fire. good to get a report on that to see where we are and what the status is. >> okay. we'll do that in a meeting in may, not next week, though. >> okay. thank you. ready for the next item. >> the public is now invited to comment on line items 2a through 2d. >> any public comment on the items we have discussed so far? good evening. >> my name is magic altman. i didn't hear anything in the chief's report about the case of true love. jamal true love an aspiring actor and hip-hop artist spent more than eight years behind bars after being sentenced to life in prison. how come parole officers frame an individual, send him to prison for eight years for a murder he did not commit? that cost the city over $10 million, and they get off scot-free. how can they be retired without

facing discipline in connection with to this case? what is the chief and the police commission doing about this so it can never happen again? why are there no consequences and the people foot the bill? where is the outrage in this commission? why do officers continue to commit crimes that deeply affect people's lives profoundly and who have been retired to be taken care of the rest of their lives? true love was in prison hundred of miles from his family. he was stabbed while in prison. it could have been life. but he had lawyers and the legal support he needed. did i miss something? because how could this happen? you talk about crimes and these four officers committed crimes. no consequences. retired. we're paying for them. this is happening nationwide. police departments all over are having officers break the law and the city pays for the lawsuits and no criminal actions

happen. i find this deeply disturbing. luckily this guy got off after eight years. most don't. i would like someone to tell me what's going to be done about this. >> thank you. any other public comment? commissioner brookter. public comment is closed. awe>> commissioner: sorry about that. i put in a call to the commission office to ask for a flier to be made for the community meetings. i was aware when we have the community meetings that we don't send it out to the public outside of it being on the agenda. i had a conversation with the commission staff to see if that is something that we could do to create a template so that we're having community meetings, it should be in my eyes as we have community engagement events. >> we used to send them out. i don't know why we don't now. >> i wanted to note that because i almost forgot. >> did you get -- were you well received or get pushback?

>> an it was well received, but i wanted it on record to get follow-up before next week's meeting. >> thank you. >> commissioner: one of the things i remember is we were supposed to give community addresses to be added to an email address to get a hit from it. blast it. >> a good idea. >> commissioner: the next item. >> line item 3, discussion and possible action to i a prove issuance of department bulletin 19-072 seniority stripes which modifies department general order 10.01 uniform and equipment. this department bulletin is a reissue of db17-076 which expired on march 30, 2019. >> president hirsch, commissioner, director henderson, assistant director this, department bulletin was issued to amend the uniform general order and which this bulletin did is allowed for

service for members who had outside law enforcement experience to include that in the seniority stripes on their uniforms. it used to be exclusive to police department experience. but we also now include other outside law enforcement since we are bringing in lateral officers and we wanted to i a lou them the opportunity to -- allow them the opportunity to use the seniority stripes which are the hash marks going up the sleeves that indicate the level of law enforcement. >> and you're asking for a motion to i a prove this. >> correct. >> do i have a motion? and a second? any questions or comments from the commissioners? i think we need public comment. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and we'll call for a vote please. >> vote on whether to approve the issuance of department bulletin 19-072. all in favor? opposed?

vote passes unanimously. >> thank you. thank you, chief. next item. >> line item 4, discussion and possible action to approve draft of revised department general order 10.08. electronic resources. for purposes of engaging in the meet and confer process with the police officers association, as required by law, discussion and possible action. >> good evening. >> good evening, commissioners. again, assistant chief hector here. and commissioners, what you see here is an updated department general orreder that basically has contemporary language and was submitted by r.t. and en-- that was designed by i.t. that encompasses bulletins on the email use and mobile data devices which include cell phones, on our other accessories and u.s.b. and gives instructions to officers how to utilize them and who to go to in

i.t., what the restrictions and prohibitions are. giving warnings when you log into the computer screens and what is allowed and what is not aloud. some are d.o.j. and the audits of the emails and the recommendation is that members are aware no expectation of product privacy and know that any such type of bias-related conduct is prohibited by this order and that they're subject to discipline. and as well as other issues with regards to public records on personal devices. this is an update of various bulletins in this updated d.g.o. >> the recommendation is that the commission adopt this and move it forward. >> thank you. we have some commissioners with

comments or kwigs. commissioner dejesus. >> commissioner: i have a recollection when the text messages came out that we need to put something in place for electronic resources. and chief sir brought to us. is this a revision of the one that chief sir brought to us off the text messages came out? >> that was a department bulletin, commissioner, and a month and a half ago, that was put before you to continue that policy in place. once this is adopted, that department bulletin will be rescinded and this will become the policy. >> commissioner: that was the difference, it was a bulletin. and this is hard to follow and majorly redacted -- not redacted, but edited. i didn't have time to go through 13 pages of edits. we have pages and pages in a row of edits. i am wondering if you can just tell me, the parts that you crossed out -- >> there should be two general orders in the packet. one is the -- >> right. i am looking at 10.08. is that the right one?

