commissioner. if they're going to speak in my name, i want them to have all the facts. we need to look at the auditing report part of it, the oversight part of it, the word here is criminal nexus, we should state what the law is. we should move forward. the bureau order can be changed with the different sheets by signature. i think we need to solidify the policy, put it in writing, agree upon it, and have it set forth. that is what i propose, that we continue moving forward. thank you. president mazzucco: thank you. commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i think we're all looking at this order for the first time and i understand your per -- your concern about the ability of the

new chief to change it without the commission's approval. i get that. the concern you have about the order not being sufficiently specific with respect to chain of command and officers needing to comply, i am a little bit less -- i don't see it as well because of the line in the order. we are reading it for the first time today. sfpd who work with the jttf are under the chain of command and must comply with department policies at all times. i read that as saying, you had best be in compliance with 8.10 i do not want anyone to be misled. this is sang, this is a policy procedure. we're not limiting this order to sing you only need to be in

compliance with 8.10. you need to be in compliance with all of these general orders. i understand your concern, making sure there is the commission directive, but does and that language alleviates some of the concerns that the officers are free to ignore -- >> if this was an order that were directed at officers only operating in a sfpd context, not out of the fbi, under an mou, i would agree with you. i don't question the intent to leave no daylight between the order. if you look at the mou, the fbi told us nine days ago they're going to enforce -- there's a provision that says even if the supervisor has security clearance, you have to get specific permission from the fbi supervisor for the sfpd's supervisor to talk to his own

officer. the fbi told us directly they are going to, as long as you are in the mou path, and i don't know why you would stay there, given a transition to a resolution, but as long as that mou is there and the fbi is telling some of us, the aclu, i cannot speak for the human rights commission, but if they are telling us they will enforce it, and we don't have anything in writing, this is not -- i have a lot of respect for chief suhr. i don't think he can issue an order to the fbi and expect them to follow it. when i asked the question, is there any reason that san francisco cannot adopt a resolution, and she said san francisco is an independent city, certainly has the authority to set its own standards, as portland. we are operating under an mou

that they can block. commissioner slaughter: i think we're all frustrated the fbi is not here to answer some of these questions. i think that would help us. with respect to representation'' you are making, i have heard of the representations about compliance with 8.10. i still don't see how this language in the order that says the lot -- officers must be in compliance come if they're not -- i will leave it that. i think the language here in this bureau order can be improved upon. i also respect chief suhr and his effort to make sure there is no daylight between sfpd's obligations to being compliance with these important policies. >> rich -- with respect to the standards, the chart we presented to you we went over line by line with the fbi and said, is there anything here

that is not accurate? they agreed it was accurate. they say we don't always apply those guidelines. we are more limited. what the guidelines say, the controlling documents, it is exactly, according to the agreement, what we showed you. she said, we want to retain our flexibility. >> i don't think it is beneficial to get into a long back and forth. police officers remain in the chain of command and are subject to policies and procedures. >> i have a question for perhaps you, president mazzucco, or chief suhr, people who have been working with this for a period of time. we are working under an ammo you and have been since 2002 -- an mou since 2002, rather than a resolution.

what is your impression in terms of the distinction and the differences of the relationship that might exist between a resolution-based relationship and an mou relationship basis with the fbi? i am asking this question because i am hearing that a lot of the issues would be taken care of if we were under the resolution-based relationship. how would it change if we shifted to a resolution-based rather than [inaudible] >> i cannot speak for sure. my guess would be that all of the jttf's operated via mou until portland. he is shaking his head, that is not true.

maybe he can help us with the answer. >> the attorney testified in portland that portland was not this first -- not the for city. others are operating in the jttf without an mou. >> [inaudible] i know you have explained -- [inaudible] we can effectuate what we intend within san francisco and the police if we are under a resolution relationship. what are the conceivable -- >> to be quite honest with you, i have seen no downside. if sfpd has complied with 8.10 now, it allows the exact same activities you are engaging in right now to continue to apply. it allows for civilian oversight and avoids confusion of an mou base.

the fbi took out everything related to local control. it avoids the confusion of the fbi saying they can block it. the one difference, but it should have no impact, is the mou provides for depute physician -- deputization. that is important on a practical level because it gives those officers the authority to exercise federal powers. if what we are saying is they can do their jobs under local powers, under local standards, if what we're saying is they can and we want them and they can be effective, as we all want them to protect us from terrorism, by exercising san francisco powers, they don't need the deput ization. they said it is a huge win for

combating terror giving the portland officers the same security clearance, the same level, the same access to information they need to do their job to keep us safe. the technical difference is they would not be deputized. i do not believe what you would be giving up, unless there are things going on that nobody knows about that they are not supposed to be doing. i am not suggesting that is the case. it seems it is the perfect win- win. the way to exercise it is notify them your during the transition period you have 60 days to talk about it and fix it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> man, president? -- may i, president? >> thank you, commission president. i think i owe it to the

