>> i would like to add for 1d. for members of the public the next police commission meeting will be next week april 18, 2018, at city hall room 400 at 5:30 p.m. >> all right. >> commissioners any announcements and scheduling of ite items? >> all right. with that, we will take public comment on items 1a through 1d. public comment. two minutes. >> hello, everyone. good afternoon. i'm here to talk about my son and i like to use the overhead. >> my son was murdered august 4 14, 2006. as i said last week his birthday was april 6th.

we were out in sacramento for survi survivor's speak. so it's survivors speak through healing and action. i want to thank you, chief scott, for coming out and ta talking about my son. you really make my day because i almost didn't go. i want to thank you for talking about him bringing up my son. it was like a birthday present to me to him from you. as a second father, but thank you. for that. i'm still looking for closure for my son's case. it will be 11 years august 14th. and i'm still going. i think i'm going to keep on going until the day i die. he was my only son, as i said

before. i want to keep keep his memory -- i want to keep his memo memory and his faice in everyone's face and my children's thoughts, my thoughts august is coming up really soon. august 14th. i just experienced someone tearing down my son's picture on the pole where h -- where he died. again. maybe they don't know. that's why we need a venue now i come up on cars and put pictures up on the pole which people can tear down [ bell rings ]. >> thank you for listening to me. i appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you, ms. brown. >> can i have someone in the department, can we just call the dpa and make this request that

they not remove the sign>> thought we had -- snshgs dpw. sorry. can we make that? >> thank you. >> commissioners on behalf of the chief's office we made that request in the past and i will make it again. >> thank you so much. >> secretary can you prepare a letter for the dpw for my signature to that effect as well, please? thanks. >> next speaker. next member of the public? next one of yous. all right. thank you so much. public comment on items 1a through d is now closed. secretary, next line item. >> line 3 discussion and

possible action to approve revised department general order 2 .04 complain04 complaints agas and draft memorandum and understanding between department police accountability. and meet and confer bross the police officers association. discussion and possible action. >> all right. dgo2 .04 complain04 complaints officers and the draft mou. my good right hand, our good right hand adwon is out ill and not able to help us guide through. i've had several meetings with the department and the dpa on the issues. i will ask -- well director henderson there but i will ask [ indiscernible ] i will also ask commander walsh to come forward as well so we can begin the discussion on the items

here. 2.04 has been significantly revi revised. through mostly a back and forth direct conversation between the dpa and the department. we also received letters from the public about and other stake olders expressing their interest and belief around the level of investigation and the dpa's authority to investigate in different areas when there's a complaint against an officer made to the dpa. with that, we have some items that i specifically said we would refer to the commission. those are the items we'll begin with. okay? and after that we will take up

additional items that you now want to raise. i understand from ms. adwan that after the meeting the department asked for the reinsertion of a term and that is one of the i m items we'll take up in the second part. so you're before the commission, i'm going to ask ms. mrian along with commander walsh to begin with the issues that we left outstanding that we specifically present to the department. i would like to hear the issue, the dpa, the department's position. >> thank you. good evening from the department of police accountability. if we could turn our atintentio to the government's -- the one

out standing in 2.04. right now the provision that is in 2.04 that is recommended for adoption is the our agency, the dpa would investigate complaints deferred by nonlaw enforcement agencies for example, the office of the public defender, civil engagement, immigrant affairs and department works. i'm referring to page two under procedures two and this is section six. it's our agencies position -- agen agent's position it makes since our -- first it's the practice. the department frequently affords government agency complaints to our agency. we alone also get government agency complaints directly to us f for investigation. so it is the current practice. it's also historically there were police commission rules

that provided our agency the opportunity to investigate government agency complaints as welling. it it also makes good sense in that this is a time where the department of justice community based organizations are asking for increased accountability, increased really, powers of the civilen over sight agency. asking for more accountability to have government agencies complaints got the police department under mines our agency and what we do and is the opposite direction of providing more civilian over sight of these kinds of complaints and ultimately when you look at o h government agency complaints, most times they originate from a member of the public. these are situations, for example, when someone is being represented by the public defender's office those are circumstances where the come

splint originated from a number of the -- a member of the public they have talked to an attorney and it moog might be the public defender files the complaint. when you look at whether or not a government agency complaine s a public complaint, most times it originates from a member of the public. the power that our agency has includes the ability to investigate government agency complain complaints. >> one second.

