>> they tend to interfere with the equipment in the room and can we please rise for the pledge of allegiance? >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> call roll. president loftus, here. vice presidents therman, here. commissioner marshal we believe is in route. commissioner dejeess, here. commissioner mazzucco, here. commissioner hwang, here.

commissioner mu lera, here. you have a quarpm and also here is chief suhr and joyce hicks. >> good evening here. sergeant please call the first line item >> item one public comment. the public can address on the items that are not on the tonight agenda but that are win the subject matter of jurisdiction orphthe commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or had department or occ personal. under police commission rules ofordser during the public comment neither police orocc penchlal, nor the commissioners

>> sheryl davis. i just wanted to take this time-the last time i was here was with a group of young people and just wanted to come back and say we really want to follow up with the chief and make sure the work done this summer continues throughout the school year and wanted to publicly thank the commission and the chief for supporting the efforts and give a special shout out to-there has been so much going on not just nationally but within our city and sometimes for you all it gets very difficult to do the work you are doing and continue to do it sometimes even e in the midst of bashing so wanted to say thank you for all the work you do and being

committed and dedicated to support the community of the sate city of san francisco. i wanted to thank president loftus for supporting the effort this summer because there would have been times i i said i don't think so but she was convinced she would make it happen and i thank you for making those young people fee so important and validating their experience squz work and to commissioner marshal for allowing them on the radio station to show it and how it doesn't end there. i know people that saw that at the beginning and the end of the summer saw the difference but it continues to make a difference and think what that is true community policing is about and look forward to building on that. i had yesterday quite a emotional

ride on what it really means to be engaged with the police and what the commitment looks like on both sides and i'm grateful you all continue to show up and do the work, so thank you. >> thank you. next speaker good evening and welcome. >> my name is herbt wineer. i consider myself a civilian and pedestrian at risk. i refer to the problem of bicyclist. i think our motto should be today polk street, tomorrow the world. nofe pedestrian never ran over a bicyclist. presently there is no control over bicyclist crashing the light, riding on a sidewalk and doing it punity. i cu-mind captain stanford for trying to

do something but the municipal transit agency doesn't [inaudible] they ticket for parking violations but don't ticket for traffic violation jz this is a epidemic in the city. right now there is a vision zero and in some respects it is zero vision because it targets automobiles but doesn't mention bicyclist so therefore we won't have automobile theft but can have bike collisions. everyone will look the other way and say [inaudible] this is outrageous. now, people have the right to ride bicycles, they have the right to operate a moving vehicle but also have rights and responsibilities . they don't pay license fee squz gonet don't pay for parking and

they are a powerful political force and they have gone vieral. hopefully we can do something about this problem. i don't want a idaho solution. i want to be safe as a san francisco civilian and native. these are my concerns, i wish to express them and wrote a suterical piece on them. thank you very much >> thank you mr. wineer. a week from today we'll have a update on the departments response to this commissions resolution about making the streets safe for everyone. >> hello, my name is [inaudible] i'm a tenant at north beach place and like to get the attention of the police chief and captain [inaudible] of north beach station. we have a individual that is in

the wheelchair and for some reason at north beach station they look at this man in a wheelchair and we can't do too much about it. this man has [inaudible] that comes into my living room vent and into may house or on bay street coming out of his windows and this has been going on for a while. it started again at 1 in the morningism we have a [inaudible] 1511. this is the woman when they be molesting and doing these children in north beach place sex traffic. she is making threats out of [inaudible] window last night telling me how she will get me because i won't let them use my house as a dope house or let the pedophiles stay there. stop looking that wheelchair [inaudible] if they can take this person out of the

tenderloin and send him to [inaudible] he keeps breaking the law and doesn't respect anybody and now i have a [inaudible] on my heart i keep because i'm having problem with my heart valve because i keep getting upset about all these smoke coming in my house and filed another complaint with north beach place. sthis the chiefs copy and wish someone would do something about it and hope the officers in north beach to understand just because he is in a wheelchair he needs to go to jail just like anyone else. >> i think cheer maybe some from the department could respond and let her know how to follow up. chief has it. thank you. good eve squng welcome >> good evening president loftus, commissions and [inaudible] carrying with what mr. wineer says it boils down

to allowing people to break the law. whether it is the biker or parole specials in the cast row and other areas that have high places that will break laws on their behalf it is a problem when you don't hold people accountable. it is a angoing problem with decades. you are part of the problem because you are supposed to [inaudible] over the police and make sure they are not corrupt like chuck lynn burke and gary buckner and [inaudible] so many others in mission station corrupt for so many years the feds had to come inl and clean house. that is number one. you let law breakers get away with it all the time. that is on you. number 1. i'm losing my mind and can't remember all the things i have to say, but number i'll talk about the parole special. you had a

report 5 years ago telling what a crisis they are the fr the city and what a liability they create and you have done nothing. i can't tell who the officer is overseeing it is anymore. last week i mentioned the officers who are the police commissioner officers like sergeant gillshah and [inaudible] were awesome and also left out [inaudible] who works on the staff and she is awesome. if only the member thofz commission and director of inocc and chief were as awesome as those folks this city would be running great. got a minute to go. what else? i don't have much to say other than-no, i think that is it. fine eel, on the badge cams i heard there was a petition a couple week uzgo screaming

about how you haven't gotten the badge cams. i agree with what you are doing. the process of having a thorough ventilation of these policies before they are implemented is a good decision. unfortunately the people you had ventilating the policyerize the same working grume you had during all the other corruption of the city. it sound like it fs interpartmental cluster f and no independent voice jz nobody with any view other than the standard corrupt views of the san francisco government. president loftus i have faith in you and don't think you intended that result. i have faith in other members of the commission, not all, but i think you can do better than that. >> next speaker. >> good evening. >> good evening. what a week.

greg suhr makes the front page of the examiner. [inaudible] name is [inaudible] great woman and glad she is financially compensated for her deeds. now we have a alijedly a officer charge would sexual maybe rape. i'm not sure. i'm reading the report and i'm like, what! wait! a cop! it wouldn't be the first time but it is interesting. a lot of things are happening in san francisco and first of all, let me cu-mind kelly ohair. that woman took it all. she took it all. all commend her. ied is a tough job. you investigate

the investigators. you got 125 thousand and made the chief look like a fool. you go girl. >> thanks clyde. further public comment? >> do i introduce myself or just speak? >> it is up to you >> i was at the city a few month jz arrived this afternoon and witnesses a [inaudible] in fronts of the court house in front of the deputies so it was a quick arrest but it was a random assault for no reason what so ever and i was wondering as far as dealing with crime in san francisco it isn't possible-the building is about a stones throw from here why there isn't more

cooperation between the sfpd and fbi like more joint task force, more educational like symposia between the fbi with teaching ethics, investigation, interrogation and just how to develop cases maybe like take local case squz try to work them up the federal level and also [inaudible] more like street undercover gun buys. it looks like there is a lot of shootings lately and no sus spects so it would be nice if there was more undercover and also a gun buy program. some folks have guns that are just locked away or in attics so it is probably a good idea.

>> thank you, sir. any further public comment? hearing none public comment is closed >> item 2 reports and announcement. 2 a chief report discondition review of recent activities. >> public director hix. i'll be brief tonight because i know we vapresentation later on. first there was some mention of a pretty serious vehicle collision on monday morning where a 64 year old man was walking to his car on gaven street when a acua side swiped him causing him to lose a portion of his leg. the vehicle fled the scene and the [inaudible] found the vehicle within a couple hours, develop [inaudible] which resulted in arrest and the person

responsible for that hit and run is in cusied. on a happier note the crime lab on august 17 received its-awarded the iso 17025 interalsh accreditation which represents the most stringent standards in the country. the lab eliminated the untested and back log rape cases by outsources the pre-20 03 back log that was signed off for testing clearing any and all sexual assault back log san francisco crime lab had in its

possession. we were hoping to have that done by the end of the year and got it done by the end of august. the labe is haibl f able it turn around the time for complex analysis from 9 months to 9 week squz set to add more equipment and hiring 7 more crimnist and additional supervisors so all the news with the crime lab appears to be on the up swing and have external auditors and bias instructor of international [inaudible] coming in september to instruct the criminalest. other department news, member of the command stab and other members took part in the blue courage training in august which speak thooz had wellness piece of pillar 6 in president obamas task force which we are hoping to roll out city wide and the 25 lieutenant

promotions have taking place. the week of orientation will go forward on september 8 and we are next to sergeant promotions which will be announced a week from friday. that concludes my report absent what the commanders and work group will speak to in item number 5. >> colleagues any question frz the chief? hearing none. okay. thank you chief. sargeen call the next item >> item 2 b, occ directors report. discussion and review of recent activities. >> good evening president loftus, chief sure and member thofz audience. i will keep my report brief because i'll speak on body cameras later but i'll talk about a few activities that occ staff and i have been involved in. in august-ilate

august policy analyst [inaudible] met with jude thd green who is sth executive director justice of strategy and wanted to learn about the office of citizen complaints and she was referred to us by missioner melara. our mediation and out pch weech attorney dona salazar met with aminea horten the independent monitors office to discuss the occ's outreach efforts and also our mediation. in addition, attorney many [inaudible] and i continue our work with the bar association of san franciscos crimial justice task force and many is on the data collection subcommittee, civilian oversight subcommittee and i too and on the civilian

subcommittee and will host that committee next week to learn about the operations of the occ. finally deputy director eric bault zar and i met with members of the criminal justice committee of a bay area civil grand jury that group is looking at various models of civilian ovsite to see if that should be a recommendation for their law enforcement agency. that concludes my report. i would like to mention steve ball is here in the audience this even in case there are individuals who would like to talk to him about the occ. thank you. >> thank you director. colleagues any question frz director hix? okay, thank you. sergeant call the next item >> item 2 c,.

