in these positions that quite frankly sometimes the optics don't look good. But you know, we really do try to do our Best with the best intentions. And with that I'll kind of go into just some of the details. I think it's useful because there seems to be quite a bit of either misperception or misinformation. But again to not to belabor the point, but there is absolutely no preplanning or pre coordination despite what it may have looked like. That night at around 10 o' clock we received a 911 call from a concerned party that there was, and this is at the airport in our Terminal 3 that there was a asking for a 910 which is our parlance for checking on a well being of a female who was crying. So that started a response as sometime during that response officers got a little bit more information that there were a couple of males and this woman that were in some sort of dispute. So they interpreted that however they did. First officers responded on scene and they immediately saw a large crowd and they asked for more units to show up. So I really wanted to at least go over those details because I think part of that misconception or without that context, I've heard people say that they just don't understand how it could not have been coordinated with the sheer volume of response. So I wanted to walk you through kind of the evolution of that call for service supervisors to include sergeants and lieutenants. Then came on scene shortly thereafter. And number one, they observed SFPD officers, two people in plain clothes who were eventually identified as ICE agents and then additional uniformed officers who were not sfpd. They were actually CBP officers who were who wear similar uniforms to us, blue uniform with a patch. The other part is that per policy, the lieutenant did make contact with
[15:34] Speaker 10: with
[15:35] Speaker 9: the parties and they were able to ascertain that the plainclothes officers or agents were in fact ICE agents carrying out a lawful activity and that it was in fact an ICE incident. So at that point that it was made clear that we were not cooperating or doing anything beyond that and that their role in staying there was strictly in a public safety capacity which would include kind of this de escalation by our mere presence. And I think the last point to touch on is I think if people have made a lot of. I've talked about parts of the video where. Oh, I think the other part that I want to add is this incident took nearly 30 minutes to resolve. So as you can imagine, emotions and tensions are escalating as time goes by. And the last part I want to mention is that there is, I think social media footage that shows that when the ICE and CBP Folks finally get this person who was detained onto some sort of wheelchair, wheelchair type apparatus and there walked away, that there was some sort of escort by uniformed officers. I just want to make it clear that that was not sfpd. And then I think I'll just end by saying that we did not restrain anyone, we did not put handcuffs on anyone, we didn't do any sort of physical manipulation of anyone. So our role as you know, in terms of an SFPD response was strictly to maintain public safety. So ultimately I just wanted to provide those details so that everyone could be clear and working from the same sheet of music on what happened that night. And you know, I'm thankful for our officer's response in going to a very difficult situation. And with that, that concludes my report.
[17:50] Speaker 3: Well, Chief, thank you for explaining the department's consciousness to this very sensitive issue which involving and faces our immigration community here in San Francisco and Bay Area wide. I know the department's in a tough position, but this just shows that you in this department and the members here are very concerned are going to do what's necessary to protect the community as well as the immigration community, those people who are subject to some of the things that are happening right now in our country. So we applaud you and you continue following the law as stated for our city, the rules, engagement from our, from the state, plus what you've got in our sanctuary city policies. So thank you very much. And that being said, Chief, so the number of homicides that you said you saw, there were three of the four that took place and one outstanding. We've seen, as you said, you know, we talked about this, I think the last time, you know, we've had a lot of shootings. We always have a lot of shootings. The question is, is somebody getting killed? And it seems like now we're in this position where people are getting shot, maybe close by, we don't know, but. But these bullets are killing people versus Mountain, just being injured. And you know, we got a lot of guns on the street and I. It's just way too many guns. And obviously it's very important whenever you seize a gun from the street, it helps take off a possibility of somebody else being killed. But I want to say and continue that the way the community has reached out to the department in helping to solve these crimes is really have to be encouraging for everyone in the city. They're not randomized, but when they are, their people are helping. Whereas before they didn't want to talk to the police. You know, I haven't Been a judge in the courtroom. People will not talk. They won't even testify. They won't do anything. But now we have people stepping up, doing that, and that's a good sign. It's a good sign. It's positive that people have been encouraged and they trust, trust, trust the public safety officers doing their job. So thank you for your report. We hope crime continues to go down. We hope, hopefully we will, with the violent stuff that. The stuff we get these guns, get them off the street. But thank you, Chief, for this.
[20:02] Speaker 9: Okay, thank you, President.
[20:03] Speaker 4: Commissioner Yee, thank you very much, sir.
[20:07] Speaker 8: President Clay, just want to thank the pd, the officers and the CHP on that bicycle roundup at the Bay Bridge. As you look at the video, they were going against traffic, they were going to come against cars that were coming off the bridge, you know, 50 to 60 miles an hour. It would have been a disaster. I just want to thank Arctic, too, and your team and your staff, command staff, working with chp, alerting them or working together, because, I mean, that's a total. It could have been a total disaster for us in the city to see that happen. And you save, I guess, save lives possibly. And, you know, all this roundup too, by the way, they confiscate all the bikes. Do they know any of those bikes were stolen? And if you can do, follow up on there and see where they're,
[21:15] Speaker 1: you
[21:16] Speaker 8: know, see where the bikes came from and stuff like that, return it to the rifle owner. Regards to the bomb scare and sfo, they had one in Sonestown too, I believe, too. So I don't know if you can track the calls down and see how far it can get, but maybe put some other kind of tracer on there and ping them back and maybe the technology will triangulate where the call is coming from. So hopefully we can end that, I guess, here in the city. Regards to the no Kings protest, I was there. I just say it was a peaceful march. It was very rewarding, good exercise. So good to be out there with the people. Regards to the tsa, I mean, the ice, plain clothes or any uniform officers, when they come into the city airport, are they notifying the police department or just walking in unannounced on there?
[22:27] Speaker 9: We were not alerted.
[22:28] Speaker 8: Okay, so somebody walks in there with, you know, they're carrying firearms, so. So where there's going to be a conflict, how do the San Francisco police protect themselves saying, who are you? It could be imposter or disaster. I think maybe we have to clarify that in the higher level and the higher pay grade than us. But I can see that as a problem. And thank you for clarifying that the officers in uniform were not so PDS that we need to get that out there and stop the media. Again, like President say, we have a high rate of homicides that's happening. Any thoughts on that, Chief?
[23:17] Speaker 9: Well, it's a little bit like what the president already kind of alluded to. You know, the rate of shootings are way outpaced, but by the homicide rate. And so it indicates that the shootings are more, I guess, accurate without, for lack of a better term, they are not patterned. And we are continuing what I think is a very successful strategy that we've had given our crime stats over the last few years and how violent crime has decreased. So we're going to lean in on those strategies and continue that, believing that it's worked. We actively have Investigation Bureau folks, our plainclothes folks, that are constantly looking to take guns off the street in different ways.
[24:16] Speaker 8: Thank you very much, Chief.
[24:18] Speaker 3: Commissioner Tekey, thank you.
[24:20] Speaker 6: President Clay I just wanted to emphasize how important it is for the community at large to hear directly from the chief as to what really transpired in SFO and also the commitment to the immigrant community. I think anytime you get an opportunity, you have to say it out loud because it is important to hear directly from a person who makes a lot of decisions to do that. So I appreciate that you made sure that you did that because I work in an immigrant community all day long and I know how if things are not said, if things are not very clear to community, how it can create a different fear in community and we don't need to do that. We already are in a lot of stress as community members. So I appreciate that you emphasizing it and I hope you could next. Hopefully there is no next time. But if ever situation arises in any kind of situations, it would be helpful if you are in the forefront and saying to the community what exactly happened so that we are all very clear about it.
[25:28] Speaker 3: Thank you, Commissioner Scott.
[25:33] Speaker 7: Thank you, Chief Lu, for that report. I am very concerned, like all of us, about the increase of all the homicides that's taking place, of course, in our city. And just want to say that I'm grateful to SFPD and the handling of all the situations. We've had a. It's been a very busy beginning of the year. The incident that the no Kings march was very peaceful. The community sees and understand, I believe that they're working closely with law enforcement and they too want to make sure that our Streets remain safe and at the same time being able to voice their, you know, protest in a peaceful way. So that took place. That was very. It was very well done. The incident at the airport, of course, everyone's talking about that. However, I'm grateful to our SFPD department for handling this situation the way it was handled. A lot of people was confused and didn't know what was going on. Some folks was at the airport. However, I got a lot of feedback on positive feedback about SFPD and your handling of that situation with. With ice. So I just want to commend our police department, as we all know that our number one agenda, as the mayor has stated, is public safety. And so I just want to commend the department for doing a fabulous job doing this crisis, because I feel like we're in a crisis right now with the homicides and all of the things that are taking place. But it shows credibility and integrity working with the community, working with all the other organizations throughout the city to make sure that our communities remain safe. And so I just wanted to commend you and the department for everything that's going on right now. We're all feeling it, and I'm glad that you addressed the community and let them know that you are very supportive in working with the community to resolve some of these issues, particularly the homicides and the shootings that are taking place. And so I got feedback from the community that they would like to have a little bit more town hall meetings in their community because a lot of people are not able to get out, a lot of seniors are concerned. So I told them that would bring that to the commission, that folks would like to have more town hall meetings in their community. And as well, we all talked about as commissioners that we would bring the commission to them. So we're looking forward to doing that as well. So thank you and thank our SFPD team for all the work that they've done. And I just want to say I'm really happy that the Bay Bridge incident, all of these things that have happened, has been quite a bit. So just want to say we are blessed to have the SFPT team that we have. So thank you.
[29:04] Speaker 9: Thank you, Commissioner.
[29:05] Speaker 4: Commissioner LEON thank you.
