put on there by the courts. the em does not exist so the courts would have an option for em pretrial electronic monitoring that currently does not exist. >> from my perspective we're saying low level, right? so they're all low level. so those two potentially can be put on ankle monitors or not >> we don't supersede the courts. we don't make that decision. the courts make the decision. we're instituting -- >> i understand that, but what i don't understand -- i'm trying to understand why this is being added as an additional layer when it seems like there's something that actually exists to support allowing low level offenders the opportunity to potentially get out through pretrial diverse, why is this necessary for the ankle monitoring part of those who have not necessarily been convicted yet? that's what i'm trying to

understand here. >> pretrial diverse itself is a program for certain offenders -- >> lo level offenders. >> misdemeanor offenders and certain misdemeanor charges. normally what happens is this isn't universal, but first time offenders perhaps on first time misdemeanor charges would be eligible for pretrial diverse. what that means is that person gets released by the court on their own promise to come back, but they're deferred to the program, and when they come back to court successfully after however long and whatever things they're supposed to do, their case will be dismissed. that's the specific program. that's not applicable to all misdemeanors and charges and not applicable to any felonies. that small segment of people em is not even an issue for them because they get released. em is only for those people who

after court has reviewed the case does not put them on pretrial diverse, but instead keeps them in custody and sets a bail so they're not eligible for that program. em is another program, if you will, for the court to review the see if this person would be eligible. maybe they can can't go through pretrial diverse, but maybe em's a good way to keep them out of custody but accountable to the your. >> they're not completely considered low level offenders. >> it just depends on what the low level definition is. >> you don't necessarily know what an example might be of anyone who might fall into the category? for example, because we have a system in play with pretrial diverse, we understand how that works, we know who falls in that particular category, but what would potentially be the

next level where it seems you would push for someone who might have behaved well over two month time period, they go to court -- what specific crime are those persons being accused of that might maybe get a judge to potentially say no to pretrial, but this -- you would maybe push as a potential option for them to explore? >> i haven't reviewed the criteria for pretrial diverse in a while, but if my memory serves me right, an example any crime involving violence, a battery charge, even if misdemeanor would not be eligible for pretrial diverse, duis are not eligible. those are misdemeanor charges that are not eligible. >> for clarity it includes potential violent crimes. >> sure. >> okay, thank you.

>> supervisor kim. >> my line of question is to continue supervisor breed's line. you've answered her question, but what is the target pool that would be eligible for the em program? who are you envisioning? >> the exceptions to our rule, the people in our custody come to our attention as being in programs as being low classification, as being -- maybe they came into custody under the influence of narcotics or other type of substance where they're not presenting their best to the court. those are the people who we envision reviewing to say hey, this person is a little bit different than most of the people here in custody awaiting trial.

they're involved in programming, they have no write ups, they're off their drugs or alcohol, they are performing as they should, there's no behavioral issues. those are things that the staff can document, those are the things that the staff knows about that the court and da won't know about that we can say hey, this is the exception to the rule, please take a look at this again. >> and this wouldn't happen before the 30 days? >> under no circumstances. of misdemeanors, minimum of 30 days, felonies is a minimum of 60 days and why that's important is because our classification system which deals with a person's behavior, a person's seriousness of criminal offenses, which deals with a person's gang affiliation, those types of things. not only do we get information as time goes on about how they're performing, we also get the review every 30 to 60 days about is there anything new to evaluate for this specific

person. >> i thought gang affiliation was part of the first day of court. >> certainly ly if a court or aa know about it that might not be evident, it might come out during classification interviews. it's not true that a court or da would have gang affiliation, especially if the charge is not a gang violation or gang offense. >> are there categories of people you would limit? ed a different may have made

bail and would have been out. >> sure. >> is this -- so i assume this program is something that could potentially help that category of people. >> that's the target person. all the considerations are going to be looked at. what the bail is, what the reason for that bail was and all those another factors the sheriff is privy to once the person's in custody with them >> i'm very sympathetic to that category. is there a way to place the limitations on the em program so we know -- i mean, kind of along the lines of what supervisor breed is saying.

