>> supervisor yee: i would like to make a suggestion that we report back every 6 months. if that's okay for us to amend that. >> supervisor safai: what we'd be doing, instead of having for an annual report, that they would come back in six months and give us a report on how the law has been implemented. >> i think i can say that that would not be a problem. >> supervisor safai: can we make that amendment at the full board, city attorney? >> yes. >> supervisor safai: okay. great. or we can just do it now. >> supervisor yee: i'm okay doing it now. >> supervisor safai: they said they're fine with it. okay. can we entertain a motion to add language that we would have in the first year a six-month report back from the office of

labor standard enforcement? >> so it would be a report on implementation and enforcement of this ordinance six months from the operative date? >> supervisor safai: from the operative date of the ordinance, only in the first year, and then annual that point forward. >> okay. >> supervisor yee: i move that. >> supervisor safai: seconded. without objection. and is there any other comments from members of the committee. >> is there a motion to -- >> supervisor safai: we'll do that. go ahead. >> supervisor yee: i want to be sure that -- and i will make it public, that i really appreciate supervisor cohen taking the lead in this. i think it's really important that these people that are trying to get employment and housing and so forth are not

discriminated against. i am probably more concerns about those individuals rather than the business. >> supervisor safai: right. okay. and lets entertain a motion to accept the amendments as proposed and read into the record -- do we have to read them again? >> no, we do not. >> supervisor safai: as proposed by supervisor cohen's office. so moved. seconded. and then entertain -- yes? >> i wanted to know that that's with the operative date of october 1 -- >> supervisor safai: right. we'll discuss that at the full board. right now, it's at october 1, but we'll have the conversation on tuesday if it will go to january 1. can i entertain a motion? >> supervisor yee: make a motion to pass this out of committee

with positive recommendation of the amendment. >> supervisor safai: so moved. seconded. item is ordered. mr. clerk, please call item number two. >> clerk: ordinance amending administrative code for mior to appear at the board of supervisors for question and answer period. >> supervisor safai: we're joined by honorable supervisor peskin. go ahead and proceed on your item. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair safai, and supervisors yee and stefani. this is not earth-shattering legislation, but it's the result of two votes, which in 2010, when 60% of san francisco voters

passed prop c, which was an amendment requiring the mayor to appear on a monthly basis to engage in policy discussions with members of the board for everybody to see. at the time, it's intent was to provide political engagement between the board of supervisors and the legislative branch, that was not occurring in the space and to have that occur in full view of the public. the ordinance in the administrative code that created the rules for, had the promise of that back and forth and ending up with someone that was pretty stilted without real information being shared. and as we saw yesterday in these chambers, i think it was the

first time that any member of the board asked a question since september, 2016, that that system can be revised in modest ways to enhance what the voters told us they wanted almost a decade ago, which is real, candid engagement. so this legislation seeks to create a bit more of a structure back and forth, without putting anyone in the hotseat or playing a game of gotcha. and i think it's tailored enough to keep the back-and-forth brief, but also genuine and dynamic. to that end, the proposal would allow a member of the board to submit their question topic on the wednesday preceding the board meeting. all of us who suffer through an election become a jack of all trades and expert at none. 5 think we should be conversant on an array of topics. if we set forth that perhaps the

topic be senate bill 827 or what have you, it should be enough to allow the mayor to prepare and also it would -- this would enable a supervisor to ask a follow-up question. and the mayor would answer that question not to exceed 2 minutes. so it's not designed to be time-consuming. i would be impressed if all of the supervisors engaged in it. in order to -- i know there have been some fears expressed by the mayor's office, who have gone around today and said that it will make board meetings too long, i'm not exactly sure why the mayor's office cares if our board meetings are longer. to that end, what is before you, colleagues, rotates the supervisors that can ask questions throughout the year.

