justice system. in risk means the population in contact with into the justice system. that is the big difference. we have defined it in a different way. not to emphasize where the problem is more severe, but to emphasize what target, who we are targeting. these dollars are supposed to target youth in the juvenile justice system primarily of or involved with criminal justice. >> i just wanted to add the five agencies that provide days after carry entry services include cyc, cjcjc, ymca services. although these agencies and programs are focused in particular communities, they were all over the city.

violence happens all over the city and affects all of us. supervisor avalos: thank you. there are no other questions from the committee, we can go on to public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank the department for your presentation and for your great work on this. it is exciting that we are getting to a level of understanding what types of modalities are going to work in our community. i see the consensus builder around this is key to its success. i'm also excited to hear about and the consensus right now. 57 is not a member i have heard of before. fighting that is remarkable. now interested in seeing how we can keep that number even the lower. that presents decades of looking at why gc's have worked.

preventing over and corporate -- incarceration in general is the key. thank you for your work and look forward to seeing greater success coming out of your departments. colleagues, can remove this item forward with recommendations? without objection. madam clerk, please call our first item. >> item 1 appeared ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code by adding section 2a.84 to set city policy regarding participation in federal cut tourism activities, too, set parameters for police department participation in the activities of the federal bureau of investigation possum joint terrorism task force and other counter-terrorism activities, 3, urging the chief of police to amend or terminate the current agreement between the police department and the federal

bureau of investigation regarding the joint terrorism task force, and for, urging the police commission to direct the chief to amend or terminate that agreement. supervisor avalos: thank you. the author of this legislation is supervisor jane kim. supervisor kim, the mike is yours. >> i first wanted knowledge our committee members here today on the public safety committee. thank you for your post on to ship of this ordinance. on january 24, our office, on behalf of a broad coalition of community advocates, civil- rights advocates, and to do is an ordinance called save san francisco ordinance. our highest restored it is safe communities. we believe that this ordinance will allow us to achieve safer communities by encouraging an atmosphere that allows communication and collaboration

because basic civil-rights and the right to privacy are insured, and that ground as investigations are not tolerated. believe this ordinance will allow us to continue to do work with the fbi joint terrorism task force while comply with local part san francisco laws that require criminal activity, local oversight, and control. this ordinance came to us from the community because there were concerns of racial profiling and intimidation in the city of san francisco. these committee members include neighbors from asian, aaron, and muslim neighborhoods who want to know that police will not engage in infiltration without cause. this has gone through a fairly long process. this was not legislation that just came out of the air. it happened over two years. the coalition worked starting then with the human rights commission, eventually

accumulating in a major hearing in 2010. the result was a comprehensive report endorsed by the board of supervisors last year. the board's resolution stated community members are concerned about criminalization of their identity and go by association becoming the standard for policing and national security strategies. the coalition along with our office work closely with our city attorney to craft an ordinance to restore local control, civilian oversight, and transparency over sfpd participation and intelligence gathering. i have several members of the community here today to talk more about the history, some of the issues they seek for the in place without this ordinance, and also some examples of other cities and what they have done to ensure civil-rights. i do want to call them forward. i want to make it clear, this legislation is not about blaming any entity for what is going on

today. it is merely for ensuring our civil rights and ensuring for our residents that we do not already investigation that do not have a grounds and criminal suspicion of some sort of terrorist or criminal activity, and that we respect the basic civil rights and the rights of privacy for every resident in the city. first, i want to copy -- of the arab organizing center. the organizations coming today have spent hours and months of their time to bring this ordinance together and organizing the community around this measure. supervisor avalos: before that starts, we are going to open up public comment so that we can hear from members of the public.

we are going to open up public comment. we will do three minutes. not everyone has to use all three minutes, but we are available to hear you out on your comments. >> thank you. supervisor avalos: i think we will do it this way. there is a presentation that supervisor kim has with certain people. those people can be ready. then we will have general public come forward. wherever she cause of should come up to the mike. >> i will call four speakers that will go into the background of this ordinance, the history, current or mids we see, and also the example of what has happened in portland, ore., and then we

will open up for general public comment where people can come up and speak. >> thank you. i am and the immigration program coordinator at day care resource and organizing center, a member of the coalition for a safe san francisco. my sincere thanks for holding this hearing today and many thanks for your support of this important legislation. i want to discuss briefly how the community got to where we are today. in march 2010, the san francisco police chief may troubling comments at a fund-raising brunch. he stated that the san francisco hall of justice is not just susceptible to an earthquake, but also to members of the city 's middle eastern community parking in front of it and blowing it up. the remarks enraged the larger arab, middle eastern, muslim, and southeastern asia the community who understood the

