screen on that settled dust within the building and then the surrounding areas as well. >> okay. thank you. appreciate it. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you for the presentation. i actually have a request that the information, specifically the results from the tests that you spoke of tonight, be disseminated to the district stations. when i was visiting district stations, officers had questions about the status of the 606 building and i know you said the presentation is on our website. i would like that information disseminated to them. it is my understanding that some had worked at building 606 way back in the day and i think they were interested to the status and what the results were and what the tests were being done. that would be my request. >> sure, certainly. and as you mention, we have them in electronic format on the commission's website, so we certainly can put that out for the membership as well. >> great, thank you. commissioner? >> thank you. just really quick, i wanted to make sure that just piggy

backing on commissioner dejesus, one of the things that was most concerning is as we talked about the different levels and what we were testing -- we were testing the and testing the water, but from a health perspective that the officers are healthy and safe. i want to make sure as we sit back and wait for the tests to come in to look at our officers and their health and see what it is that we might be able to do that on that level. we know the residents in that area, there is high levels of asthma. ewith know that. there are things we know that we should be taking into consideration as we think about the men and women that are out there. i want to touch on that and didn't lose sight of that. >> sure, certainly. >> i have a question for our -- department of public health folks. in the article they talked about a fire that was burning and wouldn't stop burning and we just buried it. what was that caused by? >> that was a historic -- not specific to this investigation. it was prior my residency here

in pedestrian san francisco apt the department of public health. >> what would cause a fire to continually burn and not be able to be put out? that is obviously in the soil there. >> i really can't speak to that. i don't know the answer. i'm sorry. >> all right. thank you. >> i guess to follow up, i forgot about the fire. and for you sitting here today, would that be a concern, that particular area where they had that particular fire? >> and that burned for a long time. couldn't be put out. >> 18 months. >> we absolutely would do monitoring to make sure that our people are safe at 606. and we would do whatever sampling was necessary to determine what was in the smoke or off gassing from that fire to make sure that it was or was not

safe. -- >> but the spot itself is still there. would it be recommended in that particular area to do the testing to see what chemical kept that -- >> certainly. >> so i think that speaks to the navy's testing that they are going to be conducting. i don't know exactly where that was. whether it's in parcel g or what other surrounding parcels, but that would be included in the future testing that they do. >> a lot of the officers talk about the fire they never put out. it seems that it was close to 606. they could visually see while they were working there. it would something that i would think you want to go even after the fact look at that particular soil and see if there is contamination there or see what it was. >> thank you very much. i appreciate you coming this evening. again, chief, thank you for your

efforts. you have a whole new career here. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> call the next line item. >> item 2b, d.p.a. director's report. report on d.p.a. activities and announcements. limited to a brief description of the activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for future commission meeting. >> good evening. >> thank you. my brief overview that is the overview and where we are on the agency and cases open from the 612 cases so far this year. and this time last year we were at 476 cases and the differences from the rising spike and in numbers and terms of cases and we are at 556 versus 659 last

year. we have currently 278 cases that are pending on the records. so far this year and mediated 23 cases. of the cases that are past 270 days, we have six that are active. there is actually a total of 21, but 15 of those are being told. and technology area, the civic bridge, we have continued our program with the bridge ongoing with the agency. and we are going over the overall goals from the agency working with us and developing our plan for achieving those goals. we also have right now focussing on terms of modernizing the operations and hardware and we got the computers and are

looking at modernizing the stations which includes purchasing the case management systems and with the specific bridge and will publish the r.q. with the vendors and that is something we weren't able to do before because of the operating system we had. and now that we have the equipment, we are able to finally look at case management system, which will bring us into the 21st century finally.

