say, i don't want my name publically released? >> we don't do it. i think it's a discussion among us to say it's three. we are not changing a thing. we didn't think about this and given what's been going on in the community this last year, they have heightened concerns regarding the selection of a new chief. there has been information in the paper that this is a fixed process, a charade. we talk about transparency. this is an opportunity to practice transparency. we are not threatening them. we are asking. is a mere question. i agree that all five should agree.

if they don't, then we don't do it. we don't want to be unfair to any candidate. it's merely asking a question. we have to have a backbone, guys, asking the questions don't hurt. it gives the public an opportunity to look at the caliber of the candidates being presented to the mayor. they know who they are and they know who the backgrounds are and they know the mayor has a real choices in front of him and it's great for the opportunity and they know how the process is resolved. trying to put it out on a technicality or i disagree with it it's really asking a harmless question. >> perhaps if we keep going we can ask

the person who their intent is hiring. >> you said something that i want to check as well. i will let commissioner hwang ask the question. >> to get his thoughts around what the chief's search process is. is there a change in thinking? >> no problem. i would agree that the trend is to disclose the finalist. it has been the trend throughout the country. there have been several searches. for example houston did not disclose their finalist. and other cities have and i spoke to one of the finalist today for a recent search in arizona, there is two of them. i'm not going to name the actual person, but he subsequently lost his job because his name was disclosed. that's what we are dealing with folks that are currently employed who work for a mayor or a legislative body

that has the power to release them without cause. that concerns me and it concerns that if you do vote to disclose that -- >> that's not what we are voting on. we are asking the person if they are willing to let us disclose. >> do you actually need a vote to do that? >> yes. >> let me ask this as a follow up. sorry, commissioner marshall. >> listening to about what the trend is. i'm concerned that we told people it was going to be confidential. >> exactly. >> in the brochure it describes the chief of police the search is confidential. >> you make a good point. i echo that. >> let me get this out before you take it away. to me, you can't tell people it's confidential and go back and

say, i changed my mind. there are several things. i don't believe you can do that. if we had told them upfront that this is what we are going to do because to me, let me give you a scenario. here is what will go through my mind. i'm applying and whatever reason i have got i'm applying and then i say, i want you to disclose and i want to know if your name is going to be disclosed because this is about for whatever reason for transparency sake. first my thought is what if i say no are they going to look at me. no. 2, and i have this whole thing about transparency. every once in a while this word comes along that they beat you over the head.

transparency is a thing. under transparency, does that mean if i don't give it does that mean i'm not being transparent. that is a process we are already into. and to go back to change the rules of the game. if we had done this ahead of time, i wouldn't have had a problem with it. but incompetent inject something like this because it causes doubt and changes the process and i don't think it's right. >> it is written in the book that it is confidential. to the entire commission i expressed my word that it was confidential to the candidates that i recruited. >> it is confidential. >> all right. so let me again exercising my prerogative. i'm going to jump in here for a second. commissioner dejesus what she's proposing is not that we break confidentiality. what she's proposing is that we ask if they are

okay with it. i don't think the commission should do that. our designate or should do that because i don't want there to be that pressure. so, with that understanding in your experience, you've done more chief searches, is that, with that understanding and we are not going to disclose someone's name and they are going to lose their job and the other situation. we haven't heard the other situation. is it possible we should actually lose applicants by asking this question moving down these lines. >> that's calling for speculation. >> it's not speculation. >> i think it's a trust issue. it's a trust between the

candidates and me and the candidates in you. the press has already reported that there is 11 candidates. >> how did that happen? >> right. >> so us saying that it's not going to be disclosed, the three names not going to be disclosed unless everyone agrees. i don't know how that's going to ring true to the media. >> all right. commissioner hwang? >> i think we should offer it as a remedy because there is this leak. i was concerned to get a call from the media not only that the number was leaked by somebody but there were internal candidates leaked as well and that would raise concerns with internal and external applicants. that they may have an advantage

now because there is an -- apparent speculation. the process is different now. in some ways we are trying to equalize this to say, hey, okay, we reassure you and you will not be penalized if you don't want to reveal, but some applicants have been put out there and we want to give you an opportunity to equalize the playing field and try to make this a fair process. >> okay. >> commissioner mazzucco? >> thank you, in the police department that you mentioned earlier, the ones that actually released the names to the public, did those police department's have civilian oversight in the police commission that actually represents the community at the community meetings that does the three selections that brings it to the mayor? >> i'm not sure. i think a couple of them do but most of them do

