broaden the work of the d.p.a. to the commission. specifically like the 270-day stuff that is now being presented to the commission, that was never certified anywhere, finalized anywhere. and even things -- i don't want to go through the whole document about some of the things -- some of the high level things that i thought were clarification about complaints that may come in about other government agencies and referral that behavior to -- specifically to, like, the district attorney's office when criminal activity is uncovered as part of an independent investigation from my office. those things, while they may seem to make common sense, they -- variouseous minds differed as to what would be appropriate both what could be expected from my agency in conducting the investigation and what was expected once behaviors or transgressions were found and uncovered by my agency and how we shared that

agency both to the department, to outside thirt-party agencies and to the commission. that's basically what the m.o.u. was covering. >> commissioner elias: that kind of granularity might not be appropriate. that kind of getting in the weeds, it makes sense for an m.o.u. but perhaps not for a general order. >> president hirsch: commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. director henderson, i had a question about the d.p.a. procedures under section 4-a-6. that's at page two. >> president hirsch: is that in the d.g.a. or m.o.u.? >> commissioner hamasaki: d.g.a. -- i mean, the -- >> president hirsch: 2.04. >> commissioner hamasaki:

right. so i was talking about the m.o.u. i thought that's what we were talking about. okay. so i'm talking about the m.o.u. sorry. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> commissioner hamasaki: so about the d.g.o. -- >> d.g.o.? >> commissioner hamasaki: no, i'm just kidding. page two, section four, the second paragraph states in cases involving investigations, d.p.a. shall not receive the i.a.d. conclusions and investigative recommendations until i.a.d. has received the completed d.p.a. reports. can you explain why you would not want to receive their investigative conclusions and recommendations? to my understanding, part of what d.p.a. does is not only

investigate complaints but also investigate whether or not in fact investigation itself was done in a way that can bring confidence to -- to the d.p.a., to the departments of the city. can you explain why you would not want to see their conclusions and recommendations? >> there's no reason why we not want to receive those -- that information or the conclusion. i think that's what president hirsch was talking about when he said that their -- this was really in the weeds, one of the long, arduous fights on this stuff. each one was back and forth to get to where we were, and this was one of the concerns that we had addressed. and as president hirsch had said, this was why these specific issues are in the m.o.u., because we plan on

monitoring and watching these issues to make sure that the information that we got is absolutely what is appropriate for us to have. but i always want all of the information at every time always, and that's my position that i am always arguing for or we're advocating for. >> commissioner hamasaki: so that was a long answer to get to. >> oh, sorry. >> commissioner hamasaki: if d.p.a. had its ideal version, and the version that would give it the best ability to do its job in its oversight capacity, could we go ahead and strike the second part of this section -- subsection? >> you mean, elimination of number seven completely? >> commissioner hamasaki: no, no, six; that you shall not receive -- >> oh, yeah, yeah.

i see what you're saying. >> commissioner hamasak >> commissioner hamasaki: strike that, and would that give you a better opportunity to do your role as defined by the charter and so forth? >> yeah. >> president hirsch: yes me define that because the commission u commission under president turman had approved that, and that was the thinking at the time. the d.p.a. is an independent investigatory body, and the commission believed that the d.p.a. should come up with their own conclusions based upon the facts that they had, which they presumably could get access to from the department, and that is the issue, i think, that was of most interest to me, is that the d.p.a. felt they were not getting sufficient information from the department. but the question was should they be able to come to a conclusion of their own only after they see the completed kplugs of internal affairs or

should they come to their own conclusion independently, and then the two of them meet and reach a conclusion based on what they each decided. i think the feeling of the commission was why should the d.p.a. be influenced by what the i.a.d. does. >> i will say in the past, the agency had some difficulties in finishing and completing and conducting a lot of their independent investigations in the way that we are capable and are doing right now. just saying that there's some history here of -- >> commissioner hamasaki: right. and so what i would propose is to strike that language so that difficulty wouldn't exist. and i understand the president's concerns, but they're an oversight agency as to the investigations, as well. so it's not a situation where

the d.p.a. as it exists now is going to rubber stamp the department's conclusions. but rather, the point of having this language stricken would be to allow them, as director henderson was just saying, to complete their investigation in a timely fashion because they would also be able to review whether or not they believed that the department and internal affairs had done whatever the standard is that they should be doing. and then, the second part of it is also i think there's a concern that including this language conflicts with some of our local ordinances. i was looking at this earlier.

[inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: well, there we go. >> yeah, but the language was not that clear. [inaudible] >> i was pointing out the name of the ordinance, which i believe was 96.a. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. and so the language in there was that -- i'll just skip to the meat of it, which is to provide -- the police department to provide prompt and full cooperation and assistance in connection with complaints being investigated by the d.p.a. the police department shall promptly disclose all documents and records requested by the d.p.a. except where the disclosure is prohibited by law. so to me, having this line in here, from a -- from allowing the department -- the d.p.a. to do its job, it seems like it slows it down unnecessarily. and then two, i'm -- it seems

to directly conflict with the city charter which sets the duties and obligations of the d.p.a. >> president hirsch: let me just address that because we did go through that once before. in my opinion, the d.p.a. is entitled to all the documents that would allow them to come to a conclusion after an investigation. the only thing i think that they shouldn't have is the final conclusion of internal affairs until they both sit down with their conclusions, and that's when they meet and try to figure out whether they agree or agree to disagree. but why should the d.p.a. be influenced by the final decision of the internal affairs department. >> commissioner hamasaki: it's not that they're not influenced. >> president hirsch: but they would. they would. when they come together and the d.p.a. says our decision on the final investigation, and the

department says this is our decision -- >> commissioner hamasaki: so i think my understanding is that it's not the d.p.a.s obligation to sit down and negotiate their findings. they have independent oversight authority over the department. this seems to conflict with that, and so they don't have to sit down and say hey, we agree that you guys did a good job or you didn't do a good job. what they should be saying is you know, i've reviewed this investigation and your conclusions. i find that in your conclusions, you know, either the actions were completely supported or if i find your actions unsupported, that's an additional basis to challenge whether the i.a.d. or department has done their job. that's squarely within their authority. i don't see why we would take that away from them.

>> president hirsch: i actually think that's what the commission is about. all right. so let me go to commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. so page four on the m.o.u., so page four, and then, it's e, and it's highlighted in red. i just need clarification. i've read it several times. i don't understand the sentence. so let me just -- in cases where the d.p.a. has sustained a complaint by a preponderance of the evidence against the chief of police, the d.p.a. shall transmit its complete findings and case to the police commission. you're going to have a finding against the chief? i'm not clear what that means. it has to be against the chief of police or against one of his officers? >> i think that line was talking about if a complaint comes in that involves the chief, where it goes. so it's not that we get a complaint about the chief specifically and directly, and then, we turn it over to

internal affairs. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. so this is against the chief. i just wanted to make sure i read it right. >> okay. >> commissioner dejesus: and then, if you want to go to -- if you want to go to where he was on page two, it's section four -- 5-c. this may not be the right place, but i just want to throw it out there. we did find out that there were cases that the d.p.a. did have cases that actually ran up against the statute of limitations and had to be dismid, and we found out -- dismissed, and we found out about it after it was too late. so this talks about nine months, and whether you can make anything in nine months. this says, the director shall advise the chief of police for specific reasons and the expected completion dates. i would add, and the commission. because we need to know if we

have something that's hitting a nine-month mark or a statute of limitations. >> i agree 100%. that's the 270-day report. we already do beyond that. and i would say just to speak to that, we've had no 3304 failures since day one. >> commissioner dejesus: i know that. >> since i've been there. >> commissioner dejesus: so let me back up a little bit. is it in here or is it something complete and different with the 270-day report. >> that is it. it is the 270-day report. it is delineated in writing with the chief directly and with the department, but it's also the weekly meeting that we have. that's the 270-day overview that i give. when i talk about what cases have been tolled and what cases haven't been tolled? >> commissioner dejesus: right. but if you're notifying the chief of what the nine months are, maybe we should get a

notification, too. >> i'm happy to add it. like i said -- >> commissioner dejesus: like a tickler system. >> but i'm happy to do -- whatever makes the commission feel comfortable. i have the report prepared, i send them to the chief. if you want them, i can -- >> president hirsch: chief scott. >> thank you, commissioner. i just wanted to -- commissioner elias' questions -- going back to the department of justice and recommendations, and i won't read it all, but thank you look on page 144, there are a couple of paragraphs that talk about the relationship between the d.p.a. and the san francisco police department and the need to have a better working relationship given everybody's responsibilities and then there's a number of recommendations that flow from

that. part of this, director henderson and i were here from the beginning. there are clear lines, at least the basic structure of what the rules are, rules of engagement are, particularly from the d.p.a. side. we have a number of general orders in terms of our discipline process and all that. but for the commission, particularly when there's conflicts or there's disagreements, for the commission to have a document, a guiding document to go by, with what we agree is our rules of engagement, everybody at the table at that time felt that was a clear understanding of the d.o.j. relationships, and a clear understanding of the lane we were supposed to be at, so that was what was behind the m.o.u. at this time. >> president hirsch: commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: thank you, chief. i'm glad to hear that's sort of the direction we're going, and i'm happy to hear that because

