you know, i was shocked, and i thought a lot about it. and on behalf of all of the members of this commission and the d.p.a. director and the police chief, we're all here because we wanted to be here, and we have credentials to be here. we applied to be here, we have a love and an interest in this city, and that's why we're here. and for somebody to make that comment, it really bothered me throughout the course of the holidays. up on this dais, i should have stopped it and not allow it, and i apologize that i didn't. commissioners? >> first of all, i wanted to thank you for noting that and for saying that. it's something that i noted and it bothered me. and it wasn't just the number of black people that were here, it was the number of black people in the room. and i found that personally troubling and offensive. for those of us from minority communities who have historically struggled to be

represented and to be heard and to be taken seriously and to be respected, it was sad to hear someone say that in public comment, especially someone who was a former mayoral candidate. i hope that does not -- i know it doesn't speak to who we are as a city. and of course everyone is welcome to say whatever they would like when they -- when they take the microphone, but i know that we're better than that as a city. >> commissioners, any further commission reports? hearing none, please call the next line item? >> this is item 1-d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings, action. >> any announcements? >> our next meeting will be here next week, january 16, in

room 400 at city hall beginning at 5:30. >> thank you. commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: so one of them is i've asked before that we calendar the letter we got from the sunshine ordinance -- i can't remember -- task force we got a while ago regarding our vote, and i think we should discuss that letter? any ramifications to that letter however we want to go forward. i think we should respect that task force and at least discuss the issues that they raised in that letter to us whether or not they have power or not, we should at least discuss that and have that conversation. >> commissioners, anything further for future agenda? i think i'm going to reserve that for the next president of the commission to make that decision because as you stated, that task force does not have any legal authority, but more

importantly, we have to consider, when you make those decisions, the stress and anxiety that creates for everybody at city hall, including the sheriff's deputies, the angst the people feel who come here, the commissioners, our commission staff, and there was a vote, and the vote took place, and i think there's a different position on how it took place, and i think strongly that commissioner turman handled it quite well and in accordance with the law, so i'll let the next commission president make that decision. >> well, i don't think you have a right to make that decision. i think commissioners have a right to request items to go on the agenda. when i first brought it up, you said we would do that when we had a full complement of commissioners. maybe it's just the phasing. maybe you just want to defer to the president to take of what we're going to put on the agenda, however, whether it goes to the agenda, i think we

have a right to put that on the agenda. >> i think i can take a straw pole which commissioners would like to put it on the agenda. >> i don't think you can do that. >> commissioner mazzucco: i think i can take a poll, who commissioners would like -- what commissioners would like to see it on the agenda. >> commissioner dejesus: i would like it on the agenda. hamasaki's not here. you know, you're going back on your word. >> commissioner mazzucco: what commissioners would like to see it on the agenda. >> commissioner dejesus: i would like to see it on the agenda. >> commissioner elias: my understanding is if a commissioner wants an item on the agenda, it should be on the agenda. i don't think that whether we vote on it or not is an issue, but i think it's one, a commissioner's asking for an item to be placed on the agenda, then we do have to respect that.

>> commissioner mazzucco: commissioner hirsch? hi >> commissioner hirsch: well, i have a question for the city attorney, does the commission have the ability to vote on whether an item goes on the agenda? >> absolutely. >> commissioner hirsch: so we could have a motion now, and speak something passes, it goes on the agenda. if it doesn't -- >> correct. i was given that advice in the past. if you have a motion, and a majority, and the commission asks for a time and date that the item would be placed on the agenda, then the item needs to be placed on the agenda. >> commissioner dejesus: and i would ask that we have an informed decision. i don't know if the commissioners have that letter from the task force, if they reviewed it, so to ask them to vote on something they've never seen, they're not informed. i think one of the things that we swear when we take this job is that we read everything before we vote, and we have an understanding of what we're voting on. so as far as i know, they've never received the letter, so i think it's unfair to ask them if they want it on the calendar or not when they don't even

know what they're voting for. >> well, how about this? why doesn't everybody go and find the letter? and the second thing is i think the commissioners should review the videotape from the meeting that night. i think it was october 2, but i'm not certain. but whatever night it was that we voted on the taser initialtive, the first -- initiative, the first vote, house's that? >> commissioner dejesus: that's fine, but i think we should put it on the agency. it's an agency -- it's a fellow agency who has criticized this commission, and they have a view of this commission, and we should at least address that. maybe we want to write a letter back, maybe we don't want to do anything, but we should bring back, and maybe we should have a discussion on that. what are you afraid of it.