the way it's structures, we have supervisors from districts 1, 2 -- let me find it here -- 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be able to ask for -- this would be on a rotating, monthly basis. so the supervisors from those districts could ask at the mayor's first appearance, and then the supervisors from districts 5, 6, 7 and 8 could ask a question at the next appearance. at the third appearance, supervisors from 9, 10 and 11 could ask a question. in the spirit of back and forth, it would allow the mayor to, if he or she so chose, ask a question of the supervisor. i think it's about transparency and about demonstrating to the public that the legislative and executive branches of government can engage in civil, public dialogue and i don't think any of us should cowher from that. with that, i respectfully ask

for your support. >> supervisor safai: i will save my comments until after public comment. >> supervisor peskin: i know that the chair expressed concerns about brown act issues that i discussed with the city attorney and this satisfies the brown act. >> supervisor safai: any members of the public wish to comment on this item, come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor peskin: like i said, earth-shattering legislation. >> supervisor safai: i'm going to propose a couple of amendments. i will hand them out to colleagues. this is for you. after my amendments, you can ask a question -- or go ahead, supervi supervi supervisor yee.

>> supervisor yee: what you have, i think, is time limit for the replies, but there's no time limit on the question. and what i found is if you don't put a time limit on the question it, could go on and on and someone could go on and on and on and on and ask the question at the end of 20 minutes. >> supervisor peskin: i remember that member of the board. [laughter] through the chair to supervisor yee, that's a good point and i think that we could certainly limit the question in the same form. deputy city attorney? >> the proposed ordinance does have a time limit on the question and the answer. 2 minutes per question. and 2 minutes per answer, so the entire conversation between mayor and supervisors would take a total, maximum of 16 minutes. 2 minutes for the first

question, 2 minutes for the first answer. 2 minutes, follow-up. and then it flips, and then the mayor asks a 2-minute question. etc. and that's on page 3, line 23. >> supervisor peskin: and it could be as short as 4 minutes or even shorter depending on the duration of the question of and the answer. >> supervisor safai: supervisor stefani. >> supervisor peskin: i will talk through the amendments and give me comments. there's been one question asked, i think it was the other day, and it almost became dynamic, but there was no time limits, so no real opportunity. it could have been informative. the voters of san francisco were

asked to weigh in on this topic. and i believe that it passed with a 60% approval. it's something that i think the voters of san francisco wanted, maybe to have more open dialogue in a public format between the mayor and members of the board. i could see how it could become stale over time and it has. and i think the attempt by the sponsor is to create some dynamism. what i'm concerned about is to ensure that right now the way that it is is that members of the board are asked in advance as we do our agenda to submit their questions and that allows the general public to understand what will be discussed. in this instance, there will be a topic. that topic has to have parameters set around it. the way it is right now, the eligible question or topic area would be submitted to the clerk of the board by noon on the wednesday prior to the mayor's appearance.

and the clerk would forward that submitted topic to the city. what i'm asking is on page 2, lines 12-15, that the clerk would then forward the submitted topic to the city attorney to determine -- and have the city attorney determine the legality and adequate noticing of the topic to ensure that we're meeting state and local public meeting laws. we don't want someone to say "government" and have it be so broad that there is no real understanding of what the topic could be. it could be homelessness. it could be affordable housing. whatever the topic is, there will be some understanding to the general public what will be discussed. and if there is interested parties that want to at least, they won't be allowed to participate and they will listen and partake in the back and forth. is that right, city attorney?

>> that's all correct except there is public comment. it comes at the end of the meeting. so there is an opportunity for the public to comment during general public comment. >> supervisor safai: so even more of a reason for them to understand the topic. it was one of the amendments i wanted to make. and the other amendment is on page 3, line 22. because we're having it on a rotating basis and there's a topic area, i believe that it would be more dynamic to add that the mayor then has the ability to have a follow-up question with any of the supervisors on that given topic. so the mayor has the ability to turn around and ask a question of the members of the board. members of the board would understand what the given topic was in advance. they might not be the wounds that are asking the initial topic, but they're then noticed that they, too, could be asked a question by the mayor and should be prepared to have a

conversation on that topic. i think that's in the spirit of what the members of the public wanted. i think it's a friendly amendment, both of which i talked about with the sponsor. so those are the two that -- two amendments that i'm proposing. in general, i'm supportive of the concept and i think it would help to make it more robust. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you. i've been around for a while. i was here back in 2006, actually. when the voters passed the policy statement urging the mayor, which didn't come to fruition before the board of supervisors, and then they tried again in 2007 at the ballot and the voters rejected it at that time. and then in 2010, the voters did pass a measure to require the