when i first joined the commission and this d.g.o. was before us, it was mind blowing to me to realize that d.p.a. wasn't able to receive government agency complaints, meaning public from the people defer's office -- public defender's office or district attorney's office or other governmental agencies were not able to forward complaints to the d.p.a. and that was just mind blowing to me. now under the new d.g.o., that's pir mied. i think those agencies, they come into contact with community on a daley basis, and i think it's important those people in those positions can forward complaints or make the d.p.a. aware of what's going on. so i do appreciate that. >> thank you. >> commissioner elias: the one thing that i will say in following up on commissioner hamasaki's comment with respect

to item number six, i am concerned about that. my concern is that i don't -- i think that d.p.a. as an independent body shouldn't sort of have to meet and confer or have to meet and agree with i.a.d. with respect to their conclusions on, you know, what their investigation entails or what the results are because it's my understanding that d.p.a. doesn't obtain their file, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner elias: and it's also my understanding that d.p.a. doesn't have sort of compelling powers. you can't force people to come in and do interviews with you. i mean, you have some powers to have certain, you know, officers come in, but you don't really have subpoena powers or other powers to make people or witnesses or other parties come in and talk to you. >> correct. >> commissioner elias: which is a function that i.a.d. does have access to, or can. >> yes. it's kind of a gray area, and

we work it out generally with the department where we coordinate with them if -- you know, surprisingly, there are sometimes, instances where members don't want to come and speak with us, and we work it out. >> commissioner elias: do you think reviewing i.a.d.s file would be helpful to you in your investigation? >> it always is. >> commissioner elias: but you don't have it. >> in the past or in the context of the m.o.u. >> commissioner elias: well, in reading the m.o.u. it seems it would be one sided. >> i think the focus is the final language in the file. they're distinguishing between the final collusion and the file. >> yeah. they would get the final file just as commissioner hirsch pointed out, and he's absolutely right about all the discussion about that issue

that happened when we were going through it. but it's just a conclusion. they get everything else. >> commissioner, just before i cancel my request to speak, so to commissioner elias' question to the meet and confer. the meet and confer with the director and the chief of police is not to necessarily come to an agreement. i mean, it's really to discuss the issues and i think the spirit behind it is again, this is part of the d.o.j. assessment or recommendation is to have a better disciplinary process. and often times when director henderson and i talk, we may end up disagreeing, but we flush out the issues. and sometimes there's things he might request from our end and vice versa that will lead to both of us having more insight on arriving at a decision. as you all know, sometimes we do disagree, and those cases can be brought to the commission.

but it really is not the purpose for him or me to cave-in to the other's opinion, it's really to discuss and make sure that we are addressing everything that needs to be addressed so we come to the right decision, and that's really the spirit behind this. and sometimes, we never agree, but we do have discussions on what the issues are. >> and i apologize. i do agree with you. i used the wrong choice of words. i do agree that meeting with director henderson is very important for you to see each side, and i don't think you are necessarily going to agree. >> sometimes we agree. >> commissioner elias: it happens. >> president hirsch: vice president scott -- taylor. >> vice president taylor: so part of the background for this, as i understand it, so d.p.a. investigates incidents, complaints surrounding particular law enforcement incidents, and the concern that i certainly have is that d.p.a.

has all of the information that they need to be able to do so. and so for example the full investigative file is critical for d.p.a. to have. and my understanding is in the past, there was reluctance. what d.p.a. is investigating is a particular incident. they're not investigating i.a.d. and so i.a.d. must absolutely, and there should be no confusion -- and as should sfpd turnover the complete investigative files when it comes to complaints. i mean, that has been an historical problem, and that should not be a problem moving forward, and that's what president hirsch was referring to when he said we will revisit

this if it becomes an issue. whether or not i.a.d. has made a particular conclusion or draft conclusion, they should be going on concurrent tracks with both parties getting identical information, and if that's not happening, that's a problem. so i just read the charter. i've read it before, and you know, it -- it -- it -- any way, reasonable minds can disagree, but i don't think that anyone disagrees that d.p.a. should have the full panoply of information they need to investigate the incidents they're investigating. >> president hirsch: commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. again, so i understand the position of commissioner -- president hirsch and vice president taylor, but nobody has addressed the question of the d.p.a.s ability to