remarks as reflecting a racist culture, and many had experienced firsthand in the aftermath of 9/11. the coalition of save san francisco first came around these remarks and fought for an apology. although an apology was issued, the then-police chief was not doesn't -- this about his plans to honor an intelligence unit. this give the coalition a new focus. the coalition started discussions on how the communities we come from were being impacted by bias law enforcement, and collectively, the coalition decided that arab, muslim, and south asian communities in san francisco needed a way to collectively voice their concerns to city governors. we approached the human rights commission with an idea that -- hrc had an official meeting to address these concerns. over six months, the coalition worked long sidestep to pull

together a successful hearing. together with the hrc, we held an historic hearing with hundreds of committee members in attendance today, dozens of whom shared their stories with human rights commissioners, and many other officials, including three members of our board of supervisors. after the hearing, the coalition, alongside with hrc put together a report to summarize the hearing and make recommendations to entities within city government to act upon. we worked hard to have this report adopted unanimously by the hrc and board of supervisors. soon after the hrc hearing, the coalition ensure the most important recommendation in the report were met. central to these hrc recommendations is that all san francisco police officers, including those assigned to the fbi joint terrorism task force

should follow local and state law when engaging in surveillance activities. we filed a record request and discovered in march 2011, in 2007, the sfpd had secretly signed a memorandum of understanding with the fbi. the mou, which was entered into without consultation with the san francisco city attorney, police commission, were members of the general public, dictates that the terms of the relationship between sfpd -- supervisor avalos: your time is up, but i believe supervisor kim has a follow-up question. >> i was court to ask you to speak more about the impetus that led to this. >> the ordinance or in the report? >> the hrc report. what i'm asking you to do is continue.

. you do not have to think of anything new. continue describing the impetus that led us to the point where we are at today. >> we were part with simulators. in may 2010 we held a joint hearing with the police commission and human rights. thereafter we approached supervisor kim because she is the supervisor of the district where many of our mosques, many of our members live and have businesses. we have been working hard with supervisor kim to craft an advocate for the passage of this legislation that would require application of local and state privacy standards and local or sip standards and control as to sfpd officers working alongside the fbi policy toward terrorism taskforce. we are thankful for supervisor kim to have brought this to reduce this legislation and we are thankful for you being here

today and for the supervisor that have co-sponsored, and also to the community members that are really great to come out here despite a discourage a climate of discrimination to share their stories and worked with you. -- words with you. supervisor kim: next i want to call up a member of the asian law caucus to talk more about the current issues with the fbi guidelines and assessments. >> on behalf of asian law caucus and coalition for safe san francisco, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. i would like to speak briefly about the existing fbi standards and how does differ from local laws, but i also want to share with you my personal experience being interviewed by the fbi. there are differences did in the federal, state, and mobile standards. under the fbi for more, they fall into three different types of investigations.

under full investigations, those require reasonable suspicion before they can be undertaken. under preliminary investigation, which requires a fax from predicate but no action. the most thing that we find troubling is assessment peer those must be based on an opera purchase but did not require any particular predicate. imagine that, no factual predicate in order to surveil people or use informants in their communities. in a recent article, it was revealed between march 2009 and march 2011, over 82,000 of these assessments were done. by contrast, the california constitution requires an articular bulk predicate for all criminal activity. seven discussed and it requires any investigative activity or intermission gathering involving any first amended activity must be based on our table and reasonable suspicion of significant criminal activity and the first amendment activity must be relevant to the

investigation. that is all to say the fbi standards are problematic and local staff to provide for the protection of our community. this leads me to my second point, which is this is real. the arab middle eastern, muslim, and south asian communities have been subject to racial profiling in the aftermath of 9/11. i was subject myself to an fbi interview. in 2001, was a college student. the horrific events of 9/11 or ee for me. i was shocked and deeply harm would have been done for my country. as an immigrant from afghanistan, i understood pretty quickly afghan lives would soon be lost as well. in the days after september 11, a co-worker told everyone in afghanistan should die for what had happened to america. i am sorry. as you can imagine, i tried to inform her that innocent people should not die for the paris conduct of others. my reward for my civic engagement was a call by an fbi

