>> six out of the 17 he agreed with your recommendation for discipline, and then four, the discipline that he recommended was lower or less than what you had recommended. is that right, four out of the 17. and then ate he didn't them at all and declined to follow your discipline recommendation. >> yes. >> okay and then when the chief reviews, or maybe this is a question for the chief, when you review the d.p.a. reports regarding the sustained allegations, do you provide them with a reason, or logic as to

why you go along with the recommendation, or you feel that the recommendation should be lowered and in some cases not even impose any discipline caught is there any reasoning or logic provided to d.b.a.? >> we meet in person or over the phone sometimes. biweekly. >> the process is we do have a discussion and we have been very consistent with that. >> and you say the category for nondisciplinary action, what is

that? is that what the chief is recommending, what is that category? >> i'm sorry,, where are you now >> pays four -- page 2 -- page 4 >> if that is the action that is taken, he gets checked right here and that is within the chief discussion. >> is that action mandated by the chief. >> it is always the chief has his own discretion independently based on our reports to make a

determination when the determination is an admonishment that isn't registered as part of discipline, so that's why it is in that category. >> for example, in case one with respect to officer a, as he disagreed with your recommendation and said his discipline was that there would be no discipline, without the officer was to be admonished and retrained. >> correct. >> what does it mean when it has na in the column? on page 5, case three. >> all the way to the right. >> yeah, i see it. >> is it not available because we don't know? >> one at a time and ask asked the director. >> i don't remember. [laughter]

>> with respect to case nine when it says pending, will we be given those updates in the fourth quarter? >> when it says pending, absolutely. these were big cases that we were working on so you had a summary, you had a summary when we have closed out and made a recommendation and turned them over. either to the commissioner to the chief. they appear do it -- during that court order and they say pending when they haven't been resolved yet or conclusion hasn't been reached. >> okay. >> thank you. >> one quick question for the director and one for the chief. the first page of the report. >> are those typos? >> the meth doesn't work for me. maybe i am missing something. >> the 11 adjudicated cases, the chief agreed on sex and disagreed on 12. it doesn't work for me. me beat those art allegations, i'm not sure what that means. >> i am down on the fourth

paragraph. >> i see. >> i'm trying to find the answers elsewhere but i couldn't if you can't figure it out right now -- >> it is new math. you just don't get it. i don't either. i have to look into it. >> commissioner, i believe that in response to the individual cases but the allegations,. >> when you declined to discipline or lower discipline, tell me what you are thinking. what are you doing? >> so there are cases where -- that will come to me and some of the cases that are referenced here were either the allegation is not proven, in my opinion based on my read of the case, there is at least one case on here where we disagree on the

allegations itself, constitutional issues and some of the issues that were raised in the case, and there are cases where the question and some of the differences in the recommendation of discipline and what the discipline that is being imposed speak to progressive discipline and differences of opinion on the standard of progressive discipline. so of the 15 cases that are listed here, nine of them are involved by one camera allegation. that was during a time when these allegations were levied, about half of them were in reference to the new function which we brought before the commission and change the policy we discovered there is an issue and it got into progressive discipline, whether or not that time, this time last year, most

of these cases on a first level are astounded from the department point of view was an admonishment on most of these cases. we have since, with the discussion of the commission and where we are going and whatever that comes to be, we have raised -- we have raised the accountability, if you will on the cameras issued. but we have also flushed out some of those issues that were silent on the policy where we have more of a consistent standard of what we expect from the officers. some of these were during that period, and once we raise those issues, we flushed a lot of that out. right now the standard for body worn cameras violations is a written reprimand for the first violation. before it was an admonishment. some of that disagreement was with some of that. the majority of these were by body were in camera issues and

as the policy is being reworked, a lot of those issues have already been resolved and the rest of them that haven't been will be when the commission finally pushes that body were in camera through. >> thank you. >> just so the public knows, if the chief fails or refuses or declines to discipline, the d.b.a. can still bring charges. >> that is correct. just to piggyback on what the chief was saying, a couple of months ago, we were talking about this and i gave a heads up about some of the body were in camera issues that the chief was just talking about where i said we are starting to sustain those cases and turn them over and present them to the chief so that he was aware of the things that both the public had complained about and the agency was catching and in terms of facilitating the process of identifying what some of the bigger challenges where that were coming down the road. i am just reminding people that we had this conversation before about what some of these issues are and where they were

