Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transparency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public commenters raise use-of-force notice concerns and commission votes to close and not disclose a discussion

San Francisco Police Commission · October 5, 2016
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Public comment included complaints that a use-of-force policy was not properly noticed for public review and demands for transparency; the commission voted to move Item 5 into closed session and later voted not to disclose the closed-session discussion by voice vote.

Members of the public used the meeting’s public-comment period to raise a range of concerns, notably criticism of the department’s use-of-force policy notice and calls for commission engagement with the Board of Supervisors’ Blue Ribbon Panel work.

A commenter identified in the transcript as Speaker 10 urged the commission to follow up on a Sunshine Task Force hearing and said a complaint alleged the use-of-force policy was not properly noticed. The speaker told the commission, "That's a serious charge and something that we're going to pursue."

Another commenter, who identified herself as Ms. Brown, urged the department to provide more information about her son’s 2006 homicide and listed names she said were on the case file. The chair and Deputy Chief Saines offered an anonymous tip line ((415) 575-4444) and asked department staff to follow up directly with Ms. Brown to answer her questions.

During the meeting the commission moved two formal actions related to closed-session procedure. Item 4 was a motion to hold Item 5 in closed session under San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.1; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote, after which the meeting entered closed session. After returning to open session later in the transcript, commissioners considered Item 6 (San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.12) on whether to disclose any or all discussion that occurred in closed session on Item 5. A motion to not disclose those discussions was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.

The transcript also contains an extensive block of public comments and candidate statements recorded in the meeting record. Speakers running for Board of Supervisors and other offices addressed housing, transportation, homelessness and public safety; these remarks represent a lengthy on-the-record public-comment record captured in the transcript but did not prompt formal commission action at this meeting.

No committee vote on policy changes or disciplinary action was recorded in open session during these items.