pledge a allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. . hello commissioner mizzou could. please call roll. (roll call) you have a quorum also present is the directory of

the dpa and police cleav police. welcome to the june 13, 2018 san francisco police committee meeting. tonight like we do often, we are going to adjourn in the honor of special officer reyes. he is serve anything the bayview district for close to 47 years. he is a well-known district in bayview district. i will read more as we conclude in his honor. he was working the beat when they saw he was slumped over in the vehicle. they responded and attempted to resuscitate him. they were unable to do so. it is a great loss. we have in the audience special

officer who is the chief of the special officers. he probably has to get out to his beat. i will ask him to say a few words about patrol officer reyes. secondly we have a packed closed session agenda like last week. we have been out of commission for quite awhile due to a lack of quorum. we have litigation related matters, disciplinary related matters and collective bargaining matters. for that purpose and the length of that i ask public comment is limited to two minutes tonight. let's start with line item one. seat and file dpa/sfpd document protocol report quarter 2018. >> it is a document for the new

commissioners. the sharing of information between both the san francisco police department and dp. i have to say it is extremely more collaborative in the last year and-a-half or so. if there is anything to add this is a consent item. if there are questions or concerns please let me know. hearing none do i have a motion? do i have a second. is there public comment regarding the consent calendar regarding the dpa/sfpd document report. public comment is closed. all in favor. please call the next item. >> discussion a chief's report. report on recent police department activities including major events, weekly crime trends and announcements. >> from is a lot to report on tonight, chief scott. >> good evening.

i will start today with today's incident. we had a motorcycle officer injured today in a traffic collision. this happened about 9:37 a.m. he was involved with a passenger vehicle transported by ambulance to the general hospital and is listed now upgraded to serious. earlier he was in critical condition. that is good news he is upgraded. the motorist did remain at the scene and is cooperating with the investigators. please keep the officer in your prayers as he continues to recover from his injuries. >> thank you, chief. >> moving to crime trends for the week. we had a rough week with crime. two homicides to report this week. we are still negative 29% for

the year. we have 20 homicides year-to-date. this year last year we had 28. we are 13% down in total gun violence victims. 66 year-to-date as opposed to 60 last year. 53% down in homicides with firearm used as weapon. nine year-to-date this year as opposed to 19 year-to-date last year. we are dead even in terms of our nonfatal shooting victims. 57 this year-to-date and 57 last year. despite the rough week in terms of homicide we say look in positive for violent crime and homicides. property crime we are 12.3% overall down in property crime as i have stated many times. we know the most stubborn are

auto burglaries 27% down as of 6/10/2018. in terms of burglaries we are actually .6% up from this time last year which is a difference of 15 crimes. motor vehicle theft for 27% down from this time last year, which is about 600 vehicle thefts less than this time last year. that number for context of the auto burglaries almost 3,000 auto burglaries below this time last year. that is good news. our major events this week we have the june teeth parade. saturday june 16th. it starts at 10:00 a.m. and ends at 6:00 a.m. we have the san francisco police

officers in the parade. they will be at fillmore street from gary to golden gate avenue. estimated a attendance 7500. north beat festival also this weekend saturday, june 16 and sunday june 17 from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. both days. location columbus street from broadway to green. this is an annual festival sponsored by the north business association. there will be arts and crafts and a lot of folks. we anticipate no problem there. monday june 18th we will help kickoff pride week from june 18 through sunday june 24. we are coordinating the department is coordinating public safety and security messages along with other city agencies including department of emergency management, department

of public works as well as civic organizations. we released the public safety announcement this week. that will run through pride week. there will be security screening checkpoints as there have been in the past few years. we found that to be very valuable to enhance public safety of this event. that will continue this coming year. additional information will be forthcoming. thank you, chief. >> any questions for chief scott? okay. please call line item 2b. >> dpa director's report on activities and announcement and presentation of the statistical report. presentation of statistical reports, summary of cases received, mediation of complaints, adjudication of