mayor to engage in policy decisions with the board and now we have the system in place that supervisor peskin described. while i do appreciate supervisor peskin's desire to change the way we're doing it, for reasons that he stated, i am not in favor of changing it. i don't think it's effective. i don't think we get much out of question time. and i think our time could be better spent doing our things. it could double the amount of time that question time would take. and i don't know that it's actually going to realize the goal that supervisor peskin would like it to. i think -- say we have a topic. yesterday, we had a scripted question and the mayor was aware of that question. if that topic were to be, say, minimum compensation ordinance, then the supervisor could ask a question on that up to 2 minutes. then the mayor would give his answer, which would probably be the same answer that he gave

yesterday. i don't think it would be anything different than what happened yesterday. and then a follow-up question, trying to get the mayor to answer what they want him to answer. and then the mayor would answer the question in the way he wanted to answer the question. people answer the question they want to. so i don't know if it will be effective. i feel that it's an exercise in futility. i do think maybe a skilled debater will be able to get a gotcha moment out of this, but i don't think it's effective either. i feel in my heart of hearts that this has the potential to divide us. that it puts people in opposite corners. i think that san francisco faces serious issues that requires us to work together constructively. and i think even though we're trying to engage in discussions and that's what question time is trying to do, i don't think it does that. and i think it does promote divisiveness. i don't think it contributes to policy development.

and i do think it lends itself to somewhat personal attacks or it could. i just don't see getting a lot out of it. i don't -- like i said, i don't think a lot of policy will be developed because of it. and i do think our time is spent much better working together to solve the major issues impacting our city. we need to focus on our commonality. and what i kept hearing today is that there is more that unites us than divides us. and i truly believe that on this board. and i think we need to work constructively together, collaboratively together and we need to fight hard to address the issues. i don't think that question time does that. i think that question time is a way to divide us. when the voters approved prop c, they asked for the mayor to appear before the board of supervisors to engage in formal policy discussions. and i think it has been done,

albeit not a way that excites people, but i believe it speaks to the mandate of 2010. >> supervisor safai: i have a question. based on -- if my amendment were to be accepted in terms of the mayor being able to ask any of the members of the board on page 4, line 2, "supervisor other than the questioning supervisor may participate." line 3. do we need to add something there to clarify that unless the mayor asks an additional quell to a different supervisor? >> you're right, supervisor, we can make that clarifying

amendment. >> supervisor safai: supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: i respect the position of supervisor stefani. i think what's broken about this is the way the code was written, you have two people who read a pre-prepared statement. a pre-prepared question and mayor lee -- there was a couple of times that he came in here and he would literally read off a cooked-up answer. if we could -- i actually think it could be a unifying thing. if i could actually ask a question that -- it's very easy for mayors not to come out with public positions. we have to do that much more than a mayor does. and i think it's good to get on the record to say, i use senate

bill 827 as an example. what is your position on senate 827 and why? it would be great for all of us to hear that and for the public to hear that. i don't see it as a gotcha thing. i think when you don't have a prepared thing that you read, and you actually have to think on your feet, i don't think it's going to increase our tv ratings by any stretch of the imagination, but it's real democracy and i think that's what the people voted for in 2010 and what they haven't gotten. and i hope that the board will have an opportunity to do it. i'm glad that our president utilized question time, for the first time, as i said before, since september, 2016. and the answer can be -- obviously, any person or elected official or politician can say, i don't know the answer.

