. >> 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. >> i'd like to call roll. >> please do. >> commission president loftus is excused. commission vice president is excused. commissioner marshall is excused. commissioner dejesus, present. commissioner mazzucco, present. commissioner mazzucco, you have a quorum. also wuls is (inaudible) representing the department and gregory p. surr

>> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the wednesday, january 14th, 20th san francisco police commission. no, you are not having a flashback. i'm filling in tonight for commissioner loftus who along with chief greg sur and joyce hicks are flying back from washington, dc where they spent the last 3 days at a group called perf they've been back there since sunday essentially looking at what other police departments have been looking at in terms of what options to police departments have in dealing with individuals who have knifes and sharp objects. it's part of what we're doing concerning the use of force, they went back there all three together and we will have a report on that last week. that's why we are not here tonight, we have 4 commissioners, we worked hard, one commissioner is not feeling

well but we really wanted to have a meeting to accommodate all of you. item 1. >> item 1, adoption of minutes, action for the meetings of october 7, 14, 21, november 4 and december 2, 2015. >> commissioners, you have the minutes in your packet. are there any questions or additions? >> i move for adoption. >> second. >> all in favor? >> we have to have public comment. >> public comment regarding our minutes. mr. petrellis >> good evening, is this working? my hearing aids are busted and they're in the shop, both of them. okay, listen, you are adopting minutes from october. october? i don't know why it is taking the commission this long to approve your minutes from

october -- three meetings in october, one meeting in november and one meeting in december. i have issues with this because i think that you've got to be putting the minutes out sooner on the web. i'm just assuming, i'll check it when i get home tonight, that the minutes from october are not yet on the web. if they're not, that's not okay. i don't know how they could be on the web until you have approved them. you've got to put these things up sooner, you've got to process them sooner. thank you. >> any further public comment regarding the adoption of our minutes? hearing none, public comment is closed. we have staff working with commissioners and many issues and they do a great job. please call line item 2. >> did you vote on the first item? >> we're all good. >> item 2, consent calendar, receive and file action. police commission report of

disciplinary actions 4th quarter 2015, request of the chief of police to accept a $50 burlington gift card from mr. jim kennedy, burlington's regional loss prevention manager to be donated to a local charity or a family in need. >> i move to accept --. >> any public comment regarding the $50 gift card that the chief is going to give away? >> no, it's on all consent items. >> and the gift card. >> and the disciplinary actions. >> he says to a family in need, right? i'll take it. >> i don't know if we can do that, miss brown. >> well, you said. >> thank you. mr. petrellus, would you like the gift card? well, we can't do it. i apologize. any further public comment regarding the consent calendar?

mr. petrellus. >> we're talking about the 4th quarter firearm things? i'm very glad that you have a paper copy of this document here. what troubles me, though, on page 2 it talks about the first case oid006-15 and then the other case was ois 15-005. there's no information about the officers. they are not named. there really has to be word coming from this police commission that you understand the state law prevents you from naming these cops, but when you are presenting these reports -- excuse me -- summaries back to us and you are talking about discharging of arms you are telling us about an investigation about what happened in these two incidents

and we don't know the officers' names, this is really then rendered pretty worthless. you've really got to find a way to call on the state to change the state law that would allow police forces around the state to disclose the names of bad cops. thank you. >> any further public comment on that? hearing none, public comment is closed. please call the next line item. >> before we go --. >> public comment now, miss brown. >> before we move to public comment the commission would like to report that there will be 4 community input sessions on the use of force policy. there will be 4 forums on january 19th, january 21st, january 26 and january 27th for the community to provide input to both the commission and to the police department. these will be each of those nights from 6:00 to 7:00 pm and there

are flyers on the table and we will post this to the web site. >> given the time constraint this commission has put on itself with reference to looking at the use of force policy, rather than have full-fledged commission meetings we're going to do what we have done in the past so there's more community access, more meetings. we're going to have meetings through the police department, we will have 2 or 3 commissioners present, we will not have a quorum present. as you heard from sergeant killshah, the dates of january 21, the 26 and the 27, those dates have been chosen. later on tonight i will be asking for commissioner volunteers, the location for the 19th to be determined, the 21st is the baptist church, the 21st is bayview ymca and the 27th is a location to be determined. so we're trying to spread this out and get as much

exposure as we possibly can in a short period of time. so now we can move into general public comment . >> item 3, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or occ personnel. under police commission rules of order, during public comment neither police or occ personnel 94 xhirs are required to respond to questions presented by the public but may provide a brief response. please limit your discussion to 3 minutes. >> mike, you are first. >> good evening, i'm not in a very good mood and i'll be honest with you. this mr. wood case has turned into a nuke.

we have the board of supervisors tied up in it. why? the whole system failed. they should have had tasers, okay? i was all over this city with greg sur and george, let's get the taitz taser, we'll give it to you but you have to carry a defibrillator almost. now what have we got. >> i can tell you tasers that just happened today in chicago and new york that makes this look kind. i have friends around. but why? we blew it. we could run to get the body cams, oh, hurry up, hurry up. body cams don't kill civilians. why? why aren't we taking a vote tomorrow or whenever to get these tasers? why? we want to kill another one? yeah, did you read the comments on that article about the supervisor? i gave it to her. you ought to cut it out. he

stabbed his brother, details of the whole case. it's not hidden now. but, no, they obviously unload -- i'd like to see that me report, i'll bet you that poor body looked really sweet. so we all failed. you failed. you failed. now we got a dead body and probably a six or 7 rr million dollar lawsuit. have a good evening. >> next speaker. >> my name is angel van stark and i'll be representing the harvey milk democrat club. dear police chief ed sur, the police officer association and the san francisco board of supervisors. we write to you today to demand justice for mario woods and the individuals that have been mrur dered by the department. we stand in

justice for mario woods. release a public apology, payment by the san francisco police department and the city and county of san francisco for the funeral of mario woods, termination of police chief greg sur, an external investigation into the murder. san francisco has been a well-known leader in many social justice causes. sadly, however, our police department has lagged behind implementing 21st century police techniques. despite the fact that san francisco police department has adopted community policing policies, these policies have no point of accountability or enforcement. additionally police chief greg sur allow racism, homo phobia,

transphobia instead of allowing the board of supervisors to vote in favor of protecting all citizens of san francisco and not just the most elite. far too many black and brown folks, people with physical and mental disabilities and members of the lgbt community have suffered at the hands of the police department. this is not unique to san francisco, it is a national endemic but we refuse to let it happen here. (inaudible) abuse of power and bigotry that is causing unjust pain and suffering in our communities. it is clear current training and practices being deployed by the san francisco police department are part of the problem and that better solutions like anti-oppression training, deescalation and conflict resolution are necessary. the harvey milk club demands immediate action be taken to

ensure justice for victims of police brutality, including mario woods and alex nieto and for the police commission to aggressively pursue measures that include transparency and best practices. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker? >> somebody can go ahead and go first. . >> my name is rodney williams, i'm a real estate tired 28 1/2 year member of the san francisco police department, retired as an inspector of police. last week i was at an seiu meeting with 40 other organizations. commissioner

dr. joe marshall was our guest speaker and at that event he explained the functions of the commission, which was to set policy for the department and to conduct disciplinary hearings on charges of misconduct, police misconduct. why am i here today? i'm here because the question and answer discussion, the commissioner was asked who he representings and much to the surprise of everyone, practically everyone in the audience, including myself, he said he represented himself. and people were just puzzled by that answer and they asked him again, commissioner, who do you represent? emphatically he said, i represent myself. as a former director of police community relations i address

many community groups and when the question came up about the police commission i said basically, in the final analysis, they represent you. at that time they were just appointed by the mayor and now it's the mayor and the board of supervisors. but i said, basically the mayor appoints these community citizens as commissioners and they, in turn, represent you, just like any other agency of the city, he can't personally supervise them and he appoints people to do that. as i said, everyone was surprised and shocked and i was, too. and i'm here today to find out actually who do the commissioners represent? that's a question. >> dr. williams, i've known you for many years. we're not allowed to respond to questions

