commissioner dejesus: no. >> we can get through the diagrams, if you want. commissioner dejesus: i think you should go ahead and finish your presentation for those of us that are not as aware of this as mrs. chan. >> we look at the august numbers. these are similar sortings. again, if you compare these back to june, they are similar numbers. let's go to the next slide. these are the matches according to the gender. 14 female and 22 -- for 123 male. and then for the month of august

. one of the concerns is juvenile matches. the statistics there. we were able to gather that information this time a little better than i think we were last time. the juvenile sorts were july vs. adults, and then juvenile matches for august as well. interestingly enough, it is pretty consistent. commissioner dejesus: i'm looking at the matches by race. hispanic is large. 71%. do we know what their population is in the jail? >> i do not. commissioner chan: the population is like 20 -- >> actually, my next topic was the sheriff's office. commissioner chan contacted the sheriff's office about providing

the information for the remaining resolution and that kind of topic. the following slide provided the information from the sheriff's office and i have applied it as best i can to each of the resolutions as appropriate. the sheriff did notify us that the additional information from the sheriff's department in the last rort was not administratively feesible to gather at this time. so the additional information that we had available from june is not available. what the sheriff's office was able to give us was not the number of retainers, but the relief to i.c.e. i want to make sure there is a clear understanding that the number of detainers placed by i.c.e. doesn't necessarily mean those same people were actually released in that same month.

they may be released at a different time because of the fact that that person may need to serve out the sentence for whatever he was arrested for now in the same way that he might go for other facilities as well. he or she, i should say. >> and they have no way to calculate how many they turn over to us? is that what -- >> the they may have a way to do it. they weren't able to give it to us at this time. the next slide shows the number they released to i.c.e. in that month, and that shows 55 for july and 79 for august. again, these may have had detainers placed on them in prior months. so the two sets of numbers do not ed necessarily correlate. and then the final slide here

talks about the resolution, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and the sheriff's office told us it was not administratively feasible to collect this information at this time. commissioner dejesus: what is 6, 7, 8, and 9? commissioner chan: that is the ratio of the breakdown, age, gender, race, et cetera. >> and the police department does not have that information that is provided to us by them. the only thing we received is whether it is a match as it goes through, but we don't necessarily do anything with that information. president marshall: do you want to ask questions as he goes forward? >> i have my closing comments.

commissioner chan: sure, go ahead. >> i would like to thank the i.d. tags for gathering this information. while some were entering the statistics manually so we could pull the statistics out into electronic sheets, the other teches were keeping up with the regular workload of the information, and i estimated approximately 200 man hours spread between 18 personnel went into gathering these statistics in the course of the last two months. so thank you. any questions? president marshall: thank you. commissioner chan. commissioner chan: thank you for your time in putting this together. thank you to the chief for putting your personnel time into this. as we move forward we might reduce the frequency of this report so save the department time and money. i am mindful going forward we might not always pay as much time to this issue at the commission pleating.

-- meeting. i wanted to since we are in our third month now at s-comm to continue speaking with the commissioner. this is the second report on s-comm. it was activated on june 8, 2010. it looks like from our audit it covers a three-month period, june, july, and august, and we gathered as much information as we could. i do have a little outside information from i.c. e. i.c.e. was reported that 10 people have been deported from san francisco in the last three months due to s-comm. of those 10, six have noncriminal back grounds, and only one has been convicted of a serious crime. keep that in mind as we also look at these numbers, as to how many people have been deported. i also wanted to point out some 23459 national staff so we can

point out what's happening in san francisco with national stats. what we have here is a brief picture of s-comm. naturally s-comm had been implemented for two years. so we did this because i.c.e. was not releasing any information, but there were a couple national groups that sued i.c.e. to get these documents. they were recently released. stime documents showing what's happening at the national level. i found them through just googling. the vast majority of them deported through s-comm 30% are for lower-level offenses and noncriminal back grounds. so there have been 37,107 people deported in the last two years under s-comm that were noon noncriticals, level two and level three alleged offenders.

that's coming from a total of 46 thousand,943 people that vn -- have been deported under s-comm. california has the largest number of people deported. 26% of those deported have no criminal history and are not convicted of a serious crime. that's what we have at the national and state level. i want to highlight this as an interesting development because maybe we won't have s-com going forward. i issued a document called "setting the record straight." it is buried in their web site, if you want to look for it.

