a number of external community agencies. i will also say that we started working on the report that i gave last week in terms of the quarterly report, so the next quarterly report that you receive is going to be different. we started framing what that looks like, and again, it will look more like our annual reports as were published this year, so they'll be much more readable, the data collected will be summarized and analyzed and presented to you, and it'll still be in compliance with all of the mandates from the commission, the charter, the board, the mayor. there's a whole series of them that'll all be outlined and explained. i referenced the source reason that we had the quarterly reports from the last meeting, but all of that's being evaluated now to better produce a report that's going to be more meaningful to the commission and more importantly better readable or more accessible to the public. any way, also present in the audience today is our senior

investigator, sarah mandarin, in case there are issues that come up today. i would like to report in conclusion, the supreme court just ruled this evening, and they declined to review the officer texting cases. and so we have reinitiated the -- and will reinitiate the discipline proceedings immediately in all of those cases based on that ruling. it just came out from the california supreme court just a few hours ago. >> commissioner mazzucco: you took my announcement, mr. henderson. >> follow the law. these are our cases, and we are ready and eager. thank you. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you, director henderson. i have to ask, is there a trend that you see if we're up from 360 complaints last year to 459

this year, is there a trend, a why there's more complaints? >> i think more people are starting to learn and hear about our agency, what we do and how we do it. hopefully, they're having easier experience to access us. i think one of the big differences that we have this year that we didn't have as well developed last year was access to language services, so having communities that can speak their own languages come and access our services, i don't know this yet because we don't have all of the numbers there, but when i look at what the changes have been in the agency in terms of broadening our doors or open our doors wider so that more people can access our services or access our investigators, that's one of the things that i know was likely to make a big difference, that we have access in seven different languages, and on the back end of that, i

will say our expanded presence and outreach that is more focused and broader community presence is probably allowing more people to know about who we are and what we do and how to access us. i think you'll see another big change once we reinitiate our website so that people can more easily access us on a phone or tablet. but that's my opinion so far. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: yes. thank you for asking that question. that was one of them. you said there were 459 cases open, and then there were 289 cases open. >> cases open and cases pending. so the difference between cases that have been opened and cases that are pending and if you look at other enforcement agencies that do oversight, they do something similar. we don't restrict those cases, so we accept 100% of the complaints that come in to us

and do an assessment, and then, the difference between the cases that come in the door and the cases that are pending are the cases pending are open investigation, and then that fall-off number is assessed from cases that were closed at outtake or cases that were sent to mediation or for whatever reason didn't make it through to an investigation. >> commissioner elias: and i cannot wait to see what your new quarterly report is going to look like because as i've told you on numerous occasions, the numbers and reporting that you have -- that have been provided in the past are very confusing, and they don't tell the story i think they need to tell. >> and i agree with you. and i think in the past, the issue was it's hard to tell what's consistent because they're just data points, and they're a data dump without the sophisticated analysis or the curated graphs to explain how it's tied to the rest of the

work. it will look like the annual reports where the work was done ahead of time so it's readable or palatable to the audience in terms of what the numbers were, what the actual out comes were, and what you can expect to see in those reports is a broader comparison of the work being done in san francisco to other state agencies. i think it gives people a broader sense of clarity to know how good a job of what san francisco is doing compared to what other cities are doing or attempting to do. >> commissioner mazzucco: anything further for director henderson? thank you. please call the next line item. >> clerk: item 3-c, commissioner's reports, commission director's report. >> commissioner mazzucco: the california supreme court has denied to hear a very important matter. the chief justice had ruled

that the one year statute of limitations for cases when there's a pending criminal matter, that the police department had acted properly in waiting to file the charges, so the california supreme court has denied review, so the cases will proceed to the commission. they're no longer legally stalled. commissioners, any other reports? commissioner hirsch? >> commissioner hirsch: yes. i had previously reported to the public and to the commission that i had asked the city attorney to give an opinion about what additional disclosures could be made on police discipline, given the restrictions we have in the law. and on friday, sb 1421 was approved by the senate, which actually will change the law, assuming that the governor either signs it or lets it go without a veto. and so the city attorney contacted me this week and said they are waiting until that law is enacted and then they will