>> commissioner hirsch: can you indicate the reason for the spike. it's important for the public to be reminded why that curse. >> i think the primary reason of the outrage being done by the agency. the agency now is in places in a variety of communities across the city and we have partnered

with a lot of the community advocates including with the board of supervisors and city hall and mayor's office and local communities to appear at broader events. i think it's not due in small part from the material that we're able to produce now and share with audiences about what dpa is and how we operate and how people learn about us. i think that's the biggest reason. other two reasons are the improvement of the language access line so that people can contact and work with our agency, speak languages other than english. we had a system so that people can call, drop by or contact us online now to make -- to get our attention and coordinate with us. the final reason i think that we have had this spike is the improvement in the fix with

technology which just -- it worked before but it was so problematic, it was difficult for people to reachous without actually driving down or taking couple of transportation and showing up in our office. now people can contact us through the internet on a cell phone and that is only going to improve as we get new operating system and we're able to launch a new website for the agency. >> previously meetings you have educateindicated some challenges of hiring. have you been able to staff up? >> we've a number of hires. it's still arduous process. part of the challenge has been specifically with doing the background checks for our

agency. which has one of the most stringent background processes in the entire city. that has added as much as 4.5 to 5 months into the process. we're talking about when i first came over to the agency an an agency that had vacancies filled than staff. we're nearing end of it now. we got most of the executive positions and senior positions have been filled. last little pipeline that's coming through now are investigators and some of the admin staff. as you can imagine, every single staff member is crucial to the overall operation and we're getting close. >> that's good to hear. thank you. >> any further questions for director emerson.

call the next item >> item 2c, commission reports. limited to a brief description of brief activities determining to whether calendar any of the issues raised. commission president's report and commissioner's report. >> any announcements secretary kikshaw. >> we are back here city hall in room 400 at 5:30. >> couple of things, one i like to acknowledge that today is the one year anniversary of the passing of mayor ed lee. i attended a memorial this morning along with a number of members of our department,

command staff, other commissioners. it was quite packed. i did want to honor his service tonight. whatever side of the aisle you're on, i don't think anybody ever doubted that mayor ed lee was driven by public service and making our city better for all communities. i want to acknowledge that tonight. second thing i wanted to do, i wanted to -- i got a number of calls over the weekend that my local district captain at central district was going to be transferred and a resident who

lived in north beach for 24 years, right off grant avenue, his leadership into the department has been really great for our neighborhood and district. different districts has a number of challenges, ranging from union square to lower market street, chinatown, north beach. i think that's captain yep handled all the complexities of the neighborhoods. neighborhoods that were involved in a way that did a lot of pride for our city. i also want to acknowledge that there was some concern that was raised with me about the relationships he's built with the chinese community in chinatown in central district.

i think he's done really good job. there's been a lot of history that i think we as a city still need to overcome to properly represent chinatown and our chinese residents. i'm glad to know that the captain, robert yick will be stepping in. i want to thank captain yep who enjoyed living there and as also as commissioner who's seen the work he's done within the district. so thank you. >> i wanted to let the public know there will be a community meeting regarding the m.o.u. on december 19th. it's an important subject. it's one of two community meetings that the school

district is going to be putting on with respect to the m.o.u. december 19th at 6:00 a.m. at 555 franklin. that is one of two community meetings. the second meeting is in january. unfortunately there was a date wrong. i don't want to give you the wrong thing. >> anything further? hearing none. public comment. >> we have item 2d commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings actions. >> we have things we talked about last week and things coming down pipe. we head into january, let's start deal with those issues. anything further anybody like to add. time for public comment. >> items 2a through d. >> thank you.

>> public comment regarding line items 2a through d. hearing none. public comment closed. >> item 3, to adopt general order release of police report discussion and possible actions. >> good evening commissioner co, vice president mazzucco. we're here to present on general order 3.16 release of police reports. commissioners you have before you an updated version of general order 3.16 which was updated to adopt provisions of family code section 6228. that order updates release of

police report to allow the police reports to victims or their representatives whereas before we continent release reports redacted under provisions of law regarding domestic violence, sexual assault and elder abuse. the provisions have been inserted into general order 3.16. we updated this. we met with internal stakeholders and we met request external stakeholders. we had discussions around processes for the release of these police reports and came up with this policy to present to you for a review and adoption. >> this is a policy you worked on with the department of police accountability? >> correct. we did give us a recommendations and we've included some of the recommendations they were part of the stakeholderring meetings as well in the development of this general order.