>> i want the commissioners to be knowledgeable on it. >> commissioner dejesus: yeah. you don't have to agendaize it to take a vote now. it's not going to come up on new reports. >> commissioner mazzucco: commissioner brookter. >> i think you bring up a really good report. what i would ask, rachel, is if we can get access to the letter and then the other document that robert's talking about, and then table it, because i think you can agendaize it at any meeting. >> commissioner mazzucco: all right. sounds good. all right. anything further to add to the agenda? >> clerk: this is item 2, discussion and possible action to approve issuance of department bulletin 18- >> commissioner mazzucco: public comment. >> clerk: oh, my goodness, sorry. you're right. public comment on all item does 1-a through d. >> commissioner mazzucco: any public comment regarding 1-a through d? magic?

please come forward, ma'am. >> you finally have a full commission, and my comments are particularly addressed to the new members. my name is magic altman. one of the recommendations concerned tasers. after 13 years and five votes, the people demanded no tasers, and the commission supported the will of the people. then at a meeting attended by hundreds of people over whel with himming leo posed to tasers, the police commission voted to approve their use. then, i took it before the task

force, and there was a unanimous vote that this was in violation of the brown act. i think it's important you not only review the video of that night, but the video of the meeting in which i presented evidence with video and with the sheriff's log, proving that city hall was locked down. yes, it was a difficult meeting for all of us, but that does not aallllow for votes to take place when city hall was locked down. there were people testify, there was evidence. petra dejesus went down and found people that were being left out, so this was very serious business. the public was shut out of their own meeting, and it wasn't covered until i got a public spotlight on it in august. and then there was a suggestion to put it on the agenda when there was a full commission, and there is a full commission. it behooves you to review what happened at that time, because the public has been consistent

about tasers over the decades. i also find it disturbing that you continue to make the time for public comment shorter, thomas. we are the public, and there's not enough time to address four different points in two minutes. we need to respect the will of the people, and the sunshine task force, which is not legally binding, but it is ethically and morally demanding that you do not violate the rights of the people under the brown act. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you, magic. next speaker? >> good evening, everyone. good evening, everyone. good evening. my name is cienegi sullivan. first of all, please excuse my lateness.

i want to get down to the commission and the crime that i have been cured over this duration of time for cyber security and other brief descriptions of significant incidents. first of all, what i really want to get to is the majority events because i really want to keep that cyber off record. i want to get to the majority special event that will be occurring in this county by myself and as my sitcom program, and my change of prernship to the san francisco housing authority, and i want to make sure i'm briefing sure because i don't want to burn your ears with a lot of jibber jabber of personal property and income and things of that nature.

the reason i want to make sure that i'm learning the process right because i'm looking at the sworn promotional process, and i'm starting with the 285, is that i'm going through altercations with one individual in this county, and then, i have significant evidence that's relevant to this personnel department of classy creations. she says i have not submitted a summons here, and i just want to make sure this is right here, and it's making sure that individuals have come in contact with victims, and the victims will be private. then, the sitcom program, the nobles, which will be premiering on vh 1, hopefully -- [inaudible] >> commissioner mazzucco: okay. thank you very much, ma'am. thank you very much. any other public comment?

hearing none, public comment is closed. please call the next line item. >> clerk: discussion and possible action to approve 18-301, early intervention procedures. bulletin 18-249 is a reissue of expired department bull finish 16-209, issued on 11-28-2016, action. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you very much. good evening, chief. >> good evening, vice president mazzucco, chief scott, director henderson. assistant chief hector sainez here. commissioners, you have before you this draft bulletin submitted fof your adoption. there are two very minor changes to the department bulletin and the existing policy that we have in place. i have sergeant youngblood that can discuss those changes.