[29:06] Speaker 5: President Clay. I just have two quick questions. First, concerning the homicide rate. Of the 14 homicides this year, how many have been closed? If you know off the top of your head, within 13. So only one remains open. And I suppose as a follow up, would it be fair to say that the homicides thus far have mostly been perhaps people who knew each Other or who had some sort of prior beef or dealing.
[29:29] Speaker 9: Sorry, can you repeat that last part?
[29:31] Speaker 5: Would it be fair to say that the homicides that have occurred in San Francisco thus far have involved people who had a pre existing dispute or some sort of relationship?
[29:44] Speaker 9: I think it's hard to say on all of them, but I mean, if you're. I think the question is were they random? And the answer is no.
[29:53] Speaker 5: So 13 out of 14 have been closed. And the second question follows up on what Commissioner Yee asked previously concerning SFO and whether CBP or ICE notifies SFPD ahead of time. Isn't there fairly extensive law enforcement presence, both state, local and federal, at SFO already, including dhs, ice, cbp, et cetera?
[30:15] Speaker 9: Yes, that's exactly right.
[30:18] Speaker 5: That's it.
[30:19] Speaker 3: Thanks, Commissioner Benedicto.
[30:23] Speaker 4: Thank you, President McClay. Thank you, Chief, for that update and thank you for taking the time to address the SFO incident. I know the commission, both collectively, individually, we received a lot of interest in the community on that. I think we were all very troubled by what we saw and your report was helpful. I think it's important that we as a commissioner, as a department, as a city, remain vigilant in this era of heightened immigration enforcement, both vigilant for other incidents like this because as you stated, they can happen at any time, anywhere. So that, that we're vigilant to those incidents and then also vigilant that our safeguards and our regulations are holding. And you know, I think it's something that can happen as things become normalized is, you know, you take it becomes a little bit of a snowball effect and one small accommodation can get made that isn't something like cooperation and then another and then another. And before you know it, you look back and a lot of changes have been made. So I think it's important that the department and this commission make sure that we're all vigilant that we protect our values as San Franciscans, as more of these incidents are likely to happen as this goes forward. I know this wasn't the first time we've talked about ICE enforcement before this commission and the Board of Supervisors have raised it as well. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll be the last time. And so, you know, echo your sentiment to our communities that we remain in solidarity with you and that we remain, are going to remain vigilant, that we remain true to our values and our laws on this topic.
[32:03] Speaker 3: Thank you, Commissioner Scott.
[32:09] Speaker 7: Yes. And I just want to add that I'm just. I also want to add to the public, the public and the community out there thanking you all for your vigilant and your, you know, commitment to public safety and working with SFPD and law enforcement across the board because we need that. We can't do this job alone because of you and your actions. And you see something, say something, that's very important. There's anonymous tip lines that you can call now, so don't have to be afraid. And I know a lot of people are afraid to come forward with information, but it's very crucial and very critical and important during these critical times in our city, especially with so many guns on the street. As, you know, people don't can obtain, you know, guns now, ghost guns they're called over the Internet. So you need to be talking to your children and your kids about this to make sure that there's none in your home so that we can hopefully keep our community safe and free of guns. Because right now there's more guns than there's people. But we know we love San Francisco. This is our city. We have to do it together. We have to work with the police department and law enforcement to continue to keep our community safe. So it's about all of us or none of us. And together we can do it. I know we can. We're doing it in my community, you know, we're talking to our neighbors and everybody. And the encouragement of having town hall meetings is really important. And that's why I brought it to the chief. And I know we're going to. He's going to act on that and we're going to get this problem resolved. So thank you, Chief, again, and thank you to community.
[34:01] Speaker 2: If any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 5 of the Chief's report, please approach the podium. And there is no public comment. Line item six, DPA directors report discussion. A report on recent DPA activities and announcements. Executive Director Henderson, thank you.
[34:23] Speaker 5: So since our last meeting, we had a meeting with the department. Thank you again, Chief. The Chief came in with his senior staff to sit down and talk with dpa, both about core functions from both of our agencies and collaborative efficiencies, mostly involving technology. A lot of that is changing right now, particularly with the department and within dpa to make both of our agencies more efficient in terms of how we collect, share and make transparent information, as well as a lot of time was spent on the audits as well to make sure that we can be as collaborative and clear as possible about information that comes from and through the agency. We had meetings this week as well with the language access, some of the advocates as well as with the department. And you'll hear more about that from information that's on the agenda this evening. We also had a big spike in cases and referrals based on the incident that we've just been discussing this evening already. I won't go over all of that again, but just so you know, DPA has received those cases and has opened cases for those. Commissioner Scott, you were just talking about how people can make that information safely if they have information. And specifically many of the folks that contacted us did open and initiate information that was both anonymous and came from the community, as is always how we are able to and encourage receiving information for the audit. This week we moved forward in talking about DPA's next audit. It's a big step forward to have from the department both a subject matter expert and liaison, and we will continue having those conversations and I'll give you updates shortly when we have a firmly specified focus on what we're going to be doing with the next audit. Obviously, the previous audits still have ongoing updates in terms of what's being done and what still needs to be done, and you'll continue to get those updates for us. In terms of stats, since our last commission meeting on March 18, we've opened 85 new cases and have closed 99 cases. So currently there are 196 open investigations going on at DPA. Just for context, the volume of incoming complaints is still 16% higher than for the same period last year. There are eight cases whose investigations have taken longer than 270 days. All but one of the cases are told cases. We still have 48 cases that have been sustained internally for DPA that are still pending with the department and three cases pending with the Police Commission. The full list of all of the stats has been filed already and is also available on our website. If folks want to get in contact with DPA directly, they can do that online at sfgov.org dpa or contact us at 415-241-7711 for tonight's commission meeting. Director of Policy Jamal Anderson is here tonight and you'll see and hear from him on tonight's agenda. Also, one of our senior trial lawyers, Stephanie Warga Wilson, is here and also Senior Investigator Brent Bagen. In case there are issues and people need to contact our agency during the hearing, they can speak to any of that staff as well. That concludes my report for the week.
[38:17] Speaker 2: If any member of the public would like to make public Comment Regarding line item 6. Please approach the podium. And there is no public comment. Line item 7, Commission Reports Discussion and possible action Commission president's report, commissioner's reports and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting.
[38:39] Speaker 3: There is no president report for this this evening. Sergeant, as to other commissioners, Commissioner Yee,
[38:49] Speaker 8: thank you very much there. President Clay, this we had I guess a community meeting in Chinatown on Monday. Talk about the incident of the accident on Jackson street where one of the contractor was killed by I guess one of the drivers. And then there was the incidents of regards to, you know, another stabbing on Stockton Street a couple weeks prior to that too. As well. So we invited Central Station, Captain Delgado and then the sheriffs and also the district attorney and MTA and then talk about the safety here in Chinatown. So it was to calm the merchants and get out the news as clear as possible to the reporters out there. Also was Commissioner Larong was there as well. So I guess the thing is in Chinatown, you know, you have high density of people and the traffic, you know, can be challenging at times where people are trying to get to work and also shopping, you know. So safety was one of the concerns. So the talk about maybe putting in additional cameras in there or I guess the cameras they said is only maxed out at so speed cameras are maxed out at 33, I believe. So they couldn't. They'll probably take a look at another options to do that. So just to let you know that it is safe in Chinatown, but still when you do cross streets and for those drivers that they'll probably take a look at that again. And I know the police department is still doing their investigation is ongoing. So I thank Central Station for coming out to calm the fears in China down. Thank you.
[41:08] Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vice President Benedicto.
[41:11] Speaker 4: Thank you, President Clay. Just a couple of things I really just wanted to report. I want to tell the chief who I'll be taking up on your offer. And I know along with President Clay will be at the graduation tomorrow and looking forward to welcoming the largest graduating class that we had as well. I wanted to during my report ask about the ICE incident. I know the chief already covered that and we discussed it extensively in the chief's report and that's all. Thank you.
[41:38] Speaker 3: Commissioner Scott.
[41:44] Speaker 7: Yes, I just want to report. Thank you, Commissioner, Vice President and Commissioner Clay and our commissioners. I just want to say that this is Crime Victims United Month where victims of violence come together in a supportive way working with law enforcement. And so on April 20, there will be a celebration and march around City hall. And we will. The march will take place on the 20th at 4 o'. Clock. We do it every year with SFPD and the DA's office. There will be more to come on that. So the community is very involved in that and just want to let you all know to mark your calendars. And it is Crime Victims United Month. We celebrate it, like I say, every year here in the city. Also on the 19th, prior to that, there will be the Brady United Against Gun Violence Summit held on Zoom. And so everybody's invited to that and the community is definitely supportive of that and part of that. So just want to let you know that Crime Victims United Month is here. This is an opportunity for us to get involved with the community and the work that they're doing there so that we can help our law enforcement community and our mayor to get, you know, more involved and find solutions to what we're dealing with here in our city. Thank God. You know, it's not as bad as it could have been with all the incidents that have taken place. And I'm just so happy because many, many lives have been saved because of the quick responses of SFPD and the community working together with SFPD as a whole. So I just want to congratulate the community on your efforts and all the things that you're doing out there and bringing awareness to us. And this is going to be another great month that we're going to work together to help solve some of the issues that are taking place. So just wanted to bring that to your attention from the community. So thank you.
[44:05] Speaker 3: Thank you, Commissioner Scott.
[44:10] Speaker 2: If any member of the public would like to make public comment Regarding line item 7, please approach the podium. And there is no public comment. Line item 9, presentation on the Limited English Proficiency LEP 2025.
[44:26] Speaker 3: Skip the line.
[44:27] Speaker 2: Line item 8, number 8, presentation on the Limited English Profression 2025 Annual Report Discussion.
[44:43] Speaker 3: It.