disagreements or what appears to be disagreements from sustained cases internally that were presented to the chief. >> thank you again for the report. i went wine and cheese tasting so my palate has a heightened sense. with that being said, one of the things that i didn't see that i think i would like to see, it of my colleagues agree, is i'm looking at the cases that have been received. if we can summarize it more so that for instance, when we see unnecessary force, it comes up several times. might be something you are thinking about to say. there are six cases of unnecessary force. i'm thinking about the d.o.j. recommendations and it allows us on the department to focus on some of the highest cases and issues that we see coming in. being able to see the number versus having to go through the entire list. >> that information is going to be summarized in all of the prop

g. audit stuff with all of the use of force in the secondary thing is we have to be very careful in terms of the summation with more details so we are just talking about types of cases without a lot -- or without lots of specificity as we would like to share because of restrictions. >> which is okay. unnecessary force is fine, but if there were six cases -- >> to identify that there are six of them? >> right. >> i think we can do that. >> thank you. >> thank you. director henderson, good evening >> good evening. >> how are you doing tonight? >> i'm doing well. it is a little warm. i'm just trying to -- it is like a seventies retro. i don't have a tie on so i am switching it up.

>> forgive this if this is a question -- i should know this, but as far as your ability to still bring charges, is that only in cases where there is discipline of ten days or more, or does that right exists regardless of the discipline? >> the right to exist, but if we feel like it is ten days or less , it goes to the chief as the commissioner was saying. we can't earn cases independently to the commission, but we do that -- they typically involve a conversation with the chief as well. like i said, all of these cases that are in front of you, what is behind these cases our conversations back and forth. both with myself and the chief, at the very least, independent of the work that his staff has done on them. it can take two routes. they can be brought to the commission. >> even if it is an admonishment

or three day suspension, you can still file it in the commission? >> there is a way to do that. yes. >> okay. >> if there is a case where you are unhappy with the discipline that the chief imposes, regardless of the nature of the discipline imposed, or requested to be imposed, you can bring it here and have it heard through the normal disciplinary process. >> there are some restrictions with that. i would have to look to give you the exact restrictions on it to, and i can look at it until you, but i believe that they are are some restrictions if something has been presented to the chief and he exercises his discretion. i don't think there is an automatic, i don't like that, and now i will bring it to the commission and see. >> okay. that helps. as far as -- it sounds like from

what the chief was saying, that most of these were pretty low level, or at least at the time, they happened and were considered lower-level offences such as body were in camera. >> not all of them. there are some pretty serious cases in here as well. >> okay. i was looking just at the third quarter report. i did see case three where -- i think -- we can't talk about that. once it's brought to the chief, you don't have the opportunity to bring it to the commission? or is something we can discuss off-line? >> it is something we can discuss off-line or publicly. i think there are some restrictions. i just don't want to guess about what it is without being specific and accurate about it and i can tell you conclusively

that i just want to look at it again before i repeat it. >> to follow up on that, like you said, there are some serious allegations here. i know commissioner hirsch and commissioner lazarus have been working on a discipline matrix for the department side. is that also something that will be used by your office, or do you have current standards for discipline that you use to determine what level of discipline to request? >> we are participating in the discipline matrix extensively and we have been working on that for months. it is getting closer to conclusion now. and then we also train and discuss ranges of discipline internally as well in the office to try and make sure that they are consistent, because they have not been in the past. that is part of why we were

eager to get to the table to address a sentencing mages -- matrix in the first place. >> thank you. >> i just want to follow up on page 5 because it is unclear to me. assess 44% of the office -- i'm not sure -- >> page 4. >> i don't understand what that means. the chief disagreed with you that they weren't disciplined? >> not necessarily. it just depends on the participation. it could mean that under admonishment and retrain. let's say what the discipline is decided upon was the officers would be admonished or retrained , that is not considered discipline. i presume percentage of them

were and i did not break that number down and out. that is not considered to put -- discipline. >> 30% were admonished or retrained and the balance of the 20%, 14% -- >> the reason we don't is because that is not considered discipline at all. even if they were admonished it is not considered and the number appears higher but that is what's behind the definition. >> it just looks like officers were brought up on charges and not disciplined and that's pretty confusing. >> it is easy to add an easy to clarify. >> may be we can talk off-line, but i'm sorry, i can't remember, it was here on july 18th on the policy where we talked about revamping the serious incident review board. i am just wondering, what is the