i will go back and look at it and study it and we see people on tv every day that have become professionals at not being transparent. if it doesn't work, we can amend the ordinance again, but i think that everybody agrees it's not working as well as it should. let's give the experiment a shot, colleagues. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor peskin. i would add before i call on supervisor yee. i, too, have been around for some time. [laughter] and i remember when this was created. and i think about -- i don't always think about when we're creating policy about when we're doing this in the best of times, but also some of the times when we're hitting some stumbling blocks. and admittedly, i don't know if

it was you supervisor peskin or if it was supervisor daly at the time. i think there was a general lack of dialogue between the mayor's office and the board of supervisors. and i think it was the genesis of -- we have the opportunity for members of the public, as part of our job, the mayor meets with us weekly or biweekly, most of us, and talks about policy, we get into issues in our district. but there are times when that might not happen. if you are running for office and hold a commission seat, you should give up that seat. i fundamentally believe in that. it has the potential to be used the wrong way -- there are times

that the mayor will say, good question. i will look into that. i will be happy to respond back. and then there's a follow-up. i also like the idea that the mayor has the ability to ask when he or she comes. i want to talk to you about this, supervisor peskin, about a specific thing in your district that i'm hearing a lot and you are not talking a position. and i think that's an important -- it doesn't necessarily have it be a gotcha moment. but it can be something that will highlight something that might be -- we tend to be insular in here. that could be bouncing off the walls, but not necessarily going to be used the wrong way. it could be stale. but i think it could have the potential to bring out issues and policies that members of the general public want us to be thinking about and talking

about. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you. so i've been around, but not around city hall. [laughter] what i've seen in the five years, i guess, plus that i've been here, i have not seen during the once a month session where the mayor comes in that anything has been discussed. i mean, it's a question you give to the mayor and the mayor would come out and read a script and that's the end of it. and you sit there, okay. sometimes the questions were asked to promote a policy that maybe the supervisor who is asking it and the mayor agree on and so it's an opportunity to

strengthen that position. i think when it's a question that's asked by supervisors that don't agree with the mayor, then the answer doesn't really shed any light -- i can't give you an example where it's worked. so in many ways, if we are going to do this, the question i think supervisor stefani promotes is whether we should do it or not. i think we need to be doing it because it was voted by the people. i mean, i would just get rid of it, but it's an opportunity to see what may happen. we can change it back if it becomes a distraction, not an

attraction. i like the back and forth a little bit. and i like the fact that it's limited, not going to go on and on forever. i have to say -- i'm not sure that i want to agree with your second amendment, which is the asking any supervisor. it could be a topic that maybe i'm personally passionate about and also if the mayor has a question sitting here, and we do this all the time. all of us just sit here and we'll focus more on things that excites us and we start of defer other topics, when it's not as interesting and there's more expertise in the room. so for the mayor to come and ask anybody who may or may not have expertise or interest, it seems to be the wrong way to go. and i would like to keep the

dialogue with the original asker. >> supervisor safai: to respond to that, i appreciate that. what i was trying to accomplish there is that right now it seems to be one way, other than the mayor has the ability to ask the one supervisor in the rotation. i think that if we're having general topic areas, which we're tackling on a daily basis, affordable housing, clean streets, density, whatever the issue might be, i think what it does is -- people kind of shut down when that time comes. if you want to make it dynamic and want everybody to participate -- i ran it by the sponsoring supervisor. i think he was okay with it. i understand what you are saying in terms of it may or may not be a topic, but i think may or may not be a topic that the mayor wants to talk about either,

right? [laughter] but he or she has been asked to talk about that topic. it's a two-way street, so i'm trying to create as much of a two-way conversation as possible. >> supervisor stefani: i wanted to add, piggybacking on what you said, supervisor safai, when it started, it was combative and personal and not effective. and now we have open dialogue with the mayor and i think the mandate we're under is working fine. the mayor is coming here. he opens with a statement. and then we have the back and forth that we have. but i think -- the mayor was here and he said, if you have a problem, get in a room and go fix it. get the job done. there's brown act that we have to pay attention to, obviously. if there are policy issues, we have the mayor.