>> i'm having a little bit of trouble. my marked up copies which were here a moment ago seem to have evapora evaporated. >> thank you. >> continue, i'm sorry. >> the last point i want to make is by the charter, the chief of police can investigate any complai complaint. so that if a government agency complaint comes in and the chief also wants to investigate it, he always maintains that power. but if the commission were to adopt a rule precluding us from investigated investigating the complai come flaunt means they would only be investigated by the chief. that is counter to the recommendations of the department of justice. counter to our role as an agency for 35 years to investigate complaints by the public. >> let me ask, when you referred

to line item six on page two. is this in the proposed or the current? >> it is in the proposed. >> the proposed draft. >> in 1949 a 24-year-old -- in 1994, the lank language there exclued our . even though it exclude it in 1994, the practice was we did investigate government agency complain complaints. but this would be -- >> the 1994 language is a revision from the 1983 language? >> yes. >> when the commission expressly allowed it, correct? >> exactly. >> okay. >> exactly. >> okay. all right. >> okay. i got it. >> okay. >> commander, i'm sorry. any other questions? >> commander. >> thank you president turman.

and chief scott. qui qui quickly. the department's point of view, first off, the sfpd needs to be able to respond to city, state and federal partners. we do a lot of work whether with dpw, dph and that can be reso e resolvresolv resolved quickly through the department. a comet com plaint to dpa can go to some kind of outcome, potentially discipline. the commanding officer and chief the head of dpw and supervisor, we can council -- counsel, r retrain and remove that officer from that type of environment. for us to handle it we can handle in multiple ways and we have gotten complaints. for a department from the fire department to the chief taking care of going vernment agencies how it's to work. i don't discount members of the public making complaints. i think dpa could also involve

city agencies with how the complaint process works out. they all have westbounds -- websit websites. when it comes from a person officially doing work with the san francisco police department on duty and that person sees behaver that needs to be corr t corrected it needs to be brought to the department's attention to handle that. if you give this power to the dpa what the chief is asking res and the department would like, under the charter the chief without a complaint can investigate anything through the department. we ask that we are neildly notified and receive the documentation so if we need to -- our preference is to keep us as the first line to handle interdependental issues with members of our department to keep the city, state and federal agencies within our partnership.

>> anything different or -- anything we haven't heard that director henderson or the chief want to add to this? >> noted from -- not from me, sir. >> nothing differently. >> okay. thank you. so the issue is one that we sort of have to, i think, decide now. the day and age we're in, i don't know that we ever want to put out the message that we want to limit the investigation and discussion of these issues. i'm not saying we interdepend t interdependental goals and . the department should be put on notice and they can conduct

their own, i also think the day and age we live in, speaking of transpare transparency. speaking about having a dpa it under mines their authority not to be also looking at these things. there may be some clash that we hope that they can work out. but i think that it service both the public good and all of us to continue to have these discussio discussions. in 1983 the commission granted [ indiscernible ] i'm not sure what happened in 1994 that it would go away. but it doesn't make sense for us to not allow the dpa some authority at this point. i will make note that since there's only four of us, we got to agree one way or another to pass. so -- >> it's got to be unanimous. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> here's my concern. if a complaint go to thes police department first they have

authorities and powers to deal with taveras that the dpa doesn't have. if there's a complaint that the chief thinks that officer needs to be removed from the street and put in another location or be suspended without pay or put on administrative leave. if it goes to the dpa they don't have the authority. we -- we may have an officer that is on the treat that -- street that shouldn'ted be. i i think there should be simultaneously reporting and immediately returning that informati information to the madpolice department so they do what they need to do and what they have the authority to do instead of waiting for the dpa to come to their -- >> i never said that. i said they woushould have immediate notice as well. the department needs to do what they need to do. that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the dpa also investigating. they're not the ones going to deal with it anyway. whatever they find will come to the chief or us to deal with in

any case. the department is doing other theics deal with it. i think it's compliment -- compleme complementary. >> immediate notification to the police department and we have many instances where there's simultaneously investigation. >>s okay. >> commissioner -- >> commander walsh, said a co come -- compromise. a middle point the department was willing to be a part of i think with commissioner mazzu o mazzucco's language that it both be, whatever complaint there is, to be submitted at the same time. is that something that could happen? >> let's clarify. >> yes. >> the person complaining is going to go to one person. it can't be simultaneously, but it can be there after, immediate. >> has -- the nan dpa will receive a complaint they will

need to send it to the chief. and the investigation cannot begin until that happens. >> okay. >> is that something we can work on? >> yeah i think that was the propos proposal. just on the city government section specifically, having the chief at a meeting with numerous department heads or other supervisors to have that. the other thing is, they can actually, as you know, anybody can say i don't want to make a d dpa complaint. as long as it's available. >> do we need to change the language in any way? >> i think we would have to change the language in some w s ways. so do you have a suggestion for me? >> let me -- i got it.