sustained complaints for march, april and may 2018 and companion reports. >> i will have a brief report and not repeat the information in the reports. you can read them yourselves. please feel free to contact me if you have questions. we won't go over them line by line unless you would like me to. let me give you the oiloff summaries. 289 cases open currently. last year it was 414 open cases this time last year. 14 sustained this year. sum total all of last year 33 cases. we may exceed that number this year for cases past 270 day mark open, 23 cases. of those 23 open cases 11 are tolled and time is not running. this time last year we had 132

cases past 270 day mark. a couple things this week. dpa civic bridge application accepted by the city. that is a big deal for us because that means that the program where private professionals mostly from technology organizations are partnered with city agencies to solve problems. as you know, we have been a little behind in our technology with the department. we have come up to speed quickly with a lot of equipment and software. bridging that gap not just in the internal organization but external interaction with committee. this is a big deal. we applied earlier on and didn't get in the program. we are excited about that. i will give you more updates as we shape what the project will be. we expanded training with investigators. i want to make sure my staff was

getting both internal and external training. one thing we did in may we brought in from the police department to watch some of the films of the officer involved. we invited the officers involved to the behavior science unit for the panel discussion talking about perspective of officers engaged in uses of force and specifically with officer-involved shootings. it was good training for my staff to attend. we also did a couple more outreach opportunities for the office. i am trying to expand to make sure more people in the community know about what the agency does and how we do it. we participated in housing expo at city college, and we went to a city wide public safety forum. the mediation director attended that sponsored with the board of supervisors. this week we will have a booth

to support the june celebration. they will see us passing out we have a couple of investigator positions coming in. we are interviewing for senior positions for those investigators as well. i am working with the mayor's office to defend the budget this week. i am sure i will see many of the departments there with me.

i will keep everyone updated. we have asked for a lot of backfill dollars to not just expand the office but to do the work we need to do and specifically i am talking about the great needs we had with prop g. we had to fill spaces and hire specifically auditors to do the work. we have the work started. i am going to have to write a check at some point. i need to get through the budget process to continue the work. present with me from the agency is our chief of staff sarah hawkins and a new attorney. i think i introduced her di diaa rosenstein and the senior investigator and three interns are here with me. marcus kennedy, brittany and camille from uc berkeley. at the end of thesher summer --

summer i will ask them to do a presentation to you. i want to introduce them to you. can we put them on tv? everyone is a celebrity here at sfgov.tv. >> thank to you the interns. it is a great way to spend your summer. share with us your input. you are looking at it from a different pair of eyes. it is encouraging and refreshing to see what your thoughts are. director henderson we have two new commissioners. when possible would it be possible to meet with the commissioners at the dpa and have them walk around to talk to folks. i really strongly suggest this at one point that it wasn't allowed. i think you will allow it.

>> yes. i have been trying to do that this week. i had a little problem. i wanted to do that before today. >> it will be good to see the hard work and effort at the dpa. commissioner. >> thank you. director henderson. in your first quarter report that you were referencing there is a section on page 5 on policy analysis dealing with the successes and some of the opportunities for change. i wonder if you can explain and it identifies body-worn cameras. you identified the policy goals. >> which page?

>> page 5. starting page 5 in the last paragraph going on page 6. it identifies three goals in regards to 10.11. mainly involving officers viewing both their body-worn cameras as well as other officers' body-worn cameras in ois's and in custody deaths and the elimination of the requirement to produce an initial statement in criminal matters and then thirdly the expressly prohibiting officers from interfering with the functions of the body-worn camera audio and visual. as a new commissioner, can you tell me where things are with