>> i have a quick update for everyone. commissioner melara raised a few times that we are due to have a update on the dv 6.09 and some of the pieces of public education we are working on to make sure victims of survivors of domestic violence ruweir of what could happen afterwards. commissioner [inaudible] had a great meeting. representatives from the [inaudible] and department of status 06 women and scheduled for a update here octobe are 14 >> attended the china town [inaudible] they had close to a thousand people. the entire

cadet class was up there feeding the bbq. it was very well attended. mayor lee and members of the command staff attened as well. >> commissioner marshal >> thank you fl meeting yesterday of the african american community and [inaudible] thank you for attending. thank you for being there. we have some things covered and let's keep moving forward and get things done. thank you. >> i'm for that. anyone else? >> we don't have to read between the lines >> i'm sorry vice president therman. >> sorry i forgot the report. in your packet is the program from monday nights officers for justice annual scholarship program where the officers of

justice gave 10 thousand dollars in scholarships to 10 worthy student to begin and continue their education and college throughout the united states going to different colleges. i want to cumund the officers of justice as well as the individuals who contribute today the scholarship funds for making sure people from very challenging backgrounds are getting the opportunity to finance college. it was a marvelous program, heard marvelous stories and met great kids and also talked about the advantages of a career in law enforcement with several of them. i want to thank the officers of justice and think the president of officers of justice just entered the room so want to thank sergeant williams of the officers of justice and the entire force. >> thank you. congrat ylthzs

to officers of justice. >> item 2 d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration. >> anything else we need to discuss that we haven't calendared? hearing none, for the audience the next meeting september 9 is here at city hall at 5:30. >> that will focus on the body camera policy. september 16. is there public comment on 2 a-d of the agenda? public comment on 2 a-d? hearing none comment is closes >> item 3 assignment of chigzer

and [inaudible] disciplinary charges filed against thomas mu clusky file number alw. case number 2013-0173 and alwiad 2013-0239 action. >> commissioners this case going to be assigned to commissioner mazzucco. >> both cases? >> um, >> sorry. this case is assigned to commissioner mazzucco. >> what we'll do is you have been in contract with parole special officer and the next step is set for the officer to be present or we'll have it on for dismissal or termination at the next appearance. >> okay. is there public comments on line item 3? mr.

[inaudible] >> [inaudible] i'll do 3 now and 4 later. [inaudible] commissioner hwang because he'll commit crimes [inaudible] i done say this [inaudible] i know he did it because i was a victim of his crime so don't ask me to be quite and say things that are true about your membership. i am glad it didn't go to him. it went to commissioner mazzucco who expressed he loves the parole specialist because [inaudible] that he grew up with as a kid. i don't care how he grew up with his kid, they are criminal jz violate the law and open violation of the 14 amendment of equal protection and you know it and continue to allow them to persist and break laws because they have sth right

political connections to the right supervisors wiener and [inaudible] in the city government. have you read the controllers report from 5 years ago? they had a deadly of critique thofz parole specialist and a laundry list of the various crimes and other [inaudible] they commit. they are a walking liability fl city so at least you didn't give the assignment of these 2 case tooz commissioner hwang who is a criminal as well. thank you for doing that have a great day. >> thank you mr. [inaudible] there are rules around what people can say and they are able to say what they need to say. >> item 4 assignment of commissioner and setting of date for evidence and disciplinary charges filed against jose [inaudible] alw

case number 2015-186 action. >> can you assign this case to the next commissioner? we'll do the same commissioner. >> public comments on line item 4. >> ditto. ditto, ditto. i don't know about this-what is his name? jose vidoll. i don't know him, i know mu clausky and he is a criminal as well. thank you >> want to remind the public and people who are watching the commission doesn't indoors the views of people speaking at public comment. sergeant call the next line item >> item 5, status report from the working group regarding

body worn camera discussion. >> just to set the table for colleague squz orient to us wherewe are, i she it commander coming up. by way of background to remind the commissioners, back in may the commission did ask the chief to provide a draft policy to this commission within 90 days mptd it was doctor marshal that said that it was aggressive or ambishing or something like that but the department responded quickly and efficiently and worked with a gup of folks we asked the department to work with and their charge as a working group, many of which are here, is to look at the various work that is done on this. there are white papers from groups like the aclu and perand sit with folks and gliberate and present it to us. asia know

the group met 6 times over the summer. i know many of us were able it observe this group. the tables were turned i had to speak in public comnlt, so i want to thank the group members before we did into the material and want to say what i kept saying is i want to thank rubecka young and [inaudible] chairl davis from hrc. [inaudible] sergeantiolaunda williams [inaudible] director hix and eric bault var. [inaudible] recommended by london breed. brian [inaudible] laura night from womens poa. [inaudible] from the poa and mark [inaudible] from the latino poa. there were so many people that volunteered and sat in a room and discussed this policy and

thipg that is extraordinary and we have them to thank. what we have before is a draft policy and what we asked is reasonable minds can differ and don't have to agree but where you disagree pellagthe issues and let the commission know. what you have in the packet is all the minutes from the discondition. the draft policy reference material and you can see the dialogue that went back and forth. incredible work that put us in a great position to do our work now so tonight we are going to hear from commander mogesier and members of the working group and members of the public who are following we will have 2 public meetings one september 16 which is in the western addition. one in october and the policy will come back and that is when this body will deliberate over that piece, but wree starting that process tonight. commander mogesier did i say

too much? >> that is a perfect segue. president loftus, commissioner, chief suhr, director hix and members of the public. as president loftus mentioned i am commander mogesier and d'errico chair of the body cam working group with [inaudible] i'm happy to be here tonight to present the body worn camera working groups and policy draft as president loftus had mentioned this is a result of several meetings-6 meetings over several week. a lot of hard work by a diverse group of individuals put together of the direction by president loftus and the commission. before we get started i want to point out to members of the audience there are cop ies of the draft and the powerpoint presentation that i'll be going through over

on the side of the hearing room. if i could get the powerpoint presentation up. what i'll do tonight is really just walk you through a overview of the process. how we got here, how the group was formed, what our methodology was in tackling what was very challenging task, very important task and timely task. walk you through those meetings . highlight the areas where the group differed and really talk about some of the key components of the body worn camera policy and/or discussions. on april 30 of 2015 mayor lee, chief suhr and commissioner president loftus announced additional funds over

the next 2 budget cycles that are set aside to purchase bodee worn camera for 1800 members of the san francisco police department in the field. on may 13 at 2015, president loftus directed the department to establish a working group for the purpose of developing this body worn camera policy and present the draft to the police commission within 90 days. the group also had the direction from president loftus to vet potentially continchs and key issues of the body worn camera policy and provide alternative viewpoints, where they existed and have a robust discussion about those issues and if we didn't agree to bring those forward and bring forward both sides of that argument. on may 13, the working group

was formed. that included representative of the sfpd command staff. the office of citizen complaunt, the public defendanter office, the sf bar association, the aclu, [inaudible] department of human resources. a representative from the community. sf police officers association. the officers for justice. the sf pride alliance. the national latino peace office association, [inaudible] i know president loftus mentioned a few name jz would like to acknowledge some of those in the audience who showed up and it will speak the the level of commitment and seeing the process through and that level of commitment shown through the entire process it speaks lot these individuals are here. my colleague commander robert

osullivan. office of citizen complaints joyce hix. i saw many [inaudible] who also helped out. from the public defenders office rebecca young [inaudible] mr. paul henderson was here and participated as well. mrs. chairl davis from human rights commissionism martin grand from the department of human resources is here. president marty hyland from the poa along with jonathan yang. sergeant yo landa williams. sf pride [inaudible] and then also who are also helped out along the way, lieutenant david o'connor and [inaudible] we couldn't do it all without your secretary sergeant rachel killshah was

invaluable and organized the meetings and collected the minutes and getting the agendas out. i want to publicly acknowledge that group for being here tonight and thank you for the hard work they put in and i apologize if i missed anyone that is out there. june 2, 2015 the body camera working group met and had the first meetingment what we d did prior the meeting is collected best practices and policy and put them out to the group in advance and gave the group a opportunity to read those policy, digest, reflect upon them and bring that knowledge to the first working group and subsequent working groups so we had a base. what we did is provide them with a working document that was a document that included what we felt were some of the main point of a body camera policy we can build

off of, a skeleton of a policy for lack of a better term. some of the policies we put out there included oakland pd's policy, lapd, bart, pd, san diego pd, aclu, white paper and perpolicy just to name a few, all of those that are included in your packet. of course the body camera working document that i spoke of which was dated the first iteration of that was the 28 of may. that first meeting we talked fwht purpose in the policy of the body worn camera and you can go in the draft and follow along the progress we made from meeting to meeting as we go through the powerpoint. we worked on pups and policy and discussed

squiment and use of the equipment and the praining and quhoo is the program administrator for such a policy and then be also looked at scheduling future meetings with the idea of comply wg the 90 day time limit that we had to try and reach that goal. we decide we'll meet every other tuesday for 2 hours. these were all public meetings open to the public. we had a opportunity for public comment. our l our minutes and agendas, every draft we did was posted on the commissions website and available if the public, so from the start and the whole direction of this working group was to be transparent and open process and that is what we attempted to do all throughout.