they're very minor changes, but because they amend the g.o., we bring this department bulletin before the commission. >> commissioner mazzucco: good evening, sergeant youngblood. how are you? >> so the two changes, the only thing they're looking at is the d.g.o. 3.019 already states that the alerts will be sent back to the e.i.s. office, and the second is on the -- when an intervention is opened, we used to do a 90-day and a one-year check in on that follow up. we have added a 180-day check in, so now there are three

check-ins during an e.i.s. intervention. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you. the one change is instead of sending papers to people, we are going to send them digitally, which will expedite the process, is that correct? >> correct. >> commissioner mazzucco: and then, the other thing is we're putting 180 days between the 90 day and one year. >> yes. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you very much. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: so i know you're the expert on this, and i think for our new commissioners, we should bring them up to speed. forgive me. it's been a while since we've had a meeting. my understanding is that our -- our -- i'm not opposed to this, and i'm happy to move this forward, but the e.i.s. system doesn't really meet our needs, but we're looking into this, and i forgot what university or consultant we hired.

the last i heard, they pulled out, and i'm just wondering, are we in limbo, are we moving forward? i guess i missed that meeting. i don't mind the bulletin in, but i think revising this policy, so i think it's effective for the city. i think they made some major recommendations before they pulled out. i know for me there was some factors that we needed to look at that aren't there that perhaps should be there, and whether the supervisor alone should be doing the review even though i know there's a process in the review. like in oakland, they had that committee. we sat in on that demonstration in oakland, and that committee had access to the personnel files, and they can see things in real-time when they're making a decision whether a person's a candidate for getting counseling or not. so i'm wondering if you could just bring us up to speed where we are? >> yes, commissioner. we did partner with the university of chicago. they did an in-depth analysis of our data. they did issue some preliminary

findings. we had some discussions on that data, and they took our input, and they reworked the data, and we're waiting for a final report on their analysis. we have some internal meetings scheduled and discussions with the university of chicago and hope to have a final report sometime before spring. >> commissioner dejesus: and then, we can chair that with the commission and decide if we're going to revise the whole thing or not? >> correct. d.g.o. 3.019 is one of the d.g.o.'s that's listed as one of the rewrites in the overall collaborative network. >> commissioner mazzucco: university of chicago literally dropped the ball on this, and i think they submitted to us after some prodding a draft. it was a rough draft that was

full of dramt cgrammatical err. it didn't make any sense, and i know they've been contacted to try to fix that. i was shocked to see that. >> commissioner dejesus: yeah. that was ae what i remember, they were stalling and hadn't produced when i last heard. >> commissioner mazzucco: okay. any questions? okay. so do i have a motion to accept the department's general order. >> so moved. >> commissioner mazzucco: second? >> second. >> commissioner mazzucco: any discussions regarding the department bulletin regarding the department general order? hearing none, public comment's now closed. all in favor? [voting] >> commissioner mazzucco: it's now passed. thank you very much. >> clerk: this is item three, presentation of sfpdd.p.a. report on policy proposals sparks report fourth quarter

2018, discussion. >> good evening commissioners, vice president mazzucco, chief scott, director henderson, members of the command staff, i'm kathrin mcguire. i'm here to introduce captain ford and look forward to being more involved and working with the department of police accountability as we move forward on some -- on the recommendations that we are able to move forward on together, and with that, i'm just going to turn it over to captain ford, who has much more experience giving this report than i do. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you, director mcguire. good evening, sir. >> good evening. thank you for the very nice introduction. welcome, commission vice president mazzucco, fellow commissioners, d.p.a. president henderson, chief scott, and certainly, last, but not least, assistant chief sainez. so this evening, we're going to

be giving you guys the information regarding the fourth quarter information summary regarding sparks report. we'll start with our bulletins. so with respect to the fourth quarter 2018, we issued 34 a-bulletins, 28 -- i'm sorry, 26 b-bulletins, nine c bulletins, bringing us to a grand total of 69 bulletins issued during the fourth quarter of 2018. moving to our journal orders, the first one is d.g.o. 3.01, written communications. this is kind of our flag side department general orders, especially under the -- or rather since the c.r.i. process has taken place. this one specifically allows our written communication system policy and department general orders as it relates to renumbering. this will substantially reduce the number of department bulletins on a substantial

basis. as it stapds now, we issue about 300 bulletins a year. under this new version, we hope to issue no more than 50. another feature of 3.01, itten haenss the efficiency of general orders without augmenting the entire policy. specifically, we can go into different pieces of the policy, rewrite that, of course, send it through the concurrence process, bring it before this body for final consideration and hopefully, it will pass the muster. this specific g.o. rewrite will address 50. d.o.j. recommendations.