investigate the investigation, and that's why they need the -- the findings and conclusions because that is part of their duty, and that does fall within the charter. and so they are -- if they don't have -- if the i.a.d. says -- they do this whole investigation, and they see all the evidence that looks bad, and they say well, we find no violations, they can challenge that, and that's part of their role, is to challenge whether not just the department by i.a.d. is doing a job that should give the city and all of us confidence. and so if they don't have their findings and recommendations, they don't have the ability to challenge that. so what it ultimately does is it extends the processes director henderson stated in the past. this is something that, to my understanding, based on his comments this evening, they have asked for, so i don't see

the harm in allowing d.p.a. the full authority to do their job. i think outside of that, the m.o.u. is in good shape, and i would move to adopt it with the amendments, striking the second paragraph of section 4-a-6, beginning with in cases involving concurrent investigations, the single sentence. >> president hirsch: is there a second? >> commissioner elias: second. >> president hirsch: okay. on the question? >> yeah, i just want to be specific. i know you're saying investigating the investigation, but i want you to point to a document. because from what i understand, d.p.a.s job is to investigate an investigation. what we're talking about is

investigations that are appearing -- you know, happening on concurrent tracks. and in that event, d.p.a. is not investigating another investigation, they're investigating the underlying complaint, the underlying incident. if there's some statutory authority or something that says otherwise, we should all see it, but i've read the charter and i've read these materials before. i just want to be able to point to -- point to authorities for these. >> president hirsch: if the d.p.a. disagrees with the position of the department, the department says five-day suspension, d.p.a. says termination, and they can't -- then, they actually two always meet to see if they -- do always meet to see if they can come to a single conclusion. the d.p.a. has the right to come to the conclusion, where they file their own charge here, and that's how the process should work. but what i worry about, i don't

ever want the d.p.a. to be influenced by the conclusion of the department. i want them to come to their own conclusion based on their own investigation of the facts that they were able to get, and i want them to get everything. >> commissioner hamasaki: but that's the purpose of an independent agency, right? >> president hirsch: that's not their role. >> commissioner hamasaki: what this suggests to me is what we're going to do would be to memo memorialize in this m.o.u. the restriction of the opportunities to investigate. so i don't know -- it's -- they are independent of the department. the departments exist over here. we don't interfere -- like, to me, this is interfering with their ability to investigate which is why i'm concerned, which is why i don't feel krned

with this particular section, but i feel concerned about -- concerned with this particular section, but i feel concerned about -- >> president hirsch: commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: so i think a point of clarification. if you read the sentence above, it says the d.p.a. shall send completed investigation to i.a.d. within 30 days, except the nine-month deadline if it's -- then, they have to send it right away. so you do have the d.p.a. giving i.a.d. the complete investigation. if you eliminate the complete sentence, that's saying the i.d.a. recommendations and conclusions -- i.a.d. recommendations and conclusions, they won't give it until d.p.a. gives them theirs,

so -- >> commissioner dejesus: all right. so how will d.p.a. get a copy of i.a.d.s report? >> commissioner hamasaki: well, that's the thing. they won't if we strike this language. >> president hirsch: we have a motion and a second. you have a right to demand a vote. i'm going to suggest we take it off the calendar and do more homework outside of this meeting and bring it back when we can reach an agreement. do you have a problem with that? we can have a vote, but we have six people here, which is a problem. >> commissioner hamasaki: i know how you two -- >> president hirsch: i'm not sure. we haven't had public comment -- >> commissioner dejesus: but he was going to clarify the different -- why i was wrong, and i cut him off. >> i think we should bring it back because we have more

items. >> vice president taylor: and i know we have more items. i'd like to do more research myself. >> commissioner hamasaki: i know. i made a motion. we have a second. >> commissioner elias: i don't feel i'm in a position to vote. i feel like we should do more research. >> president hirsch: i know, but there's a motion and a second, and they have a right to have a vote. the vote may not go their way, but we have to have public comment. okay. so we'll ask for public comment on this issue only, and that has to do with 2.04 and the m.o.u. and what we're talking about in terms of access to the conclusions -- i.a.d.s conclusions and investigative recommendations, when does d.p.a. get that. any public comment? >> strictly with regard to this vote? >> president hirsch: yeah. >> commissioner brookter: for me, there shouldn't be any data that i.a.d. has that d.p.a. shouldn't have, and that i'm