but -- let me do this my way first. >> perhaps if we include a throne said, upon receipt of the complaint dpa will forward the complaint to risk management or -- or the chief of police, what we can work out that language. >> the commissioners are spe speaking now. >> if i may also address the point, commissioner mazzucco, is there are times we receive a complaint and tell the chief and have the discussion so that the department can take immediate action and that has been our practice as well? >> commissioner marshalal>> i don't want to limit what is expected now. but add to. this should add to not detract from. >> right. >> so especially when it comes to the department willing to

deal with something an officer and do something. that should be able to stay and this should add to the process, not detract from it. if you can come up with something that will do that, i'm fine. >> the other aspect we provide what is called a morning report within 24 hours. and that is a copy of all of our complain complaints. the department is given that information. and that's a process that we currently do and it's also momental liesed in the mou. >> appreciate that process. let's keep it going forward. we may need something in addition to that to specifically comply to 2.04 if we go that way, okay? maybe it's enough, i don't know. i haven't looked at the report. we can work that out with you in the department. >> director henderson, was there something -- in addition to -- >> i think it was reiterated. i wanted to make the point this was not going to limit how the

department was informed how complaints were being made. >> all right. so that takes care of the issues within 2.04 that were outstan outstanding. were there specific ones you wanted to -- were there other issues that the dpa or the department wanted to raise? i'm not sitting here through a laundry list after sitting with you for ten meetings. so give me what you got, but don't think i'm going to be here all night. >> other issues in 2.04 that dpa was raising. >> commander walsh. >> haven't been resoalved alre y already. >> commander walsh? >> yeah. in the mou, and i will get you the passenger. >> we're not to the mou yet. >> i'm sorry. >> 2.04. i know we struggled with a

couple other issues and we would just rather, again, go with what we believe the charter says and what the city attorney said about transferring some cases to another law enforcement agency. so we just like to keep that out there for future -- for tonight. >> that's in 2.04? >> yeah. it's in both actually. >> what's your point, commander? are you asking to change the language or keep it the way it is>> we believe it would be a violation in any form for dpa to forward 293 forms or write them down prior to the da's office prior. >> you know what, i've given that a lot of thought and that's [ indiscernible ] i appreciate your thought on that whether or not it's a violation or not. i don't think that's something we can decide for you. and i think we can construct the

policy as it is. you both seem to have different views on this. you're both siding different authority. someone will have to fair this out with higher authority than what we have at this point. >> yes, sir. >> all right. the mou. you can start, commander walsh. >> let me get you the page. i believe we basically greed on most -- agreed on most. the issue i believe this had been left off accidentally prior to the discussion. and we discussed with -- and ms. marian and i e-mailed and we never came to a resolution. if you go to page two of the mou.

under dpa procedures it will be under a-6. and the sentence says in case of concurrent investigations so something like we were just similarly talking about. government agency if we both gated, shall not receive the ia investigative memorandum until the completed dpa report. for clarification, that is where ia comes with the conclusion. we conclude officer x committed misconduct. it's not the gative report. they would get the record quing traipse transcripts. we want at the last -- before they turn in for their truant investigation they come up with their own conclusions at the end of that they hand it over and we will have to concur and mesh them together. that was our only equal pal at that point. they get everything under the charter, we agree. however, the chief gave up the

06-day chart tore cut to 45 days on behalf of the dpa to be able to get items to the commission prior to the 60 days. which again, is in the charter. that -- we're asking basically that we with hold a few pages. these are our conclusions tully we exchange -- until we exchange completed packet. >> nobody exchange their final report until everybody is done investiga investigating. >> no. they can have everything up to we believe officer x. for a truant independent finding. >> okay. that's what i said. okay. >> thank you. as written now, the iad gative memorandum is more than just the conclusions of the investigation. number one, the language that the department's suggesting is

not reflect knave the actual provision. more importantly under the ch t charter we have -- and in past practice we have always gotten the full file. there are many reasons for that. >> so commander walsh, you said that you want to turn over your conclusion and recommendations, is that correct? >> [ indiscernible ]>> change the language that you don't get conclusion and recommendations. >> and that's better than what is here. >> and that's enough. and then you can put the two reports together at the end. you get everything else up to there. you make your own separate findings and conclusion and they come together. you don't have to have the final of what they're thinking before you make your own conclusion. you're going to get all their pape papers. you can decide what issues you believe exist yourself. that's how -- that sounds like a