on june 16 we met for our second meeting and adopted our minutes and then we worked on section 3 which you'll see in your draft, which is the procedures for set up and maintenance of the cameras. what officers would be require today do prior to their shifts in terms of insureing that the cameras are work ing properly. consent authorized use when officers should turn on the cameras or shall turn on the camera, that was a big section. as you can -you can see in your draft policy and prohibited recordings, when officers shouldn't be recording. those were very robust disconditions and got a lot of different viewpoints but as you can see came up with a

fairly comprehensive list where we felt the officers should record. if you look on your body worn camera draft see a notes page and that gives you more information on areas of the policy be it where the individual sections of the policies came from and maybe where the ideas came from. in some cases we referenced oakland police department policy or per policy. it also has notes of where we disagreed or had different opinions or differing ideas or suggestions so that note page corresponds with your notes on the tab of the working draft. in that june 16 meeting we also talked about termination of recordings

as well. in addition we had a discussion about 2 different viewpoints during that meeting. when a officer should be required to record. the first viewpoint was bobby worn cameras should be on all the time and the seconds is bobby worn cameras should only be on different certain circumstances so we discussed the 2 alternatives and reached concurance that officers shouldn't have to have bobby cameras on at all times throughout their shift. we felt if we had a comprehensive list of when officers should have it on balanced with the times they shouldn't have it on that will strike a good balance between privacy rights of individuals and collecting the proper foodage when we felt we need ed to have it. on june 13

we had our third meeting. we -just to let you know how the process went, as we went along and we made changes we obviously updateed each draft which was posted on the website and were available for public view, so we work off a new draft on each time. we were working off or policy draft from the dated on the 25. we talked about purpose again and went back and changed the actual terminology, you will see that if you looked at previous drafts from a portable digital device to a body worn camera which reflected the way the terminology is, the best practices for terminology so that was the discussion behind that change if you see that. we also went over section 3 which again we talked about

termination of recordings. the viewing of recordings as well. we had the discussion of whether officers should be allowed to viewing the report r recording prior to writing a report. sthis the first main area the group didn't have consensus. both viewpoints are areflected in the notes. some members felt officers should view the video prior to writing a incident report and others felt they should not and will hear from members of the group at the end of the presentation so you can hear their own thoughts and get those different opinions. on july 14 the body camera group met again. this is our 4th meeting working off our new draft we discussed the viewing of body

worn camera recordings. documentation. the storage and use of recordings. the duplication of distribution. the retention and discovery of potential misconduct. the actual topic of the viewing of the body worn camera recordings span 2 separate meetings so that fsh a continuation of the previous third meeting. also, on the 13 of july i had received a letter of recommendation and suggestion frathe aclu. that was the day prior to the meeting and it didn't give us sufficient time to dejust those recommendation so put it on the next meeting to read the letter and adjust the recommendation. on the 28 we met for our 5th meeting and

talked about and discussed the issue of viewing recordings. we continued the discussion about whether a officer should be allowed to view the video not only before writing a police report but for being interviewed for a administrative or criminal investigation. then we also discussed the aclu letter. the group as a whole had concerns for one particular portion of the letter that stated that the working group hasn't delivered on the traenz paerns and full public debate and community engagement needed for a important issue. the majority of the group [inaudible] this is a public prosand continued to be as transparnt as policy and putting the documents forward and knowing the process of having sth public meetings as president ofts mentioned is important to working towards

all the transparency behind the process. inviting it is important to note member thofz aclu didn't attend the meetings. they sent letters but didn't attend the working group meetings. on august 11 we met for our 6ths and final meeting. we again talked about the viewing of body worn camera record squgz continued the discussion of what constituted a investigation and this represented the second major point where we didn't have consensus of what constituted a investigation and how that played into viewing of a video and whether or not a officer should be allowed to view the video and that is the other area that we will have a opportunity to hear from members of the group after the presentation. we talked about retention. this was a area

where we did have a slight split in terms of the number of years of retention. the majority of the group felt 2 year retention time for recording was a minimum. originally in the working document we recommended 1 year but we-what the group agreed to is a comprehensive cast benefit analysis should be conducted upon whatever the selection is of whatever system we go to and we know the cost of that data storage and to look at the long term storage of a year versus 2 years and we are talking about routine video, we are not talking about video that is tagged to be stored as a result of a criminal case or homicide or lawsuit or citizen complaint. we felt that will definitely require a cost

benefit analysis when we do ultimately select a particular system. in addition on our last meet ging director hix presented the office of inspector general for the nypd report on body cameras which had just been released at the time and mentioned it was important to add and include in the packet for the commission review so we included that and will find that in your packet as well as the other documents. and we updateed or draft policy there at that meeting to refleekt the new and final date of august 11. at that time, we had gone through what we felt were all the old topics of the body worn cam raw policy. we had vetted all the issues and had a thorough and robust

debate on those issues. reviewed best practices and policies and at that time we felt that it was time to vote and decide whether or not we wanted to-it was time to present this to the commission, to you. so i'm happy to say we voted and had a unanimous vote and you can see the numbers who were present on the screen and voted. myicism and commander osullivan. officer booth and [inaudible] officer nukeer from the asian peace officer [inaudible] mr. yang from the poa, director hix from occ. mrs. gill community representative. deputy public defender mrs. rubecka young and mrs. grant from dhr. as i mentioned we had 2 sections

where the group did not reach consensus. when officers are allowed to view the video and when are they allowed to view the video and should they be allowed to view the video prior to writing a incident report. should they not be allowed to view it or onlt when they are a part of a criminal investigation [inaudible] also what constitutes a immediate investigation and immediate administrative investigation and how does that play out into the viewing of the video. at this time i would like to ask a couple members of the group to come up and give a few words on their thoughts. i think we'll start with mrs. rubucka young from the public defenders office. >> thank you commander. good evening mrs. young. first i

really want to thank commissioner loftus for allowing the public defender to be part of the working group. i also want to thank commander mogesier. commander ocellven, deputy chief allee and sergeant killshah. i found the welcome to be gracious. the debate to be respectful and the entertainment of opposing viewpoints to be very much emblematic of the democratic process so i want plesantly surprised and thought the commanders and the working group members from the various poa were gracious and welcoming so it was a pleasure to be part of the working group. i think-i prepared a couple notes just because it helps me be

brief. as you know i'm a attorney so i can [inaudible] i'm not confined. so, while the working group accomplished a great deal and worked diligently producing a draft policy, it is my opinion that we should not too early congradulate our suvls on a job well done. with recognition and respect by the deadline set, we voted on august 11 to send this drauftd to the commission for deliberation. however, we would be foolish to think the work of creating a comprehensive well analyzed policy isblushed. in saying this i'm not just concerned of the important areas where consensus was not reach, but here in what is the most beautiful city in the country and what is the most expensive

city to rent a apartment, indeed a city that has bein xh a artery of silken volley, it is important every government agency particularly those charge would public trust have policies that are evolved to a degree that shows attention to detail and [inaudible] integration of completing interest. the state goals of any body worn program are to demonstrate law enforcement commitments to transparency, insure accountability of its members, increase the publics trust in police officers. 4, protect the members from unjustified complaints and 5, insure the effective and rigorous use of body worn cameras and adherence to the the program. these are the stated goals of the san francisco police department

baudsy worn cam raw daft policy and mentioned in the opening paragraph. yet, specific policies set forth in this draft would not only fail to advance these goals, they would acktdively twart them and i'll refer to subsections, one is subsection e, termination of recording. that is on page 3 of the draft policy t. this is not footnoted, it is a area particular in e 1 and e 2 that convert 2 broad and too much discession in the officer and the reason this is controversial is because i think what i learned from the working group is when you are talking about removing discession from a police officer, you are treading in dangerous waters so it needs to be more thuryly discussed and

more specifically detailed. the way it is written now is too broad and ildefined. for instance, if we look at number 2 after receiving a order from a higher ranking member, there is no guidance as to when, how, what does the higher ranking member have to do to document his or herords order? under what circumstances does the higher ranging member get to make this order. are there restriction on the higher ranking member or is it just when the higher ranking member wants to. this is a-air aof the draft policy is simply vague. if you are to contrast it for example how details and specific the policy gets in subsection c which is on page 2 where it says authorized use it

is very details and specific and the guidance is clear. what it can really do when you get this specific and detailed is it can shut down a tax and -attacks and criticism that you haven't fallowed a policy so it seems we can do better with respect to subdivision e, termination of recording. i also find item 1 in subdivision e, discussing tactical or law enforcement information away from a citizen, i find that similarly broad and ildefined. the next area which i think needs to be developed further and i know that is going to be tasked to the commission, but i-in this particular area, subdivision f, the viewing of body worn camera recordsings i

urge the commission to [inaudible] body worn cameras for the new york city police department who rolled out their body camera program december 2, 2014 and they did it in 6 specific districts in new york city and at the end of 6 months, they conducted a review base any what they called a audit and they interviewed over 50 police officers who had the cameras and the supervisors and looked a that retention policy and storage and prepared this extensive detailed report and the reason i find it more valuable say than the oakland police apartment or la police department policy is because it is review and analysis of what is already been done. what about the body worn camera

program is working? what needs to be improved? what parts of the policy need to be rethought? i thought it would be very beneficial to access that information and that audit prior to finalizing the policy for san francisco. so, as to subdivision f 1 at the bottom of page 3, i would highly recommend we make the carve outs a separate section. the carve outs are buried in paragraph 1 and it starts with the word, accept. when the subject of a investigation in any of the following circumstances that were captured by the body worn camera. i think it is really more than a parenthesis and

think it should be its own subsection. the other aspect is and it is kind of slid in there at the very bottom, the very last paragraph it says, for the above listed circumstances which where the carve outs, the department administrative or criminal investigator will coordinate the member or legal representative to arrange the viewing of the camera recording prior the members interview. so this section lows a officer to view the body worn camera recording of his or her involvement in a shooting or death prior the her interview with the department investigator. this is a area of notice controversy and a area clearly and expressly addressed by the office of inspector general report for

the new york police department. i think we can all agree that a comprehensive body worn camera policy must maintain fairness between citizen complaints, general policy and law enforcement agencies. the officer of inspector general of the new york police department recommended when officers become subjects of a internal or external complaint or investigation regarding potential misconduct they should not be purmtd today view the footage of the relevant incident until after providing a statement. this makes common sense. more important than making common sense, it comports with the stated reasons behind having body cameras in the first place

which is insure accountability, to instill public trust in police officers, to protect police officers from unjust complaints and to foster accountability. if we were to look at the reverse, there are many times when sit citizens or sus spects are on camera deing something. they are never allowed to look at the video footage of themselves on camera before being subjected to interrogation by police officers so how is this different? file misconduct complaint shouldn't be permitted to view body worn camera footage of the relevant incident until after they provided a statement to police investigator. parody in these provisions help tooz insure

fairness and preserves the integrity in the investigative process. again, the stated policy and the reason for body worn cameras is transparency and accountability. these are expressly stated goals. the goals are th warted that denies public access but allows a police officer to view body worn camera footage prior to a interview with internal affairs or someoneential from the investigative process. there are papers which discuss when an officer should be allowed to view footage prior to writing a report and this is a particular

area where i think a lot of people talk about stuff without really understanding the area at all. i don't think there could be a one size fits all policy. i don't think that the policy can say an officer can never view the footage or a officer could always view the footage. i think it depends on the situation and i don't think it is too difficult for the commission or eve frn the working group if we have taken more time to have evolved the policy to fit the specific situations. for instance, an officer involved shooting, officer-discharge of fire arm whether it results in injury or death or not, where a officer has arrested someone and charged that individual with