right. and the bottom of page one. it starts crossing out and it continues through page two and continues into page three. and it's a little bit later on we have -- go to page seven, and there is page -- mine is backwards. this is page 12. why is that? i am missing page eight. >> the numbering is off on the bottom. >> i got that. >> from 7 to 12. and anyway, heavily deleted and i just wondering in a nutshell if you could tell us what that was about. >> updating it to contemporary i.t. language. this was, i think, last updated back in 1996, if i remember correctly. and so as you can see, it was computers and peripherals and now we call it electronic resources. and the i.t. wanted to include a bunch of the other technologies that have come along since the

d.g.o. was done. >> i am glad you pointed out and i don't know what page it is now but the privacy photograph. i don't recall seeing the privacy paragraph before. when i read that, it was pretty draconian. and i might have to talk to the city attorney because as commissioners, we are civilian employees of the police department. and we do use -- we do have an email address and use electronic communications with the city attorney's office. so this says -- and i know on page 7 it talks about certain exclusions and not exclusions but certain cpra exemptions for the disclosure of certain type of records. and i had to hesitate when it says if you believe it's privilege and put it on this communication from the city government and waive that privilege, and it just tells me that i just wondered, does that mean i can't talk to the city attorney through the emails? it's something and i am raising

because we're going to adopt this tonight and i am worried about the consequences. >> is that a question? >> from the city attorney? >> i don't know if he worked with the city attorney on this. and something the d.o.j. recommended and did you run it by anyone in terms of how it might affect this commission and even the chief dealing with the city attorney? if he is using governmental email or text messages. >> i have personally communicated with the city attorney's office, and that is attorney-client privilege communication. so any request that is made is all vetted through the city attorney's office to determine what is releasable and what we can withhold. >> so i can be a request and the city attorney would go through and see. do we need to have a disclaimer on all of the emails when we deal with the city attorney? it is not on our sfgov and i have it on my office one as if disclaimer, but i don't have it on my emails out of sf govf i am making any sense.

do i need a disclaimer or how will you know it's attorney-client privilege? >> not entirely sure i understand the question, but if the question is the communications between the city southeastern's office and the -- the city attorney's office and xhij commissioner, that is attorney-client privilege. generally speaking, every email that i have seen including myself does have the communication on the bottom that says that this is attorney-client privilege. it is intended only for the recipient. >> if it comes from the city attorney. >> if we respond back as well. any time there is a public records request, my experience has been that the commission office as well as the department will look to see who the sender and receiver is. and if there is privilege communications, like attorney-client privilege, that information will not be turned over in the public record requirements. >> all right. the way it's worded, though, it's pretty broad. it says including attorney-client privilege, member waives whatever rights the member may have to assert such confidentiality or closures

and it is so broad that even if you put it to the attorney client privilege, it could have waived here. there is no expectation and privacy and the communication of the conversation. so i don't know. maybe you want to look at that paragraph. i am wondering if it is too broad. >> and specifically and the attorney-client privilege. >> i have it highlighted if you want to see. i will show you where it is. >> on the unredacted. >> the unredacted, it's page three. an explicit waiver of attorney-client privilege.

generally. >> i'm happy to revise that language, but the principles are if you provide privileged information to the outside entity that is not part of the city family, you waive that privilege. and the other principle would be that if -- if an attorney-client privilege communication is provided to the commissioner, and in that information is shared with another commissioner, that privilege still stays and is maintained there. any communications that we may have with the contractor that is still privilege. there is a lot of parameters and i can see revising it could be

clearer. and i am happy to -- >> such an explicit waiver. i'm not comfortable with it. >> i want to clarify the d.g.o. doesn't apply to the commission. even though the rule may be the same or similar, we're not bound by the language in the d.g.o. as commissioners. >> a correct, but the basic principles are the same which apply to the commission, so if you use any non-city issue electronic devices and the purpose of it is for sending and receiving and doing commission business, then those communications are captured by the california public records act. and we would look at them to see if there was any exemptions or exceptions that would apply and provide them accordingly to the public. >> one other question i have before i turn it over to another commissioner, my understanding is that the commission holds the privilege and that no individual commissioner actually has the the authority to waiver the privilege on behalf of the commission, is that correct? >> depending on the

