san francisco charge at trans community. i have held a number of positions, but i wanted to talk today in favor of san francisco being able to take this step in supporting transpacific housing -- trans- specific housing. for years, i was a case manager in 850 bryant for the incarcerated trans women and gender nonconforming individuals in my experience of working with incarcerated trans individuals, the rate of trans women in jail who have been homeless within six months of them being in jail was 100%, literally every trans women and gender nonconforming individual that i worked with prior to being incarcerated experienced homelessness in the city. i think that we need to look at the ways in which these issues are intersecting.

the city was wonderful enough to fund our reentry efforts for trans individuals, and i want to say that as a part of that, i really important complement to this effort is to be able to put trans women, trans people in general in housing so that they don't continue this cycle of feeling like they need to do other things to survive out of desperation. i would ask that the city continues to support our community and continues to step in in this crisis and address trans homelessness here, because it is a dire, dire issue for our community and for the safety, well-being of trans people. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, and thank you for having me here. my name is jm and i'm here representing the trans advisory committee for the oci as well as

merchant health services primary care clinic in san francisco. we have over 60 5% of our patient population identifies as transgender nonconforming, and i'm here to support our trans home s.f. as well. i'm sure you all understand the housing first model of healthcare. what we've seen from the preliminary data presented today around sogi is that queer and trans people are much more likely to engage in programs that are specifically targeted towards our population, and the reason for that is that over 70% of trans people actually report that they are harassed, assaulted, kicked out of shelters that are just geared towards a general population, so that's why we really need to have something specific to our community. we know that when trans people are housed, they're more likely to be able to obtain and maintain employment, that is less likely to engage in survival sex work and drug trade , less likely to be incarcerated, less likely to

have harassment and violence enacted against them and become a statistic when it comes to being a victim of homicide and crimes against us. especially trans women of color, specifically black trans women. they're much more highly impacted than any other sector of our community. once we have a stable home, we know that our health disparities will be addressed as well. were much less likely to contract h.i.v., become addicts, attempt suicide, all those different things. we also know that accessing gender forming surgeries has come leaps and bounds over the past decade in san francisco, with that still remains inaccessible to people who are homeless, and that is actually unequal care. our homeless population -- >> thank you. if there's anyone else from the public would like to speak on this item, please feel free to

get in line. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jordan davis, speaking for myself. for identification purposes only , i serve as one of the tenant reps on the single tenant occupancy time force. i support the ask, and of course, which is providing rental subsidy, supported individuals at risk of losing their housing, increase trans and gender nonconforming inclusion and safety, and establishing dedicated housing programs. let me tell you about my personal story. i came here late 2014, homeless. i almost lost an eye on the street due to trans folks basically punched me at 3:00 a.m. i got into the first navigation center and it wasn't all roses because i had to deal with sexual harassment from a fellow bangui, and of course, i got into a t.h.c. building, but there was a lot of problems, too , and this really goes to a

lot of what i talk about. first i had to deal with someone who posted no fat gets or chinese on their door, and it was very freaking jarring, and there is no cultural competency among the staffers. another thing i've had to deal with is common restrooms being engendered even though they were single occupancy, which led to me actually having to get legislation out, but i was proud of that, and that was one of my proud moments, but that isn't enough. and to add more, if you are actually trans and you are seeking surgery, you actually need to not only be housed, but you also have to have a private bathroom, because of surgery aftercare needs and that is why i support this type of program because i will say this is a tenant rep on the task force, is that we don't do well in s.r.o.s and it will not be conducive to

our health needs. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. disabled, queer, transgender male speaking for myself. i came to san francisco from texas, seeking mental health services and transgender services. i spent a year homeless, and i tried to access the shelters, ended up staying about two weeks in the shelters, but when i got there, the staff, i was bullied the actual social staff for being transgender, and then while i was there, i was molested twice by other people staying in the shelter. i gave up on the shelters, spent about a year homeless in san francisco, finally got into an s.r.o., which was wonderful, way better than being homeless, but s.r.o.s -- i want to echo we need the private bathrooms. we had a share back to shared

bathroom. i was followed into the bathroom by the janitorial staff and he attempted to assault me there, too. i was living in a very trans phobic neighborhood and was stabbed. i was a centimetre -- i'm alive because the knife missed me by a centimetre, you missed my brainstem by centimetre. i finally -- it has been about -- it has been a ten year journey, and i just finally got my own private bathroom. i have been going through surgeries and all sorts of stuff , and it's dangerous for us to have our own private bathroom and dangerous to not have safe housing for us to live in, not just for our transitions, but also for our daily lives, because it is not a matter of if we are going to be assaulted, if we are going to be a harassed, but it is more, how many times does it happen to each of us? >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i'm just representing -- 92.5 %, i'm working on older statistics, please correct me if i am wrong. we think about children and think it's important to create stable environments for them, with 30% of homeless people lgbt pick that suggest they they're not found mason's we do not produce children, we do not pay off with intentions to do so but in rare cases. perhaps there are some lgbt people that count as families, and i believe that is a crucial statistic to survey. i believe we can suppose family funding is not in effect. so why don't we get 35% of the funding if we are 35% of the homeless population? if the supposition is correct, then 92-point 5% of the homeless prevention and housing many goes towards families than it is fair to say the city is guilty of institutional discrimination. it happens -- the unique