and on page 6 of this they acknowledge that this program is actually voluntary. they stated if a juries dix does not wish to activate on a scheduled date, it must notify its state aidentification to i.c.e. in writing. i.c.e. will request a meeting to discuss any issues and come to a resolution which may include adjusting the juries dicks activation date or removing the jurisdiction from the plan. a letter recently arrived from the states attorney general that if someone does not want to participate theg formally notify through the state and ice and a possibility of dee delayed deployment or opting out aulingt

all together. sheriff hennessy has requested to the state and the feds, and he's awaiting a response. so at some point we might not be in s-comm city but i think it is important that we continue to analyze this. plabe the next item should be on the ken sent calendar so we save some time. president marshall: commissioner. commissioner hammer: commissioner chan, obviously you are an expert in this area. so i want to ask you briefly. the numbers we got so far, do they match what you expect snd are there surprises here? >> the nubbeds at s-comm natalie are really quite different. -- the numbers at s-comm nagsly are real -- nationally are really quite different. i think there is a higher number at the national level because it has been implemented for a

longer period of time. i think i.c.e. is well aware that we're monitoring them. if we continue to closely monitor, i have a feeling that san francisco numbers might be different because of that. this is a program i.c.e. is getting funding from. they want to make it look good. the national numbers make it look really bad, frankly. san francisco is trying to make their image look nice, so that's my term knowledge of what i -- my personal knowledge of what i think is happening here. there are six with noncriminal back grounds. that's 60%. supposedly s-comm is to target serious criminals. so it is a problem. commissioner hammer: my second question is to the chief. if you have a position, i'm not

sure. do you have an opinion as to whether or not san francisco should try to opt out of s-comm. the mayor made it clear he's the only one who can determine that, so i think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. he would be the chief discusstive of the city. shoo i know commissioner chan is very worried at the national level trying to work in reforming the way this town functions, that those people they deport have serious offenses.

we found out 11-19 had been arrested for fel felonies. so at least in the san francisco universe, it appears that s-comm is being heavily taylor -- tailored. with that said, i have been encaged in this for several years, even before thinking of secure communities. so i am very concerned about the national impact. this is pose supposed to address real criminals as opposed to people coming here to work. havepl -- commissioner hammer: i appreciate that, chief. and the follow-up question i asked you, you mentioned 200 hours a month.

that's people working full-time doing this data. commissioner chan suggested perhaps less frequent reporting. can you come up with ideas to have less burden on the department? 100 hours a plo is -- month is a lot of hours. is it possible we could more narrowly tailor it? >> one of the things that will help is the deployment of a new ais -- avis system. the contract is in its final stages, and we're talking about six months after that to have the avis replace the cumpt avis. so about a year. commissioner hammer: i appreciate that.

23 first of all, i think it is incredibly important stuff. having said that, i am always looking at a way we can be more sufficient. 200 hours when we're losing cops this year is a lot. i am asking if there is a way to somewhat narrow it and give it cost savings at the heart of the data. >> if i might make a discussion, it seems to me national primary concern is the number of level one, level 2, and level 3's that are being arrested. >> i don't think from this information we can imply there is disparity. we will see more hispanics here because there are a number of hispanics families impacted by the financial issue.

-- impacted by the population issue. my concern would be how many level 3s are being arrested, and what is the background behind those level 3's? i think we can cut down a a great deal of work. if we focus on the commission, we could report very regularly, and not spend as much hours. >> i would like to offer a suggestion. thank you, chief, for yir feedback. i would mete with gordon, if that's ok with you, chief, and come up with some ideas. >> ok. blash mash anything else? -- mack president marshall: anything else? commissioner kingsley: this is an important issue. >> it is an important issue to

fwaur the information and what to look at. >> i'm sure commissioner chan and you have tailored it somewhat, with you oh, -- but when there is something new, hopefully we can continue to tream line it. i do appreciate the number of hours going forward, and hopefully we'll be able to cut back on some of those hours. with the new avis maybe it will be easier to doom in on this type of information. the other states are important as well. commissioner dejesus: i think it is important that we do this. commissioner hammer: so they formally requested -- >> as a person that actually

responds to the containers from ice, he's coming from a place of authority and responsibility in making that request. >> we should also keep in -- commissioner chan: we should also keep in mind that the board was given the option to opt out on may 21 in a 9-2 vote. commissioner hammer: commissioner chan, you brought that to our attention. i want to commend you for that. it is something to say that your theory, which is probably true, which is that because we are closely monitoring it, it probably is stopping some nontrils criminals from being caught up in this, so i want to commend you for that.

chan tchan thank you for helping out. commissioner chan: thank you for helping out. president marshall: all right. i will take public comment on this item, item number 5. none. thank you. lieutenant we move to item number 6. >> item 6 is a discussion and possible action to issue police commission subpoenas in the matter of case numbers c09-015 and c 09-255. this is routine request for subpoenas in this matter. we just need to issue them with the commission's authority hyped them. -- behind them. >> i have had a meeting with both council prior to this evening's commission hearing. what we need to do, if the

commissioners approve, is move line item 6 floo line item 11, the closed session -- we can't do that? commissioner chan: although, i believe they should probably be in closed session. i think it would have to be. that's why i mention it here. commissioner dejesus: can they agree to have the subpoenas only heard in open session?

commissioner hammer: do the parties disagree? >> we have a number of issues that commissioner mazzucco asked to us bring up. mr. cummings would be happy to say we had this -- if i may, that we are sure it meets with his approval as well. commissioner dejesus: can we talk about case number with no names? commissioner hammer: certainly.