communication. as city officials. and each individual commissioner may ask the city attorney's office for advice and we may provide it. if we provide attorney-client communication memo or whatever it may be to the whole commission, the commission as a whole has to waive forecast privilege. >> to one commissioner, that commissioner has the ability to waive. >> that is correct. we strongly advise against that, but yes. >> u a commissioner hamasaki? >> thank you. two items. and again, i apologize because this is kind of long revision to this. where in this is addressed the member's use of personal cell phone devices while on duty? >> an it's page -- should be

page 6, personal electronic devices. >> okay. i am looking in the revised. >> the problem is we don't have a full set. i don't have a page six. it's page 12. >> and is right after that one. >> and i go to 12, too. and all the even ones are numbered 12. >> a maybe we should pass this and have you look at the language and correct the page numbers. >> and except if there is a question now that can be answered, let's deal with that. >> okay. so i apologize. maybe looking at the at the document without highlighting the redactions and whatnot, it is item -- so item d. is public records on personal electronic

devices. and where some of the problematic conduct that occurred was occurring on personal electronic devices. and on and off duty and in what way does this regulate the use of personal electronic devices on duty? >> this addresses personal electronic devices and interacting the network or electronic devices and i think with the question you are asking is if the member is engaging in personal business on duty, which could include using the personal device to engage in communications that not necessarilies by related is violation of personal rules of conduct. d.g.o. >> 2.01. >> okay.

that's answers the first question. the second question, under the city department emails, it's under section l on page 7 of the unhighlighted, red lined version. and i see the references to sunshine act and required disclosure. and what is and might have missed this the requirement for maintenance of basically communications that may be records case specific? say a member gets an email from a crime victim about a case. is there a requirement they maintain that for a certain period of time?

or how is that -- how do we make sure we're not losing track of evidence? or potential everyday? >> the commission has a record retention policy that is pound -- that bind the department to comply with that record retention policy. so there are -- there's a document that is in the process of being revised, is my understanding from the department, but there is an existing policy that was approved by the commission that speaks to the record retention of documents receive bid the department. >> commissioner: okay. that is a different -- another general order? >> it was passed by the commission. i would have to look back if it was actually the d.g.o. >> i was going to add if there is an concern that the email gets deleted, the department still has the ability to retrieve that email. and even if it gets deleted and

if often times we get records request that we are ordered to retain and once we get that request, we have to abide by it. i don't know if that is the concern. >> commissioner: and in that -- that is not assuming any improper conduct, but just for the purpose of maintenance of records for civil and criminal cases that sounds loik that lives and as i learning that is often the case that certain information related to a policy may exist in a different policy. so what you are with the requirements for retention of the email records. >> it's not the email system itself but that is just the delivery method. it is really the content. so what is being sent in the attachment. the record retention policy and the attachments and the content inside the email itself, that is

what triggers the record retention. sometimes if you can imagine everyone is email if it say, hello, just give me a call at a certain time, there is no content or substantive reason why anybody needs to keep that email. so under our record retention policy, which is also governed by the edmond code, that sets forth the city policy for record retention. a contract, for instance, we have an obligation to retain those and prescribed under the record retention policy. in terms of i want to make sure we're cloer that there is different laws that govern if we are anticipating litigation. that is a different set of body of law that would require us to retain documents and preserve evidence, so that's different and that is separate. i want to make sure that is clear. those would be triggered because of and civil procedure, what we need to comply with in court and

the subpoena or something similar to that. there are different moving parts but we have a record retention policy that is separate and apart, and the department is revising that to incorporate newer documents that the department comes into contact with and that would apply to the department and the commission. >> commissioner: okay. great. >> commissioner: can i ask that you distribute that, even the one that is revised now, the existing one, can you get that to all the commissioners so we at least can see? >> absolutely. >> commissioner: thank you. commissioner elias. >> i think our concern is addressing personal cell phones by officers for inappropriate purposes given the recent events that have sort of plagued the police department. i guess my question is, with respect to section d., how will you flag or monitor the use of personal cell phones and being