comp muse to me. >> can we talk about the timing of that? they only want to turn that over at the conclusion. >> they don't want to turn what over at the conclusion? >> the information. >> what do you mean? tell me what you're saying. they don't -- go ahead. >> until we turn over -- until they've received our completed dpa report they're not going provide -- >> no. no. you're going to exchange the documentatido you think so when you have the documentati documentation. you're not going to give your conclusions of recommendations until everybody is done. that's how it should be written. >> president, may i give you an examp example? >> sure. >> there was a case where we had six weeks left and we were provided the case for other reasons. we had six weeks. we wanted to the entire file including conclusions because we had limitation. >> i understand that. that's why we're going to make

sure and you're going the draft it into the documents as documents are created and become available, you're going to turn them over. the conclusions and recommendations will be excha e exchanged when -- when everybody has made their conclusions and recommendations. you don't need their conclusions and recommendations to conclude and recommendati yourself. you just need to see what has been done to reach -- what has been done, and reach a conclusion. that's fair. now, is there really more issue than that? >> from my perspective there is. >> tell me. >> when we're boith investigating, we are better when we know what we've each covered. if the department's not making recommendations about a particular allegation or a particular policy -- >> no ma'am. you should be making your own ge independent recommendations about a case in an of itself.

independent of what the department is doing and the department should be doing the same thing. >> in real time for clarificati clarification. if there are live whereiitnesse going on independent of what the conclusionin conclusions are will be getting that information? >> i already answered that question. >> everything up to the conclusion. >> why is that not fair. i'm never -- i've never in my life, by the way, once other on onny of my points? i'm asking you. >> that will be a first is that what you're saying>> that won't be a first. you see that face? that's not going to be a first i will do my dammest. >> if there was a reason for this change, again, the department justice talks about the collaboration, the ability to work together. so -- >> i'm not stopping your

collaborati collaboration. i'm encouraging you to share your information. >> absolutely, but when it's -- when it's at the ninth hour that we are talking about conclusi s conclusions, i think it's to the disadvantage of the entire process. i respect your decision. >> they don't know your conclusion. >>s we'll tell them ours. >> good. put that in. i'm just saying. ] capti [ captioner transition ]

based on workload. the issue is gpa is looking at a set of facts and coming up with conclusions they come up with different conclusions that we didn't think about. we meld those together. you get one case to the commission or the chief unless there is a huge disagreement, at which time they bypass to come to the commission. >> my thought is that a parallel investigations are going, one set of conclusions to me shouldn't influence the other set of conclusions. that would be interesting to see if you come to the same conclusions.

that makes sense to me. where you match, you match. where you don't, you don't. listening that is the common sense piece to me. >> can i make one point? >> sure. >> what i'm concerned with is the definition of the cooperation. where it is clear and numrated in the language that the department is to cooperate and disclose all documents and records except where disclosure is prohibited by law. why are we going through the twists to create new enumerations not contemplated in the past. why create restrictions? why do we have less access, less conversion of information? >> i don't think it is less transparent. you are getting the documents to

lead to that conclusion. >> we are getting the documents, not the conclusion. >> you are concluded then melding the two, if that is necessary. where they diverge and come together. that is not less. that is -- there is no lack of transparency there. >> if it is not an item that is not prohibited by law, which is what the language has been in the past and the standard we used in the past, why would we create? >> the standard we used in the past under 1994 was that you don't ge get to investigate complaints about -- from nonlaw enforcement. do you want to go back to that? >> no. >> we are making new policy now.

although i'm not particularly swayed by commander walsh's thinking. what i am going to do is not vote. i want to take an informal straw poll among the commissioners to see what they think how this should be resolved. commissioner mizzou co. >> i agree with not turning over the conclusion. that is our job. if you have two different conclusions that is the role of the police commission to determine if there should be findings against the officer. it is healthy to see it from different perspectives. that is what we want the two agencies to do, work together in terms of doing the investigations, receiving the data, but sometimes people think differently than people at the police department. different focus many times. you know what?

if there are different conclusions, we want them. it is for us to ferret out what the conclusions should be. >> commissioner marshall. >> i am fine. >>missioner. >> ditto. i think that is what i would have said. >> they need to pass anything. all right. we will come back to that. >> next issue in the memorandum. >> that is it. those are the two issues. >> that is it? really? commander walsh that is it. >> on the last issue could i make a recommendation that the language be in cases involving concurrent investigations they

should not receive the investigative conclusions strike memorandum. that involves more than the conclusions. >> recommendations and conclusions. >> is that sattis factory? >> yes, it is semantics if that is going to clarify it. >> i want to use the language you use because i want you to be comfortable with that, and i want so we are trying to reach a compromise. okay. there is nothing else on 2.04. all right. commissioners, anything further that you want to raise? good work. >> they agree on everything else, i am fine. >> we can compromise, not agree on everything.