write a revised memo, so that'll delay the report but it'll give us greater ability to disclose information on disciplinary matters. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: yes. i wanted to report that i was able to visit the hsoc headquarters on turk street at the department of emergency management. it was very inform ative infor the agencies working together to address the homeless crisis. i was sad to hear that the numbers in the program or the referrals made by officers was declining, but they are hopeful that they can work with the hsoc program to get the numbers back up and address the numbers of mental health and

homelessness in the city. commissioner hamasaki and i did attend bayview lineup, which is why we were late today. we learned some things from the officers. it's very beneficial to go out there and speak with the officers one-on-one and actually find out what is happening and what issues they're facing on a daily basis so we can become aware of those issues and that's how we're able to sort of resolve the narcan issue and we're planning on continuing doing that to learn the issues that doctors are facing, so -- >> commissioner mazzucco: i want to thank both you and commissioner hamasaki for doing that, and d.j., i'll recommend that you do the same. it's good to go out to district stations to see the officers where they are working, and they'll share with you their feelings and complaints, because they have complaints. they have no problem complaining. it's a little bit of a trend in the police department. it's good to get both perspectives because we hear a lot of complaints from the audience and from the public. it's always good to hear what

the other side has to say, it's good to hear what their concerns are about training, safety equipment. commissioner hamasaki, you're next. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you, vice president mazzucco. to follow up on what commissioner elias said, i think it's a really -- you know, as new commissioners, and both of us having a background in criminal defense, you know, a lot of what we saw in our careers before this point was maybe some of the negative aspects or hearing reports from negative aspects of policing, but it's good to get out there and hear from the officers firsthand and hear about the challenges they face day in, day out, every day that they really are impressive that people are able to do that -- do their job under exceptionally difficult circumstances. i've learned a lot from the process. i look forward to continuing to do it.

as vice president mazzucco said, mr. brookter, i hope you'll join us. i think it's a great opportunity. the other thing that i did this week was i joined commissioner -- or vise press and others in attending the 7 -- vice president and others in attending the 75th memorial in honoring fallen police officers, officers that have died or passed in the line of duty, and also honoring the other officers that have died after retirement. that was my first chance to attend it, and it was a very moving ceremony. when you're sitting among the family, friends, the fellow officers of people that have died in the line of duty while serving our community, it's

very powerful. you know, one of the things that was impressed upon us in our station visits was a lot of times officers hear nothing but the negative, and unfortunately that's what our media chooses to cover -- you know, i didn't see any media out there on sunday when we're memorializing people that have fallen while serving our community. we overlook the sacrifices police officers and firefighters make in their job, and i would like to see more of that, the positive sides. i don't have a problem any time up here criticizing or challenging our police departments to be the best that it can be, but i also want to honor them and their service, and i was happy to do so alongside our fellow commissioners on sunday. >> commissioner mazzucco:

thank you very much. please call the next line item. >> clerk: item 3-d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified eyed for consideration at future -- identified for consideration at future meeting. >> commissioner mazzucco: make an announcement. at the last meeting, i had announced that we would probably revisiting joining the joint terrorism task force and joining the f.b.i., putting that into the public, and i tentatively agendaized that, i made the mistake of saying possible action item, but for discussion on october 10, and i think a lot of us have been contacted by a lot of different people, so there's a lot of concerns, you know in light of the state of the current u.s.d.o.j., and light of the people running the f.b.i., i think the confidence is quite low. we need to have this protection because there's another side to the protection of san francisco and our community. i'm thinking of putting this down the road with possibly a