>> what this legislation calls for is not the sheriff to look at specific cases and say that person has done well we're going to let him or her out. all this is saying is identifying a person who the sheriff believes is on all the criteria they have, including criminal history, including behavioral history, all those types of things to be able to take a second look to bring it to the court for them to make a decision for the court or judge to make a decision, this person deserves another look. when they came in here the first day i didn't realize that, you know, they were talking crazy because they were off their meds or the fact that, you know, the current charge involved a certain offense that the judge wasn't

going to let the person out for, but since being in custody has been going to the programs, has made changes, all those things for a judge to review to inform them to make a further decision what's the best to do in this case. not the sheriff's decision to make. >> you know, i generally believe in less incarceration. i think for me it would just be helpful to have clear parameters around which category the individuals are eligible for the em program and that would give me a lot more confidence in moving this forward. i think i agree with supervisor campos. my apologies for not reaching out to you before this came to the board. i'd like to get some understanding to see if there's potential to put some parameters around who's eligible for the em program and so i would support that motion

to continue. if that's not the case today, you know, then i'll have to make a decision based on the information before us, but i think for me that would give me comfort in supporting a program like this. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you. i appreciate the discussion going on here. just a clarification though, my understanding of pretrial diversion because i had supervised those individuals who is gone through program and they need to do community work and so forth and part of what my understanding pretrial diversion that there's some assumption that the low level misdemeanor type person that could qualify on this is almost saying to the court i don't want to go to trial and there's some almost admittance of i did

something wrong and i'm sorry and can i be in the program so i can wipe the charges clean. that's what i thought pretrial diverse is. in fact, whereas i'm also seeing the same subset of individuals, some, who may have been accused of misdemeanor type charges, they may not feel like they want to admit they're guilty because they don't feel like they're guilty and also their strapped to having a bail and can't afford it. >> i want to make a distinction. pretrial diverse is not any type of admission to guilty. it's a mechanism to take the case out of court. you don't plead guilty, no

contest or anything like that. there is no plea. it's almost like a postponement of a case to find out if you complete the program. if you complete the program then the case is dismissed and it's like you were never arrested. the limits with pretrial diverse is normally first time offenders and certain specific charges, not all misdemeanor charges. if someone for whatever reason is not eligible for pretrial diversion, this legislation would give the possibility of a judge to review their history in custody to determine if em would be a good alternative. >> and those would be the individuals that would be waiting for trial. >> correct. >> okay. and we can't presume that a person is guilty or not guilty, but there's enough evidence to bring it to trial?

>> well, i personally presume they're not guilty, they innocent ub 'til proven guilty, but for the purposes of setting bail, the judge looks at all the facts. in this particular instance the obviously the next step is not to see whether or not they comply with the court rules or the court program in case get dismissed, the next step is determining how the case is resolved. >> i think in listening to what this legislation is proposing at the committee meeting twice, what i like about it is really -- and it doesn't really -- as other supervisors have reported now, it's not about whether or not our jails are overcrowded

at this point. it's matter of for those that are deemed not necessary immediate threat and it goes through a process that they could get -- be reintroduced to the community as soon as possible and for them to be away for a length of time could do more damage than not and yet, they're going to be more in this monitoring system so they're -- and i ask the question what's the track record on that and the answer was that 93%. and the other thing i ask for as amendment for this legislation -- because there's always a possibility that maybe this subset of folks may not be

as good as your present program, we would have an annual evaluation that would be reported back to the supervisors so we could assess whether or not we want to continue this. and i guess when the da -- the first hearing wrote a note, i believe, indicated they have some concerns that's when we asked for a continuation and this last hearing we had, da representative was there and they articulated some concerns and it was answered pretty thoroughly. that's why we're here today. what's new to me is the concerns supposedly from the police department and i would be very supportive of

continuing this because i want to hear what their concerns are and to see if there's something that all of us should be worried about or not. i thought it was okay because i thought i saw some representative from the police department at the second hearing and there was no indication that there was any concerns so -- >> okay, thank you. thank you, supervisor breed. >> thank you. i appreciate supervisor kim's line of questioning and i wanted to get some clarification in. you can't necessarily separate anything out to provide specific parameters as it relates to the cases that you de side o bring forward so if it's a violent misdemeanor or felony where there was somehow violence involved in a case, it's not that -- you can't separate those cases out from