these goals and are you still working to enact them and is that something we can do? it seems to me and i think ms. elias and i would have a fair amount of subject matter expertise. these are things we have seen as problematic both to public offenders and the district attorney is not happy about the status as well. >> that's correct. i don't know. i haven't seen the district attorney's complete list. these are issues they raised in the past. we are operating the dpa independently. we have identified these as top three issues in regards to the body-worn camera issues. i will say these issues have not gone away. to the department's credit, these are issues we have been in discussions myself personally with the chief and talked about the things as well evolving the

policy as it stands now. what happens we rollouts the initial policy then what you are see anything the reports are feedback from transgressions we have specifically observed over the course of complaints that have been made. just to clarify what that looks like we will make these policy types of recommendations independent of complaints. we may get a complaint about something else. we will notice the transgressions or need for improvement about things that play out when we see the body-worn camera films or evidentiary lated to cases. that is part of why we public the reports so we can have the open discussions and present to the commission and figure out the next steps. these have been things specifically those three issues. when and who can see the body-worn camera footage before or after making a statement,

manipulation of the cameras. the chief talked about this. we have talked about it at length and he has solutions in the pipeline for these things. this is how it is supposed to operate to present to the commission and to have a discussion about the next steps because of the things i have raised in these reports. >> what i want to understand is what would be and it sounds like these are still policy goals for you that i think are probably shared by a lot of us in the criminal justice field, and i want to know that the procedures and processes are moving forward to adopting these in revisions of the dgo10.11. >> i would love that. they don't let me vote. if you did, i'm ready to vote right now. that is why i raised them.

next step all three of these things dpa says, let's do that. that is my vote. >> we are getting to the point where this should be on the agenda. i apologize to both parties. what i will say is when we did pass this department general order we raising the issues for the discussion and contemplation. am i raising issues this is a circumstance that needs to go sooner rather than later. so we know the issues out of the

work for the commission to see and consider relevance or not. >> i want to understand the numbers on the first page of your first quarter report under subsection a am i to understand out of 112 closed complaints, nine complaints were found to be sustained giving you an 8% sustained rate. 10 3com plains were unfounded? i am not sure how the numbers are works out. to me that means a 92% rate, not we, you have a 92% rate unsustained complaints. i am confused. >> there is a breakdown. you don't have it in front of you. a case that isn't sustained

doesn't necessarily mean it is unfounded. a lot of things go into the complaints that come into the office. a large percentage of the complaints come in and i think last year there were over 400 of them. we don't have jurisdiction of. people will come in. you are getting all of the numbers here without the full piechart what is explained in depth and in the annual report which you should get next week. it is a full breakdown to break down these numbers. i put in these reports the summation of things sustained. those are the things you are reviewing. the cases that come in that aren't sustained don't just go away. i think that is what you are asking. they are not going away. often times they raise other issues that get reported as policy recommendations. even if we can't prove it, with

the commission they are issues that come up independent of what is being said to us that makes sense. >> the breakdown of the numbers are somewhere we will review. >> my concern is that this was under the old leadership. it was a complaint the department was. they weren't responding to the citizens complaints. the citizens weren't being heard. i know you have heard all of these issues that sort of seem to have transpired prior to your leadership. i want to know the step the department was taking to address those to make sure we don't fall into that pattern. >> that is a question. i won't tie everyone up with all of the things we are doing. we are readdressing how we do

things. how we intake. how we are making it easier. keep in mind the complaints people don't want to tell us their name. we want to make that okay, too. that shines the light on behaviors to make recommendations. there is a whole big process that goes into taking those complaints and holding them accountable. i think you have more directed and pointed questions when you see the full breakdown of what the percentages are for the types of complaints, how each one is handled and what the results are which are all alluded to in the report. it is hard to dance between that from this summation. this summation was to talk be one of the easiest elements which is the sustained rate. the question is your sustained

rate going down or up? how effectively are the new processes working? i think we will see that when you see the numbers. i could talk all night about what we have been doing to improve the outcome and the transparency for the agency in terms how we interact with the community making the complaints. i don't want to tie it up. i think you would rather tie it to specific numbers. i will get the numbers. you can see them in the annual report. do you have a breakdown as to the outcome or the resolution or how you sort of track how successful these mediations are? >> yes, and i will say that the mediation is our highest rated,

one of our highest rated elements for the program, but there is no stock answer. we are pro actively creating a case approach with each case with mediation. one complaint may be a sit down with the officer in the arrest or transgression. another may involve the captain or chief or the district commander saying something about this policy is wrong and we changed it because of what you have said. this is how it works. people walk away. it is restorative justice. we want them to walk away whole the officer and the community involved.