town hall type of meeting which is focused directly on this issue, where we can hear from everybody, what their issues are. commissioners have opinions, and commissioners have opinions that have changed drastically. so i think what we need to do is look at this and hear what the current state of things are, and do the umm ka, rational balance. i think we should look for possibly early november , but the conversation has started. i spoke with john crew, formerly of the aclu, who was very successful last time in reaching an m.o.u. with the f.b.i. they'd have to agree to it, but there is no draft of an m.o.u. this is the beginning of a conversation, so that's my suggestion. >> commissioner hamasaki: and i would thank vice president mazzucco, as well, because my

phone was ringing off the hook, as well, and set off frustration in the community. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: rightfully. i think they were able to bring to attention at chief scott's first meeting, we weren't in compliance of our own policy. it was subject to interpretation of what the policy actually meant, but i think a town hall meeting is a great idea, and they can raise their concerns to all of us before we enter and sign into an m.o.u. so what i'd like to say, i already mentioned two items that i'd like to add. we mentioned putting on the wealth and disparities on october the 3. i'm wondering if we can put that november the 10. and you know, their stats may

show something different, the department. that's fine. just be aware of that. i think the department can present what they have and we can present what we have. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioners anything else -- and also on october 3 agenda, as commissioner dejesus said, if we could agendaize how we handle well-being calls. >> commissioner dejesus: well, and the second thing was how we describe the chief's report on the agenda. exactly. thank you. >> commissioner mazzucco: anything further? >> clerk: commission, just for members of the public, the commission will be dark for the next two weeks. the next meeting will be held on october 3 here at city hall in room 400 at 5:30 p.m. >> commissioner mazzucco: okay. thank you. call for public comment now. >> clerk: any public comment on items 3-a through d? >> commissioner mazzucco: public comment's two minutes.

yes. >> so what i find is, this commission, instead of being very clear on -- in your discussions, you all are very convoluted, and being convoluted is dysfunctional, so the people at home, when they listen to this, if you all are not harmonious, have your cat fights and everything, they are not going to pay attention to your deliberations. so how can we address community policing when you commissioners haven't addressed a real fact that over 85% of your police force don't even live in your city. we have a very astute, high caliber constituency in san francisco. it just takes them two minutes to figure out where they should

listen to you all or not listen to you all. so you all need an orientation of how to have a dialogue as opposed to a dialogue. thank you very much. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you, mr. de-costa. good evening. >> how you doing, sir? >> commissioner mazzucco: fine. >> i want to explain how you are keeping information and statute of limitations, how you're continuing to open up new cases and everything, i would like to see that philosophy apply to untested rape kits. when i first talked to you about that, and talked to your captain, i received a telephone call that i could not get the total amount of kits that's not been placed in the codis electronic system, which is the best tool to catch rapists who

are in the system, like mr. deanglo. he could be committing rapes in san francisco, and you could have his rape kits in san francisco in the hall of justice, but because those kits have not been tested, you've got no way of knowing. so it's like me running into a brick wall with my demonstration, and the fact that i was telephone called by a captain, saying that that's confidential, and he can't give me the exact number or tell me how many numbers, period, have been tested, i think that's something for the commissioners to address. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you, sir. i think that we're ahead of the curve on rape test kit testing. if i'm not mistaken, i don't think there is a backlog at this point. there is no backlog, so that's old news. mr. jones?

>> if it please the commission, my name is john jones. i'd like to repeat my dissatisfaction with the style and manner of commissioner -- pardon me, chief scott's report. getting up there and reading to us and the audience from a bunch of crib notes, figures, is not an informative, and it is not a serious attempt to communicate police matters to the public. now, if we had chief scott's report in writing ahead of time, those of us could study it and perhaps pose questions for chief scott so that the commission is not effectively insulating chief scott from criticism. you want to experience from this podium the angry questions