this one is with the meeting. this one is pending issuance. this one specifically defines the criteria for formal awards given to sworn officers ranging from our highest award of gold medals all the way down to a captain's complimentary report that's issued at the station level. regarding d.g.o. 5.15, this is this one establishes authority with the san francisco police department's role and cooperation with i.c.e., customs and border protection, also successor agencies whose role is to enforce immigration laws in conformity with federal and state laws.

but of course the core and essence of this foert is the sfpd does not participate in the enforcement of federal laws and regulations. moving onto d.g.o. 5.07, this one outlines the department's commitment to treating all people with dignity, fairness, and respect. and we're working very closely with the d.p.a. and our in-house employees with the rewrite of this policy. d.g.o. 10.02, equipment. this one specifies the requirement and optional requirement for uniformed officer as well as nonuniformed officers who work in a plainclothes capacity. d.g.o. 10.08, this order establishes policies and procedures governing the use of computers and the confidentiality of computer data. d.g.o. 11.07, discrimination,

harassment, this one is also under current revision. this order establishes the department's policy prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and this order applies to all members, both sworn and civilian. to kind of give a 30,000-foot view of the total 272 recommendations and which of those specifically fall into that policy revision world, we've broken them down into sections under each objective area. first objective area use of force embodies 28 policy recommendations. our second objective area, bias and bodies ten policy recommendations, our third objective area, community policing, embodies three policy recommendations, and accountability embodies 33 of our policy recommendations. so that is an overview of our version of the sparks report with respect to where our bulletins and g.o.s are during

the current rewrite process. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you very much, captain. i'll turn it over to commissioner hirsch. >> commissioner hirsch: quick question. some of us don't know what a bulletins, b bulletins, and c bulletins are. could you tell us what those mean? >> yes. a bulletins are the most pressing. they are ones that everyone has to sign for. we're going to infuse a notices piece of the process, so to speak, and so we will -- our g.o.s will live for a shelf live of two years, and then, we'll have notices that serve as informational purposes only. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner hirsch: and then, with the d.g.o.s that are being reviewed, particularly ones in progress, are there ones in the working group. i see fol

i -- do we invite members of the public? >> we do, but we have our inhome s.m.e.s that serve at our experts in rewriting these policies, but certainly work in situations like d.g.o. 2.04, for instance, and certainly like 5.17 and 1107, we work in very close concert with the d.p.a. to make certain we have the proper balance within the policy. >> commissioner hirsch: but when you say d.p.a., i'm just wondering if members of the public that are not affiliated with the d.p.a., as well. [please stand by]

. . . . at the promise of the chief on that, so there is, in fact, several different community groups and organizations coming and i have welcomed them to the different working groups that we have scheduled. >> thanks. and also, i was advised and reminded that 5.15, the enforcement of immigration laws

also has a very active working group and the members of the public and the legal community. >> and one last, 2.04, is that out of meet and confer? that was an effects only. >> correct. so you passed it to move forward for d.h.r. to look and see if it needed to be a meet and confer. they came back to us and said it did not. in the meantime, we got some recommendations from the d.o.j. once we incorporate that and hear the revisions that are made, it will come forward to you for adoption. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner dejesus. >> so this may not be your purview, and just tell me. maybe i am talking -- but i am looking -- >> i missed the front end. >> this may not be within what you are here to talk about, and if that is true, let me snow. but looking at the department of