but suffice it to say the commission represents the public. >> i'm sorry? >> the people. the public. >> i think, and that's a great question and dr. marshall is not here to respond. but i would imagine that when -- we are a body, together we are a body but individually if you invited us to speak we do not represent the commission when we are asked to speak to the public because it is not the commission that is sponsoring the speaking engagement, it is -- as individuals we can't speak for the full commission. so i'm wondering if that's what he meant. >> well, it was my understanding that the question was who do you represent not as, in his case, not as dr. joe marshall, but who do you represent as a police

commission. and we're asking him not as a personal thing but as a body, a member of a body. that's what we were concerned about. i would like to have gone back to the next meeting of the seiu and explain that i did appear here and now it's been explained to me that the commission does represent the community. okay, thank you very much. >> thank you, dr. williams, good to see you again. next speaker. miss brown? >> may i use sf gov for a short part of this video? it's a different part. >> violent death impacts

families, friends, relatives and the community. >> i pray that you would let your angels watch over us and keep us. help us be the light in a dark place. help us (inaudible). >> fall unto you and you will answer us. >> these are times we needed to rely on each other. we turn to the church when services and programs have been too few or inadequate. >> let me say this. the thing that we are here. >> we speak out and tell our stories. >> we lost four --. >> my son was murdered in 2005 along with sharelle's son. >> killed. >> my grandson. >> on september 9, 2004, we

started the healing circle for the soul support. >> go where people understood where people understood what you're going through. >> we met upstairs and people understood our feelings of loss and frustration. >> i am here because i have friends who don't understand. >> all of us know about (inaudible), sun is shining, radio is playing, you are feeling good and all of a sudden, bam, out of nowhere that vision, that voice, that look, that laughter, that morning and all of a sudden you are transformed back into that first shot. >> we spent the whole day. >> survivors came from all over to tell their stories and by speaking out, we began to process the trauma and support

one another. >> he just received that diploma. he should have been walking across ta stage, but i did. >> they were my children and they won't come forward. >> (inaudible) i would like to sit down and have a conversation with the one perpetrate err that we had in custody. >> we soon found our direction, we found our purpose. >> that's why we're here, so our loved one did not go in vein. >> we've got to keep bugging them and letting them know your

family member. >> thank you, miss brown. next speaker? welcome back, mr. crew. >> thank you. i want to respect your time. my name is john crew, i'm speaking as an individual, i'm here really responding to the invitation of your president last week where she invited interested members of the community if they had ideas, suggestions for the issues you are facing to come forward. i wasn't sure i could attend. i, like inspector williams want to invoke commissioner marshall. i was struck by what he said last week talking about the woods shooting. if this is within policy then policy has to change. there is some simple clarity to that. but the unspoken corollary that you cannot and the public

cannot lose track of, if this was not within policy then you must have accountability. to focus only on the first and not the second risks losing the public's trust. we need to be honest and speak about these issues. the accountability is not just a matter of discipline, whether or not the officer should be disciplined or terminated, for statements that leave the public assuming that the investigation into the policy investigation is biased from the start. this department has a lot of work to do and this commission has a lot of work to do to rebuild trust and confidence, not only from this incident, this tragedy, but from what has been going on for the last year at least. and that's a long-term project and i completely agree with dr. marshall, it's much larger than who the chief happens to be at any particular time. but there needs to be some basic truth-telling, basic clarity. you should be doing this policy review. but we know now you are not going to change the basic deadly force

standard. there's four elements, been that for a long time. there needs to be a subjective belief that's reasonable that there's imminent danger of serious bodily injury or det. you definitely should consider giving greater deescalation to officers, the crisis training that was promised many years ago. why it hasn't happened, i don't know. you should do all those things but in the end you have to enforce the policies that you have, you have to signal to the public that you mean it. and when the chief of police, the current chief of police, perhaps with good intentions very shortly after this incident twice within a matter of days, at a press conference at a community meeting shows a freeze frame off a video and suggests that the deceased was raising his arm when the shots were fired, and when the poa in the wake of that sends a letter to the

board of supervisors criticizing the supervisor saying you can't talk about this, the chief has already opined that this was within policy. you have a problem. you have a problem because the public -- i mean the poa thought the conclusion had already been met, what do you think the public is going to think? the chief was asked last week about that statement and he responded, no, i wasn't issuing a conclusion, i was merely commenting about the facts that were known to me at the time. fair enough, but that cries out for more questions you need to ask. if you can give out partial information that it turns out if you look at the video carefully and parcel it down, that arm was not coming up until in reaction to the shots being fired, doesn't the public if you want them to have trust sdroif an update on what do you know now if you are giving out partial information. furthermore, who gave him that information and why was it relied on at that stage?

>> i apologize, we have a 3-minute rule. >> do you have any questions for me? >> i hope you do come to some of the meetings. you have been involved in the police system for many, many years -- decades. it would be valuable to have you there. i have to say on the crisis intervention side we have more than 400 officers crisis intervention trained at this time which is more than any other police department so that's important to know for the record. next speaker. >> just to point out, there was a crisis intervention officer at the scene. >> my name is greg coralis, i was sworn into the san francisco police department on september 2, 1969 by chief of police tom cahill. having served just short of 45 years i reluctantly retired from the

department on may 29th, 2014. during my career i served 15 different police chiefs. some of those chiefs were strong on law and order but they were challenged when it came to community relations. other chiefs had very solid community relations credentials but when it came to fighting crime they couldn't find a felon in san quintin. greg sur is the rare example of a police chief that is not only an exemplary crime fighter but he is also a police chief with a career-long history of compassion and sensitivity toward community concerns. now, we all know that police cal expediency rears its ugly head everywhere in city

politics. i know it derailed my career but i have no regrets about that. i knew san francisco was a political city, yet i chose to serve in the san francisco police department with that knowledge in mind. as we all know, police commissioners are political appointees. there will always be a certain amount of legitimate political give and take by all police commissions. at this time, however, i would like to fervently emphasize to the members of the commission the importance of taking a stand and doing the right thing by supporting chief sur despite any political pressure being exerted. in closing, i'd like to explain my motive for addressing you here tonight. my wife was born and raised in san francisco. between the two of us we have served the san francisco police department 75 years. we're home owners in san francisco, we raised our

daughter in san francisco. we love the city of san francisco. we want what is best for our city. now, greg sur certainly is not perfect. he proved that by never promoting me to his command staff. you got to wonder about that. but despite his lack of acumen when it came to promotions, he's been an outstanding chief of police and he has earned our support. thank you very much for your attention. >> thank you, captain krause, and thank you for your years of service. next speaker. >> good evening, my name is mike petrellis and i'm here to speak about a number ever things. the first item is, again, mario woods is omited from your agenda. since mario woods was killed by a cop you have had several meetings and not once

has his name appeared on your agendas. i don't know if it's going to take a complaint to the sunshine ordinance task force to wake up this commission to really get with giving us detailed agendas before your meetings. it is not acceptable that meeting after meeting it says chief's report and the first item is review of recent activities and then of course he presents just verbal information. we never get a written report from the chief. the chief and this commission need to put on the agenda the death of mario woods. you can no longer bury what happened in vague chief's reports. the next item i want to address is the media department. it took a public records request to get three pages of information that came today about -- you have dozens

of paid personnel who are maintaining twitter accounts. you have 8 people in your public relations department. this information comes from (inaudible) and i cannot listen to anyone say we don't have enough personnel to give you more information, michael, because i see you have 8 paid people in the media department. the information that they gave to me today is going to go up on the web. i've created a new web site, government access project blog spot dot com. if you go there you're going to find a few months worth of the police chief's calendar. i'm urging everyone to cares about police accountability in san francisco to go to government access project dot blog spot dot com. read the police

chief's calendar. he is refusing to put his calendar on the web. i find that unacceptable. we need real transparency of the police department and part of that transparency equals the police chief's calendar must be on the web, i'll put it up every month that you give it to me so people can find out how he is spending his time. transparency is going to lead to some better policing in san francisco. and that transparency can start at this commission when you put mario woods' death on your agenda. thank you. >> any further public comment? >> good evening, acting