community to first make a comment to say that it was public hysteria that caused all these jttf and surveillance in the community. i believe that we have all the good intentions in the world to solve the problem. it is actually regrettable that the special agents and fbi are not in the room today and we can ask them directly the questions. a lot of the answers seem to be how they will treat the mou's, or resolutions, or whatever we move forward with. i have a question for director sparks. on what the commission role has got to be moving forward, in terms of our continued relationship in this matter? >> commissioner come up to this

point, we have been mediating between various community groups, organizations, and different agencies. we would anticipate we would continue doing that. we have met several times with aclu and asian law caucus. we have met with asian law caucus and aclu with the police department. we have met with the police department separately, with the fbi separately, with the u.s. attorney separately. we have been trying to gather independent information from the various stakeholders, including the community, to determine what we think would be the correct path, and present that to the stakeholders to try to get some type of resolution that is acceptable to everyone. >> the reason why i ask this question ais as a transgendered woman and a person of color, i know what it means to live in fear and being profiled. i think that is part of the reason why we are here tonight.

as the human rights commission, i believe the fundamental human rights, or one of the fundamental human rights, of all residents is to be able to live without fear in the city and county that we all love. and to be able to do that, part of it is to be able to pick up the phone and dial 911 when we are in need. and so it is really important for the communities that are being profiled or being surveillance to be able to feel that they have the ability to do that without feeling like they're going to become a you know, profiled while they do that, you know? will they be the next target? will they be the next person that is being isolated or singled out? i think those are the key issues that we need to continue to address. it is not just about building the relationship with specific

departments. it is about building trust with the community. i think that has not been discussed yet. i hope that moving forward, you know, hearing public comment, we will be able to come up with some additional resolution to address that. >> commissioner, i agree with you fully. in meeting with the community coming keep in mind, these are perceptions. their statements of what is going on. in their rose -- in their mind, those perceptions are there reality, unless we can get a trust between public organizations and the community. also keep in mind many of these individuals come from communities where there is a much different power dynamic between the community and law enforcement. we need to acknowledge that. i agree with that 100%. what we as a human rights commission are trying to do is get input from all sectors and then come back to you and the

police commission in conjunction with president mazzucco and chairs wheat to come back to both commissions and say, this is what we have determined. this is what we believe this the correct position. this is how we think we should move forward. >> i would like to thank everyone for turning up tonight. i want to commend chief suhr right out of the gate, to so positively reflect the standards. i have a question. it follows commissioner kingsley pose a question. i would like to refer back to the other questions. my question specifically is, the first part is for chief suhr.

is there anything in the transition into a resolution, irresolution that might reflect these publicly accepted 2002 mou's, that you anticipate would be a significant issue, or maybe that the police commissioner has more experience than i have would be an obstacle to doing that conceptually. i know we don't have a resolution in front of us. >> the police department does not to resolution. i am not in the resolution business. i don't see how -- like what i did with the unit order, my desire was to incorporate everything as close as possible to closing the gaps between 8.10, the 2002 mou, and the 20 -- and a 2007 memo you. depending on whoever would be in that business of creating the resolution, that would be on them. >> the second part of that, mr.

crew, you mentioned the portland resolution did not allow for any deputization. i am wondering if a resolution -- with that preclude deputization? >> the concept is something that the federal government provides to local entities. if you think about this, the police commission could pass a resolution saying we are going to notify that we are doing the transition, we are opting out of the mou in 60 days, here are the standards we want to apply, something like the 2002 mou, but the police commission does not have the authority to grant federal deputization.

you can ask the federal government if they would be willing to do that outside of the mou context. typically, the federal government wants the mou for that. the practical effect i think would be nil because deputization is so they can exercise federal power. you don't need them to do that. you want them to exercise local power. does that answer your question? >> if i may, just keep in mind, the resolution in portland was a city council resolution. it was not a resolution of a civilian oversight body. it was a resolution of the city council of portland. obviously, different power structure. >> the city government in portland, there is a civilian commissioner for public safety who happens to be the mayor. the commission is incorporated into the city council. in our government, the police

commission is the governing entity and it would have the power. supervisors probably would, but i assume the police commission is the appropriate body to ask first. >> it would not necessarily preclude the mou that aligns with that. >> absolutely. the mou is between two parties. the fbi has told us they will not change the current mou. maybe you can convince them otherwise. >> i would hope the mou could be passed. later on, it would reflect the resolution and allow for deputization, if that is needed. >> that would be fantastic. president mazzucco: further comments? i think it is time to move to public comment. >> comment on item two.

