Police commission delays vote on early‑intervention policy after hours of debate and public testimony

The San Francisco Police Commission on Feb. 14 heard detailed presentations and extended public testimony on a proposed Department General Order 3.19 to create an Early Intervention System (EIS) intended to identify patterns of potentially problematic behavior among officers and provide nondisciplinary interventions.

Deputy Chief Cohen, the department presenter, said the EIS is ‘‘meant to be nondisciplinary in nature and focused on improving performance,’’ and stressed that ‘‘the EIS will not be addressed or utilized for the purpose of discipline, promotion, or when a member requests transfer or special assignment’’ as written in section 3(c) of the draft order.

Supporters at the meeting — including members of the commission who helped negotiate the draft — said the system would give supervisors a daily management tool and provide data for training and prevention. ‘‘We will have databases, electronic databases, where we will be able to access this data separately from the EIS system and get it in a timely manner,’’ the deputy chief told commissioners, noting the department hopes to have the system running by the end of the year.

Opponents and cautious stakeholders pressed the commission on several technical and legal points. The Office of Citizen Complaint Commissioners urged that several associated factors be elevated to indicators, citing practices in other cities and the risk that items such as custody deaths or nonfilings could be overlooked. Gary Delaney of the San Francisco Police Officers Association said the union ‘‘has no disagreement with the concept’’ but warned that unvetted OCC complaints and some charges (such as resisting arrest or assault on an officer) should not automatically trigger counseling because only a small share of complaints are sustained.

Commissioners probed how the system will count events that occur within a single case, whether vehicle pursuits would be counted as indicators, how the system would avoid penalizing officers assigned to high‑risk beats, and how long performance‑improvement records would be retained. Several commissioners said they wanted clearer audit criteria and a stronger description of how EIS data could be accessed for promotions, transfers or disciplinary proceedings so the commission’s action would not inadvertently constrain other oversight functions.

Citing those outstanding issues and the volume of public comment, Commissioner David Campos moved to continue the matter for one week to allow additional review and revised language. The motion was seconded and passed without objection.

What’s next: The commission asked staff to circulate proposed audit language, clarify retention and access rules, and provide the commission with the canine‑unit order and any supporting audits before reconvening the item. The commission left open the option of adopting the general order after those materials are reviewed.