>> great. i know that the police accountability had some stakeholders present tonight. i ask that we keep it tight please and we appreciate all the work everybody done. i think it's controversial one. >> i will add, the policy is a policy that we believe we can work with. it's the process we're going to develop is still under way and we're still working with the stakeholders to develop a process as we all know, we implemented general order, there's a process that we implement. we have changes that go along with that as we learn the process. the policy is something i think we all agreed on coming in today's meeting. >> thank you. >> good evening. i appreciate you taking time and

stakeholders here. i want to give a overview how we got to this process and also really provide a shoot out to the stakeholders in the trenches working in courts at the stations trying to get police reports. it's been their persistence that enable us to get to where we are today i want to highlight few requests recommendations that our agency has made. how we got here today was back in 2017. there are stakeholders who came to say they're not getting police reports in time. the reason why this is critical is, police reports are what enables victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, when they go to court, they need that incident report. they need it immediately. they need it when they take time off to go to court to get a restraining order. they need it when they need to move out immediately and not be

jeopardized by breaking their lease. we worked with commander lazar and worked with captain troy dangerfield. they were great problem solving and giving us assistance. the chief, he took this on as a priority and we appreciate chief, your leadership in bringing this to the commission as soon as possible. the collaboration, again, it's the individual who are here tonight and many who couldn't come tonight that really brought it to the forefront. ultimately, when we talk about the next steps we're working with the department. we've made recommendations to make this accessible is to and the website information how they can get the incident report, it's a new concept. even though the laws has been in place since 1991 make sure that website is up to date. the way to get the incident

report, by email, fax or snail mail. lastly, with want to see compliance. we made recommendations in july that the department show they're doing the compliance required. with no further due, i like to introduce you to sf ward, christy chan to address you and two of the attorneys from bay legal who has been instrumental to talk to you as well. >> thank you very much. good evening. >> good evening. thank you for this opportunity to speak about this importance of the proposed changes to release of police reports department general order. to allow sexual assault and domestic violence survivors to access the report within five days. i'm christy chan. san francisco is california office of emergency services and funded by the crisis centre

serving san francisco city and county. since 1973 we have provided crises services and individual group counseling along with medical and legal and social services. our 24-hour crises line responds to about 3000 calls each year to provide counseling and advocacy to sexual assault survivors. we've been part of the l.e.p. meets to address experiences our clients face. we are positioned t -- to why is important to readily access such report. before i talk about those things i want to acknowledge the hard work san francisco police department has done to enhance its response to sexual assault

survivors. in the past years, there has been important new order to ensure regarding the status of cases monthly. police officers now respond to san francisco women against rape office it take sexual assault reports. at the same time, survivors also face roadblocks when attempting to access the police reports. survivors also contact us before when this is the case. sometimes they tell us their request has been denied but they are uncertain why. some survivors also report a lack of courtesy or respect when they are requesting report or follow-up on report.

the report maybe necessary to obtain a restraining order or immigration case. in addition, survivors may need to provide employers a report to justify time off from work or school or they may need a report to make a housing transfer. both the lieutenant from sbu and stpd records department and made themselves personally available when survivors with experiencing problems accessing reports in a timely valuable. this new general order is a vital structure remedy. in order to have a clear understanding of the impact of the general order, we would also suggest a quarterly mod monitor -- monitoring how police reports are denied.