battery, assault, violent interference with the duty of executive officer. [inaudible] i think you know the penal codes [inaudible] any of those are in the same genre where the officer is a witness and/or a victim. in those situations there should never be a allowance to view the body worn camera footage prior to the officers interview with internal affairs. in situations where the officer is not a victim but is writing what is known as a on view report, in other words he is driving on the streets and sees nng and pulls over and isn't respondsing to dispatch but is

watching something occur, the officer should be allowed to view the bod a worn footage after writing his report and if necessary write a supplemental report. in situations where the aufsher is respondsing to dispatch to a citizen report of a robbery or burglary or domestic violence and as they take statements of victims and witnesses, the officer should always be allowed to view the body worn camera footage prior to writing his report because the officer is nearly the reporter and so i can see where it would aid the officer especially to say to not have to write down every word that a particular witness said and that is when and where

completeness and accuracy in the writing of a police report becomes a concern and consideration that makes sense for the officer to review the footage. in the other situations it really needs to be tailored. so, these were not discussed to the detail i'm presenting but it seems to take the position of, they should never be allowed to view the footage ever under any circumstances falls into the same trap of, well, they should always be allowed to view the footage. i think we have to think about what the work of a police officer is and how viewing, review and viewing of the footage fits the stated goals of the policy so where the stated goals of the policy

are accountability and transparency and protecting a officer with unjustified complaipts, we need to taylor this section of the policy to fit those goals. thank you. >> thank you. >> can i ask a question? i just want to get a understanding because i heard a number of things. i realize there are things you did not get consensus. did i also you raise some areas which there was disagreement and the consensus-you're personally disagreeing with? you don't have to go back to each one. >> i'm not sure what you mean

by personal. >> i know there was things the group didn't come to consensus about >> commanded mogesier pointsed out those areas >> as you went further were there also things that you personally did not agree with? >> yes, so in- >> and then did i also hear you say there were things you felt there were not enough in depth discussion about? >> correct. >> i'm trying to see the scope of the working group and was it confined by time because i heard you say that you consulted all these other standing policies out there from a number of different sources about body cameras >> i understand your confusion. the oig-nypd report we received on the next to last

meeting or the last meeting. was it august 11? it was the last meeting so sitting in the meeting on august 11 what i did is read the summary and then afterwards after we voted to send the policy forward to the commission, i read the entire report which is quite lengthy and detailed and takes a little time to study and think about and it was through reading the report that i realized our policy could be better. it could be more detailed in areas. we read thes other police department policy but we have not done this yet. >> i mr. only raising this because i know you are [inaudible] and you had all these other ways of doing this from a number of sources and all these other places. i'm

curious do you feel you just couldn't come to a consensus around a number of things you were talking about because you didn't have the time or you didn't agree with the way they do it and want to craft something specific for san francisco? >> i think it is a little of both. i definitely feel we wanted to respect the deadline and so we just agreed to disagree on these 2 specific areas pointed out by commander mogesier and subsequently i think about 2 weeks ago commander mogesier sent out the final draft policy and i was reading it through and reading it through in comparison to the other documents and thought we could make ours a lot better. >> it just seems to me >> there are oles other people

from the the working group so if you have questions about the process too-- >> it seems we are left with a lot of maybe that will happen in the natural course of the process. that is why i am trying to figure out-- >> i don't want to get eggs and tomatoes thrown at me but i'm open to you sending us back the table. i'm sure there are some that will be really pissed off. >> thank you for your perspective. >> thank you mrs. young. now i would like to invite mrs. jonathan yang and president marty [inaudible] up to say a few words. >> good evening. my name is

marty halren and president of san francisco police officers association. with me is jonathan yank. also with us tonight is the secretary of poa mike neven in the audience. we had representative attend all the working group meetings and want to eco what commander mogesier said and thank everyone who participated in the meetings. i won't name them all but appreciate the hard work they put into this especially from the command staff, members from the public defenders office and dhr and human right commission and the [inaudible] it was a spirited debate at times but believe we made substantial progress to get that draft here before you based on your timeline. i also

want to eco what commander mogesier said, i know there was a invite sent to the aclu, all these meetings were open #d to the public and announce td prior and it was disappointing that the aclu didn't send a member to the working group meetings. so, what we have-what you have before you here a lot of work from a lot of people who are dedicated to make sure this policy is the best policy we could forward at this time. i don't believe there is anyone in this room or watching onative who would nolt agree it is important for any police officer in all jurisdictions to produce the most accurate, thorough and complete report whether it be a initial incident report, a statement based on a initial report, a supplemental report or a interview a officer will

provide after the most critical incident being a officer involved shooting or in custody death. part of the policy right now within the san francisco police department is that in front line investigator first responding officers are required and directed to go out and seek any video footage from any criminal act that may have occurred they are called out to or with a on view and that can be a commercial establishment in the city, city property that may have cameras or a citizen that may be taking video footage. often times the officers are caught in the footage but the preliminary investigation the officers are directed to view this footage before they submit their initial incident report. now, there is a number of issues the deputy public defender mrs. young touched on but i would

like to focus on one now before i turn it over to our attorney jonathan yang. i would like to focus on iii subsection f, the viewing of the body camera recordings. mrs. young touched on a lot of that but i would like to advice the commission that there has been a long practice here in san francisco when we have an officer involved shooting or in custody death with the members, they are not required to provide a voluntary statement to the homicide investigator or there investigator from the disric attorneys but the poa aurfed to giver that statement rather than give a compelled staim. i'm sure you are aware of this and the chief is aware of this, but if our members are not allowed to view this critical

footage before providing that voluntary statement to the homicide investigators, the attorneys that are representing my members will more than likely advice those members not to provide that voluntary statement. we have a very transapparent system here in san francisco, more so than a lot of agencies in the state of california ore throughout the country. our members are not forced to provide that statement during a investigation of a officer involved shooting unless they're compelled under a ia administrative investigation. but, the only-i don't recall in my 15 years being involved in the poa where a member has not provided a voluntary statement to the investigators after a officer involved shooting or in custody death. there was a incident that occurred 2 years ago where a individual from the district attorneys office was

not going to allow the member to view the footage before that member gave a statement. the attorney doing what that attorney is supposed to do and protecting the members rights under peace officer bill of rights adviceed the member would not provide a voluntary statement. this ha hadn't happened and so there was back and force and then the member was allowed to view the foot squj that statement was given. i want to compare what we do here to what happens in la. in la they are direct ed not to provide a voluntary statement of any officer involved shooting or in custody eth. death. internal affairs comes enand they take over the investigation and they are the lead on a investigation and

they compel a statement which cannot be used later if criminal conduct was there. i don't think we want that here in san francisco. i see our members being very cooperative, very transparent cht i don't want to see us going backward so believe it is critical that those officers on a routine report be allowed to view their own body worn camera footage as well as it footage we have in here or any other public building or commercial establishment or even citizens i phonesism in a auchser involved shooting i agree with the public defender the member should not be allowed to view it until that member has legal representation with them and viewed in the presence of the investigation that is conducted by the homicide bureau and

office of citizen complaints and attorneys office and any number of investigators conducting that investigation. that is a point i wanted to point out and i believe we have shown a great deal of cooperation on these investigations because i believe our members get it right and i don't want to see us turning back the clock and turning into a agency such as lapd-they are a fine agency but believe wree more transparent here. speaking of lapd, they just rolled outd their cameras in the last 72 hours for a pilot program for 600 officers. the policy for lapd is their members shall view body worn camera footage before they write any incident report or statement or provide a interview. the policies out of

san diego and san jose and oakland are similar. their members have the tonight or they shall view that footage before they write their reports. i believe that is the best policy, i believe that is the best practice and believe that should be in the draft and voted on by the commission going forward. now, mrs. young did speak to individuals who are accused of criminal activity not allowed to view footage, but i have never seen those accused of criminal activity submitting any official report under the penty of perjury. our members are helds to a higher standard andment to make sure they submit a complete thury and accurate report and have other representatives from the other peg groups. i won't speak for the peg groups but at the

working group meetings we were on the same page and that is the officer for justice, asian and latin peace officer association, pride alliance and women network. i wanted to touch on section f and believe it should remain in the draft as is. i will turn it over to jonathan yang unless you have questions for me. >> can i ask about our policy. i feel what is helpful to me is if we identify the areas of disagreement and i would invite follow up letters or addendments to what we have but we are not deciding anything tonight >> do you have questions about the issues that are framed. great mind think alike so you have a opportunity- >> are there other areas within the drarft report and other sections the poa has

disagreement or additional viewpoints. >> yes we do and our attorney mr. yank will address those. >> jonathan yank. i'm one of the attorneys that works there fr the poa. i represent the poa in various capacities. i have 2 points, one is procedural points and the other subsstantative. on behalf of the poa i attended all but one of the working group meetings. i viewed my role as a observer but did my best to provide insight of the poa where i thought it might be helpful. the reason i want to distinguish my involvement with the working group in the poa [inaudible] yet to occur.

pursuant to california government code and city charter and administrative code the city is required to barg wn the poa over policy language where it has a impact on working conditions and want to state that process has not occurred on the poa reserves the right to bargain with the sit a over language this commission may adopt. we made this point clear throughout the process with the working group and the department command staff and represents from department of human resources acknowledged that process and that it will occur in the future. the second point is building upon what marty halren said and i will do my best not to repeat in areas because there is overlap but one of the areas where there is disagreement is whether officers should bow allowed to view their own camera footage and in one circumstances. one

of the concerns people seem to express in allowing officers to view footage is somehow in viewing the footage they are motivated to report les honestly. that is a little bit of a head scratching for me when you are viewing video that will inform you what happen but more importantly i'm not aware and nobody presented evidence that will aer can. evidence suggests it will lead to more accurate and honest reporting. dan [inaudible] professor of psychology at usc offered a article in the la times. watching body camera footage should reduce dishonesty

[inaudible] when the footage [inaudible] officers would feel emboldened to present their actions honestly and confidently. it is porpt to consider the detrimental consequencess of video that contained relevant to their conduct. psychologist [inaudible] likewise researchers have shown institutionalized distrust can foster cynicism [inaudible] more over, depriving officers of the right to view video before they write reports will set up for failure. [inaudible] in the end, the use of body cameras should reduce the use

of forth and lessen the need and opportunity to lie about it. encouraging evidence that supports this is established and conducted with police departments in the field. those are the words of dan simon, professor of law in psychology usf in a recently published article. i would point out the aclu itself in the july 13 letter doesn't take the position that officer should be presented from viewing footage before making reports. let's not lose site of the critical importance of incident reports particularly those reports be complete and accurate 6789 . the san francisco police department is a law enforcement agency. [inaudible] jumping off point for criminal investigations for them to be as effective as possibly they need to be complete and accurate.