more -- i'm less concerned with the question of conclusions or not. i'm sure director hen do remember son has -- does his own homework, as we like to think that we all do, but i would imagine -- i would hope that there's no data that is available to i.a.d. that is not available to d.p.a. hirs >> president hirsch: thank you. any other public comment? okay. public comment is closed, so we're waiting for a vote then. can you restate the motion? >> clerk: yes. on the motion to accept the m.o.u. with the amendment to strike the second paragraph in section 4-a-6 -- [roll call] >> vice president taylor: i think we need to have i.a.d.s

conclusion. [roll call] >> clerk: the motion fails, 3-3. >> president hirsch: okay. so i'd like to -- then, i'm going to remove the remainder -- i don't want to have a motion should we adopt it as it is and have that deadlock. let's go and do our homework so we know what we're dealing with. next item. [inaudible] >> president hirsch: yeah, we're getting there. >> clerk: you want to take d.g.o. 2.04? you put the whole thing over. >> president hirsch: i'd like to put the whole thing over because they're so

interrelated. >> clerk: before we move on, we need public comment on this item. >> president hirsch: which item is that? >> clerk: item four. >> president hirsch: didn't we just have that. >> clerk: that was public comment? hirs >> president hirsch: we just had that. >> clerk: on the whole item. got it. >> president hirsch: the whole item? [inaudible] >> president hirsch: 2.04, yes. did you not understand that you were able to talk about 2.04? that's what we were talking about? [inaudible] >> president hirsch: you have something else to talk about on 2.04. >> very much -- brad edwards on 2.04. as you mentioned, governmental agencies previously, they weren't able to file a complaint with d.p.a. i'm curious about when -- that was at o.c.c. or was that more recently? i recall you had brian stansbury who arrested a public

defender. he's now the director of the san francisco retirement system. was this an incident he did not face anything for that, and i'd like to hear any comments you might have. >> president hirsch: okay. thank you. any other public comment on 2.04? all right. hearing none, next item. >> clerk: this is item five, discussion and possible objection sunshine task force order of determination issued june 2, 2018 in sunshine task force case number 17131, discussion and possible action. >> president hirsch: okay. i think that commissioner dejesus ask that this be put on the agenda. >> commissioner dejesus: i did. so you know, it was good to read the file again. i think -- and i hope -- i mean, i certainly hope everyone read it. but -- i'm assuming everybody read it. but you know, this is -- the brown act is really important. if you read it, it says the people of the state did not

yield their sovereignty to the agencies who serve them. the people insist on remaining informed so they may retain control over the instruments they have created. and so november 3, we were here to decide whether or not we were going to add tasers to the use of force policy, and there was a disruption, and there was two things that were done. i went back and looked at it, and commissioner turman, first, he terminated the meeting and then he said it was at recess. and then, we were moved -- as you all know who were here, we were moved. you abo but i wanted you to know we were moved surreptitiously. we were moved through the mayor's office and to get on an elevator. we actually hid from the crowd and went surreptitiously up to the fourth floor.

and i was in a cast, and i had difficulty, and i remember how difficult that was. i said it in a statement, you request read it in here, and i -- you can read it in here, and i said it was surreptitious at that time. during the meeting, some people were able to come and sit, some weren't able to come and sit. so when the couple couldn't come, i went outside, and i was able to see that the building was closed. i went down stairs to the front door, and i saw that the sheriff's said it was ten minutes, it was 15 minutes. it was longer than that, and it was people who were just coming through the meeting, and they were yelling at me through the door. i was telling the sheriff, you have to let them in. there's a public meeting going on. it was kind of a -- it was kind of chaotic. now, i'm -- i'm bringing this

up not to chastise any individual commissioner, but we have to be transparent. if we made an error, we have to fix that error. if we violated the sunshine ordinance task force, if we violated the brown act, we need to fix that. we need to be transparent. whether we knowingly or unknowingly do that, we need -- it's our responsibility to really review and understand the task force. and whether we think we violated it or not, the task force said we violated it, three separate sections. and the most people one was statements in it, people who were turned away and left. there were people who were tenacious, and people who were turned away and left. when i read this, i was just as

disturbed then. i also want to point out that since we vote it had in -- i forgot their name -- tasers were -- axion, they've put in new rules, and one of them is not to shoot at mentally impaired individuals. they' they've clarified that, and they had four deaths in the south bay where four mentally impaired individuals were shot with taser's and died. axiom came, and they sowed doubt in the public's mind by saying well, maybe it wasn't our fault, and now, we have four people dead. i think we need to retake this vote. i think we need to be transparent, and i think we need to do it right. >> president hirsch: commissioner, i want to be clear, we're talking today just