not. >> some of them do and i don't think it's relevant to the question. >> commissioner marshall? >> to me that's what the candidate is. if you go to me and ask me and i say no. to me, i don't know how they are going to look at me based on what i say. to me, that's grossly unfair. >> commissioner dejesus? >> it's real simple. yes or no. we are so concerned about asking this question, we are not that concerned about the big elephant in the room that someone is talking to the press. that's the biggest concern

that you should have. you are really worried about asking a question in private to a candidate but you don't seem to be worried about information released. we were the only people in that room so that's very disturbing. i think the big fight we are having here is ridiculous. we are asking a simple question. we are not holding it against them. it's a real word and this time it's transparency. you can make fun of it all you want but it's a real important word. >> i do have concerns that doing this somehow equalizes the issue.

i do have concerns about changing the process. i don't know how the people who went into this believing it is confidential now somehow believe that you know us doing this somehow protects and changes things so that they are somehow better off. i don't quite understand that. but, at this point we have a motion. it's been seconded. is there any further comment here before i call for public comment? >> call the vote. >> public comment. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear you. public speaker: yes, it's true. a few things quickly. it remains a confidential process. the

finalist has complete control whether or not their name will be released. it is not in the process. they control the cards. secondly, this idea that there was somehow a decision by this body made to have the applicants. there was no discussion here, right? if you are that focused on 1 word in a recruitment brochure, i hope you have the same vigilance in that brochure about the level of experience and the candidates and the people kwauld -- qualified for this job. as the one example at the 21st century task force doesn't take the simple step of asking candidates. tucson, fort worth and all of those, the los angeles police commission has done it twice. dallas, you ask what

cities have civilian overnight. los angeles, tucson. i don't have the full list. the question tonight is and i haven't heard the argument, if post 20th century task force, if after all this city has been through that this is a common step to increase confidence in your process and ultimately increase confidence in whom ever you hire. the candidate controls. you can even say change the motion. there would be no adverse consequence to say no. to send the message that this process in san francisco was going to be significantly more secretive will we reinforce the message that is out there that suspicion that this is rigged and you may lose candidates.

>> thank you. public speaker: i just want to say something. i heard commissioner dejesus talk about the trust and the confidence that all of us have in all of you to move this process forward. it's after all your process. i think it concerns me that when i heard here, i think if there is any question on anyone's mind on this panel, i think this should be tabled and you define what needs to have happen. i see the city attorney sitting here and i heard what she said. i don't necessarily agree with it, but at the end of the day all of you are police commissioners and here to do a job. please, unfortunately, this thing is televised. what i'm seeing here is very painful to see. please, if there is any

question in your minds, table it. what's a week more. to be honest with you having done this before, people are a little tenuous putting their name in because their jobs are in jeopardy. they really are. their jobs are in jeopardy. because if a mayor finds out that you have no loyalty to this city in this police department, i have no loyalty to you as you heard already and some folks have been discharged and sent home. thank you, commissioners, i know it's a hard job. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i like no. 5. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. public speaker: i like it.

>> thank you, ms. johnson. next speaker, please. public speaker: director hicks, commissioners, chief chaplain. i think this is really important that including more transparency in this process is really important for the city right now. there has been so many issues in the media and in conversations about problems with the police chief search that i think that adding this basic level of transparency is really important. other cities, you heard that other cities are doing it. many of those cities do have oversight and involve community members in the process. in fact the city of oakland right now is planning to release the names of their finalist. the city of oakland is also including community members on the

interview panel, and i think that's a really important part of the process. city of san jose has done this as well. so, that's another step you can take to increase trust in the process. so, this basic request to release with permission to release the names i think is just something that's very basic and could add credibility and trust in your process. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i have been here since may and i'm good with the discussions here but i don't see why there should be an action because you know, police in america, they are no angels, they are no marines, they are part of the public. we are all public, police are just like humans like we are,

they bleed, they cry, they hurt. some are treated bad, some are treated good. i'm just shocked that, well, i'm not shocked, but i know that this is a time for america in the world, you know, police not just belongs to the police association, it belongs to all of us. one thing donald trump was right about on the radio. we don't have tv in the building. i get a lot of information from radios. thank god for the radio station that the world has not gobbled up to get some trust. we are all polices. we all want to be saved. there is no separating from brotherhood and fatherhood and life. what's going on in america