subject to p.r.a. request? i know there is a d.g.o. that is reviewing and flags emails and cell phones and buzz words and they find inappropriate. but what system is in place for the personal cell phones of officers when they use them? >> there is none. the officers have the right to privacy like any other citizen and their subject to probable cause for the authoring and approval of a search warrant if there was a crime, but beyond that, we cannot search officers' personal cell phones without a search warrant. >> commissioner: how do we flag and monitor the personal cell phones and can expose them to a p.r.a. request. how do we flag and monitor that? meaning if someone gives a p.r.a. request, what does the

officer do, to officer x, have you used your phone for business purposes? what is the procedure for that? >> if there was a communication we can establish came from the officer's phone t request would be made for them to provide those communications if there is a p.r.a. request >> commissioner: i think they can make a p.r.a. request in general that doesn't need to be based on them actually having it, right? >> commissioner: they can request the documents related to and referenced to and reply on those individuals to be forthcoming, don't me? >> correct. it is a complicated question. it is a complicated question, but we have to because we can't invade privacy of personal devices. we have to rely on officers to be forthcoming unless there is a document or something or everyday that indicates that a personal device is used.

we have been advised by the city attorney and given training on this very issue. we're hoping everybody is aware and the policy points it out that the purpose is the policy points it out where everybody understands that their personal cell phone if used for business purposes, that information can bed in and p.r.a. and they have to give it. >> the second part of that is also that they are prohibited from using personal devices on duty and even if they were to use it, and it would be a violation if getting to the question of use were improper communications or whatnot. >> commissioner: if we are redoing the language on one of the sections, maybe language added into d. since it seems

ambiguous. >> i am not entirely sure that i understand what revisions you're asking for. >> just how we're going to monitor d., and oh, we're going to ask the officer first and based on the honor system, and sort of spelled out in the d.g.o. of the monitor. >> protocol. procedure. i do think it's important given the recent events and things at the commission with the use of personal cell phones by officers. >> an i think we can take the

suggestions and -- >> we will hear from you in a couple of weeks. >> you understand what the commission is asking for. >> yes. i wrote down some notes and if there is additional concerns, i ask that you email them to me. >> commissioner: and it sound like the last issue with the protocol and the department is going to use when they is requesting an officer to provide something from his or her personal phone. what do we do this n that case? okay. thank you. we will table this matter for now. thank you, chief. next item. >> we actually have to have public comment. >> okay. public comment on that item. >> i didn't realize it could be on the agenda. i just like to clarify something. commissioner brookter, before the meeting you offered to giver

me your private email because you don't use the government's email. but i am confused about that. so it seems to me since i communicated to you through the government, and you got one email, what email is the public going to get if they want to communicate with you? and if they think they can get it to the government email, and you don't read that, we're not going to be able to get in touch with you. are you giving your private email to the commission to know that is what they give out because this is not okay, and i am concerned you wouldn't use the government email for government business. it seems maybe you should do that. >> commissioner: thank you. >> do you want to give out your cell phone, too? >> so the commissioners know, we have the same risk that any officer engaging in business on our private devices and a request comes in, we will have an obligation to search the revices and possibly turnover

information. i use only the government email for government business. that is the next item. >> line item 5, general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commission regarding items that don't appear on the agenda and are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners. neither police d.p.a. personnel or commissioners are required to respond, but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and d.p.a. personnel should refrain from entering debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. >> feel free to respond briefly. i want to first thank commissioner elias for coming to the juvenile hall rally.

personally i believe in resortive justice and not in prisons of any kind. so this rumor that tasers might be brought online, just wondering. as far as i know, it is not budgeted yet. over hundreds of people at that meeting for that vote and we want to know if anything is going to happen. people are covering so many issues on planet rt that we need to have notice about something like this. so i understand also from commissioner brookter that you have the information of the sunshine task force decision the other day, yes? >> i don't know what you are talking about. >> i have seen it. >> okay. so -- >> let me tell you. okay. so on april 3, the sunshine task force made an unprecedented decision to call on the district attorney, the board of supervisors, and the ethics

commission to demand that the police commission comply with their finding that the vote to approve tasers was in violation of the brown act and the sunshine task force ordinance. so they are -- they would like some respect, and i think they deserve it after all this time. what i say about unprecedented, apparently they have not declared a vote illegal before. it's been more technicalities, so they don't do this lightly. and half of you did not think there was any reason to give respect and serioustons this decision. when a taser can kill people. remember, tasers are considered nonlethal and police departments don't record the death, but reuters, the news agency, and discovered over studying for months that there's been over 1,000 deaths from tasers.

