it was $450,000 for year one, 239 for year 3 for a total of 1.1 million for the total pilot. >> $1.50 or $150. >> $1.50 per year, every year. the math gets complicated so if you are confused, join the crowd. >> the reason lapd used taser international to outfit their officers, there is an aspect, my understanding is it was cloud storage. that is what distinguishes this particular product. it is stored on the cloud, it is secure. >> it is on the cloud and it is secure. taser is the one who gave us the quote of $1.50,

medium resolution can give you about an hour of media storage. >> we're getting into gigs, tonight is the night. my colleague petra has a question. >> vice president turman. >> thank you. all right, so i'm ?iing of this in terms of other organizations i've been involved with. cannot we craft a retention policy that we only need to store for 30 to 60 days until an incident request -- until there is an incident, which usually comes to light within 30 to 60 days and then only that portion which outlines the issue or records the issue or the incident has been stored will be forwarded, not -- i mean that's all we do in law firms. i know they can probably afford much more than a police department can, but we

don't keep everything stored for, you know, 4 or 5 years. we have a policy that -- and once an incident is identified that becomes a record retention issue by policy that we store for a certain period of time. >> sure. and that's correct. of course if it's evidence in a case, if it's part of a police report, we have certain record retention policies that require us to retain evidence as police reports and portions of police reports for a certain period of time. the non-evidentiary kind of routine videos we have been in discussions and working with the city attorney on exactly what the law says that we have to retain it in the evidence code and we're looking at one year on that. of course with, in terms of the cases, and this

comes into -- this goes back to the personnel costs. we'd have to have people looking at and going back and reviewing those cases and going back and looking to say has this case been adjudicated, can we delete this evidence or this video, free up space for the next portions of video. so it would be a continual process of evaluating the videos and determining which ones we can delete to get more room. >> well, it would seem that opd has something that we can at least start with to start to look at into those concerns, as well as the concerns you have raised around the privacy issues in homes or interviews in hospitals, more sensitive incidents involving victims and identifications and how we can respond to that. it seems to me these are policy issues that

we can craft around. am i incorrect? >> no, absolutely. as part of the pilot we did a best practices study and looked at agencies not just within california but throughout the united states to determine how they were doing it. as a matter of fact, we went to oakland and took a look at their policies. of course we were relying mostly on the california policies because that's close to home and closer to how the law applies to us. but certainly when we went to oakland it was really looking at kind of how they manage their system how they did their data storage and so forth. >> thank you. commander moser. >> thank you, vice president. commissioner dejesus. >> thank you, but i have to tell you, where's the positive presentation here today? someone else is paying for this. it's a grant. it's something to go out and use. it's something that is coming.

i agree with the chief it's coming. it's expensive right now but it's coming and we can be in the frupbltd -- front of this in terms of developing policy, training our officers, having a storage facility and i kind of see the positive side and not the negative side. >> we are going to do this and we are going to spend the $250,000 the point being we're going to spend another $250,000 in general fund so it isn't free, it's going to cost -- we need to find the other $250,000 out of our existing budget to pay for the data retention past what we have for the grant. >> i'm talking about the presentation. there's also benefits to the officer, there's benefits to the community. there is a positive side of looking into this program even if we have to pay some money because we have to pay some money down the way either way we look at it. we might as well be in front of it. i wanted to point that out. i was listening, oh, my god, oh, my god. >> i think what we're trying

to do is temper expectations in that this is 50 cameras so when people speak to 1600 cameras that $250,000 to $500,000 grows to 1.1 million and gets as high as 3.4 million. i'm just trying to explain to the commission why it's 50 cameras to start with. >> i have a lot of questions. so many communities, police departments in other states, hunters highway patrol, they have these. there's always an upswing especially being in the forefront, but i do have questions, how is the camera operated, it sounds like on and off and i understand other people, other officers, they don't have that opportunity. it's always on. it's on or it automatically goes on at a

certain point and it doesn't stop recording so you don't have that ability to do that and i understand it's stored in the cloud immediately so it can't be -- break the camera or gets destroyed in some way that the material's already stored. the cloud is a great idea. and i get sort of questions i had is do we ever get a look into whether we have our own storage facility rather than rent ago storage facility because that's where the costs come up. maybe we develop, we think about developing our own storage facility. and i didn't know who was doing it, i'm surprised to hear it's taser because one of the questions i had is this the only program that we can use the grant with or have we looked at other programs or are there even other types of programs out there? and perhaps we should have a committee looking at whether the cameras on the officers right now are really feasible or some, a lot of troopers and stuff have it on their car and the camera is always recording and things like that. and they have had it in place for a

long, long time so i know the cameras on the car are something that's already in place and maybe we look into that, how much that costs and whether that's feasible and does that work and what are the pros and the cons for that. when you say $1.50 an hour is that where the $100,000 is for that $1.50 an hour? really? it's complicated. >> (inaudible). >> i'll give you that. >> (inaudible) $1.50. >> okay that is expensive, i agree, so maybe we look at other options for that. and you're right keeping something for 7 years and hiring staff to do that i think it's something that's going to be coming in the future anyway. this pilot program may not work out but it's something we need to start investigating and see whether we can make it work. i was wondering who do you have in the draft policy