status of that? where did we leave off with that oh, you can't hear me? [laughter] >> i'm asking about the serious incident report -- review board. you represented recommendations to implement the review board to replace the current board. i'm just wondering what the status of that is. is a coming back? are rescheduling i rescheduling it for anything,. >> i think it is square in the sights of the d.o.j. conversations and i know it is high on their list. again, i still have not been in any of those collaborative meetings to give input or support what the timeframe is and what the priority is. i have an outline and a presentation of what i think it should look like, which has been submitted and i am waiting to have the opportunity to work collaboratively on it to implement it. >> that's what i mean. this is in front of a collaborative review board right now?

>> it has been presented to the commission. i haven't been -- it has been presented to you, the commission , i haven't been in any of the meetings to address it. >> all right. >> if i may, i can answer that question for you. it is a process that we are engaged in and during -- his team has been part of that and started off with the taser d.g.o. that was brought before the commission. the idea was born in that. at least from my perspective. because one of the recommendations for the taser d.g.o. was to have it reviewed for tasers and the department and d.b.a. both agreed during those discussions that we wanted to go beyond that and have the serious incident review board. commander walsh and others are working on that now, and to build that out, i believe, i think they are supposed to meet on that as well.

it is ongoing. it is part of the buildout of the whole d.g.o. that the commission reviewed but we wanted to go beyond that. the goal is to have this done in the very near future. >> may be we can have some kind of status report on it in the near future to see where it is so we can move it along. may be we can calendar it. >> i wanted to understand the relationship between the report here on page 4 and they analysis by allegation. we have that chief of police who discipline six officers and this is 30 3% of the recommended by d.b.a. but they say the chief agreed with 77% with the same findings. can you walk us through that correlation? you have six officers was 77% agreeing --

>> may be six officers, but -- here is how the complaints come in. you get a number of complaints. they are broken down into -- the complaints themselves have to transfer to a number of sustained charges independently. that is the first step in how the numbers change and shift. and those sustained charges are packaged repair and outline in a broad form and presented to the chief, and so of those cases, from this court, 77% of them, the chief and i agreed and that discipline was imposed on the officers. the other 30 3% are the ones where it says that we had something different to, that we recommended then what happens. >> i guess what i'm trying to understand is if you have

officer a and there are five allegations and he agrees with an two of those allegations, how does that break down in this data? >> i get what you are saying. >> commissioner, to what director henderson said earlier and to commissioner jay hayes used on some of these body worn cameras, i agree with sustained, but the disposition was admonishment to, which is not considered discipline. that sustained was we are not in disagreement, but his report captures the percentage of agreement on sustained and the percentage of whether that penalty was considered discipline. it is not considered discipline in terms of a disciplinary guide it is on our scale and that is why one of the reasons the commission is putting together this disciplined matrix. we are working from the same set of documents. it is not considered discipline. we can agree on sustaining on many of these body worn cameras, particularly before we hashed out the policies.

i agree with the sustained but i don't agree with the admonishment. that got into the discipline conversation that i was talking about earlier. >> great. >> thank you. >> thank you. just a follow-up on the progressive discipline, is there a way to note it on the numbers that you are reporting on this chart as well quiet that is important to know, especially if those are the factors that the chief is considering in terms of why he is going along with the discipline you recommended, or he is not going along with it? >> that is what i tried to do by putting in the nondisciplinary action. i do not want to presume our gauge that is the intention. i can only gauge with the outcome was that i created a category that had the admonishment and retraining in their.

>> achieve, maybe i am misunderstanding, to me when you say that your logic for imposing discipline are going along with the discipline that is recommended by the d.b.a., one of the factors you consider is progressive discipline. means whether or not the officer has prior incidents? if this was the first violation or type of allegation against this officer class be not correct. not only prior discipline, but sometimes the disagreements -- an officer may have a prior neglect. and that neglect of duty may be a totally different violation of a policy. part of this is the standard of progressives. it can be very broad. usually progressive discipline has meant that the allegations have some type of connectivity in terms of past behaviour.