[45:11] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you for giving me time to. Okay, perfect. Thank you. So this is the 2025 Language Access Report. Our Language Access liaison is unavailable, so I am tagged in to provide this report for you. The report itself was presented or submitted to the Commission, I think, back in February and it looks like there was an ask for it to be taken out of consent and given as a presentation. So I'm just going to go through a few slides. First slide, please. Thank you. So highlighted in the report that was submitted in the core five languages, SFPD has 468 certified bilingual members, 573 total bilingual members, and 38 certified bilingual members, and that should say 2025. SFPD also has over 36 languages represented, over 103 languages on the SFPD website itself. So just to explain that the website, our website has a dropdown and you can choose the languages that you speak and the site itself will translate into that language. There are over 240 languages offered through LanguageLine, which is our vendor that offers our telephonic interpretation and also does video interpretation. And all of our services are offered at our community meetings, including monthly district captain meetings, which just means that if someone requests a translator or, excuse me, translation or interpretation, the captain will ensure that they can provide those services at those meetings. Next slide, please. So with the calls for service, we had about 4840 calls for service. And this, this is where an incident report was required. There's over 13,000 total interpretations. Again, this is split up in person. So our certified bilingual members and our telephonic interpretation vendor, we had three complaints related to language access. Two complaints are closed and one complaint is in post investigation. This does kind of rise a little bit of interest that I think we can talk about in terms of how DPA classifies these complaints. The DG 0520 and I believe the Language Access Ordinance itself wants to see what the complaints are as it relates to the Language Access Ordinance in terms of translation services, interpretation services, signage, the things that are actually outlined in our requirements for access. But it seems like some of the complaints that we receive from DPA when we formulate this report are just anything that involves an LEP member. So if a Spanish speaking person was upset because they couldn't access bwc, they're folding that into these complaints. So for purposes of the report that's submitted to the commission, we only include the ones that rise to language access. So translation, interpretation, signage, etc. Next slide, please. So our accomplishments in 2025, our quarterly bilingual testing resulted in 38 members receiving bilingual certification, one in Italian. And Italian is not our core language. So again, we are testing and certifying officers in languages beyond the core languages. And just to explain what the core languages are, those are languages as determined by osea, that it means the population has met a certain threshold that those languages for all city departments are required languages or core languages where each city department must offer their vital documents to be translated in those available and translated in those documents, excuse me, in those languages. And then other languages that haven't met that threshold. Community members can always reach out to those departments and ask for those items to be translated, which we are required to do once we receive the request. We have also distributed Language Access materials at all 10 stations for public posting. And we've updated the Language access lessons plans used to teach the recruits at the academy. In terms of the goals we've updated, we are updating hopefully the dgo 520 training video. So that's the language access video. We are creating a training video for DG0523. That's the deaf and Hard of Hearing. We were here a few meetings ago to when we brought in a few community members from the Deaf and Hard of Hearing working group that are going to participate in that training. The filming starts April 16th for that one. And also of interest I know to this group, we are implementing a pilot program for the LEP pins for certified members starting at five stations, specifically stations that have high LEP communities. So Central Mission, Ingleside, Bayview, Richmond. We do, we are asking for volunteer officers to participate. And really it's again a six month process. The pins themselves are about $13 each, so reasonable price. They'll just say I speak this language in that language. So yo hablo espanol or whatever that language is on those officers that are certified. And they'll work with the Language Access Liaison throughout this six month process to determine the efficacy before we determine the department rollout. Next slide. Just wanted to add a slide from the OSEA compliance report. This was issued in 2025, but it covers fiscal year 2023 and 2024. They put all city departments in this list. We do have our three checks. Not all city departments have their three checks. So this shows that the separate report per the LAO that we are in compliance. Next slide, please. This is an update. I'm not sure if you're aware, but on February 23, the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigration affairs determined that Vietnamese has met the substantial number of limited English proficient persons threshold. So now it is eligible for certification. So our officers that speak Vietnamese can now seek certification for to be bilingual officers. Certified bilingual officers. This also means that those vital documents that I was talking about must be translated. So our Language Access Liaison is working on getting all of those documents translated before June 23rd when this goes into effect. Next slide, please. That's it. So I am open for questions for you.
[51:44] Speaker 3: So let me just say what impressed me. I saw, you know, we began here in San Francisco, was very cognizant of the fact that people needed help and access to language because English was not their major language.
[51:58] Speaker 4: So.
[51:59] Speaker 3: And we say that in looking at that, it was 2007. We did it voluntarily. They started it. You got the DGO and maybe a little before that, but it was is recognized there here in the dgos. Then I saw I got referred to Jermaine Jones who was worked on this project with the lep, with the, with the group when you guys were going through 5.20. He referred me to the other jurisdictions where they were talking about their language for in their dgos. But they were cities that were by the nature of the Justice Department or state attorney general mandated because they had none of.
[52:38] Speaker 1: Correct.
[52:39] Speaker 3: And we've been doing it. And that was. Well, to the extent that was very important. When he showed me look, Judge, Commissioner, now I'm sorry. He said look, look at what was happening to these other places where they say, oh, they did this great job. No they did because they were forced to do it because they didn't have it. And we do. And I applaud the department for doing that, doing what they're doing. And I know I read through the DGO and how many times notices were pinned it to add additional stuff, different requirements and the fact how hard people have worked to do this and making sure that people get access to language in their own language so they can help them do what they do. So and I applaud you guys for doing what you do. I see total numbers last year. Those are big numbers and it's really good to see that. And that's what we want to do, giving people access. The whole idea is to enhance a DGO to help people. This is not to take away anything from people. Make sure we can help people do whatever they need from the idea that they're on the streets, they lost their way, they need some help and they don't speak English. We got to get somewhere to help them. The idea, the criminal stuff I don't worry about because that's a. The courts deal with that mostly. But you guys do it anyway. But the idea is continue to help people with the English language, their language to get them to understand whatever they need done for themselves for the purpose of our city and the public safety area. So I applaud you all for your oath, what you've guys done. In reviewing this report when I read a couple of weeks ago when it first came out. So thank you very much.
[54:04] Speaker 1: Thank you. Commissioner Techie, can I just say one thing? It's my understanding that actually the cities had an ordinance I think was started in 2001. So we did have a ordinance before our policy Was.
[54:17] Speaker 3: But the idea you are the city
[54:19] Speaker 1: of San Francisco accomplishment way before they
[54:21] Speaker 3: were told you you were doing it. This was not something that you said we need to do this. And you did it in some fashion. And that's the key. Okay. All right. I'm sorry, Commissioner Tacky.
[54:31] Speaker 6: No worries. Thank you, President Clay. So, couple of questions I have regarding the pilot program. You did answer. It is a pilot program because it is only for the first the five stations you're going to start. Did you give me a date and a time frame?
[54:47] Speaker 1: We don't have a start date just yet. We are trying to get fiscal approval for the pins. So we need to purchase the pins first and then confirm the members at those stations that will be participating. So we haven't gotten the fiscal approval for the PINS just yet.
[55:02] Speaker 6: So the second thing is, how would a public know that this is something that they have to look for? So what is the plan? Even though it is a pilot project.
[55:11] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[55:12] Speaker 6: So what is the plan to educate the community members that you can look for that also.
[55:18] Speaker 1: Yes. So we're going to work with community engagement, definitely to get the word out, but social media, heavy social media acknowledgement of the program. We'd like to do some videos to get the videos out there, get the word out for the pins. So we need to get the officers get the pin so they know what to have some scenarios filmed and get it out there. So really, social media videos, maybe a press conference. We were hoping. We have a lot of support from media social Supervisor Sauter's office as well. So working with members of the board, working with this commission to get the word out to communities as well.
[55:50] Speaker 6: I want to acknowledge Marilyn, who's a community member from Vis Valley, who's here, who was. I mean, we heard from her last time where she was requesting. And I'm glad that this is happening, at least in a pilot way. And I'm hoping it would go further than that. My other question is, you know, I went to the website of SFP PD and you're right. When you do drop down boxes, everything converts into whatever language you want. But what concerned me was the capt. I don't know. I'm sure it isn't required that every station has to monthly newsletter where they talk about the trends, where they talk about certain things that's going on in the community or where they need to reach out of community members need to reach out. For some reason, those newsletters are not posted on the website, which are very vital because I get newsletter from ten loan station because for many years I've been going to the station meetings and so I sign the captain's, you know, sign in sheet. So any captain, whoever the captain is, they send it to that signing sheet, you know, the people that they have. So is there any way that SFPD can change that so that you don't have to be subscribing to it, you can just go to the website and see what's going on in your station in your own language?
[57:16] Speaker 1: Yes. This is a great timing for this question. So in preparation for this report, we were actually surveyed all of the captains, and they all do it a little bit differently. Some of them send it to SFPD all and their distribution list. Some send it as an email only to their distribution list. Some do post it on the website. I think PARC is the station that most consistently will put it on the website. What we'd like to do in the Policy Development division is actually put out a DN that just reaffirms the requirement through DG0108 and also the manual, the community policing manual for these and ensure that there is a standardization for how they are issued. And so we can get them on the website as part of the dn, we can ask the captains to post it on the website. In addition to that, we're looking in a way so that it's not a PDF itself can be. So it's a document basically they put on the website so it can be translated. When it is posted as a PDF, it's not able to use the translation function on the website. So we are looking into creating a DN and issuing that soon.
[58:20] Speaker 6: Once again, the time frame, that's a good question.
[58:24] Speaker 1: I think we could look at that by. By May, I think that could be issued.
[58:28] Speaker 6: Okay, thank you.
[58:29] Speaker 1: Sure.