thank you very much for your time and consideration. >> thank you for everything you do. greatlyappreciated. thank you. good evening. >> good evening commissioners and chief. thank you so much for the opportunity to address you all and provide comments tonight. i'm staff attorney at bay area legal aid. i'm a staff attorney in the domestic violence unit. i provide domestic violence representation for a clients in their family law and their immigration cases. the policy itself that we're here to talk about tonight is great. we all support the policy. the problem is the implementation of the policy. family code was inbe acted in 1999. we're trying to implement and follow and enforce the statute that was enacted 20 years ago. the statute requires police reports to be released within

five days. we're not getting them within five days. in the history of working on this issue which means last two years we're seeing police reports realized 22 or 117 day. i have an outstanding police report. it has been 260 days to date since i requested the report. we have seen improvements since july of 2018 when we met and we on conferred and requested real action. sfpd ensured that we were in compliance with the code. however, we are still experiencing delays. last month two survivors respected reports, to date they have not received them. this raises serious concerns about being able to obtain the report. last month sfpd an auto reply

email. we have serious concerns about how the general order is implemented. sfpd implementation of family code 6628. to provide survivors of domestic violence human tracking and abuse with their police reports quickly so they can obtain civil restraining orders. first issue is sfpd we believe is still incorrectly relying upon government code 62454 to withhold reports. the family code was enacted 10 years after that government code provision. it has no effect on whether or not survivors should receive reports timely. of course, when i'm representing

a client, i can advocate for that report to be released regardless of the provisions in the government code. a litigant is unable to do this. they're being denied the report. currently, sfpd permits requests to be made in person, email or fax and this is wonderful and we do appreciate this accommodation. however, i understand there maybe a proposal to require identification be produced in order for a survivor to receive the report. that that the survivor's identification can be produced to sfpd. this is a significant barrier to compliants obtaining the report. we hope that provision would noting implemented. to give some examples, we have survivors living in domestic violence shelters across the bay area. what that means in practice is that for a client living for a away in a shelter to get to third veto street, that takes sx

hours and seven bus transfers. for clients with absolutely no identification, this would prohibit release of the report at all. just last week i met a client who was a survivor. she fled in the military of the -- middle of the night. she had nothing but the clothe on her back. she was treated for physical abuse. her only identification was the hospital bracelet on her wrist. even with representation, the quickest we can replace her identification is going to be at least three weeks. undocumented client. these survivors face even double the barrier they are living in fear. the majority of my undocumented clients have only their passports as their identification. we might see -- we might be a sanctuary city, this will require survivors with a foreign passport, no u.s. visa to enter

a police station and present their passport as identification in order to obtain their police report. we're effectively asking undocumented individuals in san francisco to enter a police station and show proof of their undocumented status to law enforcement. this would create a barrier for survivors. we would see a decline in any request for police reports in san francisco. there's a real harm when these reports are late. it's important to understand that. i understand that the commission is comprised of many attorneys. just to note, when there's no police report, i can't subpoena an officer. i can't prepare exhibits, i can't meet my trial deadlines. what that ends up meaning, my complaint can't get a domestic violence restraining order. the family court has asked to

review police reports. there are times i can't produce it. my clients have been denied restraining orders. there are other times where there is a report i haven't serviced it timely. the client when faced with a proposition of going into court with he said she said situation without having the documentation evidence, i don't know if i can do it. they'll withdraw completely. unrepresented litigants with these barriers will certainly not be able to obtain the repo report. if i still can't get them timely, unrepresented litigants will not be able to get them >> chief, i know you want to

respond. can we have a respond please? i apologize this supposed to be short presentation. and they're not. i'm getting feeling this department general order is not ready tonight because of the presentations that are happening now. i maybe moving just to take this off calendar this evening. i need to hear from the chief. >> i can speak to that. i think that what she's saying, the implementation of the order that is before the commission, we do not oppose. it is necessary. it is implementing a statute that is straightforward that was enacted in 1999. what is controversial, though -- we don't object to that part. we do want to indicate that this order would not be before this commission today if it weren't from her standing here and she worked so hard. we threaten to sue but we didn't

sue because the chief indicated that they will be in compliance and if we stopped threatening to sue, they would work with the department to change things around. we honored that request. we didn't sue. we didn't talk to the press. we have been kept in the dark. if we gone to court, we would have a court order. we've heard some of these horrible obstacles that have been created. we don't want to wait another 20 years or another two months. we want the commission to direct the department to talk to us and to include us and other representatives that represent victims of domestic violence to implement this statute now.