and we have so many issues facing san francisco. i think we need to figure out how to fix them. this back and forth, i don't think it does it. i don't think it accomplishes it. and it really provides an avenue for divisiveness and i want an avenue for collaborate, an avenue for constructive dialogue. i don't think it provides it. it's fine with the way it is now. we're under the mandate from 2010. i'm all about consensus-building and i don't know that this does that. >> supervisor safai: supervisor peskin? i wasn't to ask you about one part that we haven't spent any time on. and that's on page 2, line 19. i want you to talk a little bit about this. i understand with you saying unexpected or sudden incident, but this allows eight members of the board to allow -- someone that was part of the rotation for that particular month -- is that what you mean by eligible

supervisor to ask a question not related to a topic submitted by noon on wednesday prior? so it's to say if there was an emergency or sudden event, that eight members of the board can come together and say, we're going to allow -- is it the person in the rotation? >> supervisor peskin: it's the person in the rotation, because it's eligible board member. this is updating a previous provision that was already in the ordinance. it said before, "a super majority." and it correctly defines what a super majority is. this provision was in the original ordinance. and mr. givner is shaking his head in the affirmative. >> supervisor safai: did you want to say something else? >> supervisor peskin: the only thing that i was going to say is that i don't -- with all serious and due respect to supervisor stefani, i don't think that dialogue divides us. i think that mature dialogue and

political discourse can unite us and build confidence in the public. watching the most powerful person in city government talking to the board as a check and balance i think it can bring us together. i also want to be clear, which is the reason that i'm doing this now is because this is not aimed at any particular mayor. and i think the time to do it without -- because right now we're about to have a mayor's election. we're going to have a new mayor, who is not our currently serving, interim mayor. the time to do this, precisely to show it's not aimed at gotcha is, to create this system in advance of a new mayor coming in. and hopefully that individual will embrace it in the positive spirit that i intend this. as i said before, it's an experiment. if it turns out to be the same old, stilted stuff, we can revert to the canned 5-minute

speech we get now and life would go on. >> supervisor safai: would you be open to a sunset provision, two-year period and then it goes back? i'm just kidding. [laughter] anyone else want to say anything? >> supervisor yee: through the chair, can i ask the author of the legislation his opinion on the amendment that has been offered by the chair? >> supervisor safai: as to the first amendment with regard to making sure that the way that the topic is stated is reviewed by the city attorney so it's not overly broad. i support that. that's a sensible addition. with regard to the mayor being able to either respond if he or she so chose to the originating, eligible supervisor or another supervisor, i'm fine with it. i mean, to me -- i think it's

unlikely. if you are engaging in dialogue and supervisor safai asks mayor farrell a question and mayor farrell is unlikely to go and ask another supervisor a question. he will likely ask supervisor safai, but i could see instances where the mayor says, you know, actually, supervisor stefani has been the expert on that and has been doing the gun control legislation and i would like to ask her a question. >> supervisor safai: on the sudden, unexpected incident, that could be a way to have the flexibility in for the mayor that if something were to come up, it would be submitted, but in the interim something else happens. that's even another reason to ask the mayor to ask any supervisor. it goes two ways.

you were not asking it that day, but it's important that i'm asking a noneligible supervisor because a major incident happened. and that's happened with, where we discovered there were 29 people living underground. that happened on a friday. way responded to it, but that could be something that the mayor wanted to dialogue. >> supervisor peskin: i'm fine with it. >> supervisor safai: any other comments? no? okay. so can i entertain a motion to accept the amendments as proposed that have been put forward? roll call vote on the amendments, amendments first, not the final item. non-roll call on the amendments. go ahead.

>> supervisor yee: are you asking for a motion for the amendments? i will make the motion. >> supervisor safai: so moved. seconded? amendments are accepted. and then supervisor peskin, did you want to say anything else? >> supervisor peskin: no. i hope you will send it forward to the full board with recommendation and i realize that will require a roll call. >> supervisor yee: i will make a motion to send it out of committee with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor stefani: no. >> supervisor yee: aye. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> clerk: the motion passes. >> supervisor safai: please call the next item. >> clerk: item number 3, motion approving or rejecting the recommendation of paul henderson

as member of the police accountability serving at the pleasure of the police commission. >> supervisor safai: unless there are initial comments, mr. henderson, please come forward. >> thank you. paul henderson. i know most of you already, obviously, there's a lot of people in the room and in the community that are here supporting me. i'm familiar with all of you already in my previous work at

e.p.a. for those of you that may not be familiar or unaware of all of my background, and i won't be long, but i will say that most people know that i'm a fourth generation san franciscan. i was born here, raised here, went to school here. i grew up in bayview, culturally rich area of the city. my mother, who is here, by the way, mom. there she is. also here, from san francisco, former public defender. my grandmother was a civil rights activist here, worked at the office of civil right. i grew up here having a sense that things happen to my community rather than for my comment -- community. and that drove me in education. i went to cathedral.