misdemeanors or felonies separately. >> as i said, whether a case it's violence or not is defined by the penal code. 242 misdemeanor, if i sock you, it's violence to you, but not considered a violent offense under the penal code so we really need to make some considerations with regard to what these definitions are. any misdemeanor charge, felony charge, would be eligible for review. the serious and violent felonies not eligible. >> but there could be situations where there could be eligible cases that are considered those of violent? >> that involve violence, sure. >> and there's no way we can separate those things out in terms of categorizing them as it relates to this particular

program? based on what the state gives us flexibility to do, right? >> right. i think what it comes down to is -- i think it would be pretty unmanageable to make a list of qualifying offenses, to the extent we're saying it's only misdemeanors or low level non violent felonies is as crop as we've got it. if there's a concern about cropping it some more that could be a discussion if it gets continued, but right now low level offenses means non violent non serious felonies as defined by the penal code. >> thanks. >> any further discussion, kolg leagues? supervisor campos? >> i did make a motion earlier and, you know, what i'd like, if people are open to it, is

simply an opportunity to get more information. i certainly would like to hear from the chief of police. he has identified some concerns and i'd like to know what those concerns are and i'd like to give the sheriff an opportunity to have those conversations with him and whoever anyone else who has concerned. we have meetings september 9. i know that -- i don't know if there's a particular date that works. i don't know if that gives people enough time to kind of have these conversations, so maybe i'll make the motion to continue the item to september 9. >> supervisor campos has made a motion to continue this to the 9th of september. seconded by supervisor kim . i want to ask the mayor's

representative who i know's been in touch with the chief this afternoon about his thoughts on the idea of a continuance and whether there is conversations that could reconcile the difference in policy perspectives that the police department has with the sheriff's department >> >> thank you mr. president, jason elliot from the mayor's office, again, representing the comments of chief who can't be here because of what happened in the bay view today. his indication is that he is opposed to this and the san francisco police department is opposed to this ordinance and for the reasons that were mentioned before. >> supervisor campos. >> i guess the question is, like, i'd like to hear directly from the chief on what the basis of what his opposition is because if the chief of police is categorically opposed to a program like this, why wasn't he at the neighborhood safety committee, not once but twice that this hearing was held to discuss this issue?

i'd like to know what the specifics of that opposition are. why isn't he hear today? >> again, supervisor, i don't know the answer to the question. he was here, intended to speak and was called away for the reason that was mentioned before. >> for the record, i did see chief here for probably the better portion of the hour and hour business took longer than we all expected. any other comments? okay. colleagues, on the motion to continue, madam clerk, role call vote. >> supervisor kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener no, yee i, breed no, campos i, chiu no, cohen

no, farrell no. there are five is and five nos. >> motion to continue fails and with that, unless there's any further discussion let's take a role call vote on the underlying ordinance. there is no public comment. we already have committees on this where you could have made public comment. >> on item 50 supervisor kim >> you do have comments, supervisor kim? >> i wanted to explain my vote prior to. i think if we had more time i would have come to understand from the parameters of being comfortable to vote for this item. i think given the information that i have now if we are forced to take a vote then i'll have to take a no vote, but i don't want to take that as being perceived as me being against an em program that could work, i have some questions i'd like to ask and get a better understanding from the chief in terms of his

categorical opposition, instead of hearing it is. i'm sorry we're not going to have an continuance today, but i have to vote no today not having all the questions to be -- all the answers to the questions that i have. >> supervisor campos. >> i'd like to ask that we move this item to the end of the agenda. i'd like to hear from the chief of police what the basis of his opposition is. so i would like to ask that he come and tell us what his -- what the basis of his opposition is. i think this is important stuff and i think if he's opposed that he should let the board know what the basis is. >> any further conversations? colleagues. supervisor campos, i take that to be a motion to continue to the end of this meeting? >> yes. >> is there any objection to that? supervisor cohen. >> the sheriff actually made a