about the sunshine ordinance task force letter. >> commissioner dejesus: right. i'm not saying we should take a vote tonight, i'm saying we should fix this letter. >> president hirsch: commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: i want to thank commissioner hirsch for putting this on the agenda. i do agree with commissioner dejesus when challenges are brought to things that we have done, our procedures, our policies, that we face them in a public forum, and i think that's our duty and our responsibility as commissioners. you know, i've read the materials produced by the sunshine ordinance task force. i was not present, and, you know, i understand for the people who were present across the board, it was a difficult, emotional, and challenging night. and i've also read the commission's -- or at least

sergeant kilshaw's response, you know, identifying what i think is -- what i think is, to me, the compelling information that kind of guides my view of this, which is i don't think there was any intent upon any of the commissioners, the police commission, to hold a meeting in secret. [inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: i understand. however, i do think that through the actions of people outside of this body, we did violate the sunshine ordinance, and i think the task force's findings. that doesn't mean -- i know

some people really want this to be a time where we're going to recall a vote of tasers. that doesn't mean that that's the conclusion, and there's no -- or at least i haven't been presented with any authority that we're obligated to, even if everybody up here agrees with me, that's not how the ordinance and the task force works. i will echo commissioner dejesus dejesus' concerns, which are that tasers are a lethal weapon. we all understand that. we have learned, you know, since the policy passed since the initial vote that we've discussed tonight, that they're

a deadly weapon, and they -- when they're used on people, especially people in crisis or mental -- going through mental health crises, that they can be deadly. and as we've discussed on this commission at length, there's, you know, a lot of challenges in this city with mentally -- mental health crisis incidents. and so as a commission, just like with any other policy, procedure, action, i think the consideration of tasers, just like any other policy, is always open for consideration. but this -- it doesn't fall as a requirement of this, and i'm not going to vote tonight to support that. but i do think that it's -- it's -- because of the unique

danger that tasers pose to our citizens, we do have a continuing obligation to continue to investigate to make sure that they're safe before we implement it here. but as far as tonight, i do agree that we -- we -- we -- even though i wasn't here, i think we made some mistakes. but what i'm taking away is that's lessons learned, and we move away from this point and try to ensure that this doesn't happen again. i think that the confidence of this city, confidence of the people is dependent on following the sunshine act. >> president hirsch: thank you. i want to address this letter because i was one of the commissioners there at that time. i was one of the three who was still here. commissioner mazzucco is not here tonight, but commissioner

dejesus and i were there. the meeting was called by commissioner turman to take place down stairs in room 250. he wanted to accommodate as many people as possible, and he wanted it in that room. if you go back and watch the meeting, for the first two, 2.5 hours, there were subject matter presentations, and then, we started with public comment. and public comment went on for quite a while, and it was disrupted. and it got to the point where the commission could not function, couldn't talk. we recognized -- the public has a right to engage in civil diso disobedience. we have a right to meet and transact the business of the commission, which is what we did. commissioner turman called a recess, and we all retreated. there were 25 of us back in a very small room behind room

250, and we were there, under the custody of the sheriff's. the sheriff's office, the sheriff's department is responsible for security in this building. they told us we should not leave that room. they didn't feel it was safe. i don't know if that's right or not. nobody challenged it. that was their recommendation to us. [inaudible] >> president hirsch: no, i'm sorry. i want no outbursts here. you'll have your chance. we stayed back there for over an hour. there was no discussion of business. now, there's an allegation that the police commission had discussion during the recess. i don't know where that comes from. we did not discuss anything back there that had to do with our business. i sat next to president turman for more than an hour. we hardy spoke, but at one point, i asked him, what do you want to do, julius? he said i want to have the

vote, and i'm going to get the public to speak. i respected him for that. he had every right to go home and not have the meeting, but he didn't do that. he let the public speak. we were told we could access this room, and so we went through a side corridors to get up here, and a notice was put on the door at room 250. and two sheriffs were stationed outside the door, and they were directing people up to room 400. the notice said we are now meeting in room 400. i've been told since that the sheriff's office also escorted a large number of members of the public up to room 400, and i believe that because they ultimately were there, and if you watch the video, you'll see there were two -- two hours of testimony that were given by both public members and experts. the task force criticized the

commission, and i guess turman for not allowing people to speak. he had every right to shut the meeting down, and he did his best to let as many people as possible to speak. he limited it to two minutes. there was no discrimination among the public. the invited speakers who were subject matter experts are entitled to speak longer. that's set forth in the charter. the public was limited to two minutes. he had a right to do that. the sunshine ordinance task force was incorrect in finding people were not allowed to speak for the time allotted. we were not allowed to speak. we didn't know the front doors of the building were shut. that was not a decision made by the commission. it was a decision made by the sheriff's for security reason, but the task force cannot pin that on the commission. we don't make decisions about security. in fact, the chief of police was in the back room behind