>> all right. i will accept -- i will take a motion. i will entertain appropriate motion. >> i will move that the san francisco police commission adopt order 2.04 as amended and memorandum of understanding as well as amended tonight. >> second? >> i second that. >> i need a voice vote or hand vote. all in favor. any opposed? thank you. okay 2.04 is passed as amended. i will also have 2.04 added to that list of dgos which i

suppose the commissioner needs to go ove over the meet and con. there you go. okay. that went a hell of a lot faster than i thought it was going to be. okay. next line item. >> line four discussion and possible action. >> i'm sorry. i am rescinding that vote. public comment before we vote on 2.04. i apologize, ladies and gentlemen and members of the public. public comment on dgo2.04. mr. rift. where why did you say something

while you knew there was public comment. >> david rift. personal capacity. i want to comment on one aspect of it about which there wasn't much conversation. that is the issue of whether gpa can forward a criminal allegation to the da. i am not sure whether you were indicating you thought that needs resolved by the city attorney or the courts, but i want to say in the interest of transparency and, you know, police accountability and the values promoted by the d.o.j. report it makes perfect sense to have the dpa forward allegations it has received to the da's office. i understand there are conflicting legal opinions whether that is appropriate for not. i haven't heard sound policy decisions to prohibit that, and

i think the commission does have responsibility to weigh in on a policy level. >> we have weighed in. it is in here, right? >> fair enough. i support the da's authority to do that. it makes perfect sense. i it is on the oversight board for batter police and -- bart police and the officer has authority to do that. that is important so i support that. that is all. thank you. >> just to address a point. i am sorry can you direct me to the section where we addressed this specifically? >> in terms of criminal allegations? >> yes. >> on page 5 under section 3b allegations of criminal conduct. >> could you read that. >> allegations of criminal conduct if any portion of the complaint allegations criminal

misconduct by a department member, the dba shall immediately forward the information presented by the complaint to the department and district attorney's office. >> what is the issue, mr. rift? it is going to the district attorney's office, correct? >> yes. >> what is the issue? >> it was disputed in the earlier draft. >> it is not disputed in this draft. >> i understand. thank you for your time. >> when you come on here and go on television and make it seem like we are not doing something we have already taken care of. all right. all in favor. a. any opposed? >> the motion passes 4-0.

>> thank you. as i said before added to the list of dgos to be presented during the presentation. all right. next line item. >> line four discussion and possible action to appoint a assistant patrol cody clements 2511 to a patrol special officer or take action if necessary. >> good evening, officer brown, nice to see you again. >> good evening. i am here to discuss the appointment of assistant patrol special cody clements he was pointed assistant july 2017 to former patrol special john kissinger who passed away in october of 2017. mr. clements meets the requirements to become a patrol

special. he received glowing recommendation from the captain of the station which i have never received before for someone trying to become a patrol special. that speaks volumes. >> you are recommending in favor? >> i recommend he be appointed. >> for those in the public and those sitting here in front of us, i will let you give more background on patrol specials so people understand what we are doing. >> the patrol special police are very unique to san francisco. they are actually reclated by the san francisco he -- regulated by the department. they are civilian security officers wearing similar uniforms. they own and purchase beats within the district stations. they report to lineup at the

district stations like the officers do. they have access to the radio so they are on the air and respond, for example to the 383. as the chief mentioned they are paid by private citizens to patrol the neighborhoods and storefronts. it is a program that die off in san francisco due to a lack of compliance, lack of training. this commission has made numerous moves to improve they are trained. the san francisco police department assigned to us a sergeant and incredible police officer in front of us to regulate and get compliance from the patrol specials. to the next officer training. they go to the range and qualify. those are things i have pushed since i have been on the commission so they are safe and the public is safe and they are getting good service. it is unique to san francisco.