that chief scott would get so that you can understand the kind of anger that his officers have to deal with day in and day out on the streets. the idea that popped in my mind was conduct of british house of commons question time. now i think the commission has the collective smarts to handle that so that chief scott is only minimally abused, but he will be abused. but the public will be informed. thank you. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you. interesting analysis. chief scott. >> hello. i just want -- this is not my public comment, but i just wanted to talk -- you were talking about opening up cases again, and i'm talking about my case that's supposed to be

opened up. i have not heard from my investigator regarding my son's homicide, so first talking about opening up cases, you know, is my case open 'cause i'm not hearing anything. and not only just for my case, there's several other of homicide cases that are not being opened that's not solved. so i'm bringing up these -- these here, including mine's. i have not heard from my investigators. every time i come here, we're talking about the homicides that have happened, the homicides that hasn't been investigated yet. i need someone to talk to my investigator and tell me what's going on with my son's case. if you hired a new investigator, a retired investigator, to come and reopen my son's case, then i should be able to hear from that investigation --

investigator, not once every six months. but let me know what's happening if you rehired him for my son's case. i don't need to hear that there's other cases take priority over my son's case if you hired him for my son's case. i don't know what's going on, and it's nothing against him, but i need to know what's going on. i have that right as a mother, so please. thank you. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you. i'm going to check for you on that. any further comment regarding the line items in hearing none, public comment is closed. please call the next line item. >> clerk: item 4, discussion and possible action. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioners, in front of you in your packet is a timely file and presented to the public addendum to the m.o.u. with the california state department of

justice. just by way of history, the united states department of justice through the cop's organization came in and made 272 recommendations after a floor-to-ceiling audit of the san francisco police department. unfortunately, the u.s. department of justice no longer was providing that service, so what we've done is the mayor's office has reached out to the california -- california state department of justice, and the attorney general's office to basically review some of the work that has been put in play already by the police department, and also to work with our consultant to have the -- they have the consultants have the professional expertise of hillard and hines. keep in mind everything every day ends up with the ulta

professional. i just want to take the commissioners to paragraph 2-h, page 2, under subpart b, and it says the cal d.o.j. will consult with the represent avof the commission. this was such an important. i was kind of hoping that the cal d.o.j. would consult with the entire commission. so i think it's important that we speak as a body of one, so i just wanted to talk a little bit about that with the commission before we move forward. i know that commissioner hamasaki worked on this. >> commissioner hirsch: i'm having trouble finding where you are. >> 2-bb, oh, you were right. page 2. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioner hamasaki, did you want to address that issue or talk about that? >> commissioner hamasaki: so you're referring to under 2-b, subsection b. so -- where's the final --

okay. there's -- and where does that fit into the -- okay. so if you turn to section under the -- section 4 of the actual m.o.u., there's two documents that have been provided. one is the addendum to the m.o.u. which outlines all of the items or -- that have been either amended or added in whole, and then, there is the m.o.u. that does not have them -- this happens -- did we provide the insert -- the document with them inserted, as well? >> you have two documents: the

actual m.o.u. that was signed, and then, you have the did ann dumb. and so i think -- have the addendum. so i think you're looking at the language of 2-bb in the addendum, and underlined is the new language. >> commissioner hamasaki: right. and so -- but -- so when -- when explaining where this arises out of, actually, it arises out of section 4, which is on page 4 of the original m.o.u., and on page 3 of the addendum. so there's a section titled -- wait. okay. "open lines of communication" in the original m.o.u. at page 4, and under -- it outlines, under sub -- subsection a that the parties will work collaboratively, and subsection

b, that the sfpd will assign a primary point of contact for the cal d.o.j. within sfpd's command staff for the duration of the m.o.u. under subsection 4, we inserted a subsection c that states, "the commission agrees to assign an individual commissioner to act on behalf of the commission for the duration of the m.o.u.." now, i think this -- are you lost? so if you put the original to the left side and the addendum to the right side, on page 4 and page 3, there's a bolded section on each one that says open lines of communication. and on the m.o.u. side, it says, the commission -- that the commission will sign wup, as well.