justice collaborative reform recommendations on the last page. during the holidays we received a leter from the department of justice where they indicated that the department is -- i've got the words they use, but basically say not in substantial compliance with the recommendations from the d.o.j. and they go through the list specifically of which ones we are not in compliance with. i am wondering, is that what you are working on that or a different group that will work on that? >> i'll take that question. yes, that professional standards unit under captain ford is part of it and strategic management bureau and the executive director mcgwire leading that charge, and just to clarify, put this into context. part of this process since we have engaged with the california d.o.j. is we have established actually standards for compliance that ewith did not have before. -- that we did not have before. so some of this is a work in

progress in terms of going back with all the recommendations that we have already worked on to make sure that we actually are in this compliance area, and my opinion on this is in the long run it will definitely help us because now we have basically a very clear understanding. >> i think the letter is very helpful to look into this or change this, but it talks about what is the process you are going to use, what data and are you going to have reports and follow-up? and how will you know you are compliant? and to hear this and understand it and talking about putting a process in place and to do this and happy to get this letter. part of the process is to have

the feedback from evaluators and the subject and the d.o.j. and the recommendations to the commission with the direction, it makes the process better. some of these will not be able to complete in it one shot. and some may take a lot of work. it is a better process so we are in a better place now. and that moved up and is completed and we submitted the packages as they were. and based on the timeline that we agreed to in terms of trying to set this up. and we have a process and the recommendations that are found to be in compliant doesn't stop

there. this is not a one shot deal. this is a process. >> that is what it is feeling like with the meetings i am attending is like a checklist and i don't know how we are following up with that. and we review it quickly and can improve it. >> it is my understanding, captain ford, is the d.g.o.s are outdated and once we start revising, number of bulletins will be decrease. and the 301 process will streamline this process and make things more. and for lack of a better term, the rewrite process, the timeline, and the main crux of this is to make sure that this is not outdated and go for long periods of time without being rewritten or revised or

restructured. you are right, the by-product of this policy will be that will be a steep decrease in the issuance of so many bulletins that are also hard to keep up and track and manage and maybe it straightforward in terms of the lifeline of policies and how they fit into the overall generation. >> and is consistent with that time. >> it was the u.s. d.o.j. and the complaints of the officers. >> and the public and we talk about what the process is and how do we define what an a bulletin is versus a b bulletin? >> from the the public perspective, the a. bulletins are a high priority and piece of

information that the members need the know or be aware of. and the b's and c's truthfully kind of fall into that informational only type of realm, if you will. for instance, something that is the a. bulletin perspective could be as simple as the promotional announcement and is the forthcoming job opportunity and positional opportunity. and the c bulletin could be something as simple as a happy holidays to the members from the administration. and pretty different examples and b's and c's are informational for the most part and represent more of an urgent

timeline and act on this now type of thing. directives, things like that. and with the c bulletins and in terms of shows issued during that quarter, yes. in terms we are trying to mitigate the b's and c's that take over the total complement of how many bulletins we have issued collectively. >> commissioner taylor? >> just to further answer commissioner hirsch's question and i have participated in discussions with the department and with cal d.o.j. and we have had productive conversations to make sure the stakeholders with the information from d.p.o.

about the wonderful work they are doing and the stakeholders are aware of that and that informs the changes to that d.j.o.. we are working on it. i think making good progress. >> commissioner dejesus again. >> u a just one other thing. one of the things when we talked about the officers, one of their complaints was not only so many bulletins, but just as many that were interrelated. a domestic violence issue, you may have 10 bulletins and one d.g.o. and they would like to see a way to look at a d.g.o. and something related to it on the bottom and say see related 996 and 442 and 331 so when they do their investigation and reports that i know they can double check and are not missing something. >> absolutely. and serve as a reference point to link different pieces of that. >> if we are doing this work, we might as well hook that up. the last thing i was wondering to the commissioners is how do we want to take this letter? do we want to discuss it at some

point? >> the d. ovrmentj. letter? awe -- the d.o.j. letter? >> it is my understanding that there is a working group that received this and the department is working there to make the changes and i think it would be premature to bring it out until -- >> just asking whether we should discuss it or wait. if they will do a final report, wait a final report. i like the idea it is happy coming in and happy to wait for the working group take it ate part and how they prioritize these or how they are working on these. >> chief scott. >> a commissioner, to your question, these report are leading up to the first report. everything in that report will be a part of the first report and that will draft and cal-doj and come to the commission and the department and have an opportunity to respond and address it. all this will in that report is