>> can we hear from the chief first? there's a whole new issue raised. she wanted to community the advocate for all the work they did. we're hearing something now about a process that's not on the agenda tonight and that's not part of the order. i do want to get a response. you raised important issue, counsel. i want to hear deputy chief says about it. >> thank you commissioner. some of the things that she mentioned we are continually working on. we agreed to have a web page that gives the survivors an opportunity to submit their request through email, through snail mail or in person applications. we agreed to meet with them on the processes. we agreed with lot of their concerns. i don't think the issue is with the policy, they're raising

concerns they want us to consider it as we move forward developing the process. we're not disagreeing not to implement. we'll continue to meet with them to headache sur -- make sure wee it easy as possible for community members and representatives as well as the department to make sure they get what they need. i don't think we disagreed on what the issues they're raising. they're raising their concerns to you as they raising them to us. >> i think just to reiterate, i don't think the issue is with the policy itself. what everyone speaking to both advocateadvocates are talking ae about implementation enhancement as it relates to the policy.

>> we're talking again is processes. they're referring to 6254 a section of law erefewe refer to. our member have cleared direction as to what law to follow. they will no longer be required to redact the report. they can release the reports to the survivors. as to what unit is responsible, the way the practice has been, cis would get the information, forward it to sbu and send it back. we recognize created a time line. now we're going to b leave that responsibility with the crime investigation service unit and

redact it or forward. just this afternoon, i had this conversation with tamara on this issue. they're raising concerns that we're not disagreeing with. we're going to work to develop the process. >> chief scott? >> yes, commissioner. i want ted to add there are eigt orders. there's a lot of other documents that have to be revised as a result of this change in order to achieve what we agreeing on. pooter of the -- part of this process is to update all the documents.

it's not simple solution. we have met with -- we had many meetings on this subject. it is our responsibility to get this fix and get this done. i did promise we would do that. we will. >> first step is department general order. we'll start with that. >> i spent the majority of my career as a prosecutor both as state prosecutor and federal prosecutor working with domestic violence victims and sex trafficking victims. this sounds like this is part of a larger conversation. it's hugely important to me personal. there are few things that i care

more about. it is the reason why i loved my job as a prosecutor. i would like to have a status update and hear more about how this is going and how the changes are being implemented. as everyone in this room knows, terrible things happen to these victims. they often end up being homicide victim. i would like to hear how the implementation is going, how things are progressing. i think no one disputes that it needs to be amended. >> i want to talk to the fact that there are implementations draft in process as chief mentioned. you need to be changing. i don't dispute that at all. i think the problem is that we

were promised that full implementation could occur by july. which was much later than we wanted. we agreed to wait. now i'm sorry we didn't sue. july was too long. i understand that you have a process and a fairness to go through but we really need on behalf of domestic violence victims an assurance that this process won't take too long. it's already been too long. we would like some direction besides a status update. but some encouragement to have a full hearing. we really didn't have many meetings with the chief. we've been shut out. we understand they are draft circumstancselfishcirculated.