room 250, along with his staff, command staff, along with d.p.a., city attorney, commissioners, our staff. the sheriff told us when it was safe to leave and go. they were in charge of the building. if the task force has an issue with the door being locked, they should take it up with the sheriff. you cannot pin it on the commission. we finally did have our discussion. it lasted for about two hours. we finally did have a vote. we had the vote, we were detained after the vote. we all had to be escorted to our cars, we were told. it was not safe for us to go outside to our cars. i don't know if that's true or not. i didn't ask the sheriff, how do you know that? are you sure about that? i let them govern security. the fine issue i have with this is -- the final issue i have with this is, it has two dates on this. it says date issues, june 6, 2018, order of determination, july 18, 2018. i don't know which date is

right. but let's say it was issued on june 6. that was almost three weeks after turman passed away. president turman never saw this, never had a chance to respond to it. never had a chance to give us the benefit of his thinking as to why he decided to conduct the meeting he did. and if you want to talk about fairness in government, i really question why an event that happened in early november 2017 didn't result in a letter until june 6, 2018, three weeks after julius turman died. i think he did a good job under the circumstances, and he received guidance all along from the city attorney who was advising him legally what he could do and couldn't do. i just think the sunshine commission, if they have issues with what happened, they ought to talk to people who were in charge of security in the building. i didn't think the security was unsafe or unreasonable, but if they do, they should address it to them. yes, commissioner dejesus?

>> commissioner dejesus: so look, i don't want to get defensive or anything. i don't want to pin this on commissioner turman. we act as a body, and let's just take it down a moment. instead of pointing a finger at the sunshine task force, all they had was testimony from people who said they tried to come in and were turned away and never had an opportunity to come in and others who were finally able to get in after a fight. but the errors do not reflect on a particular commissioner, the error reflects on the commission as a whole. you never left the room, i did. and everyone in line said we didn't know where you went. and when they found out where you went, they were sending texts to people still down stairs, to room 400. i did not see the sheriff's escorting people come up. and i did go down stairs and saw some people locked up outside. some people were calling to me because they knew who i was. it was two different groups. you should understand.

one group was getting food. food wasn't allowed in, i get that. even though people were outside eating, i get that. on the other hand, there were people just trying to get to the meeting that can't get to come in. let's just take a breath and be transparent. if we made a mistake, we made a mistake. if we knew it was closed or not knowing it was closed, i knew it was closed because i saw it. with the combination of the sheriff locking the things -- locking the doors with the combination of surreptitiously -- and you can't say it wasn't surreptitious because it was. we just can't say we can't create an error, we did. the sunshine task force is a city agency, and they're there to make sure the brown act -- let's go back to the brown act. it's not an individual task force member, it's a brown act. there's a california attorney

general opinion that meetings cannot be semi closed, and that's the problem. it was semi closed. such that certain members of the public are allowed to attend while certain members are excluded. because of the attitude of the thing, because of certain people, yeah, that's happened. they can't reverse our teeth, and make us reverse our vote, but if you want to own up to what happened that night, we should correct it. there's no one saying we did it on purpose or did it anyone, julius did make a mistake, it was this commission that acted as a whole. >> president hirsch: commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: for me, it was that people were turned away, denied access, and there was a violation. that's sort of what's important to me, in that people whether denied access, and that's sort of my issue.

whether whose fault it was and who wants to point the finger is irrelevant. what's important is a violation occurred and people weren't given access to talk about this important issue. >> president hirsch: okay. thank you. yes, commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. and i don't -- i should know this, but i don't know what the form, the acknowledgements of this would take. and perhaps commissioner dejesus does. you know, i don't think the will exists to go back to the vote, but i think, you know, we as a commission can acknowledge that -- and again, i don't think -- just to be clear, nobody on this commission, the -- you know -- and i want to acknowledge the public comment that's to come, but i -- i don't see anything indicating that there was any actions by this -- by the commission where intent was shown. but the effect was the same,