that is the remedy accepted by the individual that is bringing the complaint. it is hard to quantify it specifically because each one is unique. what we have been doing this may speak to the question you are asking is over the past few months now we brought in specific new personnel to deal with neediation expand the role. you are no longer limited to the apology or written letter saying this should not happen. we want there to be the ability so there is the specific training and subjective beyond what is at the academy to say this needs to be some bias training. please stand by for realtime

>> so we do an out take and we measure their level of satisfaction with the process. >> mr. dejesus. >> i'm also looking at the big one. they're all dated june 13th. the statistics. i'm look agent this policy

recommendation, first quarter 2018, there was a complaint of neglected duty. i'm concerned is what you are saying here is, the code, the family code states the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault will receive a copy of the report no later than five working days at the request unless the agency informs the victim for good cause and then it's 10 days. you are saying this is the bulletin 17-101 cites the wrong family code section? it doesn't notify the officers of their duty to provide an incident report. i'm just wondering if that's something you can talk to the chief with and fix the bulletin -- if this is still not fixed, to put the right code section in and i think their recommendation is to fix that, it looks like the department bulletin so the officers are aware of it but also to implement immediately a system that provides the victims with the incident report within the

statutory deadline as the california code requires. >> i just put it on my agenda. i meet with the chief tomorrow. >> good. it's something that can be easily remedies and so i don't know how long, this is the first quarter report. i don't know how long it's been like that but it's something that can be done quickly. thank you, look into that and let us know if it's completed. >> i'll let you know at the next meeting but, i meet with the chief tomorrow afternoon. >> great. >> thank you. any further questions for director henderson? please call the next line item. >> line 2c commission reports,. >> there's nothing new for me to report. is there anything you would like to report on? >> so, bear with me. i was late but i did attend the e.i.s. wort today and i don't know when they're coming back to report to us but they'll make a report. i think, for the new commissioners -- the early

intervention system is a way to trigger -- to catch behavior before -- to be proactive and catch any officers with patterns of problematic or performance or show signs of job stress, things like that so it's a way to try to catch those officers interveneing and provide support before they make mistakes. i think we've been working with the university of chicago. we have a grant and we've been working with them. they gave a preliminary report. basically what they're saying is our e.i. ss. system is officers reaching pre defying number of trigger events with a six-month period and then it's a two-stage process and then it has to be reviewed. they're saying it's not a good system. they're basically saying they have a system that has an algorithm that has factors in

there that puts out in order of importance a list of high-risk, medium-risk, low-risk and they can focus on that. what i did learn, is we have a grant. for some reason, they were supposed to get us a final report in january. there's been numerous delays three out early 2019. the program manager working with us left the university of chicago which is why they failed to return phone calls or maintain contact. we do have a short executive summary and they're supposed to be issuing a final report and i think there's a final report under review right now. we don't know how good it will be. some of the officers were talking about we're not a paying officer other than this grant. a grant is a paying customer. i mean, the people who provided

that grant have to show results from that grant and where that money went. we did talk to the staff that was there and we basically said you need to start stressing, we are a paying client and we should have results from that. the second thing is after they provide their report, we have to decide whether or not we're going to have them develop the program so that we can develop a program or we'll go somewhere else for a program. i believe there's two or three other departments they're working with. our staff is on top of it. they'll work and see how much they're talk -- it's going to be set. do you want the whole package? do you want a little bit of the package? they're looking into that. when i was concerned about is do we have -- we know this is coming. we know we're going to have some type of report and then we need to develop it. do we have a place holder in the budget for money? like the same they did with