[58:30] Speaker 8: Commissioner Yee, thank you again. President Clay, looking at your, I guess, interpretation and translation resource. Wow, I'm impressed. 468 certified bilingual members. And you know, the number speaks for itself. So I think we're headed in the right direction. I just want to touch bases on something that was shared to me about, I guess, maybe two years ago. Somebody from, I guess the Visitation Valley, Marlene Tran, she mentioned that the sheriff had, I guess the LEP pins. And that's one of the ways a public can identify the person, speak another language once they look at Japan, it says on there, or you know, speak Cantonese and speak Chinese. Right. So I'm looking forward to this. It's exciting and hope we see it out here soon again. Thank you, Marlene.
[59:39] Speaker 4: Commissioner Yeon, thank you.
[59:40] Speaker 5: President Clay, I too, would like to echo Commissioner Tekey and Commissioner Yee. And thank you, Marlene Tran, whose idea we've shamelessly cribbed for the pins.
[59:49] Speaker 2: So thank you.
[59:50] Speaker 5: And then I just had a quick question about line item 3 in the report concerning the 3 DGO 5.20 5.23 complaints. It seems like the first two arise from the same incident. Is that correct or are they actually separate incidents?
[60:08] Speaker 1: That I don't know. They are different case numbers, so I don't know.
[60:13] Speaker 3: Okay.
[60:14] Speaker 5: I was just curious because, well, I mean, it's the difference between, say, two incidents versus three incidents.
[60:22] Speaker 1: That's how it's provided by dpa.
[60:24] Speaker 4: Got it.
[60:25] Speaker 3: Thank you, Commissioner Scott.
[60:30] Speaker 7: Thank you, Vice President Clay. And did you relegate me to vice president versus President? President. Sorry, my apologies. Correction. I stand corrected. President Clay, thank you for this report. It is something that we've talked about quite a bit and I see my sister Marlene Tran in the audience and we've been working about on this throughout the city. City. I love all of the updated access and lesson plans that's going to be used to teach SFPD recruits and distribute the language in all 10 district stations for public posting. All of this is just great. My question is, I don't see on the list the Etrian or Ethiopian folks that's highly concentrated in my community. It's a lot. And we've been talking with them about this, and so they want to make sure that they're going to be included in the process for this because we have a huge population of Etrian and Ethiopian families where I live at in the Western Addition, as well as the Bayview and Sunnydale area. So that population is growing. They are very concerned, you know, and they want to understand and be able to communicate effectively with law enforcement, and they want to make sure that they are included in the language update. We don't want. I told them we're a city that don't leave anybody out. We're a very inclusive city. And I commend them. And a lot of them are looking forward to being volunteers to help with the process as well.
[62:22] Speaker 1: So that would be wonderful if we could get community members to participate in the new video that we're filming. Maybe we can reach out through Stacy to you. We can reach out to community members that you're in touch with. That would be really helpful.
[62:35] Speaker 7: Okay. Yeah, we'll make. We'll make that happen.
[62:37] Speaker 1: Yeah.
[62:38] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[62:45] Speaker 2: If any member of the public hasn't. Would like to make public comment Regarding line item 8. Please approach the podium.
[62:55] Speaker 1: Let me get myself together.
[63:00] Speaker 6: Good evening Commissioners, Police Chief Liu.
[63:06] Speaker 7: I am beyond happy today to get
[63:09] Speaker 6: to hear all the kind words from you all. I can hardly express myself. Anyway, I still want to continue with my speech.
[63:18] Speaker 7: I'm Marlene Tran.
[63:20] Speaker 6: Years ago, when I moved to Visitation
[63:22] Speaker 7: Valley, many of my non limited English speaking neighbors who are immigrants complained to
[63:28] Speaker 6: me that they were frequent crime victims and all because of language barriers, cultural inhibition and lack of police contacts.
[63:37] Speaker 7: I still grieve to this day several of my ESL citizenship students and neighbors who are homicide victims. For over 30 years, I have been
[63:49] Speaker 6: working with all the captains to try
[63:52] Speaker 7: to bring peace and safety to my neighborhood in what they used to call us, the Forgotten Valley.
[64:00] Speaker 6: I now belong to Stop Crime sf,
[64:03] Speaker 7: the API Police Forum, and of course Ingleside cpap.
[64:08] Speaker 6: Today I happen to find my notes to the police commissioners dated November 1, 2007, in which I presented 23 suggestions
[64:20] Speaker 7: and I'm grateful that many of them have been implemented.
[64:23] Speaker 1: I can show it to you later.
[64:26] Speaker 7: Four years ago, I was very grateful that Sheriff Miyamoto accepted my idea to include the language proficiency of his sheriff on the name text.
[64:39] Speaker 6: And I'm so glad that today's meeting
[64:42] Speaker 7: has all this information about language access. And as a former immigrant Rights Commissioner, I used to push for that for compliance as well.
[64:52] Speaker 6: So this is really a very happy
[64:55] Speaker 7: day for me and all the San
[64:58] Speaker 6: Franciscans who needed this service.
[65:01] Speaker 7: Thank you very much.
[65:09] Speaker 2: And that is the end of public comment line item 9, discussion and possible Action to approve Revise Department General Order 5.20, Language Access Services for the Department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units POA, SEIU Local 21 and MEA as required by law, as well as an update on SFPD's listening sessions with members of LANSF and the community regarding dgo 5.20 discussion and possible action.
[65:42] Speaker 1: Thank you. Since I'm here for language access, I thought I'd stay for Agenda 9. So this is the update on the resolution 2613 that was issued by this committee in February 1st. Slide, please. So the core of this resolution was to provide LANSF and community an opportunity to be heard and also direct the Department to consider restoring elements of a DGO that came out in February 2025 for public review. So it was part of the working group process and then went to public review. This is just one of the many required development phases through DGO301, which is a separate DGO that tells the Department members how to Policy. So that DGO was an early draft. So we were able to sit and talk with community members about the potential of restoring elements. Next slide, please. So we extended this invitation to the DG 0520 working group members. That was a working group that commenced in 2024 and actually concluded in 2024. But because this resolution was specific to Language Access Network, they were a seat on that working group. So we just thought we should extend this invitation for these community meetings to the original working group members. And then we also put out some social media just to let people know that this was open to the public. Our first meeting was at City Hall. We wanted to make sure, and there's actually a suggestion that I believe came from Commissioner Elias. We had an evening meeting that was from 5 to 7pm here at City Hall. So we just wanted to make sure that we could accommodate people, maybe if it wasn't during the workday. So we wanted to let people know via social media. Next slide. So, as I said, we scheduled three meetings. We didn't think we could accomplish a real listening session in just one meeting. So we scheduled February 26, March 12 and March 24. The first two meetings were two hours and the last meeting was one hour long. So we had a total of five hours of discussions. The core participants were from the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Language Access Network, and also dpa. Next slide, please. So again, this is just the core of the stakeholder representation. We had SFPD members from the policy team, specifically the Language Access Liaison was present. DPA was present. The Bar association of San Francisco was present as they had a seat on the DGO 520 working group. Oceo was there, and then we had members from the Language Access Network. Next slide. So there was a bit of a challenge in terms of gaining momentum because there were several members that were in attendance that were new in the second meeting and also new in the third. So our stated goals, it was very important to repeat the stated goal all throughout the real issue. We really wanted to hear from community members in terms of what the concerns were because very strong claims were made about the department's proposal. And we really wanted to make sure that we weren't, as the department, missing any marks. If the community says that there's something there that we need to look at. We really wanted to get that opportunity to hear what the community wanted, was trying to articulate. So the other issue with the considering the elements is that it was sort of the solution and we wanted to really get to figure out what the problem was. Right. It's the medicine. And our meetings were to figure out what the diagnosis really is. If this is the diagnosis, then maybe that is the medicine. So really that was the whole core principle of these meetings. So we just wanted to show you all of the groups that were in attendance. I do believe the final hour was when we really got very specific articulated concerns and revisions. Next slide please. So I will talk about the actual DGO in this point. There were revisions in the definitions actually the criminal and non criminal. The annual reporting, the. There were some revisions for general formatting, external requests for translation section training as well as the potential indicators section. So I'm going to pull out the DGO so I can just go over with this commission what changes we've made for your consideration on the page two. So under the definition section, hopefully you have that highlighted in front of you. We have added Vietnamese as a required language to confirm the OSEA finding that they meet the threshold. While that doesn't happen until June, I think it's important to put into our requires. We agreed with that. The translation line had a section that just said for the purpose of this dgo. So that was deleted. We got a lot of feedback under section 5, 2004 procedures, potential indicators was pulled out of the Identify Primary Language section. It it was still the same content, but based on the discussions we were having, it was clear that it needed to be above the Identify Primary language. So to give officers ability to know what those potential indicators are. So we basically just pulled it and put it above and then if you. We also added requests for interpretation and physical gestures which indicate difficult understanding as one of the potential. As to two new potential indicators, these were pulled specifically from a DN that expired. It was a DN that was issued initially in 2018 and then again in 2021. It has since expired. It has not been reissued simply because the core of the 2021 DN was put into training as appropriate. But we did pull these potential indicators from that expired DNA. On the next page, page three, we did add restrictions under the criminal incidents section. And this is language that came specifically from the 2007 version. We did not pull that section in its entirety. The restrictions. But this was feedback that we received consistently in the all three meetings. Essentially that the members should not use family members, neighbors, friends, volunteers, bystanders or children to interpret during a criminal incident unless there is an exigent circumstance. While I think the department believed that because we only had the option to use family members in exigencies and non criminal. We believed that it was clear, but we doubled down by putting the restrictions under the criminal. Also we revised the non criminal incident section. This actually did have a big portion of our conversation. So we clarified that for communication related to non criminal department services, employees should offer department interpretation services according to the order of preference. And so the order of preference is listed in the dgo but noted that LEP individuals may decline if they prefer using their own interpretation methods. And again, I just want to reiterate that non criminal just means there's no witness, there's no victim, there's no suspect. This is situations like potentially it could be community meetings, it could be captains meetings, it could be a CPAP that is not a criminal incident or a criminal situation. It could even be someone coming to get a copy of their police report. While taking a police report is considered criminal, the administrative function of getting a copy isn't considered criminal criminal. So we just wanted to have a carve out for that. And then we clarified in to be for communication relating to non police services. This means building rapport. This is giving directions. Our officers are out every single day on the