and so i would like to acknowledge that, you know, to the degree that people were shut out or not given access in violation of the code, we should acknowledge that. >> president hirsch: commissioner dejesus? >> president hirsch: >> commissioner dejesus: it is on for an action item. i would move that we accept the findings of the sunshine task force, and we retake the vote on tasers. [inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: i mean, i would vote for the second part -- [inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: i mean, the first part. >> president hirsch: are you folks negotiating up here? >> commissioner dejesus: i'm making a motion. i'm making a motion that we agree to retake the vote on tasers. >> president hirsch: is there a second? all right. it dies for lack of a second. anything else? if you don't want to speak,

please remove your name. >> commissioner dejesus: then i make the motion that we at least accept the findings of the sunshine task force, and that we resolve to do better in the future and really hold ourselves accountable to the public and be transparent in everything we do hi. >> president hirsch: is there a second? >> commissioner elias: second. >> president hirsch: all right. public comment. and this is on the motion to accept -- can you state the -- all right. the whole issue. >> clerk: can i have them say it again? it's really unclear. >> president hirsch: well, let's just identify the motion so we all know what we're talking about. what is the motion? >> clerk: the motion is to accept the findings of the sunshine ordinance sask force and resolve to do -- task force and resolve to do better in the future, to -- i'm sorry, something about the public. to keep the public informed. >> commissioner dejesus: yeah, to comply -- comply with the

brown act and be transparent and keep the public informed. >> vice president taylor: can we say that we agree with it? >> commissioner dejesus: i tried. i didn't get a second. >> vice president taylor: does accepting mean that we agree with it or we just accept it? >> clerk: motion to accept the findings and comply with the brown act. >> president hirsch: okay. so now, we can have public comment. >> commissioner dejesus: the other one didn't get a second, so it's gone. >> brad edwards, excelsior. i'm a little shocked to find that commissioner hirsch rejects the finding of the sunshine ordinance task force. i further believe that while yes, there are temporal issues with any action or complaint, either it's within the statute or it's not, and that's then

perhaps not germane, but what might be is the letter, and that turman no longer being with us, to me, that's more evidence you don't have the availability of his input and that's more reason to retake the vote. for me, the most important thing, i think, is to note that commissioner dejesus is a profile in courage if i've ever seen one, and i'm very appreciative of her. [applause] >> and i have a copy for sergeant kilshaw for the body of the minutes. >> president hirsch: thank you. next speaker. >> oh, wrong one. >> hello. my name is dale again. yeah, i would ask that you not only accept the findings of the sunshine task force but that you retake the vote. i don't find the transparency if the vote is illegal that you still count it any way.

i find it really disparaging given that i was there that night, and we didn't know where the meeting was being held. people had to be locked out of the front door. people had to be begged to be let back in to the sheriff's. i'm sure there would be a lot more people here right now if they actually knew what the implications of this vote would be. so i would please ask to respect the findings of the task force, not only that, but respect that true transparency means that it means you violated the meaning of having a meeting, then the vote shouldn't count? if it doesn't count, you can just vote for everything behind a closed door, and say oh, okay, it's -- i'm sorry. it's just so baffling to me, being completely honest. commissioner hirsch, i sat in a room with you, and you did

actually listen to the community. and then, when you left that day, you were escorted by the sheriff's, but everybody that left left in shame because there were hundreds of people in that hallway, and they were screaming that you didn't make this fucking vote, because a fucking corporation is trying to make money off of murdering people. we've seen that in the bay area. we've seen that worldwide. i'm sorry. this is just ridiculous. >> president hirsch: thank you. next speaker. >> hi. my name's victoria, and i was also there that night of the vote and was also forced out of the room with hundreds of people out in the hall. we were all told we would have the opportunity to make comment. really, we were just held in a line, and so the effects of not only not following the brown act but also not being able to actually listen to public comment when that vote was made, i think that the only remedy here for this commission's failure to follow the brown act would actually be

to do a revote because your intent i think is regardless that the actual process and procedure is against the sovereignty of the people of san francisco. also, i think it's cowardly to ignore that months after this. no on h happened, and over 60% of san francisco voters voted against a p.o.a. initiative that would let the police pretty much have full range on tasers. i think that mr. hamasaki's take that there isn't the spirit for a revote is ignorant, especially considering the no on h vote, especially this commission did not pass the brown act, and i am sure the legislative intent of the brown act was for moments exactly like this, where people who have the ability to make decisions for

the public feel pressure and perhaps want to step on the public's access and right to be able to say what we know, what we think because of our lived experience. so i think that just deciding to accept the findings and try harder ignores 60% of voters who voted no on h because they wanted to vote no on tasers, and ignores the fact that this commission completely stomped over our access to decision making in san francisco. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. next speaker. yes, sir. >> my comments this evening are in honor of marselle tony, murdered by