presenting officers for viewing footage [inaudible] ultimately deprive law enforcement of a effective tool. so, all that being said, the poa is -understands the usefulness of body worn cameras and that was why the poa was involved at this stage and on to the commissions consideration and the [inaudible] >> thank you. any questions for mr. yank? thank you. >> thank you president halren and mr. yank. at this point i would like to open to any other members of the group who would like to make additional comments. >> commander mogesier i too

would like to thank commander mogeser and his co-chairs for their very thoughtful and professional conduct of the body camera working group and also the other members of the body camera working group and i won't go through the names again, but as commander mogesier stated, we met from june-august considering the many points of view we did reach consensus on so many areas of the draft department general order but there were 2 main policy areas that merge into one policy consideration and that is a circumstances under which a officer is procluded from viewing footage of a incident before giving a

statement. whether an officer was the subject or witness officer. then mrs. young has raised some additional points about clarifying language and making sure that we are very thoughtful-that the police commission is very thoughtful in the process before finally adopted department general order. i know there are questions about why some of these issues were not raised earlier and what occurred was that in late july, phillip [inaudible] who is the former director of the washington dc office of police complaints is now the inspector general of the new york police department, theubeer civilian overvite

everything. in late july he released this report and it was the first of the kind and it was not something the group considered during its deliberation. phillip [inaudible] not only evaluated the pilot program that was body camera program operated in new york but also looked for best practices throughout the country. now, commander mogesier and other co-chair carefully gathered the information that was available at the time but all of it was from either law enforcement agency or from the research organization perf, that is a law enforcement oriented

research organization and that is, it is not to belittle all the work perf does, i very much relied on that report as well, but finally to have a-something that was the first of its kind from the new york police department inspector general just added more information for us to consider. when i too agree you can't have a one size fits all of when a officer reviews the video camera footage but what i would like to do is just address a couple comment that have been made and perhaps tongue in cheek but at the police commission august 19 meeting when i first addressed this commission on the occ belief that additional limitation should be placed on when a officer could view the video, chief suhr responded we

shouldn't play gotia with these video jz that caused me pause because when the occ conducts its administrative investigation it doesn't do so with the intent to trick officers or trick complainant but what we do is make findings based on the preponderance of the evidence including the complaintants and officer and statements. i would like to quote from the nypd inspector general report on page 28 where it says, allow officers to review their recordings during active internal investigation, overvite proceedings or ininquiry oof serious use of force can impact integrity.

further quoting the report, body worn camera footage has no limitation on focus, attention or recollection and may capture an event the aufsers themselves did perceive, did not observe or could not reasonably recall exposing officers to event to which they may not have been pirfby of the time effects the ability of investigator to assess the aifsers appraisal och the circumstances which led him or her to take the action under investigation. the occ recommends that in addition to the limitations aurlds already in the daft department around criminal and immediate investigation there be additional language which provides which a officer is

notified by the occ or in[inaudible] the officer may not be permitted to view any recordsings. then after give thg statement the officer should be permitted to view the video and offer a supplemental statement explaining the difference between what the officer testified to and what is on the video. most importantly for fairness when determining truthfulness any inconsistency between what is on the video and what the officer recalled needs to be viewed under the standard of the officers initant materiality. matters not involved immediate investigation, which a officer

prepares a report the officer should first prepare it without viewing the video and mrs. young talked about specific situations where exceptions need to be made and i agree. then be permitted in those situations where it is prohibited to prepare a supplemental report. to conclude i would like it thank again all the working group members, the members of sfpd and civilian city and county of san francisco employees and most porntsly the community members, the members from the public defenders office, the bar association of san francisco and we didn't always agree but were never disagreeable. >> thraunk director hix. i see questions >> i just also wanted it thank

the working group and particularly the way everybody met all the deadlines. when we met on the first day everybody pulled together and was very respectful as the commission president says reasonable mind can disagrew. as i said in august it would be the wish of the department-not to take away from the policy makers-the officers be allowed to view the video. the officers do their job in real time. often times things take place in seconds that they will be questioned about for months or years to come in cort cases or litigation. if a officer is faces in one direction and sees something in another direction and something is captured or not i don't think is fair to

had officer they are put as a disadvantage to them and have to explain why something is or submit there. i think the point made by the attorney that if you put these on the officers with the message that it is because we don't trust them to start with, we are not getting off on the right foot where the officers will embrace this new technology for best evidence and police report and all the good things that go with reduction in force and complaints. to that end i think we need to go forward transparntly on both sides of the issue and everyone is on their best behavior and should we come across something down the line where we need to make a condition on something or where there is a approval to do x before y that can play out as

it has in other policies like in the la police department policy. we can get to that where we can put in the policy different circumstances, but by in large i think it is the best interest of everybody the officers be allowed to use these cameras so it is transparent both ways >> i have a question and i appreciate both sides. i understand we are in uncharted waters and this is new territory for us and i understand there may be a extra step involved when the comes to officer involved shootings or in custody arrests whether you revie the vid wroe before or after. what i hear the occ saying is you agree with the new york one when it come to

officer involved shooting or in custody death they write the report first. that is something to look into. i look at this, do you also recommend for use of force. there is also for use of force. >> it is also for use of force with serious injuries but the point that the oig report was making was when there are disciplinary proceedings that while the officer may have viewed the video at some earlier time, when the officer gets the notice there will be a disciplinary proceeding whether it comes from internal affairs bureau or ccrb which is analogous to the occ, that the

officer cannot view the video then. once the officer gives the statement, then the officer can look at the video again and then prepare supplemental. >> you are just talking bedisciplinary cases not initially if it is ois or in custody death or use of serious injury. whether they can review a [inaudible] >> there are 2 separate issues but i also agree that when it comes to those serious issues, the in custody death and officer involved shootings or criminal investigation that the officer not view the video in advance of giving a statement. >> thank you. >> vice president turman

>> i want to thank the working group and i want to thank commissioner loftus for making this commission take a very hard look at this policy and setting up a process where we are going to thuryly review and vet and take into consideration. i'm interested to hear what members thof public have tosay blt the draft policy and certain provisions. commander mogesier i will back up a little bit and change the focus here a little bit from section f and go back to section e for a moment, which is on the termination of recordings. actually let me back up even further. the section-you said there was a disagreement or discussion

around when recordings should take place and you said there were 2 scenarios. all the time they are on duty and then when specific incidence occur that are listed and the dgo list the incident but there are actually 3, correct? there is all the time someone is on duty, during -any time they engage with the public while they are on duty and the third level is during the specific incident. those represent 3 different levels, not 2 and we have gone for in this draft the third. why not the second one, any time someone engages with a member of the public. >> sure, that is a good

question. so, many instances where a officer engages with member of the public throughout the day that are not related to a crime. there are situations where individuals ask for directions. there are situations where we interact with children. there are situations where we simply have conversations with people in a neighborhood. those would be technically would they be police contact? yes. do we feel-did the group feel those would require a oser or should require a ufs officer to activate a camera and record? >> the issue is you don't know whether or not a incident will occur even in the most friendly of circumstances until the completion of that interaction. if you ever had thanksgiving

[inaudible] pass the rolls is a pleasant conversation but you should see thou is. i don't mean the make light of situations but you never know how certain things will turn out when there is a interaction and so there just seems to be a level of assumption that it wone turn into something >> we talked about that and if you look in the actual-section c, under number 8, any citizen encounter that becomes hostile or turns, the other-any time a routine conversation would move into a area that would be covered by this policy just because a officer didn't turn

on the camera doesn't mean they can't turnl on the camera and shouldn't turn on the camera. also we stalked about technology of the cameras and that typically the cameras have a 30 second buffer where thrai are recording over each other in a loop and i don't know all f all the cameras do that, i know some of them do where they record 30 seconds in a loop for that very reason so it records backwards so you will capture that first 30 seconds. if something starts to change and the officer turns it on we didn't lose the 30 seconds before and can pick that up and capture it when it comes into a area where we shall turn it on. >> i also noticed in the aclu white paper they said their position was developed over time. what they said is what

mrs. young said, have clear times where you shall turn it on and make that clear but you lose a lot if everyone feels like they are on camera all the time. just for walk around and doing the neighborhood police work we want you to do. >> the aclu's position was the middle tear opposed to the bottom tear, correct? this sadis sadis cushion we can have later >> it evolved to a carefully prescribed list. >> just to get-i agree with mrs. young on some of the vagueness and discorrectionary terms in e one and 2 but those

are areas we can define. is it not what the intent is there? it seems those should be more carefully crafted and defined. >> let's talk about number 1, we are talking about tactical or law enforcement information. if we were disussing tactics like say swat team tactics that wouldn't be something we want to record. we wouldn't want to be recording that discussion along with the higher ranking officer, that leaves room for a higher ranking officer if there is any situation where a officer would fall into a situation where it is prohibited boy the policy you

want to have a section that allows a higher ranking officer to say turn that camera office because it is a violation of this policy so we need to put in a mechanism to account for that so that is the thought process behind it. >> i think i would like to hear more of what the public has to say but it is a interesting discussion and wish i had attended these group meetings >> thank you for what you have done, it was very ambitious and very transparents and moved this forward. doctor marshal and i and commissioner dejesus [inaudible] as attorneys we

spot the issue and we figured out the issue tonight is when can the officer review the video prior to writing the report. there is the issue. the-as the chief said, there is this-there is a got chuissue of what do you want the officer to do so kierious to hear what the public has to say. we herds from mrs. young and [inaudible] are both defense council so i know what you like to do is discredit your witness and the best way to do that is if there is inaccurate statements. as prosecuteers you want the evidence as clear as it can be. the poe is here to protect the members and protect therectomies of the officers