tasers when before we considered them it was a place holder in the budget for tasers assuming it was passed and i think it was under generic weapons or i'm worried that we do get a final report. we do get some type of final report and we need someone to design a pilot program and we don't have money in the budget nor did we ask for money in the budget. i understand we do have a number and we don't know fancy items we'll want in this pilot program or how to design it, maybe if we talk to c.c.o. -- the c.f.o. [laughter] you want to address that? >> we have -- actually we had that conversation last week in our command staff meeting with the c.f.o. about being strategic with our budget requests. when we know things like that are coming up we need to start having those discussions way in advance so we can -- when we get

to budgets requests we actually have the information we need to make a thoughtful request. i don't know if we'll have the report but we're actually starting, like right now, looking at what we might need for our next year's budget. this report hopefully will be out soon and give us a better idea of what we're looking at but definitely that's on the radar and we're just waiting to get the final results. >> so i have a few more things. the d. g.o. dgo needs to be rep. we need to wait for the work and dive into it and see what areas we're lacking in or what areas we need to change. i think we'll agendaize it and revamping it. while i had a dpa, the attorney diana rosenscene wa rosensteen,r for articles for best practices

for e.i. f. because we should have independent knowledge. so let's see what else, there's another thing. whether we should work collaboratively or not. there was one other issue that came up and i think the d.p.a., right now we're gathering data and the d.p.a. is -- they're delayed in up loading their data. i hope it's not going to be a problem when it comes to providing a report. i understand that they have a new i.t. director who is stuck in backgrounds, literally stuck in the background process. we need that person to help us move forward and get the i.t. on track so we can give this data. i think chief-of-staff, is it sarah hawkins, she will meet with d.c. moeser and hopefully we can get that going because that could be delaying some of the process. and the last thing, they have these great charts.

i do appreciate charts. i'm a real visual person. when they do report to us, i don't know when they're coming back, but they do have pointing a gun as a use of force. this is new. but we have 2016 data on it and 2017 data on it. when they talk about the use of force stats that are here, it would be interesting to know if they're evaluating, when they evaluate it and it comes to the threshold are they using case law. there's case law about when you can point a gun. i wonder if they use that tool to say you know, out of 150 or 75 fall within the statutory requirements, 75 don't. i think there's a distinction, we can't have pointing a gun. i did not speak to youngblood on this issue but i wonder if we have a parameter where we can check and say that they fell

within the probable cause or they did not fall in the probable cause because that would help us in terms of training, seeing where we are training and if we have a high use of pointing the gun. i think we should get clear information on that. >> thank you. >> that's it. >> anything further commissioners? thank you fora for attending the meeting. >> late. >> you've been active in the early intervention system and it's a good system. it's a work in process. we're going to change and we're going to adapt and it's the first time i heard about the university of chicago loosing the program director but it took a lot of effort to get that involved so let's keep working on that and i appreciate it. please call the next line item. >> commissioner announcements identified for consideration and future commissioner meetings, action. >> any announcements?

sergeant -- where? >> no, commissioner. >> is there anything you'd like to announce or add for future agendas? sounds like we have some things that are percolating. >> so, and maybe you can help walk me through this. if the d.g.o. 10.11 is something we're interested in moving on and doing revisions, what would be the procedure for doing so and is this the appropriate line item under which to raise -- >> it would be. it is the appropriate line item saying we'd like to bring this back. but then again we generally talk about the process. because there's input from the community, the working groups, so we just don't schedule it for next week or two weeks or three weeks. we try to schedule it appropriately based upon the working groups and what we've come up with. we need to work on that department general because i

don't think, unless it's clear, you need to have your cameras on. >> good evening, commissioners. this is a reminder there is a draft of the body-worn camera policy passed and you do have that on the agenda for later this evening. >> just to clarify, i understand that there's -- the discuss in closed session is limited to certain parameters, right. we can't have a discussion of the need for revisions. that should happen in open session before the public, is that correct? >> what happened in open session was a discussion of what that d.g.o. revision should look like and in closed session is giving direction to your negotiators about that same document that was passed in public.