and san francisco, other people have to be where you are in that and not release a name. the president can be released his name. can't nobody we want a job to be a chief of police. we need to know what's going on. who is the officer and what is your commitment and do you need to be doing something else. if we didn't have medical marijuana we would die because we wouldn't have enough medicine or guns in america. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, karen freshman from the woods coalition and san franciscan for police accountability. i was with the nieto family. it is been 2 years since it

was found. we did not move heaven and earth to get chief suhr removed to come to find out who his replace many will be when mayor lee pins this name to his chest. let's let the next one be a success. we have to know. we have to be a part of this process. i attended the meetings. it was a first. it was not a real way to get community input. we need to know who those finalist are an we need to know what the experience leading a modern accountable police department a 21st century police department. that is what we need in a new

chief. let's be clear. if you do not engage that person from day one, that person not going to be able to establish the trust in this community. they are going to be set up for failure, you will be set up for failure, the mayor will be set up for failure. let's look at the big picture, guys, and focus on what is most important. >> further public comment? public speaker: hi, folks. i just want to give my support for requesting that our candidates, our applicants for police chief disclose their candidacy. i think it's important.

i know when i go to a new job, i risk my current job finding out if i'm interviewing at a new place. i don't think that is something that is -- to this process. i heard the word transparency. we are seeing, this all over the news about police forces not being transparent enough. we in san francisco, we can't fall behind in trying to make that happen. you know, the rest of the country, it sounds like other cities are doing that. we don't want to get left behind in the pursuit of transparency.

so, we have accountable and transparent police forces. i would just like to voice my support in asking requesting, it's not mandatory, it's a request that the candidates disclose their candidacy. >> thank you, mr. casey. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.>> so we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. yes, i am going to make a comment. commissioner loftus' attendance record is so good that i ever get to sit in this commission chair. and i have seen her on

occasion use her prerogative to make such a statement. i'm going to make a statement. i have heard a lot of comments about this process. some open-ended allegations with no support such as farce. open-ended allegations about untrustworthy process and all we've heard on it which is all fueled by not necessarily anything wrong with this process, but by other people and their motivations who come in here and start talking about transparency and they need to be more transparent about the reasons they are coming in here and shooting down this process. they don't want to give us a chance for our jobs or the police new police chief a chance at his or her job, that's up to you, but we've endeavored to be a fair and open process. it's not

for anyone candidate. it is done on a national outreach basis to hire a candidate and it's garnered support and interest from all over and not just the united states but outside of it. i resent to sit here every week to punch holes in the hard work that we do everyday. i'm going to base a vote on what i need to be done to continue the integrity of this process. whether or not you think it has been a process with integrity, that's up to you. i don't care because i have reached out, we've all reached out. we have talked to people and tried to endeavor new ideas and new thoughts and reform to this process and to reach new people and new ideas. if that is something that the

people who come here claim to represent the entire community which is very different than at the mails -- e-mails that we get and some of the calls and concerns, that's fine, but we are going to make a decision based on the reason we were chosen to get here and the information we are getting from the entire public. i call the vote. >> vice-president, just to clarify i have the motion to make sure it's correct. >> i'm going to let commissioner dejesus to answer whether or not it's clear. >> commissioner dejesus, i have the motion that the police commission or it's representatives shall request permission from each finalist for chief of police during the interview. if each finalist is willing to release his or her identity and a

brief summary of the his or her background to the mayor on the public. upon receiving responses from each finalist, the commission shall release and forward summaries. the release of the names will be contingent on all finalist. i want to make sure i have that correct. >> that sounds right. >> so on the motion and friendly amendment that the police commission or it's representatives shall request permission from each finalist for chief of police during each interview if each finalist is willing to release his name and brief summary of background and upon release of each finalist, the police commission will forward the finalist to the mayor for consideration publically release the background and summaries. the release of the names will be

contingent on all finalist. vice-president turman, how do you vote, no. vice-president turman votes no. commissioner marshall, how do you vote.? no. commissioner marshall votes no. commissioner dejesus, how do you vote? yes. commissioner mazzucco votes no, commissioner hwang, how do you vote? yes. commissioner melara, how do you vote? no. the motion fails. 2-4. >> madam secretary, call the next line item. >> item 6. public comment. the public is now able to comment on items that are not on the

agenda. speaker shall address their remarks as a whole and not refer to personnel. under the commission rules of order under public comment neither personnel nor commissioners are required to respond the questions but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and occ personnel should refrain however from entering in any debate to public comment. please limit your comments to two minutes. 2 minutes. public speaker: good evening. i have lived in san francisco my entire life. i had a member in my community reach out to me related to an issue that happened in 2015. that's almost 2 years ago.