and so first of all, i want to acknowledge that bob hirsch did the majority of the work on this addendum. this was before commissioners elias and i came onto the commission, and i -- i think we're all grateful for the work of the -- of the commissioners present and who are on fire who stopped this process in its tracks because the police commission was cut out of the m.o.u. for -- for whatever reasons. commissioner hirsch stepped in and drafted the majority of this m.o.u. i -- when i came on, i had some discussions with cal d.o.j., and they wanted -- they had some concerns about how we worked together to ensure that, you know, they're the independent oversight agency over the reform process as an

outside agency. we are -- well, the police commission, this is our jurisdiction. we have complete authority and control over the end product in all of these reforms, the d.g.o.s, the policies, etc. [please stand by]

-- from expressing their concerns about or during the reform and oversight process that they're conducting. i thought that was a very long explanation. >> can i ask a question? so what it reads though -- and i will need the city attorney here because it says that the commission agrees to sign an additional commissioner which we have assigned commissioners to do committee work and things like that. but to act on behalf of the commissioner for the duration. i'm not really sure when it says "to act on behalf of." i'm not sure if one commissioner makes a decision and that we would make a decision as a who whole.

>> if the attorney can help us. >> so the commissioner has to act as a body in order for any action item. if you delegate that authority and you are able to do that. and that is what item four, open lines of communication, in the addendum does for that purpose. you have limit it, obviously, if you want it to be for a certain contact, i think that the point that the commissioner mazzucco was making is for purposes of section 2b of the addendum when we're talking about and they wanted it to not be a representative of the commission as set forth of the open lines of communication but that it be a total commission action. >> my suggestion that we have two commissioners, a primary and a secondary, assigned to work with this group, knowing that they'll have input as to what is happening but any decision that

has been made has to come back to the commission. so the word "act" might be confusing there. it can't be just one commissioner, because that is too limiting. it should be a senior and a junior commissioner and at some point when the senior commissioner feels ready and the junior commissioner feels ready they can flip. and the junior commissioner can become the key point of contact. the commission makes the decisions. >> and that was the intention and now i see that the language could -- well, anyways, i'm not opposed to that and i'm not opposed to having -- obviously, it was the action. there was no intention that there would be action on behalf of the whole commission. but there's not any actual, i mean, there's input that we can give but that process exists independently.

there's nothing that we do that affects their decisions. >> in the report. >> in the report. and they -- and i think that rightfully so, they feel very strongly that there's nothing that we shouldn't give the appearance of any way to being able to influence their report. this language was hashed out over the series of weeks and that ended about a month ago or so. but i'm happy to reopen talks if there's a desire for change. >> mr. hiive, what would you recommend -- mr. hirsch, what would you recommend? >> commissioner hirsch: i would say two commissioners to represent the commission and i would make that motion just to change that. >> so i suggest then that we take it off calendar or just continue the matter, contact,

because ultimately everybody has to stand on and so to ensure that they're going to sign on. i was going to say that we could revise section 4 to say that the commission agrees to assign two individual commissioners as a point of contact for this m.o.u. and deleting any word of to "act on" to just be the point of contact. >> let's just do it and take it back to them as a done deal. >> that's fine, i absolutely agree. i like the language that you're using "as a point of contact" as to "act." >> i will provide it to april. anyone want to hear that language again? >> check 2b. that's why we're starting with 4 because then it's -- it was taken back into 2a. >> okay. so on open lines of

communication in the addendum, page 3, 2f, revising and adding in section 4c, the commission agrees to assign two individual commissioners as a point of contact for this m.o.u. >> okay, that sounds perfect. >> we will leave 2b -- >> 2b will be commissioners, right? >> it says with representative -- with representatives. >> representatives? >> so i understand, please correct me if i'm wrong, that we will revise this to say that cal d.o.j. will consult with the commission and deleting "representatives" and deleting "4c." cal d.o.j. will look at implementing those reforms. >> okay, that looks good, sounds good. >> there's one other small issue

with reference to -- on the addendum, page 2. section 2c. under 2. the consultant. the language reads, that is not in place yet, it's not -- so we just at this point that is not a finalidessed piece but it's -- finalized piece but it's not necessary to finalize it to adopt the cal d.o.j. >> so separately is it the commission's desire to have the word "plan" come before the commission? and if so we will place that on the item. >> so basically when (indiscernible) we want it to come before the full commission. >> they do? >> yeah, that's what we were saying. >> so i think that we're past the dates -- i think that it's been finalized.