stages? who are you meeting with? is it the occ and the poa and the department? >> the occ is involved in the discussions as well so it's that standard group that would meet and confer, city attorney -- the policy's pretty much arrived at. it's just a question now of the privacy issues and having the staff to comply with the pra requests that will come. >> and oakland pd, are they on grants or are they actually funding it or do we know how that's working? they have financial issues. >> opd as far as my understanding is they are operating on internal servers. director merritt could speak to kind of the pros and cons of internal servers a little bit more but opd from my understanding, and i don't know all the finances behind it, but i do know that they are, as i

mentioned, adding additional personnel to kind of manage the program right now. >> so those are the things going forward that i certainly maybe can't answer tonight but i would be interested in hearing, you know, other ways to store it, other ways to make it happen. i mean because i think it's coming and just it's going to cost us an extra $250,000 so it's not going to work for us, i hear it's not going to work for us. i don't think that's what you're saying but that's what i'm hearing between the lines. >> i don't want to be misquoted either. it's an extra $250,000 a if we use 50 cameras an hour a day. if we use 32 times as many cameras times that cost of general fund dollars on-going if it was two hours a day. so if you multiply that times 24 hours a

day you see what starts happening to the dollar amount. >> i hear that. >> but i do believe that over time, just like everything else, just even the phones were cost prohibitive when i first became chief and within two years we were able to make that happen. so nobody knows what these dollar amounts are going to be 6 months from now, a year from now, 18 months from now. it's just right now the data storage is very expensive. >> so this is a great opportunity to come up with the extra money, use the grant money, put a thinking group together and see how you know, how we can poe tpxly make it work even if it's down the line in the future if it's not going to work right this moment but we do have a opportunity to play with this and answer these questions and go forward because it's coming. >> technology. >> thank you, commissioner. commander, i would agree. i would characterize your presentation as sobering and i

appreciate that because i think there's a lot of sense that body cameras are the answer so i feel like you were sort of trying to share some of the issues around the realities and i appreciate that. i would say i know that this is a dgo that's going through the necessary process with the occ and the poa, i know the department has been very successful in the recent dgo's we have come in getting some stake holder input and i think on an issue like body cameras which is an issue of such concern to so many communities, that might be something that would help us make sure the policy is understood, not just -- the new -- nuances that are very clear to you might be something else to folks who think body cameras are the answer. >> this would not be a general order, it's a pilot program.

it would be an operations bureau policy governing the pilot program but we're happy to show it to the commission in the draft form for input. >> so i'm confused, if you are going to occ and the poa, that's the process done for a dgo >> that's the process done for anything that affects the working conditions of the officers. >> and you bring it back to the commission. >> i don't, but i can. >> commissioner dejesus. >> is it going to be like a department bulletin, then? >> no, it's a bureau order that anybody carrying the camera has to comply with as any other directive. but the pilot would be a 6 month pilot so it's a directive that wouldn't even be as long as a db, although we would anticipate that once this pilot goes into place, that's the other thing, we don't anticipate it ever ending. >> i would think the policy we should really see it if it's

part of the policy because it's something that we do look at up here, policy. and i do want be to say i don't think the cameras are the be all, end all. i think it's a tool that's coming, something to be used in conjunction with all the other tools that the department has. but i think it's something we should really look into. dr. marshall. >> my only comment, chief, and commissioners, i think the only way that this thing can really be sold is as a pilot. i mean, even if you can -- too many questions, some people are going to say we need them on all the time. some people are going to say all the officers need to have them. we have to investigate the costs. we've done this before, we did it with street cameras. we've done it -- i think probably the only way that -- and the back drop is that people are intrigued by this issue of body

cameras. so i think this is probably the only real way to go about testing this whole thing out is some sort of -- it's going to cost, it's going to cost and we can get our arms around those costs but at least we'll have some sort of indicator, you know, how this works by itself or in conjunction with other things. i think we've got to try like we tried other things and find out how it works and just keep our eye on it. >> okay anything further? further questions for the commander or the chief? inspector, please call the next line item. thank you, commander. thank you, miss merritt i would just make a note you are going to make a note about the agenda, inspector? >> as an added note, commissioner loftus, the jttf annual report will be presented to the commission on wednesday, february 4, 2015.