president mazzucco, commissioners, deputy chief sinez and the staff attorney, i didn't get your name, my hearing is not too well. ladies and gentlemen, i'm here to support the chief and the officers involved in the mario woods shooting. i'm a retired san francisco police officer, i live here in the city, and in my duties i served over 8 years at the bayview station. and during my time in the department i also served on the critical incident response team which, as you know, responds out to assist officers that have been involved in a traumatic incident. and officer-involved shooting is considered one of those traumatic incidents and be from my experience use of force is never pretty. it's ugly, no matter what, whether it's hands on, using a taser, using less lethal or having to use deadly force. it's not nice, ever, for an officer to have to punch

somebody it's ugly. for an officer to have to grab somebody it's ugly but at times it has to be done. from my time on the critical incident response unit i can pretty much guess what those officers are going through. they are probably wishing they had never gone to work that day. they are probably wishing that mr. woods had submitted to their orders. they are probably wishing there's something, anything, that they could have done other than what they had to do. you know, they had him in an area and people said, well, they should just let him go. well, they were with the understanding that he had stabbed somebody and i can tell you today that if they let him get past them and hurt one of my family, one of my friends, because they got out of the way then i'd be up here calling cowards. instead i'm up here to call them heroes. that's what they are. they showed up

for work that day, they put that uniform on not knowing what was going to happen and that is a day that they had to do what needed to be done, that no officer ever wants to do. i did over 32 years in the department and i was lucky, never lucky, that i never had to use my gun but i'm here to support the chief and those ofrsers. thank you. >> thank you, chief frost. any public comment? >> my name is brandon weiss, i am a post doctoral fellow in clinical psychology and my area of expertise is ptsd in addition to all the issues that i'm sure everyone wants to talk about, i think that one very major problem that i at

least don't see nationly let alone in san francisco is doing something about mental health reform and stigma for law enforcement officers, critical incident stress debriefing is not bad but the efficacy data is not very strong over time. in that moment it might help but what they really need is to be able to destigmatize coming out as having issues witnessing traumatic events every day over time and the symptoms that can come across because of that. i think, i don't knowabout in this incident, but i know a lot of times when you have experienced chronic traumatic stress one response you have, it's not only to be very hypervigilant but also to sometimes act impulsively. so even if it's a split second gut reaction i think a lot of things could be avoided if this

was actually properly identified and addressed. it's not going to happen until the culture surrounding mental illness changes really nationally but especially within the police department. because as i'm sure you are all aware, people don't come forward because not only do they not want to look weak, they are also afraid of losing their jobs if they are deemed to be unable to actually serve and many folks can have ptsd and other mental health disorders and still do their job very, very at adequately and can get very good treatment. i think that would be something worth looking at and investing in especially for the future of the police force. i wanted to mention that. >> any further public comment? ufr already commented once, i'm sorry. no, i'm sorry, i apologize. any further public comment?

as the next person is making their way, what the last speaker spoke about is actually an issue the police department has been addressing in many fronts. on the one front, as we said, we have over 400 crisis intervention trained officers but you may want to meet up with lieutenant frost i can't afterwards, this commission has put in place for the officers (inaudible) when ptsd kicks in as you probably know better than all of us it's down the road and we weren't recognizing that and now we're recognizing that. police officers are very good about helping; they are not very good about asking for help. you bring up some good points but we have a strong and robust program in place. several years ago we realized some of these officers involved in

incidents ended up down the road needing discipline. yes, sir. >> i'm a clinical psychology student, study trauma, brandon is my best friend. and i was on the bart train in oakland this past saturday when a man was shot and killed by -- and all of the footage on the media was mine and like brandon said, a lot needs to change with mental health stigma and how we put, we sort of misconstrue what mental health is, what

mental illness is. one of the problems is that, you know, a lot of what people do in those critical moments that i saw when i was slammed down on to the ground of the train and thought that it was a terrorist attack and i was certain that i was going to die, one of the things that you see are the snap judgments by everyone. so it's really not just the police officers, it's all of us. apblds a lot of us don't want to be afraid, don't want to be sad or scared. and we want to prevent other people from being sad and scared and what not so a lot of times we push off a lot of the things we're feeling in these moments. one of the other things i think we do is we don't want to fail, we don't want to do the wrong thing, we don't want to dehumanize someone, we don't want to see the color of

someone's skin and be like -- and assume that they might be more likely to hurt us or that they may not more likely to be a criminal. and on that day i think that it's important to point out that there was one black man who killed another man, but the person on my train who i was very scared of in the moment was a very large black man who screamed at all of us to get down. and i didn't know if he was the person who was going to attack me or if he was the person who was trying to save me or help me and he was definitely the person who was trying to save and help me, as well as two people in the back of the train who were also black who likely had been through some gun experiences before because when they were laughing, which they weren't laughing in a xheedic comedic

way, they were comforting some people on the train. some people when they started laughing at them started yelling at them, don't you know this is a traumatic experience? they responded by saying, yes, of course we know this is a traumatic experience. we experience gun violence all the time. people in our family have been killed by guns by the police, you know? so another person who was, i guess, you could say acted heroically, i with also say that that's accurate but also more true was the fact that a lot of people in those moments had the training to act really against their stereotypes. there were nurses who were able to resist the emotional experiences that they had and move through the chaos and to the scene of

horror to the able to be there for someone who most certainly was going to die. you know, i recorded all of that because i knew that we often get this information incorrectly. i also listened to the police officers who were a couple of them were really amazing and comforting and i think that's important to point out, especially some of these women who were just absolutely horrified and, at the same time, in some ways trying to protect those women from having to say too much. they asked a question, i don't know if i want to ask that question, they would continue and accidentally cut things off and almost frame the questioning in a very leading way. >> i apologize, your three minutes is up. >> may i read one thing? >> i'm sorry. >> may i request that? >> no, i really apologize. if

you stick around, when we talk about current activities, why don't you come back. we have another, we have the chief's report, you can come back after that. i apologize, we have to follow the rules. i really do. just stick around. thank you. next speaker? hearing none, public comment is now closed. >> three minutes and --. >> good evening. >> good evening, i'm putting another information request in, get this one signed as received. i guess the problem is, you know, you talk about the police being traumatized, i'm traumatized by the police. you know, just, you know, continuous violence from them, you know. you know, they attack relatively with immunity. i hear stories where

they are pulling assault rifles on people sitting in their vehicles and they are just sitting in their vehicles. you know, i got a video, i put it on you tube, the police are just parading through the bart station and they start taking selfies. i mean, they are in the milds -- middle of the bart station with their shotguns. it's just worse, police threatening to kill me, police threatening to plant evidence on me, i mean i brought it here, this body thought it was okay. so, i mean, it's what bad to be a police officer because of the post traumatic stress disorder but it's bad to be a citizen because of the violence they commit on us. i could talk about mario woods and different

things like that but it's just one of the numerous people that have been killed by the police. the video doesn't match, i mean i keep hearing the video doesn't match what the police said, it doesn't match what the police reports -- about my last information request, i put in a request for documents. i didn't get a response, you know, so i'm just wondering what the intent is. i put in a response for documents, i get nothing back, you know, so just as long as you know, as long as you know, i know ray hearts, i know crossman, i know those people and that is part of the people that i run with. so,

you know, you don't have to respond right now, you don't have to respond in 24 hours like the ordinance says or you don't have to produce documents in 72 hours but somewhere along the way eventually give to the board of supervisors that you refuse to basically follow the ordinance of the city and county of san francisco. >> thank you. any further comment? hearing none, public comment is now closed. call the next line item. >> hi, i'm laz stanford tree. here i want to show you a picture -- beneath the stadium, i'm always last to comment. i came here last time, i was here december the 2nd, i didn't know that had happened to mr. mario woods but this was a picture of a little boy with his daddy close with some flowers, my

quonset picture. i thought these got taken on sunday but they were in my briefcase. what i would say, i went to the funeral, i seen a 17-year-old guy there, he looked 17 to me, and the idea that he had read people like langston hughes, james baldwin, i felt part of me darryl was a very well-read child and i stayed there until 5.52 that evening taking pictures. i hope this will bring us a chance to have, i wore my blue shirt, blue piece, diana ross liked the police, sing the blues. i hope by this time tonight that also i have 4 lottery tickets. if i within

the lottery i'm going to make sure that we have a new kind of peace, justice come together with the police officer association, officers police citizens, police officers and the community because, you know, the president spoke last night, he didn't say anything about violence in america but i was honored to hear that president london breed said that she would have someone look into it because i know i lost my brother in chicago january the 3rd, 1986 and that's been some years ago. it's just hard to think that you can be shot because of who you are or shot because someone has not been -- i also think in london, england, the police don't carry guns there. i was wondering what could we learn from england where they don't carry guns unless you have to have that. you know, i had told people growing up you

often see execution and hangings from the old days for different things but you never actually seen a public execution. i was hoping there was a clip, a movie strip, but it was for real but i pray that we all -- my other thing is the tenants at my building, the bachelor hotel, we want to know can we get police cameras on the 5th floor, the hamilton hotel used to have police cameras because we getting a lot of speed in our building and we want to know can we be like the hamilton hotel. >> any further comment? public comment is now closed. >> item 4, reports and announcements, review of recent be activities, presentation of the annual report regarding the department's work with the joint terrorism task force, jttf; presentation. 4th quarter