it was the neglect of duty an accurate report or failure to fasten your seatbelts and now you have a body worn fat camera clot those are a totally different neglect of duties. we usually want to be in a situation where the allegation has some connection to the allegation at hand. so that is subject to debate because everyone can interpret that differently. we also want to be consistent with the standard so we are not all over the place with discipline. some of that i think will be flushed out when we finish this just finish this disciplinary matrix. it is a very wide and broad category. it is a group of things to pull from when you talk about past practices. the practice has been that the allegations need to be similar in nature in terms of

progressive discipline. i believe that is how the commission has ruled on some of these rulings as well. >> one question i forgot to ask prior, and the commissioner reminded me when he brought up the numbers, of the eight officers where the chief declined to discipline the officer his, how many of those to do direct file with the commission? >> i would have to look. there have been some that have been direct files. >> and my third question -- >> i can tell you that answer specifically. >> and my third question is, with respect to his point about having more information with respect to the case summary, i think this goes to what the commissioner and i were working on with respect to transparency and giving examples of los angeles and even the san francisco sheriff's department where they give greater detail

and are more transparent in some of the incidents and i feel like we could beef up this section without violating any laws that are aimed at protecting officer 's privacy. i would ask you look into that. >> we are looking at that internally. i want to start off with making it more clear than they have been in the past. we will continue to present as much information for as much clarity as possible. i mean we are all aware that the rules and laws are changing even as we speak and depending on what other counties are doing, in an approved manner and things are changing as well.

i think you can expect to see more changes as well. for this version, for this first draft, i wanted to get the system presented in this manner. thank you for that input. >> just one thing. just to piggyback on that, if you could include the percentages about admonishment or retraining for those of us who read officers who were not disciplined and had heart palpitations. just clarify that nothing happened. it would be good to have some sense of that as well. this is great work. thank you. >> i have to present it. i made notes on all of the input and things. to me, what stands out as we couldn't have had this discussion in the previous

quarter because the information wasn't very clear. >> i was about to jump in and say, now that you have this accessible report, you will get a lot more questions. we appreciate that. thank you very much. please call the next item. >> item three c. is commission reports. reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to counter any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. commission president's report, commissioners reports. >> i have nothing to report other than doing a disciplinary hearing and working on the orders and other issues. anything you would like to add, commissioners? >> thank you. so last week i had the opportunity to take a tour and get an explanation of how things are going first hand from the commander, and a few of the

captains that were working there it was quite impressive. i think as we have discussed a number of times, this city is struggling with a homeless challenge. it has been reflected by the past -- the passage of prop c. recently. how dedicated our community, our city is to addressing this problem. and i was really impressed by what i saw. i think it was described by the commander at a hearing here a few months ago but to see it in action was actually reassuring to me that, in fact,, the departments, because as the departments, the chief, everybody will explain, homelessness will not be solved by law enforcement alone. it is part of the solution, but really, it a social services,

public health, mental health, drug treatment and so forth and what i saw when i was there were all of the agencies, d.p.w., d.b.h., health, homelessness, 311, working together to try and address the calls they were getting in a way that wasn't just law enforcement dominance. meaning it is not just officers going out because there's a homeless person on the street. so having these services available and being sent out to the locations back i think it's going to be a change for how we deal with the situation. in the short term. obviously the long-term solution is going to require a lot more, but i think we are seeing that from city government and the departments. i was also able to go out on a ride along with officers and i

wanted to say i was very impressed by the conduct of these officers and dealing with some homeless encampment and individuals that were in a mental health, and substance abuse crisis. i thought they showed compassion , heart, integrity, determination, with each of the contacts. and i think when you drive by and you see the police engaging with homeless people, you don't always, it does not always look quite right because you don't know why the police are talking to these people? i saw some real outreach and rapport building and not an enforcement approach. how can we help you, what is going on and what are the challenges i am really impressed i know the chief is really

dedicated to this approach and this model. i look forward to following these successes. >> thank you very much. >> please call next line item. >> item three d. consideration of commission -- future commission meetings. >> any announcements? >> our next meeting will be next wednesday, december 12, 2018 at 5:30 pm at city hall room 400. >> i am asking to agenda eyes or a status on the sb 1421. it is the new law that has been passed that will take effect in january. we need to know what the statuses with respect to the records that will be released and what can be released. i think it will be very important for us, especially as we are working with the chief and the department on a serious incident review board and trying to be more transparent as an