very articulate point about if the police chief was going to be coming to speak, shouldn't adult probation be coming to speak or the public defender who's always in favor of this particular matter. if we're going to do balance in hearing from all law enforcement then we should be balanced and invite everyone. >> well, that's why i had made a motion to continue. >> which i believe had failed so i don't know where we go from here. >> again colleagues, we could take a vote on whether to continue this to the rest of -- through the end of this meeting. >> supervisor farrell. >> i would say on this discussion around continuing, i appreciate the comment, i don't have a problem with it, but there's nothing i'm confident enough the understanding this enough that would change my vote so i'm prepare today vote on it today, but right now if it helps to punt it 30 minutes

or so, i'm fine with that, but to drag this on, you know, i will say from my perspective, i reached out to police department to ask for [inaudible] and so i was able to hear from the chief because of that and so, you know, i appreciate not everyone had the conversations that i have wanted and i get that so if it takes time here so be it, but i will say in terms of my vote on the continuance and why i'm prepared to vote on, there's nothing to change my mind on this so i'm not going to support -- again, end of this meeting, but i would like to vote on this today. >> we had a motion to continue beyond this meeting, that vote failed, but unless there's any objection we hold this over to the end of the meeting and hopefully i do understand that the cheer is in the middle of a homicide investigation, but if he has -- >> i'm sorry. there has been a shooting in the district and i'd like to go

to the district so holding this meeting longer than needs to be -- >> we hearing today not going to hold it. as soon as we come to the end of the meeting we'll all just have to make a call on how we feel about this ordinance. >> fair enough. >> we'll continue this item to the end of the meeting. >> there's an objection. >> we have public comment, we have role call, other items on the agenda. call for the question, let's vote on it. >> call the question. >> mr. president, if a question has been called, you're terminating debate, you would need two supervisors to second that motion. >> is there a motion to second call in question? >> second. >> okay. so -- >> you would need two seconds, mr. president. >> two seconds. is there a second to that? okay, there's not a second to calling a question so again, unless there's an objection, why don't we vote on this meater matter at the end of this meeting. without objection that would be

the case. with that, let's go to some far less controversial committee report item, item 51. >> [inaudible] public premises located at 365 11th street. >> on item 51, supervisor kim. kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener i, yee i, breed i, campos -- on item 51 campos, campos i, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i. there are ten is. >> the resolution is adopted. item 52. >> resolution to determine that the issuance of a type 42 sale

beer and wine public premises license located at 854 geary street will serve the public convenience. >> same house same call. item passes. >> [inaudible]. >> same house same call. this resolution's adopted. item 54. >> item 54 through 62 were considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on thursday at 2:00 pm and to authorize the settlement of a lawsuit filed by jashgs against the city for approximately 4 million. >> supervisor wiener. >> we're just voting on 5 4 right now? >> correct. same house same call? this ordinance is bassed on first reading. item 55. >> item 55 ordinance to authorize the settle oment of lawsuit filed by [inaudible]

development corporation against the city filed on august 19. >> same house same call. this ordinance is passed on first reading. next item. >> item 56 is ordinance to authorize settle m of lawsuit by miss crocker. >> same house same called. ordinance is passed. >> item 57, ordinance to authorize settlement filed by [inaudible] against the city for 250,000 filed on january 5, 2012. >> same house same call this ordinance is passed. >> item 58 is an ordinance [inaudible] set toe against the city for 225,000 filed on july 1, 2012. >> same house same called. this ordinance is passed. >> item number 59 [inaudible] filed by conly against the city for 3.5 million filed on january 27, 2012. >> same house same call.

>> mr. president, i believe supervisor breed is asking to be excused. >> colleagues, can we have a motion to excuse supervisor breed. can we do that without objection. that shall be the case. item 59, supervisor kim i, mar i, tang i, wiener no, yee i, campos i, chiu i, cohen i, farrell i. there is 8s, one no. >> the ordinance is passed in the first reading. next item. >> item 60 is ordinance to [inaudible] libraries and the coalition for a better north beach