2015fdrb findings and recommendations and ois investigative summary. >> welcome. >> good evening, commissioners, members of the community, my name is (inaudible) hector (inaudible) standing in for chief sur. as you mentioned earlier in your opening, chief sur is in washington, dc with president loftus and director hicks, they are attending the police executive research forum, also known as perf, researching the police force training forum. some of the things discussed are going to be part of this curriculum and i will touch on those briefly. they include officer safety, sank sit of life, critical decision-making

model, tactical communication skills, time and distance strategies, handling persons with mental illness and crisis and as you mentioned, commissioner, the program is well underway and is now part of our training curriculum for the basic academy class. every academy class graduated from now on will leave the academy with those basic skills. also the deescalation skills so i look forward to the chief's report on this when he returns. that concludes what i have for this commission. i now call up lieutenant darryl faupb with the joint terrorism task force. >> good evening, lieutenant fung >> good evening, lieutenant mazzucco, fellow commissioners, my name is darryl fung, i will

be presenting the terrorism task force. this annual report was comprised with a view of addressing community concerns such as advancing justice, asian law caucus and the council on american-islamic relations. the department continues to welcome any input or feedback to alloy the public's concerns. san francisco staffing of the jttf consists of one full-time employee. this employee departed in may of 2015 for another assignment and was replaced by another member who currently serves as the sole jttf member in a full-time capacity. this employee works approximately 2,080 hours per year. the officers use

personal equipment issued by the san francisco pd but other expenses remain the responsibility of the fbi. the fbi remains familiar with our department policies and procedures. specifically the sfpd's guidelines for guidelines, the bureau on jtf operations, fo bfrplt order 2011-07 and the ordinance and they are aware of the sfpd must comply with provisions contained therein. (inaudible)

the fbi also understands restrictions placed on members of the sfpd and have been cooperated in efforts assigned to sfpd the sfpd remains a close professional working relationship with our colleagues within the fbi. there are noish shies related to the sfpd's process of ensuring the ordinance was implemented. direct supervision is maintained. no member of the sfpd assigned to the jttf was used in undercover work or used as an infiltrator in 2015, nor were there any requests that they perform such work. they do not manage informants nor conduct case work involving undercover

informants. there were no violations or possible violations of the ordinance in 2015. the department is briefed by jtf members on their cases consistently and these cases are vee viewed on a quarterly basis to ensure compliance with department policies and procedures. state and local laws as required by the ordinance. command structure. the jttf officer works under the command of the (inaudible) reports to the commander of investigations who reports to the deputy chief of operations who reports subsequently to the chief of police. while assigned to the jttf the officer reports to the special agent and this agent reports to a special agent in charge who reports to the special agent in charge. the sfpd assigned to the jttf is trained and is familiar with

the ordinance and reviews are conducted on a quarterly basis. the jttf member reviews these policis on a quarterly basis with their sfpd supervisor. they also have weekly contact with their immediate supervisor who was in charge with the division. in 2015 the primary role of sfpd officers assigned to the joint terrorism task force is to maintain (inaudible) information sharing by law enforcement partners consists but not exclusively include information which has a potential impact to public safety. sfpd officers assigned to the jttf work on a team who is mission is to identify

potential terrorist plots and identify crimes and suspicious activities which may have terrorist related motive or nexus. the sfpd member assigned to the jttp also provides security for many special events including giants games, the sf marathon, fleet week, halloween, new year's eve and the 75th anniversary of the united nations treaty signing. in addition, the sfpd member has been an integral part of security planning related to upcoming superbowl 50 and superbowl city. number of cases. the sfpd member assigned to the jttf were assigned to a total of 35

cases from tips or other law enforcement agencies. those cases did not always result in full investigation. while tips are provided to the fbi being credible to have a nexus to domestic or foreign terrorism are forwarded to the jttf for follow-up. the sfpd is not able to release the names of members assigned to the jtf due to safety and privacy of its members. the jttf reports suspicious activity reports to the regional activity data center. based on preidentified risk indicators with a potential nexus to terrorist or criminal activity. the jttf is a recipient of this sort of

information as are other law enforcement agencies. sfpd officers have investigated cases involving bomb threats, possible weapons of mass destruction, critical infrastructure and other criminal activity with a potential terrorism nexus. these leads are provided by sfpd as well as other law enforcement agencies. the private sector as well as the member s of the public. private sector partners involve business, mass transit, et cetera. sfpd-jttf officers are intimately familiar and comply with department order 5117 to ensure suspicious activity is not reported as a result of racial or religious profiling. types of tips: sfpd-jttf

officers have handled tips that come from private citizens as well as public activities. they involve bomb threats, threats to life, suspicious photography, suspicious activities as identified by reporting parties. the sfpd officers do not engage in interviews regarding solely constitutionally protected activities. sfpd officers do investigate activities that have a possible terrorism

activity. (inaudible) as a follow-up to calendar year 2014 annual report, on march 26, 2015, after the 2015jttf annual report was presented, the san francisco police department was notified of a complaint filed with the office of citizens xlaipblts by the council on american islamic relations during the course of an investigation conducted in 2014. in addition, the complaint questioned the accuracy of last year's jttf annual report. the sfpd stands by the accuracy of the 2014 annual report presented to the police commission on february 4 of 2015 which was based on facts known to the department at the time in which it was reported. the complaint filed with the occ in march of 2015 is still open and on-going at this time. the department is cooperating with the occ in their investigation in compliance with the department policy and

procedures. the member named in that xlaipblt -- complaint is no longer a member of the jttf we were unable to disclose specifics of the case due a nondisclosure agreement with the fbi which could result in civil and criminal activities. the member currently assigned to the jttf has no complaints related to his duties tt jttf that concludes my presentation. >> thank you very much, lieutenant fong just for the folks in the audience and those watching, we went through a process with significant community input during a period of time when there was discussion regarding the san francisco police department participating with the fbi in the joint terrorism task force. many of our partners including the aclu, many of the grueches in the community came forward

with their concerns, they told us in this jurisdiction many things they were concerned about and there was a protocol put in place. i see some folks in the audience tonight that we will probably hear from regarding there's been one complaint but we established at the end of the day to summarize everything lieutenant fong told you, there was significant disclosure and transparency we do as far as we can go when you are dealing with sensitive nature of alleged terrorism for alleged criminal matters but we made it clear to the entire borld -- and the fbi that we have department orders that would trump anything the fbi would ask our officers to do. we would not allow our officers to do surveillance at a place of worship. it's absolutely forbidden, if there's a conflict they are not allowed to do it and the fbi

understands that. those are some of the protocols we put in place. this was something we reached in consensus with the community, a delicate balance of safety for the community and a matter of trust. we'll hear about that in public comment. commissioner dejesus has a question for you. >> this is the one thing that disturbs me quite a bit. what i don't like about it, it gives all this information but it really doesn't. everybody is reporting to everybody but we don't get any meat or any real information in these reports and i have brought this up before. from my understanding there is a commissioner assigned to meet with the jttf or to meet with the department regarding the jttf or am i getting that confus with the first amendment?