went to saint ignatius, ucla and tulane. i came back and have worked almost all of my professional career here in san francisco. i started off at the district attorney's office as an intern and then a law clerk, trial attorney, until becoming chief under then district attorney kamala harris. i served as her chief until she became our attorney general. i am really proud of the work that i served as a prosecutor here. i really had a desire to sit on the side of the table where decisions were being made about our criminal justice system and to play an active role as a trial attorney and making and shaping policy. the work that i'm most proud of in that office is developing our three strikes policy.

work with juvenile drug court, prop 36, and that kept people out of custody for marijuana offenses. and increasing the diversity in that office by over 70%, which i thought was really important that we have offices that reflect the communities that are being served. i was at the district attorney's office and i left at the end of 2009/2010. still as administrative chief. and was on loan to the mayor's office here. office here.

>> as the deputy chief-of-staff working with that agency to address reforms and make improvements. since july, i've been there and i submitted a on the work being done and most recently the six-month review for my work

while at that agency. i think i'm probably the first director that has been arrested over a half a dozen times but i'm very proud of the work that i'm doing there and i'm really proud to represent the city and continue representing the city. they should know the agency was initiated in 1982 by act from the board supervisors. and what we do as an agency is that we are charged with receiving, investigating and making findings on both complaints, about the san francisco police department, and misconduct from the san francisco police department. we also develop and implement policy with the department and recently, out of prop g, we also audit the department to address

issues, use of force, misconduct and punishment in and accountability from and with the department and so those reports and prop g is something recent. you will be able to expect, from my office, over the next few months. that's a new auditing function that did not exist in the department of police accountability. so that is my background and who i am. i have been nominated from the police department to the mayor's office. the mayor has appointed me to the position as the permanent executive director and now i have in front of you today for confirmation of that appointment. >> thank you. >> i did it briefly. >> great. >> i can go on. >> no, we will call you back up. we'll have some questions. >> oh i'm sure. >> we're going to take public comments first.

and then we will call you back up. >> ok. >> thank you. >> my members of the public wish to comment on this item please come forward. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. my name is ronnie addvan and i'm the senior advisor at the police commission. police commission president is not able to be here this afternoon but he asked me to share with you the following. the police commission unanimously decision to nominate and support paul henderson for this position. in the short time he has served, he has demonstrated a mastery over the administrative functions and reporting role that this requires. he has tackled tough personnel and recruitment concerns and the department has already shown a turn around in moral as well as responding to open cases. these cases are now at the lowest numbers they have been.

he has my full support and that of every commissioner. thank you. >> next speaker. >> hello, my name is candice carpenter. i'm a investigator with the department of police accountability. i would just like to say i definitely approve. hopefully that you will approval the appointment of paul henderson. >> great. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors, i'm sharon woo the chief assistant for the d.a.'s office. i know him as a colleague and friend. his commitment to this community is incredible. he is worked all of his professional life here in san francisco making sure that the programs and the processes are fair. the three things that i always think about paul other than his big personality, is that paul is interested in justice. he is interested in

collaboration and he is interested in transparency. and he fights for those things. i think as the head of the department, he will make that department what it should be and really make it the best and the promise that it has. i speak on behalf of myself and behalf of d.a. and our support for paul as the permanent director of d.p.a. >> next speaker. great. >> i am karen shin from the san francisco reinjury council. paul, as you know, was a co-chair of the reentry council while he was working in the mayor's office. i'm also speaking in support of him. i think that the position that he will be in as a permanent executive director is a really critical thing. particularly now, as we're going through all the various recommendations from the department of justice as well as the general issues of reentry

and entry into the criminal-justice system. so we, in the reentry council would welcome him and hope that you support him. thank you. >> great. thank you. next speaker. >> my name is janette a thompson. i am an assistant dat district attorney at the san francisco district attorney office. i have known mr. henderson for almost 14 years. he is why i am in the position i am today as an assistant district attorney in representing those people of color, especially victims as i am in the domestic violent unit. mr. henderson has been a friend and a men tore. he is why i'm at the district attorney's office and why i represent and be a voice for the voice less here in san francisco every day. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, i'm kathy davis executive director of bay view senior services. i've known paul henderson since i was 5-years-old.