my friend's son was killed by a taser. a young african-american was kill and four people in san mateo county in the last six months. they are reconsidering the use of tasers, so we don't want it snuck by. and now there is going to be serious action. serious action. remember, during this meeting when you all voted on this, no one said that the evidence wasn't true. in fact, commissioner hirsch, you said that it was the sheriff's fault they shutdown city hall. that is completely irrelevant. it doesn't matter who was responsible for city hall being shut downdown. by the way, we would like someone to reveal who gave that order which is still a secret. but the law is that you made a decision during a shutdown at city hall. that's a violation -- >> thank you. >> -- of the sunshine task force.

>> thank you. i will say that the commission at that time received advice from the city attorney's office that there was no violation of the brown act or the sunshine ordinance. any other public comment? >> did we get a letter or something? >> i would like to see this new -- >> i didn't say it was a letter. and the advice given --. >> the letter you referenceed? i didn't get a letter. >> i didn't get a copy this morning. >> i didn't receive it. >> we're not supposed to have a back and forth like this because it is not an agenda item. >> and ask the staff if there is a letter to see -- >> they are usually pretty good. >> did it come in the email today? >> an any other public comment? >> forward it to us. >> my other public comment? >> hearing none, public comment is closed. next item.

>> line item 6, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 8 below, closed session, including public comment on item 7, vote whether to hold item 8 in closed session. >> u an any public comment on items eight or seven? hearing none, comment is closed. >> a next item. >> vote on whether to hold item 8 in closed sepgs, san francisco administrative code 67.10, action. >> we have a motion. >> so moved. >> second? >> second. >> on the question? we'll have a vote. all in favor. opposed? motion passes unanimously. we are going into closed session.

>> yes. >> all right, commissioner hirsch. we are back on the record for open session. you still have a quorum. >> all right. next line item. >> line item 9, vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 8 held in closed session san francisco administrative code section 67.12, action. >> do we have a motion? >> motion. >> to not disclose. >> u a second. >> all in favor? opposed? that passes unanimously. next item, adjournment. >> action item, line item 10, adjournment. >> a motion? >> second? >> second. >> all in favor? opposed? we are adjourned. it passes unanimously.

my name is doctor ellen moffett, i am an assistant medical examiner for the city and county of san francisco. i perform autopsy, review medical records and write reports. also integrate other sorts of testing data to determine cause and manner of death. i have been here at this facility since i moved here in november, and previous to that at the old facility. i was worried when we moved here that because this building is so much larger that i wouldn't see people every day. i would miss my personal interactions with the other

employees, but that hasn't been the case. this building is very nice. we have lovely autopsy tables and i do get to go upstairs and down stairs several times a day to see everyone else i work with. we have a bond like any other group of employees that work for a specific agency in san francisco. we work closely on each case to determine the best cause of death, and we also interact with family members of the diseased. that brings us closer together also. >> i am an investigator two at the office of the chief until examiner in san francisco. as an investigator here i investigate all manners of death that come through our jurisdiction. i go to the field interview police officers, detectives, family members, physicians, anyone who might be involved with the death. additionally i take any property with the deceased individual and take care and custody of that.

i maintain the chain and custody for court purposes if that becomes an issue later and notify next of kin and make any additional follow up phone callsness with that particular death. i am dealing with people at the worst possible time in their lives delivering the worst news they could get. i work with the family to help them through the grieving process. >> i am ricky moore, a clerk at the san francisco medical examiner's office. i assist the pathology and toxicology and investigative team around work close with the families, loved ones and funeral establishment. >> i started at the old facility. the building was old, vintage. we had issues with plumbing and things like that. i had a tiny desk. i feet very happy to be here in

the new digs where i actually have room to do my work. >> i am sue pairing, the toxicologist supervisor. we test for alcohol, drugs and poisons and biological substances. i oversee all of the lab operations. the forensic operation here we perform the toxicology testing for the human performance and the case in the city of san francisco. we collect evidence at the scene. a woman was killed after a robbery homicide, and the dna collected from the zip ties she was bound with ended up being a cold hit to the suspect. that was the only investigative link collecting the scene to the suspect. it is nice to get the feedback. we do a lot of work and you don't hear the