Awareness to modify 10point 01 uniform and equipment action. Do we have somebody the speak to this item . I can speak to it. From our Community Engagement division. Good evening. Good evening. Last year we made a very passionate plea to get the Pink Patch Initiative as part of our october uniform attire. This year our hope is to make this a continuing event every october like many other departments across the united states. All we are doing this year is we have added cadets and Police Service aids and ask that it be included every year as part of our annual event with the San FranciscoPolice Department. I did bring pink patches for you. I will ask to please get these to you so you can actually take a look at it first hand. The goal this october is to have 100 of the officers supporting this incredible cause. The proceeds will go to bay area cancer connection which is an organization really focused on Breast Cancer awareness and the details, education across the bay area. I am open for questions if you have any, commissioners. Any questions from commissioners . Are you charging us for these . Tell us how much the patches are. The patches are 10 each and Police Officers are required to have two patches on uniforms during the month of october. It is optional. It is not compulsory. We hope to have 100 of the officers supporting this incredible cause that is so near and dear to our heart. We have had officers both male and female impacted directly or through family members through Breast Cancer. Just to clarify. Those are suggested donations there is not a charge. Thats correct. Doesnt need board of supervisors approval. Chief. Deputy City Attorney covered what i was about to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, commissioners. Next item. Is there a motion to approve the Department Bulletin pink patch project . So moved. Second. We need Public Comment on this. Any Public Comment on the pink patch Awareness Campaign and motion . Seeing none comments are closed. Ready for the vote. All in favor of approving the pink batch project. Opposed. Hearing none the bulletin passes unanimously. Line item 4 discussion and possible action to approve revised disciplinary penalty and referral guidelines foresworn members of the San FranciscoPolice Department for purposes of engaging in the meet and confer process with the Police Officers association as required by law. We worked on this many months ago for quite some time. The dpa assisted us. I think the california d. O. J. Had some input and reviewed it. It is here for discussion and adoption there are red line items for changes. Ir will open up for comments and questions. Commissioner elias. There are some edits on page 3 of 19. The aggravating factors is a typographical error. The fifth bullet point should be two. There are two categories. The employee should know his actions were inappropriate based upon experience and another bullet point the employee was not forthright or truthful during the investigation. Any discussion on that recommendation . The other question or addition that i had was on page 9 of 19 regarding domestic incidents. There was an addition that a violation of court order related to Domestic Violence included not limited to restraining order would probation terms qualify if there is a violation would that be included in this section . Isnt that deemed a court order . Are you saying so basically superior Court Somebody moves for probation violation they admit and are found true after hearing . Right. Is there somewhere. That is a violation of court order. That situation. Speak into the microphone. The person is on probation would have to comply by his probationary term. That is a court order he would violate to revoke to come before the court. That would apply under this definition. If you wanted to add a sentence including not limited to restraining order or violation, yeah. Are we creating more problems . I guess probation as long as people understand that which we understand in criminal. Our policies are supposed to out last us. That is the reason i understand why more specificity might be warranted. Are we trying to pass this tonight . We need to. This has been on the back burner for six months. That is a court order to provide by terms of probation. Hang on. We are going to approve this tonight and it goes to meet and confer. We still. I would prefer it not come back to the commission. It has been held up. We have been using something from 1994 for 25 years now. I think it should be clear that a court order is probation. Commissioner elias. We all know this. Sometimes when a person they dont adhere to the terms of probation, it is a violation. However, a hearing is held. At the hearing the Court Decides if a violation occurred. My question is if there is a violation of probation does that trigger the violation of court order or after motion to revoke hearing on probation . To be a violation of court order for due process you have to go through hearing and there be an admission or finding, right . But then there is a second level of discipline air redue process that would come in when it was filed with the commission or with the however it was filed. Chief do you want to weigh in on this point or a different point . I wanted to clarify the question. Are we talking about an officer who is on probation for Domestic Violence . Yes, sir. Part of a conviction for Domestic Violence is going to result in an officers firearm being taken away by the court which would get into conditions of employment. Most likely we wont have an officer to continue employment if they are on probation for Domestic Violence. I cant see that to be the case if they are convicted they are not allowed to carry a firearm. Sometimes specific violations would prohibit that person from carrying a firearm so they pick other charges that wouldnt tricker the prohibition. I think this section would relate to those offenses where there isnt an automatic prohibition of carrying a firearm to