scheduled for later this spring. it won't be very long from now where the commission is the part of the contract. we will get the first report. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> welcome back. >> thank you. they are angry that you left, you know. >> good evening. from the director of policy and the city mandate is also city charter mandate is to provide policy recommendations. tonight i would like to briefly highlight three policy recommendations that have been provided to you in your packet for members of the public, there are those documents are at the table as well. the overview of the three policy recommendations are there. tonight i would like to talk about the three policy recommendations concerning body camera, body worn cameras,

search warrants, and also services at stations concern sexual assault survivors. i would also then just briefly like to talk about other third and fourth quarter policy work that our agency has done. concerning body worn cameras, we know that it's an effective tool that increases transparency, accountability, and public trust in the police department. in fact, those values are part of the police department general order around body cameras. in cases where there are complaints, we know that the body camera footage often enables cases to be closed and either exonerate or corroborate complaints. is there a concern about -- >> you are fine. we are looking for papers. >> trying to follow from the memo. >> on the flipside, when an

investigation or enforcement results in no body camera footage and only a partial footage of an incident and that undermines police trust. the d.p.a. has investigated several cases where there have been violations of the body camera policy and no recording or a partial recording. this is new in part because officers didn't believe that the incidents fell under enumerated circumstances that were required to activate the body worn camera. and so to address this problem, the d.p.a. suggests that similar to the los angeles police department's body worn camera policy, that the current policy of the department be amended first to include an introduction to the policy so it's very clear that officers shall activate their body worn camera devices prior to initiating any investigative or enforcement activity involving a member of the public. the current policy doesn't have

such a clear direction about any investigative or enforcement activity and doesn't clearly say the d.w.c. needs to be activated prior. this is language that lapd has used for years, so we recommend using it. second, we recommend similar to lapd that calls for service are included among the enumerated activities. currently the policy has detentions, consensual encounters, pursuits, a list similar to lapd, but we do not include calls for service. and looking at our complaints and sustained complaints, we think by including calls for service in combination with this very clear direction that would introduce the policy, it would ensure that officers have a clear direction as to when they need to turn on their body worn camera. lastly, then, we recommend that this policy went into place in 2016 and there was an understanding that there would be mon the organize and auditing of the policy.

this would be a great opportunity now in light of our own recommendations to bring together a working group with the commission to look at some of the concerns that have been raised by the body worn camera and be able to evaluate what is working and things that are problematic and be able to fix those problems. so the third part of our recommendation is to have a creation of a body worn camera working group. turning to the second recommendation, it concerns search warrants. i think there is a general belief or the public expects when a search warrant is being executed, that individuals would receive a copy of that warrant. in fact, the police department issued a brochure a number of years ago for the public around fourth amendment rights that included that when someone subject to a search warrant, they would be provided a copy of it. in their federal rules that provide it, but actually there is some case law in another context that is in california that you don't have to provide a copy. our recommendation based on an

investigation of our own of a case and in light of the department eat search warrant and be provided to the person whose property will be searched. we recommend that it's good policing, good community policing, and consistent with procedure justice department to require officers and provide the copy of the search warrant and while executing the search warrant. >> the third recommendation that we have concerns services at the district stations concerning sexual assault survivors. and this recommendation came out of the working group that meets monthly and domestic violence, assault, and there are concerns about how to enhance the services when individuals who are sexual assault, survivors, need to file a police report in

a nonenergy situation to insure there is an interview room provided and the reportees are granted their rights mandated by law. that advocate cans accompany the individual during an interview. and there would be bilingual services and that interview would be taking place with a bilingual officer and an employee and ultimately the department's website would be updated to provide this information. our third recommendation is in detail as to the specific recommendations. to highlight the d.g.o.s and we did throughout the last half year and a deaf and hard of hearing department general order and thank you for making time for us to finish up the