but is there a member here tonight from the general public who participated in this and would like to hear their opinion and will hear what is their poirns as to whether the officer should have a opportunity to review the video prior to writing the report because my concern is what we'll get into is where the officer will write a report saying i was dispatch today the scene for this call and when i arrived please see the video. is there someone from the public here tonight to talk about that from the working group? >> i believe mrs. gill was our representative and don't believe she was able to attend tonight. i would like to add that in that discussion and those comments would be included in our minutes and notes. >> anything else further. commissioner dejesus >> this is a good start and think it does need tweaking and

think the new york report talks about clarity being helpful. the first thing it says for thaufsers in new york reasonable suspension isn't helpful for the officers on the street. i think there are areas we can make things clearer and don't know if this is a time to ask questions because i have questions on a lot of different sections. i don't know if you have speakers. if you look at section c, authorized use >> is now the time to jump into these questions? >> if any members of the group i want to make sure we had that opportunity. >> okay. >> i agree. lookic at section c, i notice the la, bart and oakland bart and san diego and

la when they talk about all members equipted shall activate equipment prior to initiating the following circumstances on the others but on ours says shall 96iate equipment. it doesn't give [inaudible] 3 different department said telling their people it is prior to these following circumstances. i think that good language so it isn't during or after or the middle. i think there is tweaking you can do. i noticed other departments have turning on the equipment for vehicle pursuits and do have vehicle pursuitess in the city. since we don't have cameras in the cars there are other departments that say if you turn it on for foot pursuits and i know it doesn't

say turn it on for use of force and know safety is a issue in terms when they can but look at number 8 and says becomes hostile and don't understand why we don't say for any use of force and be specific there. that is a area i would like discussion and have other areas. i don't know if i give them all now? >> what we are doing here is the other side of transparency is you are seeing [inaudible] and this is the point. this is the point is commissioner dejesus and your questions. i think we are at the stage of what is the thinking and can identify is this a item you discussed or is this in a bucket of things with the meetings and aggressive timeline that was missed because the goal is not to do that. i think it makes sense

for you to to- i heard 2 things i sure the commander has a response about whether they were deliberated on or not and what the discussion was. >> the use of force issues incidence and i'll do my best to represent the entire group, but use of force incidence would fall under detention or arrest, attempting to make a detention along with foot pursuit. we talked about the vehicle pursuits and we thought about the actual mount thofg camera and what footage that way capture dependent on where the camera is mounted. if it is chest level it will catch a steering wheel so it is dependent on what type of camera package we chose. that is something that could be

added if we have the capability to capture the pursuit versus a camera video taping a steering wheel. those issues were talked about and discussed. the thought process was that officers would be activating cameras or required to activate cameras during any of these incidence. that being at the beginning or onset of the incident. we can put in the language that as soon as the incident occurs or as soon as practical to activate it. >> my recollection is in earlier draft we had the word prior to and it was discussed. it was discussed, those words prior to were specifically discussed and one reason i

remember it bowing eliminated, i don't have all the drafts with me tonight, is because of the discussion of the advance equipment which allows the recording to be going and it will preserve the initial portion prior to a detention. it just seemed that-what i remember some members of the various poa's raising is what if you don't know that something is about-like you are about to make a vehicle stop and then you get criticized or in trouble for not turning it on prior to the vehicle stop? it just seemed to be, you know, kind of is it making it too complicated and making it too-is it setting the officer up perhaps for not having done something prior to? do you know what i'm saying?

>> you will make the vehicle stop-it seems reasonable you turn it on and give them clear direction and they in the middle of the vehicle stop and have no opportunity to turn it on. when it doesn't go on what will hap toon a officer. we have a officer who dozen turn it on because he doesn't realize it is prior to and in the middle of something we have a issue and i would like to be proactive. circumstances may occur where they can't turn it on and thipg you addressed that for officer safety but i would rather be inclusive and if it doesn't work and the camera is too low [inaudible] i think use of force is a very clear term and prior too gives clear direction. i also want to point out something i noticed in the new york and la one they

talked about having consequences and new york says now 6 months in let's talk about consequences of not turning it on. let's talk about who can release it and if it is released do you have consequencess for it being releasedism talking about administrative action and they define it in the la, it says serious misconduct. i didn't see any consequences attached so it doesn't have teeth and think it should. when it comes to turning on or off, they have your supervisor saying giving leeway whether it is a accidents or what or retaining issues but there is a conduct of not turning it on there should beconsequences and that should be spelled out. >> hat is a third issue. i give guidance to keep track of

the issue because it is ours now. keep track if there suggestions. i heard you have a third issue which is a question i had also so was that discussed to be clear of the consequences? >> i don't want a officer to say we get in trouble for that. >> i was going say the violation of any general order makes them subject to discipline. >> i get the general context but the white paper talks about letting them cloe. you train them and they should know if this is conduct that can bring them up on charges. i know we have all that but here we should tell what the

consequences are. one of the white papers talk about the complains rate is only 30 percent. i think part is because they don't understand there can beconsequences from the actions. i think clear and consize and give-i'm curious to see what you talked about where w the working group. >> i want to point out a couple things. under section g which is documentation, it talks about when members fail to activate or deactivate during a contact or reactivate during a contact the documentation needed to say, why did you do this which we felt was important and then regarding the discipline of failing to adhere it policy was exactly as the chief mentioned that all of our poss are covered under a

2.01 rules of general conduct on policies and the failure to adhere to any policy would make a-i thipg page 3 or 4 in the la 1 have specific paragraphs saying if you don't do this or don't comply with this it is considered misconduct. i think-let's be straight with everybody. i think it is page 3, section 7 for confidental nature. if it is released of this video or other violation of [inaudible] subject to disciplinary action. let the people know and there are other different paragraphs the one under it saying any violation

is considered serious misconduct. i don't see why we can't be forright and put it in there. >> we can have a cover sheet to the the order that can say as with all general orders-i think i can look it up but i imagine since they use serious misconduct if it falls under serious miscublt in la that may get you into a different category but i'll check and find out from chief beck. >> so i think-i do agree with some of the public defenders in terms of giving guidance to when and hoy a supervisor can tell someone to turn it off. that is all my comments. >> thank you. commissioner

hwang. >> i want to thank mrs. young and officer [inaudible] for discussion around enf. i'm trying to figure the big categories we are missing or disagreement on and as i was reading the policies in the reports of the other areas, some oaf the big categories b it seems notification is something brought up in the report about being a important thing i don't know if that was discussed as a category that civilians should be notified prior to the reporting if possible. i thank you retention was a big issues and seems the retention issue should be tied into statute of limitation or occ reports thmpt other big cart gore the right review and then categorization of the videos themselves. one of the departments stated that

marks regular every day encounters vurss ones that should be tagged with the result that every day encounters that don't result in incident should be deleted within 7 days or a few weeks. category f around contact with victims of sexual assault, connected to the idea. entry into peoples homes and there was a suggestion, a best practice is it should be terminated only on the victims request. they can be advised on tape and they can choose to terminate. the final question i have is directed a that city attorney is how much is sunshineable and that informs the privacy aspect. not

looking for answers but those are the buckets i was thinking of in terms of our report versus the others and-my only question is there big categoriess of thijs we need to focus on still as we move forward? >> so, i think-i know that when the working group went through and when drafted the policy we tried to address all the bucket squz looked at all the main bucket components of a body camera policy and thereat is where we got the draft that we have today. we felt all these areas are all important and all need to be address ed and talked about and that is what we attempted to do. >> my question may be addressed to the other members of the working group if they see there are other things that may be

missing. is there something else we need to focus on in the next couple weeks before we vote on the policy >> we are not voting on this policy. just so everybody is clear, in 2 weeks we'll have our first public meeting and the same draft is shared with thepublic and they can give their opinion everybody gets their time, then wealver a meeting in october to make sure everybody has a voice in the process. after those 2 meetings are done then we come back here and we'll have a discussion that will be agendized and the public will know, we'll have a discussion. the idea is we are in the middle of the process and won't make had [inaudible] there

will be another process that will continue and it will come back to us for final adoption. >> the areas that you pointed out commissioner hwang are gaping holes and this is just not done. it is just not finished and access to the footage is huge. public access to the footage. we have seen what happened in oakland when 2 people in different incidence were killed by police officers who were wearing body camera jz the footage isn't released and

it was shon to member ozf the media but only with protective order so this created public out cry and conts versey and seems to go against the policies. it needs to be discussed and thought about. i don't think when does a officer get to review the footage, i don't think you can come at it with blanket assumptions and one size fits all approach. i thipg you need to think about why-i as even a life long public defender can think of reasons why certain footage shouldn't be released to the public, but discussion around these areas can be had and figured out. all the talent and intelligence and information is here, it just neesds to be formulated and

written down. the other is notification. we discussed that. not at length but it was discussed. there were a lot of things we felt we had to move on and get to those other areas because we knew the issue of when a officer gets to review camera footage was going to take up a lot of time so there were certain things we skipped over. we did not discuss disciplinary action for non compliance with the policy. i think that needs-if this will be a dgo it needs to be part of it, right? especially when there is repeated instances of i forgot or i thought i turn td on or i turned it on and it wasn't working so all of that is part of a comprehensive policy.