subject them to probation. You resolve it for a nonDomestic Violence plea but would say Domestic Violence terms. If i am overthinking. This is a guideline for discipline. If you want language in here, i dont have a problem with that. I dont want to start getting specific because then you have to run through a lot of other specificity. The court order. You could add after violation of court order or terms of probation related to Domestic Violence. That is still a court order. We can add additional words. The only reason you are on probation for Domestic Violence there is an order saying you cant do x. If you violated what you are violates is the courts order directing you to do x or not do x. The court order precipitates the event no matter what. It is the court order. As much as i enjoy being on the commission, i dont plan to stay for too long, and again, i understand commissioner elias point regarding clarity. I am on the fence. I dont see any harm to the language. Adding in language. What is the language you want to suggest . I guess you would put in not limited to restraining order for a probationary term. Including but not limited to restraining order or violation. Or probationary terms. Conditions of probation. That is fine. It doesnt add anything. Why dont you read the language so we have it in the record. We are going to adopt as is and prior to the pairren 2. 01 we would add after restraining order comma or condition of probation. Or conditions of probation. Any other additions . There is one other one. Page 17. I know i raised this issue last time with respect to how we incorporate implicit bias in the section. There are two things. First, i think with respect to the d. G. O. 5. 03 should be added because of the 5. 17 references 5. 03 which is the investigative detention and the first paragraph talks about bias and how it cannot be a basis for detentions or stops. I think that d. G. O. Should be included since it is referenced in the actual bias d. G. O. Any comments on that suggestion . Any issues . Only because that d. G. O. References more than one other d. G. O. , and the d. G. O. Regarding detention is not about bias. It is not about bias. We have an entire d. G. O. Devoted to buy as. I dont feel strongly but it seems as if we could crossreference multiple d. G. O. S that we could create an end less list. It distinguishes 5. 03 it references specifically bias. That is the detentions . I think just from a policing pore speculative and historical issues with bias, implicit by at with policing detentions are probably one of the areas with the most concern raised. I assume that is why that paragraph is leading off the d. G. O. I dont have a problem adding it in. What is the next item . I had a question on that last addition. Just to clarify. We are referring to the section of 5. 03 that deals with bias, not the entirety of 5. 03 . We would reference 5. 03 because the first paragraph reads that the Police Department, i can read the paragraph but it references how in essence race, gender, identity and other characteristics cannot be the sole basis for de tensions or stops and references 5. 17. 5. 03 should be in this because there is one section in 5. 17 that talks about a factor and what can be used. It references 5. 03, and like we talked about, those two d. G. O. S are intertwined. That is why we devised 5. 03 to sort of be in companion with 5. 17. Chief, this only deals with bias policing. That is the focus of this. If there is anything in 5. 03 related to buy as that wont be im indicated here. What i was driving a little. There are other sections of 5. 03 that can be a first offense termination. We have to be clear we are only talking about the bias part. Nowhere in 5. 03 does the word bias show up. I feel like we can have end less crossreferencing of d. G. O. S. It is not the worst thing in the world. There is an issue putting d. G. O. S in there. The argument will be made if it is not specifically referenced, it is excluded. It starts getting dangerous. Maybe we put an example. Including but not limited to the d. G. O. S. Then my second. Do you folks have that language . We are saying after the word discrimination included but not limited to and we give examples and we are adding 5. 03 as well. 5. 17. Right. We dont want that to be all inclusive list. That makes sense. The other section is the other sort of caveat on the bottom of that regarding implicit bias. This paragraph just seems just very ambiguous and unclear so i dont know. I understand the intention behind it and why it is there. I just think the way it is worded and written is not sufficient, and i dont it needs reworded or excluded. I dont think that it is clear. I am not following. What is not clear about it. We added this. I put language in after talking to commissioner elias and samra. We wanted to be sure people understood implicit bias is different. Once you are trained about your implicit bias and you tip to have the same issue. You are on notice there is an issue. It is important any officer reading this before he or she gets into any problems understanding what the intent is here. I am hoping everybody gets a chance to read this before they have a problem. That is why i thought it should go here. I dont know where it would know and i dont know what to say about it. It doesnt tell the officers what the penalty will be if they engage in this behavior. My thought is there are sort of we see patterns where you know we collect databased on race and other characteristics. From those we are now looking at those statistics to see if there are patterns in terms of certain people being stopped and why they are stopped. That could be an example of implicit bias if the officer is not aware they are stopping one type of person or one thing. They are referring to people inappropriately. Those are sort of examples of implicit bias. I think it is not clear to the officers if you engage in this conduct what is the punishment . You go for additional