>> 20 years old, that's what we've been criticized by the d.o.j. our d.g.o.s outdate and this is not compliant with the law. more importantly, we should have quarterly reports on this particular d.g.o. in particular if they are complying with family code 6228 and if they are not why not. if we have that on a quarterly, that would light a fire to get those things done and get them on time. we would know then every quarter whether they are complying with this code. i would say we amend this d.g.o.

or sentence in we have quarterly reports in regarding family code 6228 and listing how many report were made and how many were done in compliance with the code. i don't know in that helps. that's what i would suggest. >> it might be helpful to note, bay area legal aid has offices all over the bay. i can tell you that san francisco police department is the only department that is not releasing police reports within five days under family code 6228. we're not seeing this in alameda county. we have reached out to other legal aid organizations and other direct service providers and inquired if they are seeing same thing. >> i appreciate that. i know the chief is working

hard. there isn't reason why we can't comply with the law. i would add to that, the vice president can set a committee, we can put a commissioner on to these meetings. >> i just went through a process. i believe we're wrapping up with director of policy to help shepard through the deaf and hard of hearing d.g.o. i will be happy to make myself available to work with sf ward and bay area legal aid and the department. if we're comfortable passing this tonight, either as it is or with the amendment, i think we

should do so. we can start emailing each other tomorrow. i will help shepard this throu through. i know the department is doing lot of and making lot of positive changes. this is embarrassing. i practice -- i represent people with restraining orders. i understand the process that you go through. i do understand that this is a unique challenge in san francisco. this law exist and we need to fix this. i like to work with you folks to get there >> if i can chime in, when i hear other police agencies are doing this in five days. i don't think there's a reason why we can't. our goal is to pass this. it's a fine amendment commissioner dejesus recommended

this. thank you all for bringing this. we need to get these reports out in five days or less because of the situations we're dealing with. i want that to start tonight. thank you commissioner for being on this. we need to move forward with it. this was not part what we were going to do tonight. unfortunately, we have an agenda that we have to stick to. >> i had two points. my first question was this had an effect on this. we're still waiting on memo from the city attorney with respect how the new law will change the practices. i don't know what if any affect 1421 would have on it. the second point is, what your response is with respect to the requirement to have an i.d. in

order to get these police reports how you plan to address that? >> in regards to 1421, the department is evaluating the impacts it's going to have. i think the needed concern is resource issue. once the request come in, they will be -- some of the request are quite large and it's going to require lot of resources. we're evaluating how we're going to move forward with that. with regards to the i.d., the family code is at family code. how we're going to work around identifying individuals, there's various methed methods we can u. we're required to identify the individuals who we are releasing the reports to.

>> it doesn't say it requires driver's license. you need to verify the i.d. correct? >> it says that here. >> there's several ways to get to solution. sticking point is requiring the idea up front versus requiring i.d. when they pick it up. i can still get the i.d.

the officer is vouch say this was the victim this case. that's pretty simple. i responded to the scene and here's the individual. >> my point. this is much larger robust discussion and conversation. i want to make sure we didn't lose sight of adopting the d.g.o. as amended. i did hear that all parties were okay with the d.g.o. as it is amended. commissioner dejesus brought up some additional amendments. what i don't want it see happen, we slow up the process by then, having to go back do more amendments. >> i want to be involved in the process. i ask that we calendar this some time in january. we all want to hear more.

>> january 16th. commissioners, in light of this, do i have a motion with an amendment? move the adopt d.g.o. with the one addition requiring quarterly reporting to the san francisco police commission regarding compliance with requests for the police report. >> the department shall produce quarterly reports regarding family code 6228.

>> let's see how many were done and the time it took. >> just reframe the report in our stakeholder meeting. >> i think the general order, we all might disappear and the general order should have a compliance on a quarterly report. even if it says the department shall produce quarterly reports regarding family code 6228 determined by the commission. >> we're going to vote on it tonight. it is agendized. we can make an amendment. >> we're going to ask for quarterly reports as stated by commissioner dejesus. the action will be as discussedy

our subcommittee. i made a motion and seconded by commissioner hirsch. now it's time for public comment and then a vote. do i have a vote all in favor? it's unanimous. thank you everybody for all your help. it's really appreciated. i did domestic violence cases. there's nothing more difficult but yet more regarding. i appreciate it. you talk about people in the legal community that go to work and you're the true hero. i want to thank you everything you do. >> thank you for bringing the dilemma to our attention. we had a good grasp what that was. thank you. >> commissioner you made the motion. you seconded it. thank you.