department general order and is bernl right now, but the hope is we will be able to present this to the commission in february, and it's been a really good collaborative process where we have been able to put together some additional tools that officers would have when they are interacting with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. another thing that ewe did during the last six months as we talked at another commission meeting, we worked for advocating the timely release of incident reports for domestic violence and sexual assault survivors and will immediate to work on implementing the process rs and what we worked on additionally is providing revisions to the department's procedures for awards arising from officer-involved shootings. and lastly, in december when we met with the school district for the meeting that the school district held with the police department and some youthed a voe t kas concerning the m.o.u., and it was an opportunity to go through the old m.o.u. and provide some feedback. so part of what we did from the

d.p.a. perspective was to integrate language concerning the new state law where individuals 15 and younger have a right to an attorney. we were able to provide some revisions about that. and some revisions to make sure that department general order requirements under 7.01, which is the use of to incorporate the requirements into the m.o.u. so while it wasn't a well attended meeting because it was right before the holidays and many students were leaving to take their vacation and it was an opportunity to have a discussion. that concludes my report. >> thank you, again, for your hard work. this is great. didn't know about the issue at the stations with reference to -- that's something we need to i a dress immediately. on the search warrants, though, my experience that you don't leave the search warrant when you conduct a search warrant.

you leave a property and inventory. but you don't believe the five or six or sometimes 70 pages of probable cause for the search warrant. am i wrong on that? at both central and state and is to provide not the affidavit, but to provide a copy of the search warrant. that is where there is a federal rule concerning -- >> and the cover -- >> exactly. >> i want to make sure that is clear. >> not the affidavit. >> and in terms of transparency and everything in there and that means how did they get there. transparency is this is the residence and we are searching it and here is the inventory. >> exactly. and in a particular case, that wasn't provide and there was an expectation that it would and within the department's manual, there is a recommendation to providing that. we are recommending it be codified in an updated department general order. >> great. commissioner dejesus. >> thank you. this is very thoughtful and i appreciate the hard work that

you put into it. i have to say i remember going through the body worn camera in los angeles and having a lot of changes and good things to do, but i am a proponent of when i look at your complaints that u yo give us, there is a lot of officers are rude, officers swore, officers refuse to take an order or to do something. and you are right, there are and we don't have the cameras on and we don't know whether they actually swore or refused to do citizen's arrest or made a derogatory statement. and i think it should be on for the investigative enforcement activity as we have talked about in the last last several years. even though it is pretty simple and that makes it very simple. you don't have to decide if this

is an investigative detention and i forgot to turn it on and at that point the tension was getting out of hand. that is what we are hearing so a something rule, you can turn it on. i am a high proponent of that. and provide the award that is with the department and the page to provide the law at the station house what is required by law, we just had that before us in december. we are mandated to follow the law. if it says that they are entitled to certain things under the law,. i would like to know what we do to see they get incorporated. >> thank you. commissioner taylor. >> hi. i want to echo there is a lot of good stuff and a lot of stuff in

there -- >> i have condensed it. et used to be much longer. >> i thought of five or six or 10 follow-up questions and i don't want to take up the time asking, but i wonneder if there is a better forum and i have questions and to when you say several cases, i would like to have a sense of how many cases are there and what are what cases and this is more the information that i would love to have and what that so we know what the investigative and tension and there member a better forum in here than today, but a lot of good stuff with the

initial gut reactions, but it might be worth diving deeper. >> i think that both of us being here when we passed the body worn camera d.g.o., we knew it was going to be a work in progress. to turn it on, and there was discussions about whether there was hippa violations, people's psychiatric history and confidential informants and we knew and everybody recognized from day one that this is going to take time on the street to find the program and we are scheduling this for a return visit to see how things are actually working. and ores who reasoned at heat of passion, they forget to flip the switch and they have been in the department for 20 years and they are just learning to do that. it is a work in progress. >> are we bringing a working group back? >> that was the recommendation.