agency. we need to be advised as to what we can release and what can be posted or made available to the public under the new law and we don't have any guidance thus far i think it will be very important for the work we would be doing. >> i was in touch with the city attorney his office today asking them again for their memo on that. i was promised it would be coming soon. until they are ready to discuss that with us, i don't know what discussion we can have. but they promised me that there is a memo written which has gone up for review and come back down and come to us. i have been asking for that for close to six months now. >> may be if we added to the agenda, we can have someone from the attorney's office to answer why it is taking six month -- six months. >> the laws changed. i started asking that six months ago. i got that but it's time. i need to put it on the agenda

and have the city attorney make a presentation. >> let's put it on next week for a report from the city attorney 's office about what they are doing and how much longer we need to. just a status report. everyone is very curious -- there are major changes. i think that's important. we can put it on next week. >> thank you. i would like to agenda eyes for discussion and possible action a new order on the deaf and hard of hearing. this has been an ongoing process that i have been involved with with the deaf and hard of hearing working group that have been working on this from before -- or around or before when i joined the commission. and the d.g.o. has gone through the department. there was a meeting today. the chief was nice enough to set up myself, the mayor's office, d.p.a., and members -- and

another representative of the deaf and hard of hearing community. i unfortunately got stuck in courts i miss the meeting. i think in january will be will ready to put this on as a discussion item. >> it is perfect so long as all the parties are ready. we should probably calendar that either next week for early january or may be our first meeting in january. it sounds like it is progressing and we are getting very close. when we are there we will do it. >> so this is an issue i brought up when we didn't have a full complement of commissioners. we may have had been missing four and then we were missing two. as most of you know, there was a unanimous decision in the sunshine task force that our taser vote was not in accordance with the brown act and they did ask this commission to reconsider that vote. i brought it up we should at least discuss that. it is an important aspect of our city governments. it is a letter that has been

pending for a wild. i think we should put it on. we should discuss it and take possible action on it. i think we need to address it rather than let it sit there. >> madame city attorney? >> i'm sorry. is there a question? >> with reference to this request, there was a vote and then there was a finding by the sunshine ordinance task force. is that finding, is that binding >> no, it does not. >> i didn't say it was binding. i said they asked us to reconsider its. they found that we violated the sunshine task force or the brown act. we should at least review the letter and have a discussion on the letter and possible action so we can decide to do whatever we want. i think we wanted to --dash we can't let it just sit there. it is a very serious committee. >> i ask it be calendared.

>> let's take a look at that, probably in january it like everything else. okay? anything further? hearing none, please call for public comment. >> public comment on items three a through three d. >> good evening. >> i have been absent for quite a while but i will be attending on a fairly regular basis starting tonight. i would first like to get a complement to the executive director, because up until this meeting, every director report i have ever seen was a meaningless series of charts and graphs and numbers which the commissioners within -- would then say thank you for your report and i find it very enlightening and i don't know if you are looking at the same chart i am looking at. i can't tell heads or tails.

this one gives information that resulted in a substantive conversation by almost all members of the commission, asking questions about what does this mean, what does this mean, what is the response? and i think that's the whole purpose of these reports, is to give you information so you can ask intelligent questions so that you are able to understand what is being presented to you and what it means. that being said, i would have to say that one of the things that jumped out at me is that it seems like the officers in the city and county of san francisco don't like their body cameras. i will use an analogy that i used to use in retail. if you are in retail, you know that for every customer who complains, there are nine who walked out the door silently and never return. so you learn to appreciate the complaints because it is probably thing as other people have experienced, and yet just

didn't think the company or the cared. and, you know, i have to say, if this many cases involving officers not properly using their body camera are here, how many of them are out there where they are not brought to your attention because the persons involved didn't file a complaint and i have to say that that to really, in my mind, is a violation of due process rights. >> thank you. >> welcome back. >> before i get started, can the camera person focused -- >> there you go. >> thank you. i'm ready to go. hello. i am a public sunshine advocate. regarding the letter from paul henderson that is up on the screen, i am going to point to a

figure here. this is talking about the caseload. it is 40% higher than previous years. and then looking down at this half, you will see that on the left, the darker bar, are the cases from a year ago for every month, and then on the right, the slightly greyer area are showing a big increase for a number of months this year. that is it for the overhead to. back to me, please. i am greatly concerned that there is a 40 1% higher number of cases, and i think it is indicative of more people coming forward about more complaints with the cops and i hope the chief is paying attention to these complaints. forty 1% increase from the previous year in terms of complaints to the d.b.a.