>> item 4 discussion and possible actions to recommend that the board of supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing chief of police to accept the dna capacity enhancement reduction program grant funds in the am of $61,171,000. from the department of -- from the u.s. department of justice to be used to upgrade software, purchase laboratory equipment and providing continuing education training for dna analysts. >> good evening >> good evening vice president mazzucco. i'm currently the acting chief financial officer for the police department. during the past year, the

department applied for funding from the national institute of justice and was awarded a grant. in the amount of $366,678 to upgrade software and to purchase laboratory instruments and provide continuing education for -- that are aside to the criminalistic laboratory in the department included in the fiscal grant budget submission about an anticipated grant aaward of $305,508. this amount is based upon what we received in the prior year. the actual award $266,678 is an

increase of $61,170 from our original budgeted amount. pursuant to san francisco alternative code section 10.170.1 that requires board of supervisors increase to grant award the $50,000 or greater. this grant will allow the department to continue making improvements at our criminalistics laboratory. if you have questions, i'd be happy to answer them. >> vice president mazzucco: any questions for concerns from the budget department to increase the dna? hearing none. do i have a motion to adopt and accept? >> so moved. >> vice president mazzucco: any public comment. public comment now closed.

thank you very much. >> item 5, general public comment. public is now welcome to address the commission regarding times s not on the agenda. please limit your comments to three minutes. >> vice president mazzucco: tha. first speaker please. >> good evening chief, commissioners. it's been a little while. i'm here to talk about, i

believe according to the examiner article you are to work on disciplinary als action of officers involved in text message scandal. this being the earlier text message scandal that got tied up with the statute of limitations on the discipline. i come here as someone who's been supportive of captain la la wanda williams. i want to see all folks engaged in sending all police officers engaged in sending racist text messages to be terminated from the department as well as -- i fought repeatedly to ascertain

the second status of the racist texts. i asked have that set racist text message sending officers has been disciplined. i never got a clear answer on that. i urge you as a citizen as a taxpayer and as someone who cares very much about employment discrimination and dedicates my career to ending discrimination to terminate these officers and to come clear to the public about whether officers who engageengagedengaged in sendingm messages still remain in the department. if they are, we need to know that. thank you. >> vice president mazzucco: good evening, welcome back.

>> good evening commissioners and chief scott. my name is tammy brian. last week the examiner reported that the court ruled that the police commission can go forward with disciplinary action against officers who exchanged text messages. it's about time. justify delayed is justice denied. the people of san francisco deserves justice. as a san franciscan, i do not want these officers on the job. they cannot protect and serve when they are filled with hateful and racist views. i do not feel safe, how can the black citizens of san francisco feel safe with officers like this on job. they have a badge and gun and authority to destroy and end lives. i'm appalled these officers will be suspended with pay for three years after committing such

gross misconduct and they've now been rewarded for three-year paid vacation. they should have to reimburse taxpayers for their salaries dismissing them will bring measure of justice to the people of san francisco. they cannot be on the job. this is not right. i read everything in reverse order. i do want to commend the chief, chief scott for his leadership peiappreciate all your hard wor. your leadership is paying off. it's paying dividends. i want to really express my

appreciation to paul henderson and his staff at dpa. thank you for your time. >> vice president mazzucco: tha. good evening. >> good evening visioners and chief scott. -- good evening commissioners. i'm cheryl thornton. i'm part of the committee. we just had public hearings about systematic discrimination going on in all the departments of san francisco. i'm here today because of the article that was in the examiner about the racist texts. i'm hoping these officers will be held accountable. the city and county of san francisco needs