>> it's functional right now. >> well, there was -- there was -- and i participated on at least a handful of calls. >> (indiscernible). >> no, the work plan. the work plan is a document that outlines how all of the different parties will be working together throughout this process. that went through a number of revisions. oh, vice president mazzucco i think that we were both on the last call and i believe that we were supposed to provide from the commission side any changes within a few days of that last one. so i think that there's a final draft at this point that we have -- we have informally adopted but i think that we certainly -- i don't know that they're going to change it at this point, to be honest, because we did participate during the process. and we raised some concerns and

they made -- i think they made all of the changes that we wanted. so i don't know what the best route forward is. >> so we have two options. we can designate an individual commissioner to sign on behalf of the commission if you like. or you can also just have the work plan come in the future for adoption by the commission for final signature. >> this is the hillard hines work plan, isn't it? it's the third-party work plan? >> yeah. >> you provided some of the input that -- >> right. >> some of your changes were actually made. >> when the usdoj was involved did they approve the hillard heins work plan back then? >> yeah. >> so o do we feel the need to o it now. >> i don't feel the need. >> we did participate and our role was not limited. we did speak a lot. so i think that at this point, i mean, i feel comfortable just -- >> you feel comfortable? i just want to be clear that we

need a signature line on that document it appears. i don't think that we're requesting, the city is not requesting the signature line. so if you will allow an individual commissioner to sign on behalf of the commission. that would probably be -- that's what i'm hearing. >> i don't think that the vice president would be the appropriate person at this stage. >> i am fine signing it. >> we need to make a motion on that. also move -- >> second. >> second. >> aye. >> so we have wrapped this up. so at this point do i have a motion with reference to adopting the m.o.u. and the addendum of the california state d.o.j. with the changes, i'll ask the deputy attorney to read into -- [laughter]. >> that look. >> i'm sorry. >> we have the changes. the changes and the recommendations to reference to points of contact and do you have a first? >> yes. >> second? >> second. >> any comment with this lawyer talk that you have all just

heard? mr. jones. >> my name is john jones, and my commissions, please, commission. this entire m.o.u. is based on the d.o.j. report issued in october 2016. the public has never really had an opportunity to comment on this report, and in two minutes or a minute and 45 i can't run it down. i want to tell you that i think that the report, the d.o.j. report, was a disgrace. for a lot of reasons. it came down to a time when the san francisco police department had little alternative to acquiesce in the report than to get some kind of court supervision. the police department at that time was some kind of political football with the political lead

in san francisco, including this commission, would kick it around to look good. a couple of premises of the report that i think are remarkable. one, it is not necessarily the fault of the police department. the communities in san francisco don't like it. it is basic to that 2016 report that somehow the police department was wrong because they can't win a popularity contest. i'd also like to state any serious student of statistics would not criticize the conclusions drawn by the department of justice. the report assumes that various constituencies in san francisco offend at the same rate. i don't know what planet you live on, but that's not the case. just want to tell you that this is the first time i've had an

opportunity to address the commission on that report and i think that others will feel the same way. it's a crock. >> any further comment on this? mr. de costa? >> commissioners, you remember when this organizatio, the commy oriented policing services, got outsourced by the department of justice. and many reports done all over the nation, most of the reports are collecting dust on the shelves. now when they came over here, for example, in the first townhall meeting which was held in the bayview, there was no proper noticing, very few people were there. so at that time we had a