regarding commissioner's pushing for this body to take the sunshine ordinance task force seriously as a sentient advocate , i have to say thank you very much for doing that. i hope that your colleagues will take up this matter. i have had my own complaints with the sunshine task force before this body. and most cases you take it seriously and i hope you will, again take what the task force force is saying to you seriously in the last few seconds, i want to thank you for the intelligent questions you asked paul. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment on these line items? good evening, sir,. any further comment? hearing none, public comment is

closed. please call the next item. >> item four is discussion of public -- possible action to recommend the board of supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing the chief of police to accept and expand a grant in the amount of $800,000 from the u.s. department of justice, office of justice programs, bureau of justice assistance, to help improve the collection, management, at analysis of crime , gun evidence for the project period of october first 2018 through september 30th, 2021. action. >> good evening. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the commander of the police department's investigations bureau. as mentioned by the sergeant, we are here tonight for the police commission to hear a resolution authorizing the chief of police to accept a grant in the amount

of $800,000 from the u.s. department of justice office of justice programs bureau of justice assistance to help us in the collection, management and analysis of crime gun evidence. in just a minute, i am going to ask patrick from our fiscal unit to talk a little bit about the grant, but i want to briefly explain how we came about this grant that we are asking for. about a year and a half ago, discussions with the chief about how we can reduce the gun violence here in the city, what would be best practices, we spent a large amount of time visiting other law enforcement jurisdictions and looking at how other agencies respond to governments. many of them had specific units that addressed gun violence, commonly known as -- it is a crime gun investigations centre. we came back and presented to the chief the possibility of us standing up a unit within our

department. after some discussions, we agreed to it and the role at the time was for us to disrupt the gun violence that we are having in the city through timely, accurate and actionable collection of firearms evidence. we had three main goals. three main goals that we are looking to dubai stand in the unit up. the first one was to reduce the gun violence and homicides in the city and how we could best approach that. the second one was how we could improve our investigations and prosecutions of gun -related crimes, and the third and one of the most vital ones was how we could increase the public trust and confidence in law enforcement and how we respond to gun violence. we start this unit up. i am happy to answer any questions after about the unit and what they have been doing. so the successes that you may have, after we start the unit up , we apply for this grant in the amount of $800,000, which we were awarded a few months back. we are here tonight to ask for

you to accept that award. i will turn it now over to patrick who works for our fiscal units. we talk a little bit about the grant and then i am happy to return and answer questions you may have regarding the grant or the unit. >> thank you. good evening. >> good evening. my name is patrick lyons and i am the grants manager for the police department. i do have several slides that will go over the grant. as command -- as the commander described, the grant is for $800,000, and the award period is from october 1st, 2018, and runs through september 30th, 2021. this is a collaborative grant. the grant partners for this include the san francisco police department, the san francisco district attorney's office, to

bureau of justice assistance, and the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, firearms and explosives the overall purpose of this grant, it is a collaboration between local agencies and atf, and the goal is to leverage resources to swiftly identify firearms used unlawfully, and their sources and to effectively prosecute perpetrators engaged in violent crime. just a little chart that shows the gun violence within the city of san francisco, the day that we have rounds from 2014 to 2017 , as you can see, the homicides have averaged roughly about 40 homicides by firearm per year. it was at 30 in 2014, but it has increased since then.

we don't have the full figures for 2018 because it is still ongoing, but for last year, there are 38 homicides due to firearms. the total shooting victims has averaged about 200 per year. with this program, our go -- goal is to try and reduce these incidents. system of the key phases of this grant, the first phase is a comprehensive collection of evidence. currently, we aren't able to process all of the evidence that we would be able to, partly, some of this is due to capacity. depending upon the case, we might have to prioritize the processing of gun evidence for,

let's say, a homicide that has put higher priority than just a gun casing that you might find on the street. and depending upon the availability of resources, we might have to delay processing on some of those incidents. with this grant, it will help pay for some equipment that will help expand our capacity to process ballistics evidence, and our goal is to have a quicker turnaround times and that will also lead to better and more timely investigations. the second phase of the program is timeliness of entry and correlation. and iban -- it is a system that is managed by a.t.f., and it is a system that captures the