>> we will have people lined up to make their comments. due to the volume of the expected comments come a commission is setting the timer at two minutes. >> commissioners, thank you for letting me speak one more time. i would like to say san francisco ain't portland. i don't know what portland can do to mimic san francisco, but i'm a resident of this county. if you look at the blocks and the last mayor selection, 70% of the people in this county did not vote because you worried more about orders that the police are supposed to carry out. the fbi isn't even here to give their point or view. i would like to hear what a federal government has to say whether the local police should enforce federal laws or not.

dennis spent 60 days in washington, d.c., off and on when the center laws were put into effect because the federal government said they would come down to san francisco and arrest up to 50 people. we was doing a road show back and forth for several weeks to stop that. as a resident of the county of san francisco, i would like the murder rate to go down. i would like the crime rate to go down. i have a lot of issues with the sfpd. i have been voicing them for 19 months in front of the commission. doing their jobs is not one of them. this city has a crime rate probably unmatched by any county or city in the country. you worry more about the ethnic community when a lot of the ethnic people in the community are worried about it themselves. it just so happens that a lot of crime in this city is coming

from the ethnic community. the majority of them are not to blame. it is a very small percentage. you keep protecting them. we have murderers on the street. muggers are on the street. they are still on the street. i have seen the network. [tone] >> members, i am the director of open government. in 2008, i had the privilege and responsibility of being a field election deputy for the primary and general elections that were held here in san francisco. the areas in the precinct over which i had oversight were in the bayview hunters point area. the number one question i received from both members of the public and from my precinct captains was whether or not there was any truth to the idea

that the police department, the sheriff's department, and the department of the elections had gotten together, got in a list of all people with outstanding warrants, and collated them with the precincts in which they were scheduled to vote. i don't think anyone here has any doubt that there are serious questions about the relations between the police department and various sectors of this community. here we're talking about the relationship between the arab- american, muslim american communities, and the police department. i think the thing we did in september 11 that shot ourselves in the foot was we took actions which alienated the vast majority of those communities who would have been the perfect people to work with us hand in glove to fight the very things that we were a poured by the and they themselves had an equal level of shock. we did things which alienated

them and have them go back to man those bridges to get those cooperation. these are the people who would of had the information nor could of got in the information that would have made our jobs easier. i think 95% or better of the officers have excellent performance and ideas in this area. i think it is those majority that and of dealing with the public. [tone] they have the perception they may not follow the law, which makes their job harder. >> good evening. 1960's, there was a major house on activity -- house un-american activities committee. there's a dark history here. i'm a board member of the

national organization. this was conceived and organized in 1960, known as the national organization to undo the house un-american activities committee. i am here as a concerned citizen surprised by the steps san francisco has taken. there's a long diversity of opinions of dissent. this seems to a blended with the signing of the jttf agreement. your local tourist action is being served by organizations. as a result, your police department is more accountable to the federal government than to the community it is supposed to serve. the agreement also has an

oversight body for the preservation of community policing. it makes any human rights complaints almost useless. they would have to go to the fbi. over the past 10 years, many arab-americans have been subject to intense and unwarranted scrutiny -- scrutiny by such organizations, like the fbi and others. it has not only been the fbi. people have been alienated from civic participation. [tone] sfpd should recall what john crew mentioned, the expos pay. >> your time is up. sorry. >> yesterday we shredded the bill of rights.

today by being part of the jttf, is treading it's part of the bill of rights. i call on your good conscience for you to urge the board of supervisors -- >> sir? thank you. next speaker, please. >> the evening. i am the student national vice president for the guild and the national lawyers guild here in san francisco. i want to thank you for holding this hearing. i feel like this entire thing is about local control and transparency. i think there was a number of perceptive questions from commissioners regarding the bureau order and the local patrol issue. i think what needs to be really clear, as far as i understand it, and mr. crew pointed out, the bureau order does not

supersede the mou. that is the core issue. i urge you to consider the issue of a resolution. i was at the police commission meeting a couple months ago where the audit was discussed. there was not a lot of information. i don't think it is clear that it can actually be fully in place when we are in the mou because the audit -- it is not clear what we can access when we are in the mou as the way it is structured. one of the provisions is that the files on jttf investigations are not kept with the san francisco police department. a lot of things are not clear. it is not clear how much information we can access. i think those are the issues that really get to local control. as everyone as mentioned, the fbi is not here.

that goes to the issue that everybody here is very concerned about civil liberties and the issues that have been raised, but those things cannot be addressed unless we have a local control that we cannot have with the mou, particularly as it currently is written. [tone] thank you. >> and didn't start the clock yet, right?

so i want to thank theresa sparks for putting this on, and i am glad you all are meeting together. i am not a san francisco resident. i work in this city a few days a week. i'm considering moving to san francisco at the end of the year. i am here because i have experience with the fbi. in 2002, i was the national director of an education fund. i move from the san francisco beria to washington to do civil rights work. i did that for three years and i serve on the national board of the aclu. i am not representing either organization today. during my tenure, i trained