this young patrol special assistant hopefully will become a full special soon. cody clements took over forfeitingger. it is great -- police work. i move to approve cody clements to become a full-fledged patrol special officer. >> i'm sorry we need public comment on that first. public comment on item 4. >> good evening, commission, chief scott. good to see you guys. i am james. i am a 50 year resident of the castro. i want to say thank you. i knew john quite well. i worked with him for 10 years. cody has been up there as the

neighborhood resident i recommend that he be approved to disposition. he is an asset to the neighborhood helping with the challenges of the neighborhood and the problems that we have in the neighborhood. he is very valuable. >> thank you. >> any further public comment? seeing none. public comment is now closed. okay. there is a motion on the floor to approve assistant patrol special cody clements to the officer of patrol special officer. all in favor. any opposed? thank you. patrol special officer cody clements you are hereby appointed. anything you would like to say? >> i would like to thank the members of the board and the chief.

thank you very much. i want to thank everybody for giving me this opportunity to serve the community. i look forward to it. >> thank you. >> for the record the motion passed unanimously 4-0. >> next line item. >> line five discussion and action to approve sale of number 69 from marina to patrol officer cody clements to 2511 or take other action if necessary. >> officer brown. >> waiting for the projector. >> this is 69 which takes up most of the mission district. that is the beat up for sale from marina fitzinger.

the sale prize is $50,000 monthly installments of 2,000. there are 35 client on the beat and two other assistants that work on the beat including mr. clements. >> all right. i would move to accept the sale of the beat from mrs. fit zinger could cody clements. he is well loved in the community we tragically lost your husband and we think about him often. thank you. do i have a second? >> second. >> any public comment? >> yes, we do. public comment on item 5. seeing up, public comment is now closed.

all right. the motion on the floor is to approve the sale of patrol beat 69 from marina fit zinger to patrol officer cody clements. all in favor. any opposed? >> motion passes unanimously. >> thank you ms. fitzinger. next line item. >> the next line item is line 7. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 9 below including on public comment on whether to hold item 9 in closed session. >> okay. members of the public. we are about to go into closed session to deal with personnel matters. if you have any comment about us

going into closed session and the fact we are going to take a vote about going into closed session now is the time for public comment on those issues. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. next line item please. >> vote 8 vote on whether to hold in closed session. >> all in favor? >> the motion passes unanimously. >> we are now, ladies and gentlemen in closed session. [[ the meeting is now in closed

session.

good morning and welcome to the community and assessment services center. today's event focuses on our efforts specific to the firearm compliance and safety initiative. this initiative is a collaborative efficient toen sure the -- effort to ensure the removal of guns from our communities. the adult probation department plays a critical role in the process as outlined in new responsibilities defined in proposition 63. the safety for all act. these new responsibilities coupled with the sheriffs department work in recovering a firearm from restrained persons is at the very core of the work we do to promote public safety.

many thanks to those individuals who have joined us this morning and their continued support to keep our communities safe from gun violence. specifically, mayor mark farrell, supervisor stefani, supervisor sheehy, chief freeno representing sheriff hennessey. chief bill scott from the san francisco police department. beverly upton and the domestic violence consortium. it is truly my distinct privilege to introduce mayor mark farrell, a long time advocate for gun control and safety. as district 2 supervisor, mr. farrell introduced anti-gun ordinance to 2015 which was subsequently approved by the board of supervisors. this gun control package was intended to fill gaps that

existed in federal, state and local oversight of firearm dealers and ammunition sales. this included requiring the video taping of all gun and ammunition sales within san francisco and required the regular storage and electronic transmission of ammunition sales data to the san francisco police department. as district 2 supervisor, mr. farrell introduced a safe gun storage and trigger lock law apooreded by -- approved by the board of supervisors in 2016. this mandated that all be kept in a locked container or be disabled by a trigger lock. as district 2 supervisor, mr. farrell announced his intention to introduce a gun restriction law after the krissy field rally in 2017. as you recall, an alt-right group, requested a permit to

hold a rally. there was a city-wide response to prevent the rally from becoming violent against the anti-immigrant national rhetoric. ultimately, the group withdrew from holding the rally, citing safety concerns for their own members. as you can see, our mayor of san francisco has been a true advocate of gun safety and gun control. please join me in welcoming mayor mark farrell. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, chief fletcher. i want to thank you for your hard work. i want to thank the police department, chief, thank you for being here, the sheriffs department and supervisor stefani and sheehy, who have been leaders and beverly upton and doctor. it's an honor to be here. recent events across the country unfortunately have brought gun reform