he played bingo with his grandmother at the senior center. i just want to say how exciting it is for the community to see someone like paul in this position. because we've been going through a lot in the community, as you know, people have been -- there's been a lot of concern about this department and since he has been there there's been a sense of confidence and a sense of trust that someone is there that really cares about the community and stands up for criminal justice and will stand up for the community that he was born and raised in. so we'll rear' proud of him and hope you give them this appointment. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. beverly upton, san francisco domestic violence consortium. i'm going to keep my comments narrow around domestic violence. domestic is a challenge for any community and it's certainly a challenge for police departments across the country. but really how i know paul is my 17 years at the domestic

violence consortium. i started working with him when he was in the d.a.'s office and when he was the public safety expert in our beloved district attorney office and i look forward looking to him in his new position. these issues, training issues, the accountability issues for the police department and the community are really key to ending domestic violence so i really urge you to confirm paul henderson. we'll all be better for it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors, suzie. it's wonderful to be here today. speaking on behalf of someone who i will tell you i am bias in support of. there's a little known fact about me which i was paul henderson's intern. where is tinetta. she had to go back to work because she's at the da's office doing big things. we were his intern and i thing i want to share it's important because it's about who paul is

and who he will be as a leader in this department. i was four months pregnant, i got the internship and i wanted to be a prosecutor but i thought it would be a fact that wasn't great. you are starting a new job and you are pregnant and i went to see paul almost sheepish about it as you can imagine, he jumped up, hugged me, made sure i was the intern who got to try a case that summer, my daughter, who he helped me raise in many ways throughout my career is now 13-years-old. paul priority tieses advancing women, people of color, the bridge builder when we need more bridges and fewer walls and i just am incredibly proud that a son of san francisco has been selected and i hope you will have your full support. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm a attorney at the department of police accountability. i've been there since 2000. so i've seen a lot of different directors and a lot of different changes. i'm here today to give my full

support for paul henderson. in a relatively short period of time, he is implemented some significant internal changes in our agency. he is continued with enthusiasm and thinking outside of the box. he continues helping us meet some of the goals of the collaborative reform. he immediately recognize some significant i.t. issues we've had and immediately was able to address those issues. many of those details are in this lengthy 16-page report so i won't go into those things. at the end of the day, he shows a tenacious commitment to our agency's mission. it's a pleasure to work with him and on a friday night, if you walk by 25ns, more times than not you see the light on and he is hard at work. thank you. >> next speaker. >> thank you to the chair supervisors. arnold town send. reverend arnold townshend.

i found out he was going to be here. i almost didn't come. i wasn't sure you all would be here. i just saw greg clip of the georgia state legislature walking out to support students. i thought mayb thought maybe yod be out. i almost didn't come because i don't think i have ever, and i've been in this town a long time, i have ever supported what i consider such a no-brainer in this chambers. paul henderson is a long-time friend. being over an office of accountability is a no-brainer because he is one of the most accountable men that i know. in every area. he is there. you can ask him anything you want. you can get him on the phone. he returns your call. he is concerned. and then he is accountable

because not only, i'm certain over the years in the positions he has been in, mayor's office has worked with it, the police department and officers and i know with the commission but he has also worked with the community. he is also worked with people who have to deal with criminal justice issues both as victims and even as young perpetrators. do yourself a favor and make your life's year by a pointing this man. we've got to change how we look at criminal justice because we're just creating a world for ourselves that won't work and we've got to take a new view and one of those new views is holding our officers accountability. thank you so much. i am certain that you will do the right thing. >> my members of the public wish to comment on this? seeing none. public comments closed. any other comments from

commissioners? supervisor yee i see your name on here. >> first of all i want to thank the public for coming out and supporting mr. henderson. however, there was some missing pieces to the public comments. no one came to support you that didn't you more than eight years or less than eight years. what's with that? [laughter] >> these are long roots i've had. i tried to find new people but couldn't persuade them to come into the room. >> you've just known everybody for a long time. >> i have, i have. >> so my question, you know, a lot of the work that's been going on with the police department is trying to implement the recommendations of the d.o.j.