at that time there was a lot of boisterous conversations and this woman failed pulling out her cellphone and videotaping the incident between her and the police officers. she was arrested and detained and she had to go to court. to make a long story short, the case was dismissed and at the time her cellphone was taken. this is a single mom raising her children by herself. she went three times. three times she was told that he was unavailable and never got returned calls. last time i think she was told that he had a broken foot and not available. commissioners, at a time when we

should be working feverishly to instill trust and confidence in the public, we have one individual doing something like this. it reflects on every man and woman in this department because they think that under authority, they can abuse authority and steal property from a citizen. i think it's absurd. i hope you take this seriously. i hope the chief takes it seriously. it's up acceptable. he is supposed to enforce the law, not break the law.

>> >> >> city of san francisco police commission ( closed session ) >> >> .

>> a lot of water heater in san francisco look like this may be yours doesn't too do you know it is the post earthquake problems we'll show you to brace our water heater hi, everybody i'm patrick director of quarter safety for the city and county of san francisco welcome to another episode of stay safe today, we'll talk about bracing water heaters water heater failure is

a leading problem with earthquake fires you have a a single source you'll have in our home. >> how are you. >> so what are we looking here. >> this is a water heater 3 weighs from 200 to nine hundred pound during an earthquake that weight will try to move sideways we need to secure is. >> we'll brace the water heater our model home in south of market we'll use a simple kit interest the hardware stores from $20 it the the clean up itself single thing to do what necessary look like. >> this is what you'll find in our kit a inch and a half wide strap to attach to the wall

around the water heater and so you want to compare this in some garages around the city and state which is called plumbers tape innovate as strong and we need to brace the water heater if you find this you'll want to replace it with a streetscaping kit. >> we've put blocking so that way we streetscape the water heater a nice fit it is important and important probation officer mention you need to move our water heater to strap is it talk about to a license plumber they'll come out with a firm once we streetscape those obviously we want to follow the manufactures instructions. >> typically the instructions will require the strap one strap be installed to fit the top third of the water heater and the bottom on the bottom 1/3rd

away from the controls if it is above a certain size 50 gallons a third train e streetscape in the middle of the water heater. >> a lot of time i see older water heaters on the ground obviously explain why this is required and the mr. chairman is required if you pa a water are hereto in the garage gas fumes can accommodate and the pilot light will ignite the fumes so you want to above the grouped level. >> so why not go ahead and he get started with the bracing. >> we're joined with peter from construction he'll help us

>> there you have it for not a lot of 340e7b in a short time we were able to reduce the risks as you can see secure and even in a big rumble bell not going to come losses thank you for watching we'll give is one more

big push as you can see with al started. i want to welcome you today. my name is supervisor malia cohen and your district 10 supervisor. how are you? good morning! this is a big day for all of us here. okay, i want to thank we will have translation today. i want to thank ocia frubeing here from the mayors aufss for doing the translation. okay, here we are, we are gathered at 66 raymond. this is a long time coming. this is process that the mayor and i have been

working on the for last 3 years and i want to acknowledge every single community member that has joined us along this journey. thank you. [applause] for over 100 years this building is extremely important to the community. many people have danced, many people have shared a meal, there are wonderful cultural performanceess here in this building and today we come as a community to celebrate the reopening and rebirth of 66 raymond. thank you. today is

not just a about reclaiming this building we lost but reclaim agsymbolic importance this plaiz holds in the community. i'm proud to stand before you today to deliver a promise that i made to you that the mayor made to you to insure this building was open and it will remain an asset in the community. this building

reflects diverse population of the viz valley community. this building will serve everyone from those that live in public housing all the way down to the community members that will join us when the projeblth project is rebuild. so, you might be wondering what type of activities will be held here in this space. i want to introduce to you a few members of our city family here todayment we have a lot of people we want to recognize. first and for emost the

department of aging as well as department of children, youth and families. these two departments alone are going insure that we got services to offer fwraum the kind ergartners to the seniors of the viz valley community.