>> maybe we can have the discussion later and this is something i'm happy to shepherd through the revisions if everybody is happy with that. depending on the discussion later and a again dies it in the future meeting and begin the process. >> it's what you saw and they'll be important to add to the process. >> anything else commissioners? commissioner elias. >> if we have an issue, maybe this is sort of procedural thing, with one of the d.g.o.s do we calender it now or i guess i'm still a little -- >> again there's a process. it depends. we review the department general orders. sometimes we do it because something has come to our attention that hasn't been changed. we'd be here all week every day working on all the department general orders. again, it depends. we've passed a lot of changes and a lot of new department

general orders. so again, all of it is through a process and meet and con fir with the people that have a stake in it. >> you have a schedule of the d.g.o.s scheduled to be revised so i'm not sure if the commissioners have that document but it may be passed along to them so they know where in the pipeline. >> that is a great idea, appreciate it. anything further? i would like to add that the next commissioner meeting welcomwillbe wednesday june 20t0 p.m. >> thank you, sergeant. any call for public comments? public comment with reference to line items 2a, b., c.o.d. any public regarding these line items? public comments now closed. please call the next line item. >> discussion and possible action to approve the addenda to the california department of justice and the san francisco police department m.l.u.

discussion and possible action. >> thank you, very much. commissioners, who have been on the commission are aware there was, from the department of justice cops, instituted the recommendations for reforms. there's a pre amble. they signed on to be subject and they were to monitor our developments and work with our command staff and the department. unfortunately, the united states department of justice has decided that they're no longer in that business and so we were left out in the dark without. what we had when we met with cops, the experts were commanders, deputy chiefs, chiefs from many major police departments throughout the country who had worked through a lot of these reforms. we've lost that. one of the proposals was whether or not the california state department of justice can fill that role. come in and sort of monitor our

progress and keep in mind the police commissione commission ie ultimate authority of policy and pressure for the san francisco police department. it's not any other agency. it's us and that's our role that we've been chosen to do as members of the public with civilian oversight. so there was a memorandum of understanding that was entered into between city officials and the california department of justice. there was some object. commissioner turman was involved and i was involved for one meeting. we had concerns whether or not the state department of justice had the same expertise that the united states department of justice. do they have people that have worked in this field and can help get us through it? there was a memorandum of understanding that was entered into and the police commission rejected this. we've come back to the m.l.u.

and commissioner hirsch took the lead in dealing with all the parties to basically modify this m.o.u., which would recognize the police commission's role. the first draft that came out, kind of left us out. they seemed to forget that we are the police commission and so there's been some changes and with that in mind i'll turn it over to commissioner hirsch to explain the changes made in his recommendation. >> thank you. the problem with the m.o.u. as it was first drafted is that it ignored the commission completely and most of us did not see it until after it had been signed. i talked to president tuman and vice president and i went and met with mayor farrell. i talked to the police chief. i talked to the state d.o.j. and told them our concerns that you could not sim plo simile ignoree

of the commission when you were outlining what the state was going to do in terms of monitoring the work around the u.s. d.o.j. recommendations, everybody was in agreement. the draft that we have now in front of us, i'm not sure who highlighted the provisions that are highlight the because they capture some but not all of the key provisions in here. it recognizes the role of the commission and actually quotes from the san francisco charter under recital item b. the fact that the commission is to formulate, evaluate, approval goals, objectives, plans, programs and set policy and i just wanted to make sure that was included in any m.o.u. that existed between the city and the state of california. so this was the document that was eventually agreed upon. i think it's been approved by all the parties other than the commission at this point.