i wasn't aware there was another avenue to revisit it. >> i am not quite sure when and we will have a history to look at and hear from the officers and saying, look, this is what we are having a tough time doing and this what is we need to do and hear from the d.p.a. and hear what we have seen so far. >> because at the end of the day, the cameras have been pretty awesome. >> absolutely. >> it is probably led to a lot -- just turn on the news. >> as we are making decisions about that, what we have tried to do is prioritize sharing as much of the information ahead of time as possible. so actual as the issues come up and we discover, evaluate, and analyze complaints that come in and evidence that we receive, you get the reports like that just so you have an ongoing update of the things that we are seeing that is a problem. i will stay to compound the

comments that commissioner dejesus was articulating earlier, many times those same with the issues that come in, but it seems an important issue we get to a place where we are clear on what the policy should be about turning on the camera and clear about not turning on the camera if that is what is with the reports of what we are seeing as an agency to the commission. and officers swore, officer this, officer that, and we have this this kind of thing. >> the chief chimed in and like to have him respond to the question. >> i wanted to remind the commissioner and the newer

commissioner, we are meet and confer on body camera policy revision, so whatever direction the commission gives, consider we are in the middle of meet and confer on issues that have already been raised recently. on provisions, policy revisions. >> commissioner? >> i wanted to understand the last suggestion with respect to the awards and arising from officer-involved shooting. your recommendation is when the awards are issued by the command step and they also consider your investigations as well as i.a.'s investigations regarding the same incident? >> yes. we had two recommendations, one, that our agency would have finished the o.i.s. investigation before any award was considered. that was one recommendation. and language and completed the investigation, but didn't include d.p.a. and we made suggestions.

the second is that the findings from our agency as well as the findings from the firearm discharge review board would be provided to the awards committee so they would have a full understanding of the incident as opposed to the recommendation for the award that could be from someone who hasn't looked at the entire incident and only one segment and there was unconstitutional entry into a residence. so we wanted to make sure by providing the findings from our agency and the firearm discharge review board, they would have the full sense of the incident to consider and have that information to consider, is this an appropriate award? >> why aren't those things being considered now? is it because it's not from the d.g.o.? >> right. these were recommendations the agency made. >> we had a meeting on that today and are continuing to meet on that. we have spoken to director

henderson and that's been assigned to me and i have been working on that and we have been talking with all the parties involved and to have the departments medals of valor and what the to work through that and to shepherd the group through to the consensus. >> just myself and the parties involved, but no general members of the public and what type of uniform to wear, but these belong to the department and the fact that a commissioner is in the room is because we ratify it, and there is a long husry of it so i think they consider the disciplinary charges and those

have been meted out. >> commissioner -- i don't know who is next. is that still up? >> that is an old one. so with everyone on the firearm discharge review committees will vote there as well. [please stand by]

. >> commissioner mazzucco: and commissioner taylor? >> i hit my button before the chief mentioned this is still a meet and confer. but one thing that struck me, one thing that vice president mazzucco mentioned, hipaa and being sensitive to those issues. i say that officers should turn them on every time they

encounter the public, but then, i think about child sex assault victims and potentially sensitive situations where, you know, just saying turn them on all the time every time you interact with the public might not be okay. i think about the confidential informants in a noninvestigative capacity. i think we should think about all the exceptions that play out in real-time. >> and we're not talking about changes -- >> exceptions in the policy itself, it says these people are not to be sexual assault victims, the confidential informants. they're already excluded. what we're talking about is kind of this preliminary level, this basic level, like the investigative, what we've seen her, investigative detentions that blow up to something else and there's no camera because by the time it blew up, they're not turning it on. i think that's what we're struggling with, i think that's what the chief is struggling with -- >> i just want to make sure all

the terms are defined. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you so much. any public comment regarding these line items. ? hearing none, public comment is closed. hearing none, call the next line item. >> clerk: line item four, election of commission officers. >> commissioner mazzucco: all right. we're back to line item four, election of commission officers. as i did say, this was properly noticed, but i have heard from the commissioners. obviously, there's some concern this coming after a holiday weekend, but i have to tell you is one concern is that we've never held these elections without a full complement of commissioners, so it would be my suggestion that we hold the election -- it's going to cost you two cupcakes, commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: i will bring you a dozen. >> commissioner mazzucco: so let's talk about it. my suggestion is we wait until we have a full complement of commissioners. my question is, will everybody