streets. They're encountering people all day. You know, we have a daytime population of about a million people. We have visitors from all over the world because we are an amazing city. So we, and I was born and raised here, so I'm very familiar with how often you encounter people that are LEP individuals. So officers are out on the streets. They often are just building rapport, having conversations or giving directions to people all the time. So we wanted to expand that and offer so that officers didn't have to call a certified member if they are conversationally comfortable to do that. And then on page four, clarified the external requests section. This is a shall. OSEA made it very clear during these meetings that these vital documents, the required languages, I believe we had the word we had was should before, but this is a shall, so we're agreeable to that. And then the non required language, because we are not the LAO does not require us to have all documents in every single language. But there is a process that we need to do. So I believe the word was will before we change it to should. And then the training section, we did add potential indicators of LEP individuals. And we also, for the copy that's in front of you, submitted for every three years, we changed that from periodic to every three years. But after the close of the meeting that we had last Tuesday, PDD continued having conversations with members at the Training facility at the academy. Other officers, patrol officers. We had another discussion with Chief Liu and just sort of can we refine this? Can we make this a different interval process? And so our request for this commission is to consider changing that to two years. If you, if you would ask for an amendment to change this from three years to two. Because the feedback we were getting from the Academy and from membership was really that two years is okay. So we'd like to change that if possible. And then with the language section 52 09, which is page 5, we added language because OCA doesn't handle complaints for the agency. DPA does. This would be outside of the OCA reporting. We just added language that the language liaison would require. Request complaint data directly from DPA and have it included in the report. So those are the major changes that we made to the dgo. Next slide please. So again, just an overview of the big changes between the 2007 version versus what we've proposed. 2007 applies to sworn members. We are expanding this to apply to all public facing employees. Which is why the meet and refer includes the bargaining units that represent civilian staff. This is a sticking point also in these conversations. PSAs are civilians. They are not sworn staff. But at stations they're dressed very similarly to sworn members, which can be confusing for members of the public. So a lot of the kind of anecdotal information that we were receiving about at the station, someone trying to get information and maybe the person at the counter wasn't as helpful. It may have been a PSAs. The training that's in the 2007 version only requires training for recruits in service and during roll call. Civilians don't do those trainings. So it's not applicable to the PSAs or even to the other public facing clerks that might be handling the records desk. So this is an expansion, the expansion also. So 2007 it limits to only certified members and interpreters. We'd like to expand this to use non certified employees during non criminal encounters. 2007 only applies to primary language. We have expanded this to apply to primary and preferred and or preferred 2007, the Miranda Admonition shall be provided in the primary language when available. Our proposal is the Miranda admonition shall be provided in primary or preferred language. In 2007, again, training required only for sworn and recruits. We will be expanding this training to include all public facing employees. Next slide. There were a few barriers to progress here with some of these meetings. Again because there was different attendees for all three meetings. So the momentum when it was moving forward, might move a little bit back. Several questions that this group had related to things that I would train my staff on and it would take 90 days or almost six months of onboarding. So it was hard to explain a lot of those policy process, like what is a DGO versus what is a manual? Like what is a dn? Why does a DN expire? So there were a lot of questions about just the lay of the land of policymaking. That sort of took time away from finding out how to improve the policy. We the meetings, the last two meetings were only virtual. A lot of cameras were off, so it was hard to have full engagement. My team's cameras were on, but I think people were listening but not a lot of engagement. There were a lot of requests for SFPD to do a line by line justification of all the changes which really again took away from the resolution's intent to hear directly from the community, not necessarily for the department to justify a year's worth of edits. There were a lot of stated broad concerns like we need to strengthen it or it's too weak or. But then when we would have the back and forth of let's unpack it, there wasn't a lot of substantive ways to add that to policy. So there were some barriers. But all in all, I think everyone was really dedicated. Everyone who attended was really dedicated to see this resolution through. People attended during their workday. I think they used their time to be there. And so all in all it was very much appreciated. Next slide please. So we did have some opportunities and proposed next steps. We did, hopefully. I hope this still stands. We invited the attendees to participate again in the language access training video. We're starting from scratch. The current one is 12 years old. It has Greg Sur in. It also has Sergeant Youngblood in the training video. But again it's 12 years old. Things have changed. The LAO has been updated. The policy has been updated. Maybe we can still get Sergeant Youngblood in it. But so. But we do want actual community members in and we'd like to capture all of those incidents that aren't. We're not able to policy for Right things do happen that we'd like to capture in our policies. Excuse me. In our training. Next slide please. So. So for example, this is what we went over with the group. We'd like to do a training module in the video for how to identify a limited English proficient individual. Best practices for communicating with LEP individuals. Go over vital documents, translation requests, non criminal consensual encounters, traffic stops, criminal Victim witness interaction, best practices during domestic violence incidents. This is important, right? Because there's a crossover with domestic violence and even sexual assault. And filing a report at an SFPD police station. And then we were asking for more. So we're hoping that we can still capitalize on this group's wealth of knowledge in terms of how to translate it into a training document that could live for maybe another 12 years. Next slide, please. So the department's proposed EGO 520 does expand language access to include, again, like I said, PSAs and civilians. And these are people that were frequently left out of the ongoing training. As we've said, the training is done specifically at the recruit level, but PSAs and civilian staff aren't getting that training. This is just for me. The longer this remains in draft form, I believe the longer the expanded access is delayed, and that really is our goal. Next slide, please. We have given you a lot of supporting documents for these meetings. I'm not sure if you've had time to go through all, but we did provide a tracking grid of the primary 30 concerns and our responses. We've also provided an updated. We've received several recommendations up until yesterday, really where we responded in the grid, why we chose to accept some, why we chose not to. We also provided transcripts from all three meetings, so you can just have an objective viewpoint of what was said and what happened in those meetings. It is a lot of information, so I understand if you haven't been able to get through it. But I do think it's important for the department to always be responsive to community members and let them know so that they haven't just provided a recommendation and they don't know where it went. We just wanted to put out public documentation that says what our responses are to that. Next slide. So the biggest lesson learned, I'll just say from the PDD standpoint, is that we really do want to prioritize community representation. And I think you saw in the 2025 working groups that came and spoke about their experience getting out there and getting actual community members that live and work in the city that don't even know that they have a seat at the table or don't know how to get a seat at the table. It's really important to really recruit them. So we have Emily here next to me who actually works in the working group unit, and that is really her primary function is to go out and meet everyday regular people and entice them to come sit with us during their free time, if they have it, and give us Real feedback. We also really want to focus on reciprocal dialogue and shared understanding, which is what you saw, again, with the 2025 working groups. It was really just discussion. That's what got us where we were with those policies. Also to capitalize on community insights, not specific language. It's not for community members to write policy. It's for them to give us and provide us integral feedback so that we can set the goals and the priorities for the policy. But it's not their job to write policy. Policy should be written by the staff that the implementing agency essentially, also we want to provide access. So that's all together providing access and engagement opportunities for people who haven't had access to the police leadership. Right. There are a lot of stakeholder groups that have direct access to members of the board. They have access to the mayor's office, they have access to police leadership. We really want to hear from people again that don't. That are a part of the city, but don't know that there are these opportunities to sit with us and give us their feedback. So really just solidified that the 2025 working group process is the standard moving forward. And so we really appreciate that people are still willing to talk to us about policy and give us their ideas. Next slide, please. Okay, so that concludes the actual presentation that I had to give you a report out of those meetings.
[84:46] Speaker 3: Well, thank you for your presentation and actually thank you for the process of working with everyone. You know, we came in here and it's like when we had the district changes to the districts, and what happened was it. It was several years we went into this process. Everyone had the district zone, and then we got here to a point that all of a sudden it was stopped because somebody says they wanted more. But we left it, we continued it. We let people talk again. And no one's ever happy with everything, but you get to a point, you have to do something. And we did something. After going through all this debate. And now, as I learn, after this has been implemented, they've gotten together and worked out some of the cranks that they had about who was going to go where, what was going to happen. And as the chief says, I mean, the resources, they kind of change resources for when you needed them. We're at. But it's working. It's working. But you had to do it. People got together, they went along. And what you've done here, I mean, 301 allows you to have the community engagement, and they're there to help them give input. You have to write it. It's Department of Rights to Policy. But having the community communicate what their needs and thoughts, what they want done, what they like to see, is really a good thing, because that's what San Francisco is all about. Community. Okay, and you've done that. And, you know, this. This is, you know, with all those notices, I looked at the history of this, this dgo. I mean, you had this dgo, but you had notices attached. You're changing this. It wasn't formalized in a way it should be now. And there's no perfect gdo. You know, I being in the court, lawyers, there's always going to challenge something they don't like how it is. So there's a challenge, but there's no perfect anything. No perfect dgo. But you got to have a point to start, and this is a good start. You've done really well. It doesn't take away anything. It enhances the dgo. And explain clearly to the officers what their mandate, what they're to do. And if they don't get that and they don't understand that, then that's a whole problem we'll deal with as we go along. But the idea that everybody came together and did this is we're really. I'm really proud of what you guys did. Everybody in the community getting together. We got all these letters. But this is a good thing. And, you know, this is just a start because remember, this has got to go to meet and confer to the officers and the other employees now because they're also being included about interpreted services. So thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. All right, Vice President Benedicta, thank you very much.