we inserted the commission under several provisions that indicated what work would be done, when it would be done, who was responsible for implementing and at the last provision there's a termination provision. it's a three-year document, 36 months, but it allows either side to terminate and by either side, the document identifies either the state, on the one hand, or the police chief, the commission and the mayor's office acting together on the other hand, can terminate this document. one of the issues that came up was the fact that well, maybe the police department will want to terminate it but the commission doesn't. maybe the mayor's office decided that the mayor's office wants to terminate it but the chief and commission doesn't. we were all really working together to implement the 272 recommendations and this was the ultimate agreed upon language. so it's coming before the

commission now for discussions and approval if that's the wish of the commission. it would be my recommendation that we approve this and move forward. >> commissioners. >> so we got this on friday and trying to put these two things together. i really find it kind of absurd that the contractor and m.o.u. has put together and we were not a part of it. i also -- when i look at it wore just dropped into provisions of it. i'm not really ready to accept this the way it is. when it talks about -- it says when the cops' -- i don't know if we're really bound by the recitals but we're dropped into the reforms and review. the mayor's office and the commission will implement all 272 recommendations. you know, i'm not really sure what that means. i'm not sure what our role or responsibility is. we do not run the department on a day to day basis and we

don't -- you know, we do sit on some of these committees though so i'm just a little uncomfortable with that sentence there. i'm also concerned that the department will pick and hire an independent third party consultant to the d.o.j. and the commission has no input into the selection of the consultant and it just by passes us completely on that issue. i'm not comfortable with that. so it does quote the section of the charter but there is a recital that says the cops agree to conduct a review of the department analyzing policies, practices, training, tactics and systems of accountability and offer recommendations. and i guess what pops into my mind there is accountability is discipline and discipline other than 10 days it's mostly the commission that does discipline. does that mean the department of

justice is going to be insert themselves in the discipline process or be part of the discipline process or review our disciplinary process. i'm not comfortable with that. it says 4. 4.102 but it excludes discipline and that's a major provision that this commission does and so i don't really know how the department of justice fits into the disciplinary process in the commission. i'm also concerned that there's something in here about the d.o.j. having access to this information and they will write reports open to the public so i'm just wondering if we're going to have any input no those reports to see those reports and have a draft of the report before it gives issue to the public. or are we just surprised by what they say to the public. will it concern, as i said, the commission itself, the d.o.j., separate from that -- i guess i'm really a little bit confused

to what our role is. what their role it and i know it says it will not supplant. it doesn't just say the commission. it will not supplant. there's a record about supplant, serving as a independent third party reviewing reporting agency the d.o.j. will plant the roles and responsibility of the mayor, the department, the chief, the commission, or city boards commissions or officials. it doesn't define what supplant is. i'm not sure what that means. i can see us getting into a dispute over the word supplant. i'm all forward to having second eyes. it would be good for someone working for the department. i don't know if i'm signing away responsibilities and duties under the charter belong to this commission. i am also -- anyway, those are some of my concerns. as i said, i didn't participate in the full discussion. i don't really understand the

full discussion as how it fits no the commission. i know we were excluded and i appreciate your trying to put us in here. it's kind of excuse my french but it's back ass to fit us into terms created by other people and we had no input. those are my concerns. >> i agree with your concerns. it wasn't the way i would have structured it but that's the way it was presented to us. let me address the issues that you raised. in terms of implementation, you raised the question about implementation. the reason that language is in there is because we ultimately approve any policy. so, all 272 recommendations that end up being approved to the extent they can be defined as policy, they come before us. and that is what that language is intended.