>> i can tell you what happens, once a month the commission through the commission secretary and the commission staff provides, they rotate it through commissioners to sign off as to whether or not they advise if there's been any sort of activity in relation to 8.01, if i'm not mistaken. >> 8.10. >> it's been a long day. there's reporting wheerpb or not and i know the two or three times i've signed it there's been no activity. >> that's my problem, there's really no rotating. the rest of the commissioners don't get anything but this report which doesn't tell us anything. it really puts a lot of trust into what you guys are really doing because if something blows up the rest of us are going to take the heat and i don't know what's behind it. but i have a question for you.

when you talk about last year's report, the follow-up to the report last year regarding the complaints, and maybe i'm just reading it with lawyer's eyes, you said stand by the report which is based on the facts known to the department at the time. but it begs the question whether after it was presented whether other facts came to light and is there something we should know? it begs a question that maybe something did come to light after the report was presented and is it something this commission should know what those facts are or have run by any of the commissioners who are reviewing it, is there a discrepancy in the report? i understand it was accurate at the time but if something happens to change that, has it been brought to the attention of the commission. >> for clarification, commissioner, as i noted in the report, we do stand by the accuracy of the report. there have been no further information that has led us to

believe that it is inaccurate and we are cooperating with the occ in the course of their investigation into the allegations. >> okay, that was my question, thank you. >> commissioner hwang. >> you expressed a lot of my concerns. this report is very conclusionary. one question i have, i will say i have signed off on some of these reports. >> i haven't. >> i don't have any information, most of the time it's presented to me, there are no, there have been no incidents that raise concerns so we want you to sign this and that's what i've signed. i guess a specific question with regard to this one complaint from 2014, can you say, i don't know if it can be disclosed or if it's part of the investigation, was that incident disclosed to the commission in terms of this sign off? was it listed as an incident we would have signed

off on? >> no, commissioner, it wouldn't meet the criteria. >> can you tell me why? i don't understand why it did not raise any first amendment concerns and what would come up on our review? >> if there was a request in terms ever written authorization to conduct a criminal investigation that's affiliated with first amendment activities then it would be, the protocol would fall under that particular general order and the commission would subsequently be notified of such written request. so in that respect the commission would be notified as part of their monthly sign off and we would brief you on the nature of the request. >> would it just be that one commissioner? we don't get those reports. >> i guess to follow-up, the way i understand this incident, and i don't know anything from the occ, i just remember this

incident being raised to us through public comment perhaps many months ago, but the way the complaint was raised to us was there was a voluntary interview that was, where sfpd officer participated in response to some type of public records request, right? so that seems like it would be some kind of response to a first amendment activity and that seems like something that would want to be reported to the commission for review and consideration. >> again, you know, without being able to review details based upon a nondisclosure agreement to the specifics of the case, again, it did not meet the criteria in which a request would have been made. i understand the allegations that have been brought forward to the occ and certainly that investigation is on-going at this point and i certainly can't speak to that. i defer to occ in regards to the allegations and the specifics or the details in that case.

but, again, it was not disclosed as a written request because it was not something that met the criteria for disclosure, if you will. >> if i may ask, again, we dwot -- got to be very careful we're talking about disciplinary matters that may come before the commission. an investigation. let me ask one quick question. what you are saying is that the allegations that have been made are for conduct that would not fall within 8.10, is that correct? >> that's correct. based on the information that we, that's been brought forward, the allegations that are made with occ, the information that we have did not meet the criteria under that particular general order. >> i think we have to be very

careful, commissioners, we're getting to -- the city attorney on this. >> that's the problem we have with this general order. one commission gets information, nobody else does and if it doesn't meet criteria i'm not sure what it is or what it isn't, it doesn't get reported at all. this is a dgo we have to look at in terms of the reporting in a manner that we actually get some information. >> another process question. i know you probably received some comments back from the community group that also indicated sort of following up on director hicks' comments last week that there were some difficulties or obstacles in interviewing this particular officer. can you discuss is there a timing issue involved here? is there a statute of limitations issue, is there a reason why this officer can't be interviewed? i'm just wondering where are we in this process and perhaps pending the outcome of the occ's findings

we would need to take a look at this report again, right, and see where we are with this additional information. >> commissioner, (inaudible) that issue and the department has not been notified by occ that the officer, there's no indication that the officer has not cooperated with the occ or has refused to be interviewed, so as to the obstacles that we understand, it's not because the officer has refused, to my knowledge, to be interviewed. maybe miss franco can talk to those issues a little bit more. >> an occ complaint, maybe it's --. >> i think it should be additional researched. i would feel more comfortable at this point if we just stopped the discussion and i think occ should check with their city attorney, jenna clarke, to

check in on that. commissioner mazzucco if you'd like to but i'm starting to get a little uncomfortable with the discussion, getting into too many details. >> ask another question if i may. i remember there were some community concerns around these sar, suspicious activity reports. i know you mentioned sfpd has received a lot of suspicious activity reports. do we also generate suspicious activity reports and forward them to the regional intelligence center? >> we do, commissioner. there are, they come from various sources. they come from, as i mentioned in the report, from citizens in the community, business partners, you know, other law enforcement agencies but we also do provide suspicious activity reports through the department as well. >> and we have a protocol for

screening them before we would send them to the northern california regional --. >> that is correct. >> and do we, is that a public policy that we --. >> there are department bulletins in terms of as part of our see something, say something policy as well as there's criteria and what identifies, there's previous indicators which actually define suspicious activity and what should be reported and vetted for further follow-up. >> thank you. just one last issue, if i might. i think you have received a, i think our protocol is that we send a draft to the community groups and they send you responsive comments. i remember last year you addressed you addressedtheir comments one by one. >> we did receive some drafts

of responses to the report. the department welcomes any further input into whatever information we can provide to address their concerns. >> well, thank you, lieutenant fong, we have a group here we will hear during public comment with their concerns. >> please call the next line item with reference to the chief's report. >> the next item i have, xhirs, is a presentation. fourth quarter fdrb findings and recommendations. i call up sergeant john greudo >> sergeant greudo, if you can introduce your new partner. >> i would like to introduce sergeant dennis tumor who is moving over from the admin side. i had to pry a few arms, but i finally got sergeant tumor to come over and he's going to work ois with our teams. it's been out at some

ois teams with me in the past. you may recognize him, he was a pio officer at one point. >> thank you, sergeant tumor and thank you for volunteering for a very significant assignment. >> thank you, sir. >> rather look at that. commissioners, miss franco, deputy chief sinez, i am with

the internal affairs division officer involved investigation team. i'm going to present the fourth quarter report which includes the most recent firearm discharge review board as well as sort of an overview update on where we are with officer involved shooting investigations. the board previously convened on september 22, 2015, which would be third quarter, 2015. at this most recent fdrb convention, which was wednesday, december 23, 2015, two completed investigations were ready for review and those cases presented were officer involved discharge 0015, nos 15-005. this slide includes the members that composed this panel, deputy chief ali was the chair as the dc of the administrative bureau. it was also composed of deputy chiefs

redman, tom schmidt, commissioner mazzucco was the member from the police commission present, commissioner hicks was present, captain yet was the acting captain from the risk management office and sergeant tang was there from the range. so the cases that were reviewed weofficer involved discharge 0015. this occurd september 5, 2015 on the 3000 block of engel street and as a brief overview of the case, at about 10.05 hours, 10.05 in the morning, bayview station officers responded to a report, phone call to 911 of a vicious dog malling a child. they saw a pit bull that was in the middle of a fatal attack, a

smaller dog, a crowd was attempting to intervene, to scare it, pull it away, without effect. an officer in fear for the people present as well as to try and save the smaller dog, fired a department-issued shotgun one time at the vicious dog which was struck and immediately collapsed and the dog expired at the scene. this was found to be an in policy use of firearm. the other case that was reviewed was officer involved shooting 00-5. this occurred (inaudible) this was the case that was reviewed from san mateo county. location, us101 san bruno avenue, the intersection of those avenues, it's a complex, there's several streets on and off ramps all in the area, but

a brief overview of the ipbs doepbt, an officer assigned to the airport bureau responded with other officers to search for a hit and run driver who fled from a motorcycle officer who was investigating. the suspect in this case attempted to car jack several vehicles in the area in an attempt to flee the scene. as the officers closed in the suspect turned toward one officer and advanced on him. the officer fired twice in response to an imminent assault and the suspect was struck once in the torso and taken into custody. the use of firearm was determined to be within policy. with regards to the other recommendations, you do have the report that the chief gave you submitted to the commission

and there were two additional recommendations with regards to the officer. we had to be sure that officer had been upgraded with the new holster. he had some difficulties with transitioning because he had an older model holster and in addition it was recommended that he receive training with regards to force option transitioning. the recommendations of the firearm discharge review board were forwarded to the chief, who accepted them, and you have his letter to that effect. the next fbrb is tentatively scheduled to convene wednesday, march 23, 2016. that would be the first quarter 2016fbrb with regard to open investigations where we are in terms of the snapshot at this point, the last time that you received a quarter update was

october 5, 2015. so some major developments since that time, we had the one ois case i just talked about, 15-005 was presented at the last ftrb, a summary letter is forthcoming, it's actually on the chief's dechk right now, so we wait for him to come back, sign it and you will have it. two discharging letters were received from the office of the district attorney of san francisco, 13-008 and 14-001. the department received those on december 15th and then 4 investigations since october 5th have been opened. osi15-007, 15-008, 15-009 and 15-0010 and they are active criminal investigations by sf homicide and san francisco district attorney's office.