>> doctor joe. >> and just want to put in my turn. now i'm getting the picture so the working group gives the report and a lot to think about. for the next few months we are getting more to think about. i'm not getting anything new from anybody else. wree not getting anything written or [inaudible] it will come back to us and we take everything we gathered from the working group and the public and craft a policy. correct? i'm just-maybe i'm premature . at some point-only because we have done this in the past. it won't get smaller, it will get bigger because we'll getplore

feedback and have our own working group inside the commission. that is something we have done before when we have a lot of stuff-i just say that is a possibility we create our own working group inside especially those that are very passionate about it. i'm just saying that could be a possibility when woe get to that stage. >> i appreciate it doctor joe. you have been on the commission for some time so [inaudible] you are the senior member? no. that practice worked, i think the thing that was very important in this process is that that-the public and folks from various groups have done work in this area and have thoughtful positions get together first and deliberate and see where we are and how apart folks are and the pointss are well taken we are looking for a good policy and recognize the urgency in the moment and

expectation from the public that officers have body cameras. i think we want it balance those interest and i'm open to forming a smaller group. i think it is important we make a statement as a commission that this commission is hearing all this and this commission will have 2 entire commission meetings dedicated to the subject because i think the chief said before, body cameras will be the new normal and effect many people in san francisco and folks that don't know who sit in these chairs so i think that st. why we take the approach and think that is a good suggestion. >> i understand this is a very important policy and one of the things i want to ask of ourselves is not to hurry into something if it takes longer than the time we have allotted. i would rather take the time that make any errors. not

that we won't because we have to try have test this but we have to be careful when we pass a policy it doesn't hurt people . it creates solutions. so i would like to think if we have a time when we are going to vote and that doesn't feel appropriate to do it then we'll take our time and move when we have done something that we ourselves feel very good about. >> i think that point is well taken and when we get to the point after hearing the feedback and having time to think about the issue squz hear from different fonegs if you feel you are not ready to vote you can make that point at the time. i do see my role as challenging us all, challenging us all in this moment to ask

more of ourselves but not to be reckless. we also have dgo's where we spent 2 years on where i was told i'm being too fast. that is my point is you can count on me to continue to challenge us and move as fast and responsible as we can but make sure you hold me to that. other questions or comments from my fellow commissioners? >> thank you to the working group, great job. >> so, what i will say again to everyone about next steps and said this 100 times but will keep saying it, we'll have a public meeting september 16 for the purposes of everybody having the same versionism you wone see edits to this draft,

everyone has the same draft t is on the website. the minutes of the working group are on the website so if you want to look at what the deliberation on a issue promote the public meetings. i see there are folks from officers for justice and i know sfpd has a twitter account and look that bar association. pride alliance is here. hope us promote this so we can get input from all the folks and that is it. i think that is our next step. commander mogesier, thank you. it was a mar thon presentation and thank you to everyone from the working group who came. >> we do have an agenda. let me get back to that. i'm going-any public comment on item number 5? mr. [inaudible]

welcome >> commissioners, president loftus and director hix, chief suhr, i don't know cumanner mogesier very well but he is a very honorable man and honest [inaudible] what i can tell most of the people on the commission were honorable people. commissioner mazzucco made a good point about half of the commissioner who are officers trying to cover their butts and about the third of the commissioner were public defenders and those sorts that want to protect criminals and there is only one person representing the people. maybe you want to divide up the division of labor so there isn't one human being that [inaudible] 20 or so people represent thg other 5 percent effected by the policy. that doesn't seem like a good

division of labor. the person i think her name was [inaudible] she better be spectacular because she is suppose today represent all the people. i don't think anyone is that great. number 2, i will skip that point. number 3, i xoe you say it was a open process but i'm a member of the public and i was aen aware of the prosand this is a process i was following very closely for years. whether your intention was to make it public or not i didn't feel involved. hopefully we'll be involved in the future sessions that will occur in the next month. the next thing i want to thank you president loftus for your unreezable dead lines. commissioner melara don't do it until you get it as close to

right as you can. okay, the main flaw in these draft policies is section e 2, which says after receive agordser from a higher rank ing member. that means any higher [inaudible] it needs to specify what type of order superior officer gave [inaudible] just having a superior officer give an order should not turn off your camera. that is crazy! director hix, if the policy is not to have the badge cam footage immediately go to your office and the complaint the notice there is a complaint you haven't done your job so

hopefully you push for that because if the occ doesn't get the footage immediately [inaudible] any time a officer is party to a contversity they shouldants be allowed to turn the badge off >> public comment. >> herbt wineer. i stated before this is my first police commission meeting and i will go out on a limb. i support the officer viewing his behavior on the camera before anything is done because one i think the officer would remember most is his emotional state. he has to balance it against what he did, how he acted and that allows him to view everything as a whole. i think this is extremely important whether it is right or whether it is wrong. i think is also for the officers

peace oof mind because this can be a life and death situation for him and a life and death sicheration for member thofz community and that is why the use of lethal force was involved. in order to get a view behavior you have to review what you did because you can remember your emotional state. that is inmost vivid thing you will remember but as far as observing what you did, that is also important, so i support what the police policy is on that point. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening and thank you commissioners and members of the public. my name is star child. [inaudible] also on behalf of bay area civil liberties coalition which is a coalition of bay area groups

defending sivl liberty [inaudible] groups like the media alliance, oakland privacy working group, restore the forest defending the forth amendment and a number of other groups. we want a strong a policy as possible holding prese officers accountable. this is des pritly fleeded in this country and the world today. i agroogree everything i heard rebucka young saying and glood she was part of the group. i'll second thcomment of the gentlemen who spoke before me, i was not aware of the working group happeningism members of the coalition to my knowledge were not aware of it. i didn't think the commission was stacked in favor of law enforcement. this is a problem. one representative from the public defenders

office isn't enough to balance a working group like that. by that i mean independent civil liberties advocate organizations would like a seat at the table and if sthra labor process required by law that should be transapparent and open to the public as wem. a lot of public distrust comes from the fact these proceedings do not have adequate sunshine and public participation. i enotice a number of officers in the room and police chief all due respect sitting up here on your panel, it compromiseing the independents of the commission to the chief and have officers come in uniform. we the public are supposedly

the ones in charge, these people working for us they should not have more of a role and say in the process than the public itself does. commissioner made a very good point about the policy not having any teeth. that is the main thing that i noticed looking at the draft policy is there are no consequences spelled out. they need to be spelled out and saying they can include the geneeral policy up to termination that isn't good enough. that is like saying if you enter this contest you can within up to 10 million dollars but within 5 dollars. there needs to be minimum policy and penalties for things like not having your camera on or for improperly handling footage. minimum consequences not just maximum. am i out of time?

>> yes. any further public comment? hearing none public comment is closed. call the next line item >> 6, public comment on all matsers pertaining to 8 below closed session including whether to hold item 8 in closed session >> ladies and gentlemen we are going into closed session so any public comment on that? public comment on us going into closed session. well come back. >> what are you going into closed session for? i didn't catch that. >> we don't have-there is a agenda you can look at but go ahead. >> i served for 2 years on the board of the libertarian

national committee and this is a problem not just here but too ovorganizations go into closed session when it isn't necessary so i wonder how necessary it is and remind you to be as open and transparent in everything you do as possible. i understand sometimes there are things that need to be done in closed session and hope this is one of them. thank you >> thank you. any further public comment? hearing none public comment is closed. call the next line item >> item 7 vote on whether to hold item 8 in closed session. >> do i have a motion? item 8 in closed session. all those in favor? opposed. motion passes. sergeant >> we are back in open

session. >> commissioner loftus you still have a quorum, item 9 vote to elect to disclose any or all discussion on item 8 a. >> do i have a motion? >> second. >> all in favor? opposed. motion passes. please call the next line item >>ite in 10 adjourn. ment >> do i have a motion adjourn? i would loo like taresend and invite commissioner dejesus.

>> i would like to ask if the commission would adjourn this meeting in memory of my father. >> do i have a motion? >> i move that we adjourn in memory of commissioner dejesus father. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye >> we are adjourned in honor of mr. dejesus. god rest his soul.

>> what if you could make a memorial that is more about information and you are never fixed and it can go wherever it wants to go? everyone who has donated to it could use it, host it, share it. >> for quite a great deal of team she was hired in 2005, she struggled with finding the correct and appropriate visual expression. >> it was a bench at one point. it was a darkened room at another point. but the theme always was a theme of how do we call people's attention to the issue of speci species extinction. >> many exhibits do make long detailed explanations about species decline and biology of birds and that is very useful for lots of purposes.

but i think it is also important to try to pull at the strings inside people. >> missing is not just about specific extinct or endangered species. it is about absence and a more fundamental level of not knowing what we are losing and we need to link species loss to habitat loss and really focuses much on the habitat. >> of course the overall mission of the academy has to do with two really fundamental and important questions. one of which is the nature of life. how did we get here? the second is the challenge of sustainability. if we are here how are we going to find a way to stay? these questions resonated very strongly with maya. >> on average a species disappears every 20 minutes.

this is the only media work that i have done. i might never do another one because i'm not a media artist per se but i have used the medium because it seemed to be the one that could allow me to convey the sounds and images here. memorials to me are different from artworks. they are artistic, but memorials have a function. >> it is a beautiful scupltural objective made with bronze and lined with red wood from water tanks in clear lake. that is the scupltural form that gives expression to maya's project. if you think about a cone or a bull horn, they are used to get the attention of the crowd, often to communicate an important message. this project has a very

important message and it is about our earth and what we are losing and what we are missing and what we don't even know is gone. >> so, what is missing is starting with an idea of loss, but in a funny way the shape of this cone is, whether you want to call it like the r.c.a. victor dog, it is listen to the earth and what if we could create a portal that could look at the past, the present and the future? >> you can change what is then missing by changing the software, by changing what is projected and missing. so, missing isn't a static installation. it is an installation that is going to grow and change over time. and she has worked to bring all of this information together from laboratory after laboratory including, fortunately, our great fwroup of researche e-- g researchers at the california academy. >> this couldn't have been more site specific to this place and we think just visually in terms

of its scupltural form it really holds its own against the architectural largest and grandeur of the building. it is an unusual compelling object. we think it will draw people out on the terrace, they will see the big cone and say what is that. then as they approach the cone tell hear these very unusual sounds that were obtained from the cornell orinthology lab. >> we have the largest recording of birds, mammals, frogs and insects and a huge library of videos. so this is an absolutely perfect opportunity for us to team up with a world renown, very creative inspirational artist and put the sounds and sights of the animals that we study into a brand-new context, a context that really allows people to appreciate an esthetic way of the idea that we might live in

the world without these sounds or sites. >> in the scientific realm it is shifting baselines. we get used to less and less, diminished expectations of what it was. >> when i came along lobsters six feet long and oysters 12 inches within they days all the oyster beds in new york, manhattan, the harbor would clean the water. so, just getting people to wake up to what was just literally there 200 years ago, 150 years ago. you see the object and say what is that. you come out and hear these intriguing sounds, sounds like i have never heard in my life. and then you step closer and you almost have a very intimate experience. >> we could link to different institutions around the globe, maybe one per continent, maybe two or three in this country, then once they are all networked, they begin to

communicate with one another and share information. in 2010 the website will launch, but it will be what you would call an informational website and then we are going to try to, by 2011, invite people to add a memory. so in a funny way the member rely grows and there is something organic about how this memorial begins to have legs so to speak. so we don't know quite where it will go but i promise to keep on it 10 years. my goal is to raise awareness and then either protect forests from being cut down or reforest in ways that promote biodiversity. >> biodiverse city often argued to be important for the world's human populations because all of the medicinal plants and uses that we can put to it and fiber that it gives us and food that it gives us. while these are vital and important and worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars,

the part that we also have to be able to communicate is the more spiritual sense of how important it is that we get to live side by side with all of these forms that have three billion years of history behind them and how tragic it would be not commercially and not in a utilitarian way but an emotio l emotional, psychological, spiritual way if we watch them one by one disappear. >> this is sort of a merger between art and science and advocacy in a funny way getting people to wake unand realize what is going on -- wake up and realize what is going on. so it is a memborial trying to get us to interpret history and look to the past. they have always been about lacking at the past so we proceed forward and maybe don't commit the same mistakes.