i'm just curious what's your investigation or what's your idea of how this office can actually help move it along quicker than it has? >> we are at the table moving it along. so the work is being done every day. i don't think a lot of it has been made public yet but from the beginning of the recommendation, you know there's over 272 of them but over 70 of them involve the department of police accountability directionally and specifically. and so a lot of them have involved foundational work being done right now and i'm talking about the department of general orders and several key memorandums of understanding and those are in negotiations right now. literally, every day or every week we are at the table finalizing some of those important movements. you will start to see more of them over the next few weeks and months. some of that work you can see right now. tonight, for instance, the

policy for tasers is going to be voted on at the police commission. my office has been diligent in working hard with the department. more importantly with the community to make sure that we give input about our position regarding policies like that. and the next few months though, you will see important m.o.u.s coming out involving my office and the district attorney office, the city attorney's office, other related agencies. the public defenders office as well as reforms in d. g.o.s that have been in existence and have not moved stagnant in inefficient as they relate to criminal justice. that work is being done. you will see more of it i think as people understand more how my department works and it's direct impact on the day-to-day lives of folks that are here in san francisco? >> so, since you mentioned

tasers, tasers mayo may or may e used in the future. let's say it's going to be used, i guess i'm going to anticipate if it is going to be used, in your office will get more complaints, how will they handle the complaints? >> as they relate to tasers? >> yeah, you know -- >> it's good speculation because it's scheduled to be implemented. tonight in fact is the vote about the policy and how that policy will be implemented and the big way that my office has been influential trying to

effect that policy is likely to be are things like record-keeping and what kind of records will the department will keep about tasers and its use because we want to make sure we're following best practices and just adopt something and communities or is being impacted by the use of tasers. i'm trying to make sure that my department is at the front end of that before even the policies take place or before the weapons are actually introduced and or used by making sure that the people know who my agency is, what they do, and how we do it. transparency is always an issue and offices of civilian oversight because much of the direct information is restricted about what we can share with people about specific cases but it has nothing to do or little to do with the work that we do in terms of encouraging people in communities to come to us to make us aware of either

misconduct and or to make complaints. i presume that if and when tasers are finally introduced on the streets, and they start being used, that we will get complaints or reports about misconduct and we will follow-up, obviously, with all of those reports. but my challenge and one of the things that i'm really working on is just to make sure the people know that our agency exists and how they can enter it with our agency and file a complaints. how our investigators work and our report process works so that people feel welcome to tell us and share information with us across the board. >> thank you for jury answer. i really appreciate what you just said. >> i know we met and talked about some of the backlog. i know you mentioned that and talked about that a little bit. i just wanted you to mention what you inherited and what you've been able to accomplish in a short amount of time and

what you see as the steps going forward to begin to really advance and strengthen your department. that would be one broader -- and the second thing i wanted to say is can you talk about -- i know there's a little bit of a triangulation in terms of your role, right. the pleasure of the commission you are nominated by the mayor. you talked about wanting to expand and work more with members of the board of supervisors. you also have to balance the police officers association. talk a little bit about what your role pertains to because i think it's really important and members of the public see that and see what you've been able to do in a short a lot of time and i was impressed with what you presented to me. >> when i took over, there was a lot of cases that -- i don't want to say they were languishing but they were outside of their statute, their 33-year-old cases.

basically cases we lose jurisdiction. we have a restriction, our jurisdictions for cases last for a year. so we have a year from the time of notice to bring forward our investigations and make findings. there were a number of cases on our logs that were beyond that statute. in addition to that, my staffing had been severely restricted. we had not hired in over a year unfortunately, for many of our key positions. so many of my investigators and many of my attorneys had worked that was stacked up and their caseloads were not conducive to conducting new investigations and or closing out investigations. one of my first priorities was one to initiate staffing and hiring which is not an easy thing to do here in san francisco. i started on july 1st, my