>> as a note, i know in the report that's been a report where there were some stake holders and that is part of the original legislation who like to see that data ahead of time before it's presented so i just ask if that's possible. thank you. we'll have public comment at the end of item 2. inspector, please call the next line item. >> line item b, occ director's report, discussion, review of recent activities, presentation of occ's statistical reports, summary of cases received in december 2014, mediation of complaints in december 2014 and adjudication of sustained complaints in december 2014 and come -- companion reports. >> good evening, president loftus, vice president turman, chief and members of the audience. you have before you the occ's december 2014 comprehensive statistical report and the related documents. last week i gave

you a statistical snapshot of 2014 so i will not report the statistics this evening. i will discuss the 8 occ complaints that were sustained and where chief sir in december made findings and proposed discipline. two of the cases involved unwarranted action. one was for an arrest and the other for a detention. in both the cases the discipline was admonishment and retaining. two of the cases involve neglect of duty. in one instance the officer had an unlicensed driver's car towed without providing the driver an opportunity to call for a licensed driver to drive away the car. in that instance the officer received a written reprimand and retraining. the other two cases were for failing to prepare an incident report when a private person's

arrest was requested. the discipline was admonishment and retraining. two cases involve conduct reflecting discredit. one was for parking in a bus zone and it was not an emergency situation. another one was advising the complainant that she was being cited for additional violations of the vehicle code because of her attitude. in both of those cases the discipline was admonishment and retraining. the final case was discourtesy for swearing and the discipline was admonishment and retraining. that kupb -- concludes my report and there are no recent activities to report. >> thank you, director hix next line item. >> line item c, commission reports, discussion. commission president's report and commissioner's reports.

>> i have nothing to report. fellow commissioners? okay inspector, please call the next line item. >> item d, commissioner announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. action. >> colleagues, go ahead, inspector. one item i would put on here, we do have the meetings coming up for redistricting and we have had a change of location which i think inspector monroe is going to indicate vis-a-vis the tenderloin meeting and i think we are also going to move these meetings from being held within the police stations to being held at a community center in the neighborhood to increase access. so inspector monroe, i don't know if there's any more details you can provide but i imagine there are. >> other than there's a new location for the first meeting on the 28th of this month and that will be in the tenderloin district at the tenderloin development center, 220 golden gate avenue and that will be located in the auditorium of

that building. like you mentioned, the other meetings will be changed for community locations but at this point we don't have any new addresses for you. >> thank you. anything else from my colleagues on this item? okay, hearing none, is there any public comment on the matters? >> can i say something real quick, chief? you talked last week about scheduling as part of your presentation about our involvement -- when is that going to happen, officer's involvement with young people? >> we're pulling that together as we speak. there have been acouple other additions so i can certainly have it annex meeting when we're here and not doing redistricting. when will that be, john? >> next week -- february 4th. >> february 4. >> but i'll make that part of my presentation. >> that's youth engagement, chief? >> yeah, but again that won't

have to be specifically calendared, i'll put it in my comments. >> okay, inspector, eye december d was an action item. i'm going to call for any public comment on item d okay hearing none, public comment is now closed. inspector, please call the next line item. >> line item 3, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 5 below, closed session, including public comment on vote whether to hold item 5 in closed session. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are now going to go into closed session and deal with matters that are privileged and confidential of so is there any public comment on our closed session? is there any public comment on item 3? we called and closed public comment on item 2. we are on item 3 now. >> she asked for public

comment. >> we're on 3 now. i asked for public comment. this is on item 3, which is whether to keep the matters in closed session. any public comment? >> we're closed. >> that item closed. any public comment on whether to hold this matter in closed session? hearing none, public comment is now closeclosed. >> item 4, vote on whether to hold item 5 in closed session. san francisco administrative code 67.10, action. >> so moved. . >> madam president, we are now in open session. >> we are back in open session. >> line item 6, vote to elect any or all discussion on item 5 held in closed session, san francisco administrative code

section 67.12a, action. >> do i have a motion? >> disclose. >> second? all those in favor? all those opposed? motion carries. inspector, please call the next item. >> line item 7, adjournment. >> do we have a motion? >> chief sir. >> i don't know if this will be the last meeting but i would like to call to the commission's attention the tremendous service of our city attorney kathy mahoney she has been heroic in moving all kinds of things forward. she is not only like been the best person but she is a very good friend of mine she saves me from myself often. and we will will, she will be rotating back to family -- children and families where she is terrific and she helps a lot on 7.04 that was spoken to tonight and i have met her successor and she seems great, but you are going to be a tough act to

follow. so thank you. >> is this your last meeting, kathy? what a way to leave. thank you chief for highlighting that. thank you for everything you have done. you will be so missed but it's a win for the children of san francisco so that's a good thing for us. motion to adjourn. >> second. >> all those in favor. motion carries, we are adjourned. (meeting adjourned). .

>> bonnie banks. bonnie banks. my definition of noise is uncontrolled music. without format. pretty simple affair. pancakes, and you're -- people get up on sundays around

noon, weekends or whatever. should not be too hard to walk into place. have your audio alarm clock go off for two hours waking your up while you are eating breakfast with many interesting visuals once in a while. improvisation. listening or not to the person you're playing up against or people or machines. trying to get as many different people in as possible. different genres experimental noise electronics, dissonance some drums.a tiny bit of ambient -- the first noise pancake shows, 1999 the first waffle noise, 2001.

god-waffle noise noise pancake came out of cubist art, place on mission street, brutallo where the church -- opened up his house and saturday morning cartoons. a big space. you can have everybody set up and barely move equipment around; small room for an audience to move around, walkover and get pancakes without getting burned up in the kitchen. there's like people in their hard-core gabber; people into really fast death