>> in the last couple days it occurs to me this is set for september 22 here in front of the commission. we have about six witnesses that are from out of county that need to come in. i also understand there is another discipline case scheduled for next week which is one that might be called a time-out case. we only have two more weeks to finish that case. this matter, i think, therefore, we won't be ablet to conclude on the 2 p -- 2nd. and i bo hate to have wints coming in from out of town and then not be able to finish the hearing. we had some conversations with commissioner mazzucco around the ways that we might be able to expand upon an agreement we previously brought to you but had not been with the commission's approval. we hoped that some of the additions that made to that settlement agreement would be something we could talk about on the 22nd in lieu of having the

hearings, since we won't be able to have the hearing anyway and perhaps gain the approval anyway. specifically, i think accused officer would be willing to agree there would be certain admissions made if that officer didn't abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. i thought that was the very creative solution, and it is certainly one that i think makes the agreement even more enforceable than it already was. and so if it is all right with the commission it would be a better use of resources and probably more fair to the winds if we have this on for settlement next week in lieu of the hearing. >> i met with both counsel, i actually met with him before, and there is a resolution and disposition has been approved by the chief. the main issue with that disposition is just timing. it is all about timing. we do have the two matters set for the 22nd. one is a no-time waiver, which would take precedence, so we

wouldn't be able to handle both matters that evening, and if, in fact, this matter did get continued, it would be continued to a date past the date that these accounts pr both agreeing with being an effective day for starting the disposition. i broached the subject with them and both counsel greed today, that if -- greed to today, that if the officer does not agree to that position, the officer will agree that each and every one of the legislation allegations in the complaint, he is guilty of those allegations, and the next step would be for this commission to meet and discuss punishment. >> different city foreign? >> different city attorney. >> we had a conversation, as commissioner hammer and dejesus know, people down at the hall of justice every day wave numerous constitutional rights, in a

matter of minutes they can waive seven or eight, and this here we can make the same a arrangements to facilitate this disposition so we have no one gaming the system, which has been one of the biggest complaints about what happens in disciplinary hearings. i mentioned this and counsel agreed to this. so the question is, do we allow them to continue to do that, or do we spend departmental resources for court reporters, hearing officers, hearings, having winds come forward, the cost of putting the case on? including this matter, there will be, as you heard, winds from other police agent -- police officers from other police agencies. my idea is to go -- my

suggestion is the idea to go with if the officer does not admit -- the officer has admitted each and every allegation in the complaint, he will be subject to the discipline of the commission based on what the department has qupped requested on the complaints. brshbrsh [not audible] -- president marshall: [not audible] commissioner hammer: i think there is a way that an officer binds himself to the agreement and there are ways that aren't binding, in which indication he could flip out in two months -- which indicates he could flip out in two months. he stays on the payroll month after month, year after year, and they never quite get the hearing. i can imagine a way that a binding agreement from the

officer could happen next week. that way i would support it. if it is not binding, i would not sign that. to put it out there, i think the way to make it binding is, he comes in, he ad mits all the allegations on -- admits all the allegations on the record with the agreement that if he retires on a certain date we will withdraw all that, but if he doesn't, we move on to punishment at that time. we admit them on the record with the understanding that if he retires by that date, we will withdraw the plea, but if he doesn't, we would proceed immediately to the penalty phase. that would be binding. >> commissioner, i should tell you, that throughout the course of the department, there was someone who told us it was binding. i concur that someone else in city attorney's office gave us

contrary advice. with that said, we're happy to do whatever you would like. commissioner hammer: would your client be willing to come in and admit thes -- admit the allegations that he would be willing to sign it. >> he would be willing to retire on the 19th offer 20th of november, and we would execute a -- an agreement binding that he would admit to the two allegations and they could proceed on the penalty phase. we would also want, however, if he did, in fact, retire, which he will, i give you my absolute

representation, for what its worth, that he will retire on the 21st. commissioner hammer: there would be admissions on the record which we could later withdraw. >> i don't know how we could fashion this. i want to give you a winding agreement, but i want it such that he would be able to say if they were isolated or wrong that he retired and the allegations were dismissed later on. we are wondering if there can be a piece of peapape which he signs, fully understood, admissions, everything else, but that -- force hamilton hament we do -- commissioner hammer: we do this in criminal courts all the time. we will save the city lots of money by taking this position and no one will be