agent informing me that i had to meet him at a starbucks or he would meet me at my home. being a member of a family that survived a war, i did not want to subject my family to a visit from the fbi. i did not know i had a time -- at the time to refuse or request an attorney present. he asked me about my family history or background. i told them about my father who was tortured and executed in the war. to be subjected to that question was frightening and had nothing to do with anything, and my story is not a typical pier recently, i took underrepresentation of a middle eastern college student who was approached for an interview. i spoke with the fbi, determined -- inform them that my client did not want to speak with them, and that appears to be the end of it. supervisor kim: could you talk more about what happened with this middle eastern college student? >> he was approached by an fbi

agent who said i want to learn more about the country or from, i want to ask you questions. he said, i am a college student studying engineering. why do you want to talk to me about that? they said, of just please talk to us. he felt uncomfortable and intimidated and told them, i do not want to talk. they would not stop. the military repeatedly. he continued to tell them i do not want to talk. he contacted organizations like asian law caucus. in the interim, the fbi agent came to his home in the evening and put a card under his door. how intimidated would you feel if he knew a police officer was coming to your door and putting their target by your door? it was very upset and i contacted the fbi agent and informed them i wanted them to know what it was they wanted from my client. when it became clear to me they were really just on a fishing expedition, i said my client will -- does not want to do

that. my client was extremely grateful that he did not have to go through that process. i am grateful that he did not have to go through it either. it was really difficult for me to go through and i should not have had to have gone through it. when i was subjected to an interview, i was afraid. today, i am angry. i want to profiling and intimidation of my community to stop. this ordinance ensures the proper status will be in place to protect our community. this ordinance matters because based on the standards applied by the fbi today, anyone can be subjected to the trip but i was. this affects everyone. thank you. thank you for sharing your story. -- supervisor kim: thank you for sharing your story. i want to acknowledge, many folks who are speaking today have come to make a major step and are taking a courageous step to speak in public about these things because they are very challenging and difficult to tell. there is a lot of fear at and of

retaliation about speaking up about your personal experiences. i wanted thank you for taking that first step today. next, i want to call up -- from the islamic association of northern california. >> thank you, supervisor kim. thank you for the public safety committee for hearing why we are here and why we are concerned. i am the executive director of the san francisco bay area office of care for the islamic nations. since i joined in 2009, i represented or worked with an average of one individual per week with complaints of harassment targeting, or questioning by federal law- enforcement. none of my clients have ever been charged with a crime, but many of them have been

questioned about their religious and political beliefs. an unfortunate consequence of federal and local cooperation on practices that have resulted in civil rights abuse has been a growing apprehension of law enforcement generally. as such, care supports the save as the sole rights ordinance because we believe that restore local control over intelligence gathering will restore trust in local law enforcement. there has been a lot of talk about the portland solution, so i want to spend some time contextualizing what is happening and why we think it should be a model for san francisco. in terms of history, portland was the only city that had chosen to opt out of the standard memorandum of understanding with the fbi entirely. they're not convinced of the need to protest pay and the joint terrorism task force. a lot of this changed following the christmas tree bombing attempt. the tone of law enforcement and counterterrorism took a new direction. not because bidding in task force was no longer an option.

how could about civil liberties concerns and security work? the solution was that there would be local legislation. changing the terms of engagement between the police department and fbi. process of passing the legislation was open and transparent. you love the input from those of arts advocates and federal law enforcement. is worth noting in poor and the fbi operatives bid in the process and publicly dialogue with and endorsed the local legislation. legislation in portland that in contrast to the standard 2007 mou being utilized in the case of a sense of the police department facilitated this patient in the joint terrorist task force while ensuring various civil liberties concerns the elected by the memorandum of understanding were addressed. recently, the portland police chief issued a first annual reports on the joint terrorism task force. some key things to know include police officers in portland continue to be able to put his bid in the full range of jttf

activities through legislation. a concern that pivots been raised in san francisco is the ability to purchase bid in confidential briefings. the portland reports there evidence that opposition given access to those briefings. the fbi did not and will not block their progress addition in the jttf, even if they are subject to local civil rights and protection. cheap reported they were directly with the federal court is on jttf matters. the look of the park and has been able to directly applied its own civil rights standards to its own officers bursa's what was previously offered by the fbi in san francisco. supervisor kim: continue to speak about what is happening in portland. >> the standard mou blog standard authority pier the cesar toward an six to resolve that and six local control over at the sfpd officer assignments and reviews as it has in portland. the portland police chief it affirmed strong multilevel