ballistic imaging that is used for comparison and it helps investigators determine whether or not a gun was used during a crime. with more timely entry and correlation, that will lead to increased investigations -- investigative leads, and i will also help our investigators and prosecutors

i would like to know if the police department is committed to sharing the findings and statistics on the web. without members of the public having to file a public records request. you are probably going to get this money. let's assume they do. where are we going to find the statistics. i want more information. i want the full documentation that sfpd will be turning over

to the feds, made available for public inspection on the d.p.h. -- excuse me, on the police department website. i have separate issues with the d.p.h. lastly, i would like to call attention to slide 4, san francisco shootings and firearms. if i'm reading this correctly, totaling up the 2017 statistics for number of victims and incidents that it comes to about 287. i would like to see a combined number for total number of victims and total number combined with the incident numbers, please. >> thank you, charles. mr. hart. >> i will support mr.

petrelis's comment. if the public is going to come to these meetings and participate meaningfully, they have to have the ability to understand what it is they are looking at. this chart, while nice, is pretty pictures. i would have liked to, as mr. petrelis said seen the actual grant motion you are going to approve so i could research it and see if i have any questions on it. obviously, this is a grant worth accepting. it's free money. and i guess the best analogy i can think of is the big brouhaha we had several years ago over untested rape kits. city after city, after city. year after year after year had hundreds, if not thousands, of rape kits they never even bothered to process. and of them were stored inappropriately and were damaged. and as chair mazzucco said, many of those crimes were

serial rapists. we catch one person on one crime and we find out he is involved in 3-5 others. i think that's probably something close to what happened with the golden gate killer. all those decades went by and because of the genealogical testing they were able to figure out this guy was going around doing all these different rapes and convict him. any of this money will go to help the department do what it is required to do. i don't think officers should have to be in the position of triaging which gun crime they are going to handle first as opposed to others. i think they all should be handled on a systematic basis. and i don't think it is justification to simply say, well we don't have the resources to do them all. and then not have any information as to, okay, exactly how is that being done? and what cases are being left, and for how long?

>> thank you. any further public comment on this grant? hearing none -- >> can i ask? i would also, i think it's a good practice, where available, if there is a grant that we are able to provide publicly, we should do so and it should be included in our materials as well, because i think it would benefit the commission to review it as well. so i would join in our public's request. >> chief? >> yes, that is not a problem. patrick, do you have a copy? >> as part of the resolution, we can make that available. >> also, this resolution will be going before the board of supervisors after we approve it, so if there's any further question maybe we could go to the board of supervisors with that. after hearing this, i have a motion and a second? do i have a vote, all in favor?

aye. thank you very much. the resolution passes. please call next line item. >> item 5 was taken off the calendar, put on at a later date. item 6, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address the remarks to the commission as a whole and not individual commissioners, department or d.p.a. personnel. under rules of order under public comment neither police nor d.p.a. nor commissioners are required to respond to questions provided by the public but may provide a brief response. should refrain from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. please limit your comments to two minutes. >> good evening, mr. harts. >> good evening. i am a holder of 36 orders of determination for violation of

the sunshine ordinance by various individuals, elected officials, boards and commissions. and when i entered the building i had 36 and tonight as i leave the building i have 37. i believe that all meetings should be public, should be open and they should be done in a way the public can participate fully. my comment, previously. what i would like you to notice, your meeting started at 5:30, it's now 7:30. so if a member of the public wants to talk to you about something that is not on the agenda, they have to come in and spend the whole evening sitting here waiting for some indeterminant time period to address you. that is going to discourage a lot of the members of the public from even bothering to come. i have myself sat here for five and a half hours before public comment came up. so my real question to you, and something i would like you to seriously consider, who are these meetings for? are they simply for the

commission and the department? or are they really intended for the public? if i were on the commission, and i really wanted the public to attend and participate in a meaningful fashion, i would want to have a time determinant where general public comment is taken. i will give you the best example i can think of is the ethics commission. when they open their first agenda item is general public comment. that way any individual doesn't have to make arrangements to take care of their kid for five hours. they can come in at the beginning of the meeting, make their public comment and leave. they also take public comment at the end of the meeting. so that's one thing i could say about the ethics commission, they are very, very open. and to be honest with you, i think the reason a lot of these public meetings are not attended to is because the public feels they are only