movement going with the maria woods incident and we invited the cops to our meeting. and then they rarely understood what the community needed. so as the gentlemen said, we the people, we the constituents of san francisco, have not had an opportunity to really comment on the 272 recommendations. and it is kind of disheartening, i use the word "disheartening" for california, the attorney general, to now, you know, get involved in this when if we go to him on the issues of shootings and killings he says that he does not get involved in it. he only gets involved in cases

where nobody wanted to get involved. that's what he said when he came to the bayview. and you commissioners have no clueclue as to what is his role. you should ask him, why is he asking for this memorandum? what is his role going to be? now i hope that you know that they have no funding. >> thank you mr. de costa. thank you. >> i will continue. >> your time is up and we have to keep everyone -- >> (indiscernible). >> any further public comment on this issue? >> the public out here as if we had a copy and we don't have a copy of that. you are talking inserts in these 200 pages that he's talking about, that should be given to the public to be given input on this decision. >> thank you.

any further public comment? hearing none public comment is now closed. with reference to the cops report there's been townhall meetings. there's been commission meetings. there's been presentations at the board of supervisors. multiple presentations. it's been thoroughly covered and i'm surprised that anybody would have missed it. please call the next line item. >> clerk: commissioner, are you going to vote on the motion? >> i'm sorry. all in favor? >> aye. >> clerk: can i read it into the record? i'm sorry. on the motion to approve the addendum to the california department of justice and the san francisco police department m.o.u. with the following amendments for section 1b, will now read "the california d.o.j. will serve as an independent third-party reviewer of the implementation of the report recommendations and issue periodic reports to the public.

cal d.o.j. will work with the consultant as set forth in paragraphs a-f below on the recommendation in the u.s. d.o.j. report. and cal d.o.j. will report on the progress in effectively and timely implementation -- implementing those reforms. cal d.o.j. will cul consult wite entire commission prior to issuing a report on s.f.d.p.'s process in implementing these reforms." moving on to the amendment of section 2b, this will read now "within 30 days of the date of the execution of the consultant's contract, the president, the vice president of the commission on behalf of the commission, san francisco police department, and cal d.o.j. will have a mutual agreeable work plan that sets forth the following." and then the last amendment under item 4, open lines of

communication, the commission agrees to assign two individual commissioners as a point of contact for this m.o.u. >> vice-president mazzucco: all in favor? >> aye. >> vice-president mazzucco: it's unanimous. >> so i would like to actually work on this. there's two roles, i wonder if commissioner hirsch would like to work on this as well? >> commissioner hirsch: i was. i was determined as the contact person. so i can -- >> i would like to appoint you, commissioner hamasaki as the point of contact. >> aye. >> it's done. go for it. [laughter]. >> vice-president mazzucco: call the next line item,. >> clerk: item 5, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speaker shall address the remarks to the commission as a

whole and not to individual commissioners or department or d.p.a. personnel. under police commission rules of order during public comment neither police or personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public. but they may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and d.p.a. personnel should refrain, however, from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. please keep your comments to two minutes. >> vice-president mazzucco: mr. de costa? >> on august 13th, my good friend joseph, known as "jungle" was ambushed. he was shot five times and one bullet was lodged in his head. i was working in my office and when i got the information i rushed to the san france general

hospital where my point of contact within the san francisco general hospital of giving me the update every half an hour. about 1 1/2 hours, while i was at the hospital, i was getting some contradictions that the san francisco police department declared the gentleman dead. and i've written this information to the chief of police, chief scott, and i haven't heard back from him. now you must remember that some of the advocates were there to stop this incident going out of control. and while we were channeling our good energy to bring about peace, somebody from the san