training, counseling and or education as deemed appropriate. If it reoccurs with the same member you may be subject to discipline. I think the second sentence addresses the concern. What is reoccurring, more than one . More than one. I think the may is also ambiguous. You have to have flexibility. You have to give the department flexibility. I think the other part of what you are saying about implicit. I think labeling it implicit bias, i think getting into granular beyond that will give wiggle room to say this is listed. Overall category of implicit bias is okay. From the reading of it, it looks like it expands accountability. That is my reading of it. Maybe i am missreading it. You are changing the definition of may to shall or should. The way i read it it looks as though it defines what is going to happen. It is clear that when i am police sit bias implicit bias is identified it may be explicit. It is knowingly engaged above it. I dont think your mic phone is on. I am not responsible for this. I do read this to expand accountability. If something is unconscious we cant punish for it until we put the officer on notice, right . The first thing is putting the officer on notice. If it is a pattern, if it is something more than one unconscious incident that officer may be subject to discipline depending on the circumstances. This puts department on notice if it is not just explicit racist text. It is not the worstcase scenario, we now know what i am explicit bias is and we are watching. That was the intent in this adin thisaddendum. You mentioned whether or not it is permissive or mandatory. Did you have thoughts about that . I think we were talking about commissioner elias mentioned the word may. I understand what they said needing a fact specific inquiry so maybe a permissive language is appropriate. I didnt know if you had another argument. That is the distinction between may and shall. Is from going to be a subjective autonomy in the language or not. Subjective autonomy . Yes. Showing off with big words. That is what may is. I am just saying that is the distinction between the two. The way it is drafted there is subjective autonomy if the language is changed to shall. I understand that. Maybe a sunshine violation going on back here. I am just kidding. City attorney is giving me a stern look. Well, we need a vote. I have a comment. I just wanted to comment. With respect to both page 9 of 19 and 10 of 19. These are requests i made and i want to thank my fellow commissioners for including them with respect to Domestic Violence part of this. That is important. For Sexual Assault and child Sexual Assault victims. I wasnt ready to vote last time. This is very assuring to me. I wanted to just note that. I would add that i would hope that like the previous category of Sexual Assault or child Sexual Assault was found true by the member they would no longer be with the department. So would i. Let me take an informal poll back on page 17 and the implicit bias footnote. How many commissioners are willing to approve the language as written right now. What are we talking about . Page 17. Did you read this . Implicit bias footnote. I just want to know how many commissioners are prepared to adopt it the way it is written . I feel like it is confusing and unclear. I dont see how it is to clarify it. If you had proposed language. It is difficult because implicit bias and explicit bias are fact specific and it is hard to define or qualify. We are trying to do that, which i get, but the way i read it, it just doesnt sort of it is unclear in terms of what the officers punishment will be if this happens multiple times. The officers deserve clarity with you engage in this conduct, this is what happy ne what h. If it is knowingly engaging in bias it kicks up and you are terminated. We cant have a discipline for unconscious behavior. What this says if it is a pattern it becomes known, then the discipline is discipline then you are in the knowingly category. Give me an opportunity. I have to tell you now we have to be specific on discipline and i dont know if the public knows this. When we bring a complaint the department or dpa has to say what the punishment will be before we hear a witness or make a decision. We have tried to whatever they recommend. I see some coming through. I am appalled they can read the factual situation and tell me a certain amount of time. I think the more guidance the better. We cannot change it once they list what it is. I read this. It is very confusing. What are you suggesting to make it stronger . I would make it stronger personally. How do we punish for unconscious behavior . How many times do you say hey babe . How many times do you have to be corrected . Two. Recurring means if it happens again. Then i guess it is the discretion where it may no longer be considered and may result in discipline. I would change that to say will. How many times. Let me give you an example as to why i think will doesnt work. Reoccurring implicit bias issues with the same member may no longer be considered. You may exhibit unconscious homophobia in january and you are trained in april. In august you were exhibiting racial bias. You cant discipline for racial when it is the first time if they are trained on sexual orientation. That is why you need flexibility. If you say will you tie peoples hands in a way that doesnt make sense. The basic training covers racial and homophobic. What is the next one gender . Reoccurring. I dont know. How many chances . Reoccurring is two. The nine month Police Academy drills what respect to give to the citizen, how do we expect them to talk to the citizens, then probation period and in the force. Then they have this. I dont know what to tell you. Or we have 96 day reports with data where certain categories of people based on race and sex have higher incidents of uses of force against them and other things happening. Commissioner brookter. Thank you for your tire less work on this. For me in reading it. T