[87:19] Speaker 4: President Clay. I'd like to start by echoing what President Clay said. I looked over the materials from the additional three community meetings. I'd like to thank Chief Lu and Director Steeves and the department for facilitating these additional meetings at the Commission's request. I'd like to thank all the community members that showed up, both those that were repeat players and those that were somewhat new to the process. I know that can be, as you noted, can slow the process down. But I think I know you and I have worked on a number of working groups together, and I think we're always happy by the end when we have the people whose first times that are those working groups, because they leave with such a better understanding of the process. And then hopefully they get to be the replay players the next time. And that's how, you know, eventually better policy gets made. So I really want to acknowledge all the stakeholders, you know, and all the great stakeholders for their work and the community. I think that these additional meetings were productive. I think there were additional productive changes that were made to this process. I know that LANSF informed us that there was a meeting with Chief Liu and former Chief. Yep. On Tuesday with LANSF, where 5.2 was discussed. Is that right, Chief? Monday or Tuesday, it was CAA. It was CAA. CAA where 5.20 was discussed. Is that right?
[88:41] Speaker 9: That's right.
[88:42] Speaker 4: And then could you share a little bit about your takeaways from that meeting?
[88:49] Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, I thought it was productive in the sense that I think we both, you know, I really started at the, again, 10,000 foot view of how I and the department look at it and look at these DGOS in general, but this 5.20 in general and making sure that everyone understood that, you know, the intent and spirit of SFPD is that we. There's no nothing but support for getting language access to LEP folks. And that's the bottom line. I think that from the highest level, our intent, it really is kind of in our DNA, that if you listen to the radio for any amount of time, you're going to hear SFPD officers asking for, can I get a Cantonese speaker, can I get a Spanish speaker, all of those things. So this is a very natural thing that we do all the time. So I'm not a lawyer and I don't get. I don't know all the, you know, I don't get into all the wordsmithing. And I understand why, why it's such a big concern. I mean, I myself, my grandparents were monolingual. I used to be able to speak Cantonese. And so I get how important that is. But I just, I wanted to go into that meeting and explain that whatever was out there, and I think there was maybe some sort of misunderstanding that SAPD was trying to get out of the. The language access business, which is the furthest thing from the truth. It's really about balancing. I've heard you talk about it, Commissioner. Balancing operational, you know. Right. I mean, if you look at our dgos as a whole, that's a big thick manual for officers to be able to quickly be able to figure out how to do their jobs in the most efficient manner, but also respecting the wishes of the community. So for me, it's trying to find that efficient balance. And I think that Director Steeves did a tremendous job in doing that. And I think that we did make a very good faith effort in allowing for that process to happen.
[90:59] Speaker 4: Thank you, Chief. That's very helpful. I know that you're right. The need for this is so huge. I think every ride along I've done, I've done them in the tent, one of them in the mission. I think every single time, at least one of the calls for service, we're required. The use, you know, required translator. And that's just the very random sample that I've experienced. I can only imagine what it's like, you know, taken all the way across. Was that meeting Monday or was that meeting yesterday? Do you recall the 31st?
[91:24] Speaker 1: So yesterday, yesterday. What is today's date?
[91:27] Speaker 4: It is the first.
[91:28] Speaker 1: Yes, it was yesterday.
[91:29] Speaker 4: March 31st feels like a day that doesn't exist. I always forget that it's a day that happens and always feel like it should go straight to April 1st. That's very helpful, Chief. The TAA, as I understand, they identified a few in that meeting that took place yesterday. They identified a few other targeted changes. What did you understand to be the takeaway from that meeting in terms of any additional things that they'd requested?
[91:51] Speaker 9: Yeah, they raised points that they thought that they were interested in at least consideration for change. And we walked through some of the issues that we, you know, and had a dialogue about those particular issues and spoke through it.
[92:07] Speaker 4: Are those points that they identified, in your opinion, still under consideration for change from between yesterday and today, or have you considered them?
[92:14] Speaker 9: I think that we made a. One of those changes was it's the two year.
[92:23] Speaker 1: We are asking the Commission to read that amendment into their record to change from three. But in your documents, we've captured everything that was discussed at that meeting.
[92:31] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[92:32] Speaker 1: Annie Lee was nice enough to send us the document. So we have responded to it. So if you're interested in what the responses were or the reasoning, it's in a document that's provided to the Commission.
[92:42] Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chief. That's very helpful. And again, I think that a lot of progress has been made in a relatively short amount of time. And I know it was not easy. What the commission asked of the Department of PDD and of the community. And I'm glad that they came together. As President Clay said, that's how policy gets made. I know that all of us on the Commission received these documents on Friday at around 3pm A little over. A little over 100 or 200 pages of those documents. I tried to look through them as best I can. Particularly I think the transcripts of the meetings were very helpful, but also were also the most dense. I'd like to say at first, that I am supportive of the department's amendment to change that training cadence after consultation with the academy. And I am glad to see that that change was made. I think that I would like more time to look through the grid more closely and ensure that, you know, I know we have a number of members of the community here that have public comment, and I think we're very close. And I think that this is continuing to move in the right direction. And I think, I know CIA and the group said other things that they wanted considered, and maybe the department will consider them or maybe they won't. But I think that, you know, there's nothing magic about today. And given the. Especially given that for a lot of members of the community, I am a masochist and spent the weekend reading transcripts for something that dropped on Friday. But I know that a lot of members of the community and a lot of members of our nonprofit pro partners saw those on Monday, and then obviously some of them spoke to the chief on Tuesday. And now here we are. And so my preference would be to allow the commission to look at the over 200 pages of documents we received, or just shy of 200 pages of documents we received, to allow the community to look at the over 200 page documents that were published. So that we're making sure that we're getting this right because of how important LANSF and language access is, because of how important it is to our patrol officers that we get this right. And I want this work to. I want this ego finalized, and I want to be able to look over all these materials as well. And so that's. That's where I am right now. And that concludes my question.
[95:02] Speaker 3: Thank you, Commissioner Tackey.
[95:04] Speaker 6: Thank you, President Clay. I have to applaud Asha. You've done a great job of putting everything together. I really like the detail now notes, because as Vice President Benedicto said, it was a lot to go through, but I've been monitoring it for quite some time, so it was not that difficult for me to go through it. And I've been reaching out to a few people, including officers. Also. I actually went down to the station 10 long station just to experience, even though I do in my day job, I do help in my program that I oversee. We do help a lot of tenants to basically file police reports and things like that, mostly monolingual folks. And we, because of our relationship with the station and station knowing who we are, it's been much more easier to do the language access. But I wanted to see for myself what signage is posted in the station and also just randomly pull an officer and talk and see what kind of equipment they have or what kind of access they have immediately. And I was pretty happy to see that they do respect and they do want to provide and do the right things, which was helpful for me today when I did that. But I had couple of. I'm glad that there is an amendment for two years because that was one of my. One that I would suggest that we need to do. The other one is the basically definition of exigent circumstances. There is a mention of it prior and then there is a detail what it means. I'm trying to be. Trying my best to show where it is, but I see that in page 4 of page 11C, section C it says unless there is an exigent circumstances. But it doesn't explain. Explain what it is. But of course further on it explains what it is. But I would, I would. I personally think it would be helpful to have. I know we don't want too many words, we don't want it to be like 15 pages. But I think it is important for if an officer is looking through it to immediately understand what it is rather than, oh, let me see if it is. Explains what it is later.
[97:23] Speaker 1: Sure. So the exigent circumstances actually defined in DG0302 Terms and definitions and that is the controlling document for all definitions and terms for this department. So any DGO that is approved after 302's effective date, which was I believe in March, so now it is effective. Any DGO approved after that, instead of having duplication of the definitions, that's the controlling document. So the exigent Circumstance lives in 302. This is just the protocols of what to do during that exigent. And also because exigent circumstances applies, it's not unique to lep. It's across the board. Right. So we chose not to put the definition here because that's. It's in a different dgo.
[98:10] Speaker 6: The other, other thing that I had was regarding signage. I know that the signage also says OCRs no write brochure and things like that. I just wanted to understand. When I went to the station, I saw only one big signage about this is the language access you have and these are the different languages. I mean there's a big sign right there, you can see it. But I did not see any. I did not look for it, but I did not see like looking through it as to if there were any Know youw Rights brochure. Because as a person who is monolingual. Walking into the station itself is very challenging. And then once you walk in, it would be good to know without me asking, okay, what are my rights kind of thing. So I don't know if that is there and that was not posted or what that was about.
[99:03] Speaker 1: So my understanding is the Language Access Ordinance itself outlines this requirement. And it's OCS brochure. I'm. I believe we have members from OSEA that are present today. But that's why we put in the policy when it's available, because it's not. We don't have control over the documents. It's an OCA document. So when it is available, it should be in the stations. I'm sorry, because Lorena is out today. That's a real question for Lorena to answer on whether it has been distributed to the department and put in the stations.
[99:32] Speaker 6: One other question I had was how do you. Is it the who? I know the captain of the station basically makes sure everything is running good and every postage, everything that needs to be posted is posted and things like that. But who monitors it?
[99:48] Speaker 1: That would be the Language Access Liaison.
[99:50] Speaker 6: Liaison.
[99:51] Speaker 1: In terms of the.
[99:51] Speaker 6: They go on a regular basis unannounced to see what things.
[99:55] Speaker 1: They go to stations and do audits just to review whether the signage is there, whether they need new flyers. So that is that particular position's function.
[100:04] Speaker 6: Okay, thank you, Chair.
[100:06] Speaker 3: Commissioner Liao.