redundant oversight as is the best practice in the realm of sensitive intelligence work is being applied in portland. this is consistent with the code and will be codified with the safe as of or men's and is necessary in light of the fbi directive blocking this type of local oversight. the chief and city attorney kent, as a result of direct oversight, make credible assurances that no civil rights law violations have taken place, rather than simply asking us to trust their assurances. the port wmata works and the recent reports indicate this. we are not as as need to trust our assurances. reporting to him on that and tried and tested. support of the save as of civil rights ordinance will ensure sfpd can continue its work of protecting san francisco while also safeguarding the civil liberties of those their work to protect. thank you for your time. supervisor mar: could i ask a question? why do you think it took a year?

it was april 2011 for portland to pass a strong civil liberties, civil rights protection of its residents, of promoting local control over a anti counterterrorism work. why did they pass a year ago and it has taken us this help -- as long? just curious. >> i will defer to my colleague if he has any insight. but my perspective, borden was coming from a different place. they had not been participating with the jttf at all. a lot of times, this work is driven by fear. hear, what is slowing us down is the fear that if we change the rules of engagement with the fbi, we might be less safe. we are coming at it from different directions. supervisor mar: on behalf of the experience of the council and bay area, but are different examples of how affiliation with is lot more faith-based affiliation has led to brown the searches or arrests of people?

i wonder if you could give us the anecdotes or information. >> it is a good thing my clients to not get arrested, but at the same time, it is frightening that they are frequently harassed by law enforcement when there is no actual suspicion of criminal activity. the clients i have represented have been questioned on everything from what mosque do you attend, who is the religious leader, who participates in those classes with you? i have been -- i have had clients asked about how long their beards are, how long they pray, tested by fbi agents. they are told we believe everything you are saying, you did not want to harm the country, but what you take a lie-detector test to prove it? at this time in history, that is unique to the muslim community. it is also important to say, it is not exclusive to muslim communities. many communities have experienced similar things over

time and continue to suffer with us. >> supervisor kim: thank you. our last speaker is from the aclu, who boasted about the actual ordinance before us today. scores, you have your three minutes. after that, i will ask the committee to ask questions, if the have questions about the ordinance. >> let me start with an apology to the interpreter. i will try to slow down. my name is john. i am here on behalf of 10,000 aclu members in san francisco who feel very strongly about these issues. while we care about the range of civil rights issues, the reason we have 10,000 members right now is because what has been going on post 9/11. we plan to let them know when their supervisors, when the mayor does on an import issue like this. personally, i have 25 years of experience working on police

issues nationally and locally. i coordinated the aclu campaign against russia profiling and worked on a number of important policies with the sfpd, one of which is the intelligence policies that are the subject of this ordinance today. i wanted thank supervisor kim for her leadership, the three co-sponsors who are here, and the two other sponsors in the room. we are pleased people are standing up for sentences can festival rites. i am honored to work with his coalition. i feel like john boehner. the question that this ordinance poses simply, it boils down to its san francisco will work with the federal government on counter-terrorism activities, hoosier controls activities? shouldn't these seven systems or the fbi? we think it should be sent and siskins. that is the mall that has been established in court, but it is

entirely doable here. beyond that, should the controls be clear in writing, articulated, and illegal? we do not have the right now. i do not want to repeat what has been said. my job is to talk about the legal issues. they play out in personal ways. the stakes are, our constitutional rights to privacy that are still in effect at guard against these activities, a strong local policy against intelligence abuses that includes supervisor accountability and a corporate standard, a strong anti racial policy that prohibits in this town the use of race, religion, or national origin to an extent if you're not dealing with and subject description. the fbi after 911 cardona a huge exception in the racial profiling policies for national security matters. that is why we have these tactics going on today. finally in san francisco, we have the city of refuge ordinance that requires our law

enforcement agency not to engage in federal immigration enforcement. and in a number of communities, including immigration activities. we have had for many years mentors civilian oversight. the history of this issue in the past is that san francisco stood up for these protections. when the fbi first said that it wanted to form the jttf and 1 sfpd to be involved in it, they provided an mou that said we did not want your control or policies. then mayer brown said thank you but no thank you. we care about public safety but we also care about our values and standards. initially, the mayor stood up and said we will not sign that agreement. if you have questions, i can briefly wrap this up. supervisor kim: talk more about what happened in 2002 and thereafter. then we will open up for committee questions. >> in 2002, they came up with an