francisco police department acted very callously. so you commissioners i see are deliberating about this that and the other. but to fine-tune such incidents there must be a debriefing with the public. with the public in. much like you saying that 272 recommendations are discussed at some meeting. they were not. they were discussed with a grand jury report, the blue panel report, always a hodgepodge. and we are fed up. that's why i say... >> (indiscernible) next speaker. >> all right, i was respectfully ask to explain and assign and demonstrate the reasons why i feel that the investigation

should be done on all of the catholic churches that are located in san francisco because i feel that they're full of pedophiles and children are being raped in the system while going to church. as demonstrated with a copy of my research so far has produced as follows: not only is the whole country reeling from the catholic church's allegations of raping people but groups called for an investigation in california. in fact, the world-wide international united nations committee conducted and denounced the vatican church for systematically adopting and allowing priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children over the past decades and urged to open up its files on pedophiles and those who

conceal their crimes. there was a grand jury report in pennsylvania detailing hundreds of previously unknown special sexual abuse cases. and also going across california and asked how many more victims are out there and how many more abusive police are still left unexposed. one of those points that really touches me because there's four sisters -- there's four sisters that were abused and raped by the same within one church. these sisters explain how they were raped by the same police. carolyn was younger than 2 years old when she was first sexually harassed by a priest, okay? all five sisters were sexually abused by all -- >> next speaker.

thank you, sir. next speaker. hearing none, public comment is now closed. call the next line item. miss brown, i didn't see you. >> i'd like to use the overhead, please. again, my son, aubrey, who was murdered august 14, 2006, as i came up before i still haven't heard anything on my son's case. and as i do every wednesday, i am bringing the names of the perpetrators that murdered my son. these names are down on his file at 850 bryant in the homicide room. these names are thomas hannibal,

which is still out there, doing his thing. he's a comedian on facebook. and paris, and andrew, and jason thomas, and marcus quarter, one of them is deceased. paris moffett. released from jail or prison, is going about his life as if he didn't do anything. and me, i'm still out here looking for justice for my son. and these people get a second chance and my son doesn't have a second chance. i always say that these are the things that we had happened when my son was murdered. i have to carry these pictures all the time to say what happened to my son. when we should have a venue. there is my son laying in the casket. this is what i have to remember.

i know that people don't like looking at it but this was my reality. no one else's. this is my son. this is my son with his mother standing over his casket. my son had a father and a moth mother. thank you. >> thank you, miss brown. as we do each week miss brown comes forward to talk about the motor of her son, aubrey. and if anybody in the public has any information the san francisco tipline is 415-575 415-575-4444. and hopefully someone will come forward at some point to help to make this case. thank you, miss brown. further comment? hearing none, public comment is now closed. please call the next line item. >> clerk: for item 4 i would like to announce to the public

that copies of the m.o.u. and the addendum were on the table and in the binder containing the information that was discussed tonight and the commission office will post the signed m.o.u. along with the amendments made tonight with the addendum on the commission website. >> thank you. call the next line item. >> clerk: public comment on all matters to item 8 below, closed session, on vote whether to hold item 8 in closed section. >> public comment is now closed. call the next line item. >> wait, wait, wait. >> i would say that you have some cases that you're citing on that there, and they use those cases as a memorandum of authority in order to have a closed session? and then you want to have input why it should not be a closed session? it's just like why should we have a public comment if you've got an addendum of points and authority in cases that you're going to use to cite.

>> i agree. good call. any further public comment? hearing none, public comment is closed and call the next line item. >> clerk: vote on whether to hold item 8 in closed session, including a vote on whether to assert the attorney/client privilege with items 8, b and c, san francisco administrative section code 63.10 action. >> vice-president mazzucco: we have a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> vice-president mazzucco: all in favor. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen and we're n fitzgerald.d we're n f >> okay. commissioners, we're back in open session right now. item line 9, vote to whether to disclose any or all discussions held in closed session, san francisco administrative code section 67.12 a, action, and i'll make a motion not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? [voting] >> the motion passes

unanimously. >> can you call the next item? >> yes. line 10, adjourn, action. >> motion to adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor to adjourn?