there are also, as you know, open administrative investigations at this time. so looking at all the open ois investigations at this time there are 18 cases. two of the cases, as i mentioned, have been reviewed by the sf district attorney with charging decision letters issued with regard to the officers and those are expected to be presented to the firearm discharge review board at the next ftrb there thereare 11 currently under review. the clock is paused on those. there are also 5 active

criminal investigations. one is with san mateo police department and four are with the sfpd homicide detail and the district attorney. so just looking at sort of in a year by year in this case 2013 to 14 in bold the developments would be those two cases, 13-08 and 14-01 we have received the charging decision letters so the final reports are being prepared by homicide and by internal affairs for presentation at the next ftrb the cases open at this time are 13-003 and the dates of the incident are presented alongside it, 14-002, 005, 006, 007 and 008. in addition cases

from 2015, cases 1 through 4 are awaiting a charging decision from the district attorney's office. case number 5 you just heard, so that will disappear from this list, and case 6 is an active criminal investigation with san mateo pd so the remaining case for 2015, these are all new since the last report, dates are listed alongside, and in all cases a criminal and administrative investigation was opened on the date of the incident and for your benefit the return to duty presentation which give you also brief overview of the case as known at the time was presented on november 4th for two of the cases, december 2nd and january 6. so that's the quick

snapshot and if there are any questions. >> thank you, greudo, any questions for sergeant greudo >> regarding 15-005, she wanted to look at the differenceness processing charging time between the san mateo da and our local da, i wonder if you have any thoughts on the process. >> i have talked to a number of other agencies and the time frame that our standard investigations are going for, they are talking to -- i have to formalize everything, i'm still collecting information. but talking to a number of san jose, sacramento agencies, agencies in alameda county, there are different processes obviously for each county and

in most cases while the pieces might be managed a little differently they are generally managed the same. but the time frame is generally consistent. san mateo county, however, really emphasizes these cases at their district attorney's office and with their, they have a joint task force, they have a multi agency county task force with a criminal side and their da commits a lot of resources to, they basically put this stuff at the top of their list. so they have a relative to other bay area and california agencies they seem to have a very quick turn around. our time frame appears to be kind of on the longer end but not by an order of

magnitude or anything, it's sort of in the similar time frame. i would say 18 months kind of seems more of the average where we're sitting at about 24 or thereabouts. and i'm really still collecting the data, just sort of a law report on that. >> thank you. >> commissioner dejesus. >> that's my question. i am looking at 13-003 and that's 3 years we are waiting for formal charging from the district attorney and i'm looking at 14-002 and 14-003 in a matter of weeks, a month and a week we're looking at over two years. >> yes, ma'am. >> and i thought we talked to the district attorney in terms of why does this take so long? and the reason i bring this up is exactly what you said here, we're tolling, we're tolling any kind of administrative action and sometimes we lose

stuff. i thought we talked to the district attorney with respect to speeding these cases up. >> with respect to tolling, what the tolling does is paus the statute of limitations, the time frame by which we have to get that done. that doesn't mean we're pausing the investigation, we're moving the investigation forward and doing as much as we can do without some other elements or pieces we will need to conclude the investigation. what is typically happening, and i think you've seen this in action over the years, is we get the declination letter, they have made a decision with regard to the officers, the criminal investigation can be completed and closed which is a major dependancy for the criminal investigation but we're using that date, the date on the da's decline letter, to

end tolling. so the two reports we received on december 15th, which was 14-001 and 13-008, 13-008 was dated 12-10 and 14-001 was dated 12-8 so we have a year from then to complete the investigation administratively. what's happening is we are targeting the next ftrb when we get that, presuming we have sufficient time to do that. worst case would be the next one thereafter, which would be 6 months at the far end. so we're getting those done within the time frame. >> i understand you guys are getting them done. it's the district attorney, i thought we still want to talk to them about moving --. >> i know there's been some discussions which, you know, at numerous levels and obviously it's not an area that i control. >> no, i know. >> but i will say that compared to the reports, the

letters that we got, you know, 8 years ago, which might have had two lines saying the officer will not be charged at this time, period, now we get a letter of several pages with a lot of analysis and legal decisions, court decisions, that kind of explain the analysis and the reason for the decision that's made. so it's obviously a very valuable tool for us. >> perhaps you need the commission to speak to the district attorney. >> just for the record it was about a year ago or a year and a half ago i spoke with district attorney gascon about the commissioners concerned. he jurpbed -- jumped on it real quick and you saw that where we suddenly saw a lot of the cases closed out. the numbers now are not as bad as they were in the past in terms

of the time frame so i'm not sure what the issues are with regard to these particular cases but the da did make a concerted effort to get back to us and things started to move quicker. he was responsive. >> any further comments for the agent? thank you very much, sergeant. please call the next line item, 4b >> 4b, occ director's report. >> good evening, miss franco >> good evening. as has been stated a few times tonight, director joyce hicks is in washington, dc, she will be back tonight attending the perf conference and i am actually here filling her spot at the last moment and she will be

giving her report the next time we have a meeting. some matters have been discussed tonight as well relating to some pending occ investigations and they are pending and therefore i will make no comment about that. thank you. >> thank you, miss frankel >> item c, commission reports, discussion. commissioner president's report, commissioners' report. >> i will say on behalf of commissioner loftus i received a text message from her and she was back from the perf seminar she was at with both the chief and the president of the occ and she says they've learned some great things. she's excited to come back and share what they learned on the use of force issue. commissioners, do you have anything you need to report? >> item 4d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for next

commission meeting action. the next meeting for the commission p be at the community in the tenderloin district. >> i'm going to be out of the country january 20 through 27. >> all right, now it's time for public comment with reference to line items 4a, b, c and d, you are going to come forth and discuss the issue of the joint terrorism task force. welcome. this is with reference to the chief's report, the occ director's

office and the commission report. >> i'm not understanding. >> never mind, miss brown, just go ahead. >> my name is miss brown, i wanted to use the overhead again. i just wanted to make a comment, i don't even know if you can see it. well, anyway, i want to make a comment on mario woods, the mother, and i was really embarrassed about what the officer said earlier that if that was his family, i don't think he took into consideration that that mother was grieving too. i don't think chief sur should be fired, i think he should be held accountable and i think those officers definitely should be fired. that was a firing squad on that young man and if that mother, and i stood with her and i felt her pain yesterday at the board of

supervisors and i stood with her and i think people should acknowledge that mother and for the officer to get up here and say, i can understand if that was his family and that people need to be protected. but he should have also acknowledged that mother too. and my other thing, i want to use the other overhead again, please, my son, arby arbocasa who was did heed in 2006 by a semiautomatic gun, his case is still not solved to this day. as a mother i am looking for justice for my son. i bring this up because mayor gachb newsom know who killed my son, the da know who killed her son, they can name addresses,

identify people. this is what i'm left with, my deceased son, my son, my 17-year-old beautiful son. they have the names of all the perpetrators that murdered my son. i'm looking for the names and i have them with me but i don't have them. but one of them is paris moffett, thomas hannibal, and i believe paris moffett is probably going to be out of jail if he's not yet. i'm looking for justice for my son. i want closure, i haven't any. my son went to vernal heights