[100:08] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[100:08] Speaker 5: President Clay. Yeah. Just going back to something that Commissioner Teke just asked. I think there is a controlling definition under 3.02. Likewise, I think it makes sense to refer to established laws and rules like the admin code 91 rather than recite them again or create an entirely new series of criteria. And I think while I appreciate the passions on both sides of the issue, I think this has been lagging for around two years now. And I think it's probably time to move on.
[100:42] Speaker 1: Agreed. Just before you move on. So you are considering the two year correction?
[100:50] Speaker 3: Yes.
[100:51] Speaker 1: Okay, thank you so much.
[100:52] Speaker 3: That's what you said. Good. Any motion? Is there a motion?
[101:02] Speaker 5: Yes, I'd like to move. First of all, should in order to amend the section 5.20, 5.2, 0.07. Do we have to. To move to amend and vote on that?
[101:16] Speaker 1: No, I think you can make a single motion.
[101:22] Speaker 2: Okay.
[101:23] Speaker 5: So I'd like to move that we advance the proposed DGL 5.20 with the amendment from the training from three years to the two years as described by Director Steeves to the two years from the three years as written.
[101:44] Speaker 3: That's a motion.
[101:45] Speaker 2: And a second.
[101:47] Speaker 3: Second.
[101:48] Speaker 8: I'll second.
[101:51] Speaker 2: All right. So if any member of the public would like to make public comment Regarding line item 9, please approach the pod. And if anybody wanting to make public comment can please line up over on this side of the room and one at a time, approach the podium.
[102:28] Speaker 1: Hello, President Clay, and thank you to the Commission for having this conversation with SFPD and inviting us back to the table. And I think these two months have been really fruitful. We can see some of our suggestions have made it into the draft, including the keeping the trainings at every two years and not backsliding to every three. And we really want to maintain the essence of the 2007 DGO, which President Clay has mentioned is the gold standard. It's really good. And so I think part of. Part of the issue for Community coming in in February was that whole swaths of it got cut out. And we interpreted that cutting out as SFPD is trying to roll back language access. I understand now that brevity is a goal of SFPD to make these policies clear. I would just urge you to not swing too far in the other direction. And there are terms, for instance, in the purpose and policy that have been removed that I think could still really be helpful and would not confuse officers just by making it longer. It is important to talk about on the flip side, not only why language access is good, but why not providing it is harmful, it impedes investigations, it jeopardizes safety. And so I don't understand why that sentence cannot be added into the purpose. For instance, similarly in policy, there's a reference to our city code, to the Lao, but also their state and federal laws. And I would also urge you to think about some of the should language in there. Should is best practice, but we are trying to create policies that holds officers accountable and sets the standard and makes it very clear. And so they removed some of the SHA language and made it should. And I urge you to think and maintain the accountability that was the. The core essence of the 2000 version, 2007 version of the dgo. Thank you so much.
[104:38] Speaker 10: Good evening, President Clay and commissioners. My name is Janice Lee, and I'm with the Coalition for Community, Safety and Justice, the four organizations that make up Safety, ccsj, our Chinese for Affirmative Action, Chinatown, cdc, China, Chinese for Chinese Progressive association, and cyc. I attended all three community meetings and really want to thank SFPD for creating the space to engage with community members and city staff who work directly with and provide direct services to lep. Folks, I also deeply appreciate the direction given by this commission at your February 4th meeting, which was that it was worth it to take our time and get it right. So I'm here today to repeat that message. Let's take the time to get this right. The latest draft of the DGO was only shared on Monday with the folks who participated in the community meetings, and the community was only able to share feedback with SFPD yesterday, as you had heard, and we're still pouring over the many, many pages of documents that have come out. We've deeply appreciated the department's openness, and I can tell that this department, as led by Chief Liu, knows the importance of language access. As you've said, language access is in the DNA of this department. We're close. This is not an indefinite delay. Having attended the meetings, I know that we're really close with the language. But as Annie just mentioned, there are things that are in there where we think that there's room for improvement, such as the term being used. Preferred language isn't defined, so perhaps exigent circumstances is elsewhere, but preferred language is not. Perhaps we should be using primary language instead, which is defined. There are also areas where we'd like to see a language strengthened from should to shall, or perhaps shall, if feasible, which I think gives you enough room as adjudicators, as commissioners. So let's make sure we hammer out the final version so that us Commissioners also have time to review the finalized language. You have seen so many pages of documentation, as Vice President Benedict has mentioned. So I urge a commission to delay voting on this DGO tonight to give SFPD and the community time to work out these few outstanding requests to approve to improve clarity. Thank you.
[106:52] Speaker 4: I'm going to interpret for the community
[106:53] Speaker 1: member who is Cantonese speaking, because, you
[106:56] Speaker 2: know, we got a notice too late,
[106:57] Speaker 5: and then we couldn't make their intervention
[106:59] Speaker 4: request to this commission.
[107:00] Speaker 9: So sorry.
[108:38] Speaker 7: Thank you.
[108:41] Speaker 2: Hello, Commissioner.
[108:42] Speaker 4: My name is Annie Zhang. San Francisco is a diverse city, with approximately 20% of the residents speaking a
[108:49] Speaker 9: primary language other than English. If the San Francisco Police Department doesn't provide language access services, that's no way
[108:56] Speaker 4: to truly protect and serve everyone. This not only violates the police station's mission of respecting everyone and providing fair, transparent, and immediate law enforcement, but also harms the safety of the community.
[109:11] Speaker 9: Language access services are very important for public safety.
[109:15] Speaker 4: If San Francisco Police Department is inadequately trained in language services, it affects public safety throughout the city. When police are unable to communicate clearly
[109:26] Speaker 9: with people with limited English skills, it's
[109:29] Speaker 4: easy to create misunderstanding, delayed handling and even unnecessarily increased conflict. With the right training, police can identify and assist people with LEP limited English proficient in order to obtain correct information and avoid danger and also protect community residents and the police themselves. We urge tonight the Commission to delay the voting on this DGO tonight to give SAPD and the community more time to work out these outstanding requests that will improve clarity and build trust with the immigrant community in the city, especially given the current confection and confusion between the local police and federal law enforcement, including the ice. Thank you.
[110:21] Speaker 1: Good evening, President Clay, Commissioners, Chief Lu. My name is Annette Wong from Chinese
[110:25] Speaker 7: for Affirmative Action, and I just wanted
[110:28] Speaker 1: to say thank you Commissioners for your
[110:29] Speaker 7: motion in February to allow more time for Community to have dialogue with SFPD's
[110:34] Speaker 1: team and to SFPD for the efforts to integrate some of our suggestions and feedback.
[110:40] Speaker 7: I just want to echo what some
[110:43] Speaker 1: of the earlier commenters had shared that, you know, it has been, as you
[110:46] Speaker 7: mentioned, Commissioner, a long process, but we
[110:48] Speaker 1: do, because we have already taken so much time, let's just take a little
[110:51] Speaker 7: more time to get it all the way there.
[110:53] Speaker 1: We're very close and so we just
[110:55] Speaker 7: ask for a delay of the vote
[110:56] Speaker 1: so that we can get to that finish line.
[110:58] Speaker 7: Because the difference between a shall and a should may seem small, it's only
[111:01] Speaker 1: a few letters difference, but it makes
[111:03] Speaker 7: a huge difference in practice. And so things of this nature, we just want to make sure that we
[111:07] Speaker 1: get it right and have the time
[111:08] Speaker 7: to talk those things through. So just ask for a delay on the vote.
[111:13] Speaker 1: I also just want to use the rest of my time to share that.
[111:15] Speaker 7: Because there was confusion about whether or not this topic would be discussed tonight, we did not have time to request language access.
[111:22] Speaker 1: And so the speakers following me are actually monolingual Spanish speakers and there is no interpreter for them tonight.
[111:28] Speaker 7: But since we know that SFPD is committed to language access, we hope that you will be able to get their
[111:32] Speaker 1: comments translated on the back end to ensure that you can hear fully what they're saying.
[111:38] Speaker 7: So thank you.
[111:43] Speaker 10: Buenas noches. Mi nombres leticia de mujeres unidas y activas.
[112:07] Speaker 7: Condominium limitado de l Ingles como para los propios agentes cuando los argentes conosensos
[112:14] Speaker 10: oblicaciones ise communica con claridad con los mi embros de la comunidad puedo en recabar informacion precisa y gestionar mejor la citociones del Conflicto por el contrario un accesso linguistico in adecuado aumenta el ries go de male intendidos detentiones in custificadas y des confianza instamos a la comision a que proponga la botacion sobresta horden general del Departamento de Estanoche paradar tiempo al Departamento de Policia de San Francisco y alla comunidad arresolver esta solicitudes pendientes
[112:57] Speaker 7: que mejorari and la claridad y generaria
[113:00] Speaker 10: colas comunidades immigrantes especialmente dada la confucion actual entre la policia local y las agencias federales. The applicacion de la leyce como aisle. Gracias. Muy buenas noches.
[113:28] Speaker 1: Que lamentable.
[113:34] Speaker 7: El accesso linguistico es algo essencial.
[113:38] Speaker 10: Algo que necessitamos lej pido aostede quetieneng
[113:43] Speaker 7: el poder de haceresto cambios muchas mujeres sufrimo violencia domestica y lo damiedo el
[113:51] Speaker 10: jamar a la policia.
[113:52] Speaker 7: Porque mucha bermina siendo de tenida por el simple. De San Francisco. El sefa pede.
[116:58] Speaker 1: Attendidos y lo mejor enoestra propia lengua. Gracias. Buenas moches.
[117:09] Speaker 2: And that is the end of public comment.
[117:17] Speaker 4: Can I make a motion?
[117:17] Speaker 3: We have a motion a second for the comment?
[117:20] Speaker 4: Yeah, I was asking for the comment.
[117:22] Speaker 3: Yes. Okay.