what was your second issue? >> do we have money for this consultant? [laughter] >> yes. the consultant is the same consultant. hillary hines is now the same people who worked with the u.s. d.o.j. are contracted to work with the state d.o.j., not only the same entity but the same human beings are coming in and they're continuing where they were. so a lot of this language was really lifted from the prior contract that was approved with the u.s. d.o.j. i don't know that the commission actually was involved in that. i think the mayor's office did it. the mayor's office did this as well. mayor lee wanted to contact the state and that's what he ended up doing. so hillard hines is already has a working agreement and they're just stepping into the shoes they had filled previously. discipline is not set by any other entity besides the commission. i'm working right now on

developing a revised disciplinary matrix that will come before the commission one day for approval and be subject to negotiations with the union. that is not something that is contemplated, although the state will look, i think, just as the u.s. government looked at what kinds of discipline we're meeting out for what kinds of violations. they can weigh in on that. the reports -- they'll be working groups. there are meetings next week that, three or fewer commissions are free to attend. they will be regular working groups when the state comes in and interviews people or goes through documents. they will circulate their reports to us. we welcome the fact they're being made public. that's partly, i think, what the city wanted was to give the public confidence that an outside agency has no a fillation with us is looking and reporting out to the public as

to what they were doing. the last question was supplanting. are they supplanting our role and the answer is no and we made it clear to them they can't. i don't think they're looking to do that. they understand what the charter and the san francisco says. there's no consent decree that requires them and gives them unique authority. they're coming in at the invitation of the city and they have to operate within the statues of the city. >> so will they -- i'm sorry, go ahead. i'm still not comfortable. i just need to understand this more. i got it on friday and was put it would go and two together and these are my questions. >> i might recommend if we don't do anything tonight, whether we do or not, you should come or troy to come to some of the meetings next week that the state is holding. >> when are they? >> we'll get you the schedule. >> wait a minute. those are the kind of things.

why do we have notice, they have a meeting notice and we're getting -- because i want us to sign this tonight i'm told for the first time they have meetings and we're invited to come but we didn't participate in setting the meetings and we didn't know it was being set. i have no knowledge of it being set. it's like an afterthought. it's ok, i can take the insult away of being an afterthought. for them to schedule meetings and we're not included at the outset is concerning. >> i agree with you but i think we may be included. i know that vice president and i have a meeting on thursday. just it's an informational meeting with the state d.o.j. and they're going to ask us about our view of the reforms so far, although i don't know that for sure. they have meetings, i think, monday, tuesday, wednesday before that with various groups. i think they're meeting with the chief and the p.o.a. and meeting with d.p.a. they're doing fact-finding right now. and this is exactly what you folks went through with the u.s.

d.o.j. this is how -- they're pretty much following the same process. >> i heard that he was going to oversee the 272 recommendations. some of them are not policy. some of them are implement and design a website. so that your applicants know what you are doing. call your applicants and keep them in touch. those are some that have nothing to do with policy. there's a lot of --[ please tant bpleasestand by ]

was concluded by the federal government. our goal is to continue the work. as you know, as the commission knows. when the work was concluded we were to do a report that was never published. we have to start over. the work that the u.s. d.o.j. did is sealed.

we don't have access to it. the contractor doing the work will be the same contractor they are familiar with. they did the original assessment. there is no agreement to redo the assessment that has been done. what we are tryin trying to do e forward with the work. there is a mountain of packages completed that need signed off by us and reviewed by the commission. we want to get the public report out as soon as we can in terms of letting the public know what we are doing and how we are progressing with those 272 reforms. there is no intention to exclude the commission out of this, and there is a commission representative involved. as the commissioner says as long as under three that is open door for the commission to participate. as the chief of police i want to get the work done. we tried to structure this as

much as we could closely to the prior mou. as commissioner said that is what we want to do is keep that promise as closely as possible with the prior agreement that is why the language is the way that it is. there is nothing supplanting the commission's role in this. we take direction and guy dan from the police commission. we want to move forward with the work. >> again, you know, i'm a week into this and i think a lot of things happened before i got here, i know i think i share commissioner jesus' concern as to why this whole process took place before we