recreation center, he worked there for the city and county recreation center. i had to walk across the stage and receive his diploma. i'm not just fighting for myself, i'm fighting for other children and families and mothers who are self-medicating at home and can't get out. i come here every wednesday and i'm just looking for jut justice for my child. no mother should have to go through this. thank you. >> thank you, miss brown. ladies and gentlemen, there is a police tip line if you have any information regarding the murder of aubrey abracause is a. >> 575-4744. >> miss brown comes every wednesday in honor and memory of her son. i wish the community would step up to the plate and participate in the successful prosecution of the young men who took her son's life. we sit here every week

and we hear from her, yet we hear nothing from the community, even with the $250,000 reward. it's embarrassing. next speaker. >> good evening, i'm maria barkses, thank you commissioners and sfpd for the opportunity to speak with you briefly concerning the fourth report on the safe san francisco civil rights ordinance. as you may remember many dozens of arab, muslim and southeastern community members and 70 civil rights and community rights organizations worked for years for the passage of this ordinance. overall we are extremely concerned that the ordinance has been violated and continues to be violated despite reports and assurances to the contrary. last year we anticipated that sfpd would discuss the comments we sent them in advance of the

meeting and they did not. i have copies. we got the report on tuesday and -- i'm sorry, on monday -- and we sent this on tuesday just so he could have a sense of what our extremes were and as you can see, our concerns were extremely extensive. we're very disappointed in this report. the law in san francisco is clear. sfpd officers working with the fbi are supposed to follow the reasonable suspicion standard. the inspector who is the subject of a complaint that our organization has filed has still not even been interviewed and as you well know from the recent situation with the text messaging there is a one year statute of limitations. that

statute of limitations is in march. we are on the record here, everyone knows that statute of limitations is right around the corner and that officer has not been interviewed. the fbi mou is inconsistent with san francisco law and it's preventing the occ from doing its job. the thing is, we had this fight and san francisco law won. that's why we have this ordinance. i guess my question tonight is who runs san francisco? first it was the mou that wasn't permitting all of us to talk about and figure out what in the world is going on in san francisco, today we hear about a nondisclosure agreement. what is it, who runs this town, is it sfpd or is it fbi. riding roughshod over our laws shouldn't be an option, a filed

complaint that files all of those complaints out of the water is not acceptable. resolve the fbi attempted strangle hold over sfpd, it's the law. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good evening, commission, thank you for having us here tonight, my name is bries ham mock, i work with the islamic (inaudible) earlier on there was a comment that only one incident has been reported out of the sfpd jttf partnership. as far as we were recorded, there was nothing wrong there were no incidents that even

approached violating the ordinance yet that turned out to be false. the agency is a federal agency that is extremely secretive. as commissioner mazzucco commented there's only so far we can go. mr. gelani when he was approached by the sfpd officer he was only asked about his religious affiliation, traveling and the sort. i am someone who works with the fbi quite recently. just a few weeks ago i met with a jttf officer in san mateo just a few weeks ago for nothing more than being a muslim, this person was visited by the fbi, we are in a

starbucks, he is being urged to pledge allegiance to the united states, that he is not violent, et cetera, et cetera. the threat of this is really high mainly because sfpd does not hold any secrets they launch an investigation based solely on (inaudible) profiling. it's important our agency not interact on agencies that are blatantly doing so. with that said, i would request the sfpd remove themselves out of bed with this agency so it can fully comply with the constitution and other orders in place. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, councilor. >> good evening, i am the community advocate at the asian law caucus. i'd like to share

some more information about suspicious activity reporting which is briefly mentioned in the annual report and reiterate our concerns from last year. sfpd submits information about so-called suspicious activity to the local fusion center called ncrc, a collaboration of bay area law enforcement, the fbi and other agencies. suspicious activity reporting, sars for short, is currently the basis of a lawsuit. it risks labeling people as potential terrorists in government data bases shared with law enforcement around the country. the risk stems from the federal government's request to local police departments to report, quote, suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism. but what does suspicious mean? sars uses a loose standard that is even lower than the

traditional law enforcement standard of reasonable suspicion. in practice that means sars is at high risk of promoting racial profiling and collecting information about innocent and constitutionally protebted activity like photography. in response to public record acts requests, we have received thousands of samples of sars that confirm our fears. one report from california was about, quote, two middle eastern looking males taking photographs of folsom dam. one read suspicious middle eastern males buying large pallets of water. the reports i've quoted were not filed by sfpd, they are from the sacramento area, but that's because the public has

no idea what kinds of reports sfpd has filed with ncra notably the local fusion center ncrc was the only fusion center to refuse to disclose its sors reports. ncrc has (inaudible) why the secrecy? why are other fusion centers able to share their sars reports but not ncrc why are other police departments able to share their sars reports but not sfpd, especially since sfpd is on report in this jttf report that they use information then as a community we believe sfpd can and should do more to explain its sars activity to the public by disclosing redacted versions of the report it has filed in past

years. we fought for transparency and accountability and that is what we want. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good evening, my name is lana casane, i am the head of the arab reporting 17 center here in san francisco. this is why we fought so hard against this relationship with the joint terrorism task force a few years ago, as was mentioned, and the compromise was this report that we expect to get each year and we expect a lot more. the fact that it was mentioned that it made people uncomfortable the way this discussion was going, well it makes us uncomfortable, this entire relationship, impacted by the interrogations and the practices of the jttf very uncomfortable by the

surveillance, very uncomfortable by the impacts on the families and we expect people in positions of power to see and address and reflect the positions of people, people impacted by these types of programs. we also expect things like jttf are the antithesis to transparency and tonight is very indicative of that. this report does not at all reflect the experience and stories that we add community advocates and organizers hear about. this does not reflect the stories we hear about who come to our office with the business card of a jttf staff person, intimidated by them, enter gated by them, whose families and communities have been devastated with them. there should be no involvement with jttf with the city and county

of san francisco. we have no faith in the san francisco police department, particularly chief sur. as there are demands that we fire him, we have officers coming to talk about how they revere him. federal law enforcement is not accountable, is not transparent and actually completely undermines human rights and civil rights in this country. so what we are asking for is that these types of relationships end. what we are asking for is that you invest more in the communities that you should be serving, that we receive in programs that actually build up community alternatives to policing, what we are asking for is that we build trust with public officials and not create different types of programs like this that distance our communities from being able to come here and speak to you directly. we want to build a city where people feel like

they are building in integrity and dignity, not being surveiled and interrogated on a regular basis and not expanding the power of law enforcement when we know at this very time what we need is more accountability, not more power. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is dee kaly and i do want to remind the commission that this was absolutely a compromise and that the call really from the community was to end this relationship. so where we are now is that we have a report that we are telling you looks to us as if it is being presented in bad faith with incomplete information, it was the result of a compromise and we can't be asked to compromise more and really get no substantive information. i want to thank commissioner dejesus and wapk wapk for asking questions. i think

there are mere questions remaining. i want to point out that one of the issues here and it was addressed in a letter you were sent is activity reporting is still being done on the basis of photography and i want to point out that the suspicious photography, this is in the report on page 3, suspicious photography may include sensitive and secure access points including iconic landmarks. i want you to ask yourself whether it makes any sense for us to have any suspicious activity reports being filed on people who are taking pictures of iconic landmarks? that's ridiculous. frankly that's a really good example of exactly what the problems with these kinds of activities are. the suspicious activity reports, i am one of the people who made a document request and i didn't get a single suspicious activity report, not even one that was redacted. in contrast in los angeles the

inspector general there actually did a full audit of suspicious activity reports and looked at numbers and what those numbers showed, this is information that's a couple years old, they showed 74 percent of the suspicious activity reports in la were filed on non-white people. i think we would see similar things here, that it would show the same sort of thing. i want to read you a couple things that pertain to why this is such a problem. fusion centers have been the subject of a lot of criticism. an october 2012 report talked about how they produce intelligence of uneven quality, often shoddy, sometimes taken from already-published publish sources. is this what we want our officers to be doing? i don't think so. i also want to point out that

fusion centers have been getting attention from the privacy and civil liberties overzulgt board oversight board. these performance measures include a number of suspicious activity reports, not quality, numbers. so we are putting a san francisco police officer in cooperation with an agency that is motivated by numbers and that's not what we should be doing. i urge you to end this relationship and follow-up on this report and do some investigation on these reports. thank you. >> hi, thank you, commissioners, officer, thank you, lieutenant, for the report back. my name is miriam sesunis, my family operates a corner grocery store and i am here with a simple request to