>> hi. welcome to san francisco. stay safe and exploring how you can stay in your home safely after an earthquake. let's look at common earthquake myths. >> we are here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco. we have 3 guest today. we have david constructional engineer and bill harvey. i want to talk about urban myths. what do you think about earthquakes, can you tell if they are coming in advance? >> he's sleeping during those earthquakes? >> have you noticed him take any special?

>> no. he sleeps right through them. there is no truth that i'm aware of with harvey that dogs are aware of an impending earthquake. >> you hear the myth all the time. suppose the dog helps you get up, is it going to help you do something >> i hear they are aware of small vibrations. but yes, i read extensively that dogs cannot realize earthquakes. >> today is a spectacular day in san francisco and sometimes people would say this is earthquake weather. is this earthquake weather? >> no. not that i have heard of. no such thing. >> there is no such thing. >> we are talking about the weather in a daily or weekly cycle. there is no

relationship. i have heard it's hot or cold weather or rain. i'm not sure which is the myth. >> how about time of day? >> yes. it happens when it's least convenient. when it happens people say we were lucky and when they don't. it's terrible timing. it's never a good time for an earthquake. >> but we are going to have one. >> how about the ground swallowing people into the ground? >> like the earth that collapsed? it's not like the tv shows. >> the earth does move and it bumps up and you get a ground fracture but it's not something

that opens up and sucks you up into haddes. >> it's not going anywhere. we are going to have a lot of damage, but this myth that california is going to the ocean is not real. >> southern california is moving north. it's coming up from the south to the north. >> you would have to invest the million year cycle, not weeks or years. maybe millions of years from now, part of los angeles will be in the bay area. >> for better or worse. >> yes. >> this is a tough question. >> those other ones weren't tough. >> this is a really easy

challenge. are the smaller ones less stress? >> yes. the amount released in small earthquakes is that they are so small in you need many of those. >> i think would you probably have to have maybe hundreds of magnitude earthquakes of 4.7. >> so small earthquakes are not making our lives better in the future? >> not anyway that you can count on. >> i have heard that buildings in san francisco are on rollers and isolated? >> it's not true. it's a conventional foundation like almost all the circumstances buildings in san francisco.

>> the trans-america was built way before. it's a pretty conventional foundation design. >> i have heard about this thing called the triangle of life and up you are supposed to go to the edge of your bed to save yourself. is there anything of value to that ? >> yes, if you are in your room. you should drop, cover and hold onto something. if you are in school, same thing, kitchen same thing. if you happen to be in your bed, and you rollover your bed, it's not a bad place to be. >> the reality is when we have a major earthquake the ground shaking so pronounced that you are not going to be able to get up and go anywhere. you are pretty much staying where you are when that earthquake hits. you are not going to be able to stand up and run with gravity.

>> you want to get under the door frame but you are not moving to great distances. >> where can i buy a richter scale? >> mr. richter is selling it. we are going to put a plug in for cold hardware. they are not available. it's a rather complex. >> in fact we don't even use the richter scale anymore. we use a moment magnitude. the richter scale was early technology. >> probably a myth that i hear most often is my building is just fine in the loma prieta earthquake so everything is fine. is that true ? >> loma prieta was different. the ground acceleration here was quite moderate and the

duration was moderate. so anyone that believes they survived a big earthquake and their building has been tested is sadly mistaken. >> we are planning for the bigger earthquake closer to san francisco and a fault totally independent. >> much stronger than the loma prieta earthquake. >> so people who were here in '89 they should say 3 times as strong and twice as long and that will give them more of an occasion of the earthquake we would have. 10 percent isn't really the threshold of damage. when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake. >> i want to thank you, harvey,

thanks pat for >> i love teaching. it is such an exhilarating experience when people began to feel their own creativity. >> this really is a place where all people can come and take a class and fill part of the community. this is very enriching as an artist. a lot of folks take these classes and take their digital imagery and turn it into negatives. >> there are not many black and white darkrooms available anymore. that is a really big draw. >> this is a signature piece. this is the bill largest

darkroom in the u.s.. >> there are a lot of people that want to get into that dark room. >> i think it is the heart of this place. you feel it when you come in. >> the people who just started taking pictures, so this is really an intersection for many generations of photographers and this is a great place to learn because if you need people from different areas and also everyone who works here is working in photography.

>> we get to build the community here. this is different. first of all, this is a great location. it is in a less-populated area. >> of lot of people come here just so that they can participate in this program. it is a great opportunity for people who have a little bit of photographic experience. the people have a lot, they can really come together and share a love and a passion. >> we offer everything from traditional black and white darkrooms to learning how to process your first roll of film. we offer classes and workshops in digital camera, digital

printing. we offer classes basically in the shooting, ton the town at night, treasure island. there is a way for the programs exploring everyone who would like to spend the day on this program. >> hello, my name is jennifer. >> my name is simone. we are going on a field trip to take pictures up the hill. >> c'mon, c'mon, c'mon. >> actually, i have been here a lot. i have never looked closely

enough to see everything. now, i get to take pictures. >> we want to try to get them to be more creative with it. we let them to be free with them but at the same time, we give them a little bit of direction. >> you can focus in here. >> that was cool. >> if you see that? >> behind the city, behind the houses, behind those hills. the see any more hills? >> these kids are wonderful. they get to explore, they get to see different things. >> we let them explore a little bit. they get their best.

if their parents ever ask, we can learn -- they can say that they learned about the depth of field or the rule of thirds or that the shadows can give a good contrast. some of the things they come up with are fantastic. that is what we're trying to encourage. these kids can bring up the creativity and also the love for photography. >> a lot of people come into my classes and they don't feel like they really are creative and through the process of working and showing them and giving them some tips and ideas. >> this is kind of the best kept secret. you should come on and take a class. we have orientations on most saturdays. this is a really wonderful

location and is the real jewel to the community. >> ready to develop your photography skills? the harvey milk photo center focuses on adult classes. and saturday workshops expose youth and adults to photography classes. (clapping.) the airport it where i know to mind visions of traffic romance and excitement and gourmet can you limousine we're at san francisco inspirational airport to discover the award-winning concession that conspiracies us around the world. sfo serves are more 40 million travelers a year and a lot of the them are hungry there's many

restaurant and nearly all are restaurant and cafe that's right even the airport is a diane designation. so tell me a little bit the food program at sfo and what makes this so special >> well, we have a we have food and beverage program at sfo we trivia important the sustainable organic produce and our objective to be a nonterminal and bring in the best food of san francisco for our passengers. >> i like this it's is (inaudible) i thank my parents for bringing me here. >> this the definitely better than the la airport one thousand

times better than. >> i have a double knees burger with bacon. >> i realize i'm on a diet but i'm hoping this will be good. >> it total is san francisco experience because there's so many people and nationalities in this town to come to the airport especially everyone what have what they wanted. >> are repioneering or is this a model. >> we're definitely pioneers and in airport commemoration at least nationally if not intvrl we have many folks asking our our process and how we select our great operators.

>> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the food option in san francisco airport are phenomenal that's if it a lot of the airports >> yeah. >> you don't have the choice. >> some airports are all about food this is not many and this particular airport are amazing especially at the tirnl indicating and corey is my favorite i come one or two hours before my flight this is the life. >> we definitely try to use as many local grirnts as we can we use the goat cheese and we also use local vendors we use greenly

produce they summarize the local soured products and the last one had 97 percent open that. >> wow. >> have you taken up anything unique or odd here. >> i've picked up a few things in napa valley i love checking chocolates there's a lot of types of chocolate and caramel corn. >> now this is a given right there. >> i'm curious about the customer externals and how people are richmond to this collection of cities you've put together not only of san francisco food in san francisco but food across the bay area. >> this type of market with the local savors the high-end products is great. >> i know people can't believe

they're in an airport i really joy people picking up things for their friends and family and wait i don't have to be shopping now we want people take the opportunity at our location. >> how long has this been operating in san francisco and the late 18 hours it is one of the best places to get it coffee. >> we have intrrnl consumers that know of this original outlet here and come here for the coffee. >> so let's talk sandwiches.

>> uh-huh. >> can you tell me how you came about naming our sandwiches from the katrero hills or 27 years i thought okay neighborhood and how do you keep it fresh you can answer that mia anyway you want. >> our broadened is we're going not irving preserves or packaged goods we take the time to incubate our jogger art if scratch people appreciate our work here. >> so you feel like out of captured the airport atmosphere. >> this is its own the city the

airline crews and the bag handlers and the frequent travels travelers and we've established relationships it feels good. >> when i get lunch or come to eat the food i feel like i'm not city. i was kind of under the assumption you want to be done with our gifts you are down one time not true >> we have a lot of regulars we didn't think we'd find that here at the airport. >> people come in at least one a week for that the food and service and the atmosphere. >> the food is great in san francisco it's a coffee and i took an e calorie home every couple of weeks.

>> i'm impressed i might come here on my own without a trip, you know, we have kids we could get a babysitter and have diner at the airport. >> this is a little bit of things for everybody there's plenty of restaurant to grab something and go otherwise in you want to sit you can enjoy the experience of local food. >> tell me about the future food. >> we're hoping to bring newer concepts out in san francisco and what our passengers want. >> i look forward to see what your cooking up (laughter) ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> today we've shown you the only restaurant in san francisco from the comfortableing old stand but you don't have to be hungry sfo has changed what it is like to eat another an airport check out our oblige at tumbler dating.com. >> thank you madam chair. the first order of business is item no. 1 roll call. commission members, please respond when i