[117:22] Speaker 4: Commissioner Benedicto, thank you, President Clay. Thank you to all the members of the public for commenting. I think for me, the public comment was incredibly powerful as it was last time. I just want to point out that when we heard this matter in February, it was placed on the ten day calendar. And so there was a lot of time for members of the public to be aware and for different organizations to prepare. I know President Clay and Sergeant Youngblood, when this was here in February, worked very closely to ensure that there were interpreters. I'd like to note that. And then we had over 40 people show up here to express their views and that this commission listened to. I'd also like to note that at that time that San Francisco's own Language access ordinance requires 48 hours to request for interpreters. And we had Ms. Jung who spoke, and then the monolingual folks who spoke. Unless you check the commission website very regularly, like some of us do, you might not even have known about this. In order to have gotten the 48 hours to appear here. And so I think for me, what we saw from the comments that we did have and again, thank you for the people who came is all the more reason that it would be premature to vote on this today. And I want to be clear if to my fellow commissioners, I think the policy has made great strides. I'm very happy with the progress made. I was very happy to hear CCSF express that there was progress made and how close they are. I was speaking to Director Steeves before this, before the meeting and I expressed to her how pleased I was the progress has been made. And so my vote to not advance the motion today, I want to call it a happy no. It's not a no that we shouldn't pass this. It's a no that that tonight we should allow for. You know, how many community voices didn't know this was happening today or couldn't get access to translation. Commissioner Techie had some questions about translations that she asked. Director Steve. You know, there's just, I just feel like there's a lot, there's, you know, we're so close to the finish line. I don't want to. And I just want to share that and to thank the community for coming here today.
[119:22] Speaker 3: First of all, ladies and gentlemen, we're not clear close to the finish line. Remember this goes whatever happens tonight, one way or the other, this still has to go through a process with meet and confer with the police Officers association as well as now the other non police officer employees. So you come back here, this gets, whatever gets submitted has to go to them. They have to talk about it, they'll come back to us and then we'll come back again. There's this and you will be back here again. But the idea this was not just put on this calendar. Everybody knew this was coming up. This was extended. Remember there was supposed to be a vote last month and I said to our members here we were going to give you 30 days or whatever we could to get this done and we did it. We didn't just do it that day, we could have did it that day. But no, we didn't think it was in the best interest. We wanted to get the community involved more and it was set up this way. Remember, you don't have to have the community engagement and this 3.01 and they did it. This is the second way and they started that. And two years ago they started it. And people who have been on it, who started, who were from the community have sent letters and saying you Know, I worked really hard on this. And why is this continuing to do this? We understand this is important. We're not taking away anything away from anyone. We're trying to enhance and make sure these officers provide the services and the best, best way they can. When they come in and they see they got to do it, they have to do it. That's the tradition of San Francisco. The idea that it's going to be perfected with a language here, a shall there that may come up because it may come back and they may be that issue of that should be changed because there's going to be other parties involved. But today, today is the day to move forward. Just like we had to move forward in redistricting. You just can't sit on every time, every time you're going to have someone to say this. And there's nothing perfect. There is absolutely nothing perfect. But we got to start and today is the day to start. I vote for it. I want to move this forward because I want to get to the point that this is going to be a dgo, but I'm just one. This is the whole commission. To the extent there's a motion, whatever happens happens. But understand, we didn't just put this on and nobody knew. That's not true. That is absolutely not true. So to the extent, and I really welcome the idea that people in the community had interpreters had come forth, had people here. I don't get to control that. I don't know what sergeant, our sergeant did Youngblood before, but we know we put this on calendar way before Wednesday is last week. So everybody saw it. It was on the calendar. It was not missing. It was not. It just got put there. So it's been on way before that. So to that extent, those are my comments, too. So that being said, Commissioner Scott.
[122:05] Speaker 7: Yes. I just wanted to add to you Vice President Clay and I mean President Clay and Vice President Benedicto of the urgency and how important this is for us to move forward on it and that we are moving forward on it. However, as we just got this Friday. And so I still want to go over some more items that I saw and I want to make sure that the community at large is aware of it, especially as I said, the Eritrean and the Ethiopian community and my community, who definitely want to be part of this, I feel that right now I'm not ready to vote on it, but I support it 100%. But I just feel like we definitely need more time before making that decision tonight. The work has been done. It's Powerful. It's not only going to be good, it's going to be good for both sides, the police and the community at large. But we want everybody to understand this language, and that is an inclusive peace for everybody. It's going to help. This is going to help. As one of my Etrian neighbors said, when he saw something, he didn't know what to do. He didn't know who to, how to, because he couldn't speak the language. Okay? So this is huge. And it's going to help. It's going to help us in the long run. And I'm so proud that it's happening here in our city because other cities are going to take a good look at this and say we want to do the same thing because it's going to help solve crime. It's going to help, you know, law enforcement, it's going to help our communities to be safer, and it's going to help more people to be here and to be able to engage. So, yeah, that is what I want to say, that please don't take this as a no. This is something that I feel is very strong, very important. Language to me is key. Understanding is key, is key in every community when it comes to law enforcement and the safety of our community, and as well as knowing how to report something that's very crucial. So thank you.
[124:27] Speaker 2: On the motion, Commissioner Tekey, how do you vote?
[124:30] Speaker 6: Yes.
[124:30] Speaker 2: Commissioner Tekey is yes.
[124:32] Speaker 4: Commissioner Scott.
[124:36] Speaker 3: Commissioner Scott, your vote.
[124:38] Speaker 7: Yes. Yes.
[124:40] Speaker 2: Commissioner Scott is yes. Commissioner Leung?
[124:42] Speaker 5: Yes.
[124:43] Speaker 2: Commissioner Leung is yes. Commissioner Yee? Yes. Commissioner Yee is yes. Vice President Benedicto.
[124:48] Speaker 3: No.
[124:49] Speaker 2: Vice President Benedicto is no. And President Clay?
[124:51] Speaker 3: Yes.
[124:52] Speaker 2: President Clay is yes. You have five yeses. Line item 10, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 12 below closed session, including public comment on item 11, a vote whether to hold item 12 in closed session and public comment on item 13, a vote whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 12 held in closed session. If you'd like to make public comment, please approach the podium. And there is no public comment. Line item 11 a vote on whether to hold item 12 in closed session pursuant to California Government Code section 54957 b in San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.10 b and d action.
[125:39] Speaker 4: Motion to go into closed session.
[125:41] Speaker 5: Second.
[125:43] Speaker 8: All right.
[125:44] Speaker 2: On the motion, Commissioner Techie, how do you vote?
[125:46] Speaker 6: Yes.
[125:46] Speaker 2: Commissioner Techie is yes. Commissioner Scott?
[125:48] Speaker 7: Yes.
[125:49] Speaker 2: Commissioner Scott is yes. Commissioner Leung?
[125:50] Speaker 5: Yes.
[125:51] Speaker 2: Commissioner Leung is yes. Commissioner Yee? Yes. Commissioner Yee is yes. Vice President Benedicto?
[125:55] Speaker 4: Yes.
[125:56] Speaker 2: Vice President Benedicto is yes. And President Clay.
[125:58] Speaker 3: Yes.
[125:58] Speaker 2: President Clay is Yes. We have six yeses. We are going into closed session.
[126:02] Speaker 4: You guys need 10 minutes.
[126:46] Speaker 1: Sfgov tv, san francisco government television.
[132:27] Speaker 3: Sa. Sa. Sa. Sa.
[143:08] Speaker 1: Sam.
[143:33] Speaker 3: Sa.
[144:16] Speaker 5: Sfgov tv,
[144:20] Speaker 3: san francisco government television. Sa.
[151:16] Speaker 1: G.
[152:33] Speaker 3: Sa. Sa. It. Sam. Sa.
[160:21] Speaker 1: Sfgov tv, san francisco government television.
[162:55] Speaker 3: Sa. Ram.
[171:28] Speaker 7: Sa.
[173:36] Speaker 3: Sa.
[174:52] Speaker 1: Sa. Sam.
[175:43] Speaker 3: Sa. Sam. Sa.
[177:17] Speaker 9: Sfgov tv, san francisco government television.
[181:41] Speaker 3: Sa.
[182:07] Speaker 7: Sam.
[182:40] Speaker 3: 2017, when Joyce Hicks was fired, that's what we talked about. She never.
[182:44] Speaker 1: Are we still. Are we out.
[182:45] Speaker 3: They talked about that.
[182:46] Speaker 1: Y. Oh, here we are turning into a butterfly.
[183:10] Speaker 2: All right, Commissioners, we are back in open session. On line, item 13, vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 11 held in closed session. San Francisco Administrative Code, section 67.12.
[183:21] Speaker 8: Action.
[183:22] Speaker 4: I'll make a motion. I think there's a typo on the agenda. I think it's a vote to not disclose item 12, which was held in closed session, not item 11. But I'll move to not disclose anything in item 12, which was closed session.
[183:35] Speaker 2: All right. On the motion, Commissioner Techie, how do you vote?
[183:37] Speaker 6: Yes.
[183:37] Speaker 2: Commissioner Tekey is yes. Commissioner Scott.
[183:39] Speaker 7: Yes.
[183:39] Speaker 2: Commissioner Scott is yes. Commissioner Leung.
[183:41] Speaker 5: Yes.
[183:42] Speaker 2: Commissioner Leung is yes. Commissioner Yee. Yes. Commissioner Yee is yes. Vice President Benedicto.
[183:46] Speaker 4: Yes.
[183:46] Speaker 2: Vice President Benedicto is yes. And President Clay.
[183:48] Speaker 3: Yes.
[183:49] Speaker 2: President Clay is yes. You have six yeses.
[183:51] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[183:52] Speaker 2: Line item 14. Adjournments.
[183:55] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[184:20] Speaker 3: Sa.