honor the social contract meant to uphold the democratic process in this city. in 2012 you made a partnership with the members of the arab and middle eastern and south asian communities and 79 partner organizations. we put confidence in the due process of the system with the expectation of transparency and the solace that our concerns have been heard and taken seriously, the demands of which echo the number of requests for autopsies that have gone unheard in this city. the climate of this country alone as it relates and as it views arab communities is enough for you as a body on public safety is to do due diligence on this

piece of important civil rights organization. that's what i have to say and thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. mr. crew. >> john crew again speaking as an individual. so i think with all due respect it's time to cut through the double speak. what do we know here? what we know is last year this report was given and the statement was made that the sfpd did not participate in any voluntary interviews with the jttc a xlaipblt was filed in march about that incident, yet the sfpd is still claiming that the report they gave you last year was true. are they calling care a liar? did this incident not happen? the fbi spoke about it in the newspaper. look at the san francisco examiner, they confirmed this happened. the complainant that was interviewed was interviewed

by the occ in july. last week the occ director told you that they had requested an opinion of the city attorney about their, quote, ability to interview the officer. there's no legal doubt about that. the voters created the occ33 years ago, it's in the charter for 33 years, the sfpd must fully cooperate. as far as i know you haven't suspended that general office or gave them permission not to follow it. the chief put out a bureau order within weeks or days of his taking office that said exactly what you said tonight, commissioners, local law trumps. a local ordinance was drafted, thank you for saying it again, local law trumps. there's a complaint that hasn't been investigated, there's a deadline coming up, yet we are given this double speak.

what's clearly needed, this is what i'm talking about earlier. policy reforms mean nothing if you don't apply the standards, if you don't use the authority you have been given. let me briefly say i am speaking as an individual but i have a lot of history on this issue. i was appointed by your predecessors to a committee after the human rights commission said we need a policy on intelligence gathering on this issue, there's been too many issues. chief will casy was happy to collaborate, sat down with me, i would recommend -- it's a long document -- it's based on best policies from several different departments and if you will indulge me briefly, several different departments around the country, that's why it's complex because it's based on best practices and it doesn't say what the lieutenant just said it said. this action clearly required

prior authorization so that there would be a paper trail and it would be an audit and it would be reported. there is a provision in that general order that says these policies apply not just whether or not you label it a criminal investigation, that's the best practice. if you allow them to just label it something else they can keep it off the books and evade the policy, it won't work. i'll leave you with one more thought. ask yourself why does a report that's supposed to be about compliance with local standards and policies not quote those local standards and policies and, in fact, use the language of the fbi guidelines? this talks about a nexus to criminal activity. that's the fbi standards, that's not the sfpd's. it talks about we do not investigate activities that are solely based on first amendment activity. that's not the sfpd standard, that's the reason the general order exists, that's the fbi's loophole. same thing with the

discrimination policy, the bias-based policing. sfpd, unlike the fbi, does not have an exception for national security. that's the whole concept here. we're 4 years after the fact and we're not getting clarity and it's not because, with all due respect to the fbi saying you can't say this, it's apparent to me that the sfpd apparently thinks it's okay to apply the fbi standards. they told you there have been 35 cases they have been involved --. >> thank you, sir, thank you very much. thank you for your time. >> sorry, mr. crew, thank you for your participation. >> pardon the rant but at this late date it's more than a little frustrating not just for me but for these community members. >> thank you, sir. >> any public comment? >> we just got through listening to half an hour of this guy and half an hour of this guy and half an hour of this guy, but in truth we get

no time. three minutes is nothing. as far as being a hero or something, i'd like to be one. you know, it's one of these things you always pray to be. you know, without the fire department i wouldn't be a hero because they asked me to put out a fire and i did and saved a lot of lives. a bunch of police around and everything, they said we have to keep this silent. for sure we have to keep this silent because when it comes right down to it, the worst thing i ever seen was that murder. it isn't going to go on any more tv's, they're not going to talk about woods any more because it's back in the woods. no one talks about it, you know. it's sad, you know, when we come to being a hero, my mother, she had to face something. you know, she had to get to be one of these people that suffer, you know, beyond it, you know, she went

to a priest said, we went to visit my son three times at the jail and he won't come down. and the jailor and everything, you know, and my mom said, priest said, wait a second. don't say anything. he went from monteray all the way to salinas and when he got there, he said, he's coming down or i'm going up. i'm a priest. thank god for them and you and law and order. but there was no law and order. my mom wanted to know what was wrong with me and i was sitting here like this and i wouldn't talk and i was scared. so when she finally got my father to have me pull down my collar she fell over backwards, knocked her cold. you know, as far as a hero, i'm proud to be who i am here today. my father's in heaven and he's an naacp

president, he was in 1960. so every time they called and gave us a bunch of shit there was a lot of it back then. i just let them know, i'm white, i'm sorry. unknown comic, they won't tell my joke anywhere because i am a big joke. i'm funny, how he treats me. i'm on a border one time, this is for the mexicans, i was on the border, i might get a little extra time, maybe, i was on the border, hopefully. i was on the border one time and i was barefoot and in a restaurant. and a lady comes up to me, says spare change and i start to get the change out and all the people in the restaurant jump up, run around me and i start handing out the money. when i get to the last penny i go to hand it to her and i hope for five minutes, please.

>> no, sir, sorry. >> please? >> no. >> no. >> just for you, then. >> no. your time is up. any further public comment? >> can i speak to you? >> commissioner dejesus. >> this is on my own. >> i'm sorry, sir. >> sir, you are out of order. thank you. >> we're done, we're closed. >> closed? >> get my minute, close up. >> go ahead, commissioner dejesus. >> sorry, juicy >> the public comment brought up some concerns i didn't have when we were talking about it, but i guess the question is, maybe we should ask what the processes of the department in deciding for these suspicious activity reports if they are

released, how many are requested, how many are given, even if they are released heavily redacted, why aren't they released in some format. i'm looking at the letter quickly, maybe the sample we are looking at is using fbi language, it would be better to have a report that follows the language provided in the dgo and whether or not the criteria is being met with our own language rather than this other report. i don't know if we had a sample that we were using but i think we should retaylor that and look at each of our criteria, use the language of our criteria in terms of answering the report. we should follow-up on this and i'm happy to talk to commissioner loftus about putting it back on for the issue of these suspicious activity reports and how many are being made and how many are released and maybe redoing this

report in a format that meets the criteria of the general order. >> commissioner wong. >> i just wanted to indicate to the community groups i will make a commitment to follow up with director hicks when she is back just to make sure there are no statute of limitations issue and this investigation can be completed within the time period and see if we can remove any obstacles, if there are any, to finishing up the investigation. >> thank you, commissioner hwang. commissioner melara. >> i heard of some anecdotal information regarding potentially other violations. and i think that the best way of dealing with those matters is for the occ to be involved if you do have other complaints from other people you should go, you should file those xlaipblts -- complaints with

the occ because we deal with evidence and we deal with things that we know. if we don't know about it, if it is something that is happening in the community and it's not being investigated there is nothing we can do about it. so i would encourage you and those that you represent to come forward and do file complaints with the occ >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, we're going to move all the way down to adjournment because all the items that come forward after this deal with going into closed session, we're not doing that. i'm going to turn the mic over to commissioner hwang. >> i would move to adjourn tonight's meeting in honor of

franco fleming, i received several emails he was beloved by his colleagues, by the folks he worked with at city hall and by many folks in the da's office who cribd described him as somebody full of life. he was assigned to the mta bureau, he was formerly a member of mayor newsom's protection detail and in his private life officer fleming was named a member of esquire's best dressed list and there were photos of him on the web. i would adjourn today's meeting, january 16, 2016, in memory of officer franco fleming. >> may he rest in peace. >> motion for adjournment.

>> second. >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, we adjourned. (meeting adjourned).

>> welcome to the small business commission meeting. it is monday, january 11 and the start time is 5:30 pm.. unlike remember to remind all attorneys to turn off all cell phones and pagers. we don't have ages but cell phones. and i also want