cultures in the bay area are something to preserve. we need the funding for the three cultural districts that are specifically for the acquisition of property. property acquisition is the only solution i know that we can hypothecate onto resist the violent kind of gentrification, that reduces displacement, homelessness and cultural erasure. if we have property, we can have memberships -- this will allow us to maintain sanctuaries that would in turn help preserve to better our communities addressing homelessness and inequity. [indiscernible]. >> any solution to the problem of lgbt housing that does not support the acquisition of property does not build equity for the property. [indiscernible] these are good solutions to protect properly -- people from becoming homeless. there are ten prefixes to put money in the hands of whoever

owns the property and they do not build a community. i think we should be real when it comes to funding. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, board of supervisors. i serve on the youth commission as a district eight representative. how much longer do we need to wait for transpacific housing services? everybody deserves a home. how can we live our best authentic selves when we don't have a safe place to sleep at night. san francisco needs to put money where its values are in support the teachings. i urge you all to support our coalition. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is austin. i am a member of the a.p.i. equality in northern california. we support our trance home s.f. coalition and their campaign ask today is the national out giving

day for lgbtq organizations, every day is giving back to our community. rent subsidies are showing us through your caring and gofundme that is a problem. when every paycheque goes to a community member who is disabled and possibly living in a home full of malt, that is a problem. so with our trans home s.f., we are creating the solutions so you all can better take care of the needs of san francisco trans folks. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i just wanted to highlight briefly something that scott weiner said at the beginning that when you do this type of ordinance, it is not enough to get the votes to get it past. you have to follow up. so i think that is completely true, and i was sort of surprised by the general feeling

of the department presentations were they said, well, we're not quite there, were not quite compliant, we are working on this computer system, but we will get there and get back to next year and do a little better i just sort of wonder, like, is there a point soon where the attitude from the board of supervisors will switch from okay, we're glad you're working on it, keep going, to, hey, you are not complying. this is the law now, how will we make this happen? because this data is important, not because of the data itself, but because it is going to drive change and drive us to fix all the problems that everybody has been talking about. i guess that is my question. when is this going to switch from an informational thing to, okay, we will hold you accountable, we need to fix this , we need to have this data. if it doesn't look good, that obviously me to fix that, too. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is monique, i have been an activist for 42 years. i live in district eight. i'm on the task force for the commission of aging and adult services. i do support our trans home, but i'm here for open house, open house has been wonderful for me, and it got me out of isolation, and loneliness, and it is nice to be an organization where they cater to the lgbtq i., i like to include intersex, because they understand, i don't have to keep this thing myself. i was homeless not very long ago , and it was the foundation helping me and i would still be homeless. i was in domestic violence, i

went to a shelter, because i was too masculine, the women did not want me around, and then they didn't -- i didn't feel safe being among men, so i was living on the street for a long time. if it wasn't for the help of my friends who make sure that i have a place to sleep at night, and then i was let into my apartment. the cue foundation has helped me a lot, and a lot of organizations that are specifically for lgbt such as open house. i'm grateful for open house because i have a place to go where i can be myself. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public wishing to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i wanted to thank all the community members for coming out and sharing your experiences and your perspectives on the really

urgent, unmet needs for the lgbtq i. community and especially the trans community. thank you so much. supervisor mandelman? >> i will be brief. i want to thank the departments for the presentations today, and for moving forward on this mandate. this is actually a legally required mandate and we said we are supposed to be -- everyone is submitting reports back in 2018, so we are a little bit catching up, but i definitely want to appreciate the office of transgender initiatives for taking this on and playing a coordinating role in getting all of the departments moving on this. thank you for that. in particular, i want to thank the amazing nonprofits and community advocates who have come out today and made their voices heard, particularly our trans home s.f. for your

comments today. i think the path forward here is another report. it will come out after this fiscal year, and i imagine that in 6-8 months we will be back for an update on what we learn from that report, and where we are and how the data has improved, and what more information we have, and then in terms of the particular, some of the particular issues that have been raised today, we had a hearing yesterday at budget around homelessness and affordable housing, and in some ways, this is a nice complement to that because it really highlights and underscores that for particular parts, particular communities and particularly trans folks, if we are not providing support on the path out of homelessness, and then particularly -- particular

housing that is appropriate, that we will not be meeting the needs of those folks. i think that is the ask from our trans home s.f., and i think, i'm hopeful that the mayor and the board will be grappling with that in coming up with something productive in the next couple of months. thanks, everyone. my request for this hearing is that it would be filed. >> thank you. supervisor mandelman, colleagues , are there any other comments or questions? great. can be filed this item without objection? thank you. i wanted to note for the record that we are joined by supervisor fewer replacing supervisor peskin as a voting member of the committee per memo from board president yee. thank you, supervisor fewer. mr. clark, please call item number 4. >> agenda item number 4 is an organism ending the building code to waive specified fees for 100% affordable housing projects

and accessory dwelling unit projects were in approximately one year pilot program, and affirming the appropriate findings. >> thank you. supervisor brown? >> thank you. this legislation before you today is a new one, a one-year pilot to waive dvi, department of building inspection fees for 100% affordable housing and accessory dwelling units projects. the specific fees to be waived are building inspection fees excluding electrical and plumbing fees, plan review fees, records retention fees and site surcharge fees. this legislation gives renters more housing and more choices. we know we need for housing choices, especially more affordable housing, giving folks more choices who live and work in our city makes it easier for them to stay in our city and

district. i personally don't want people in my district to have to move out of my district or the city defined appropriate housing. we need this for working people, for people getting back on their feet, for young people just starting out, for our going families, our multiple generation families, and for our seniors who maybe ready to downsize, but want to stay in their neighborhoods close to family and friends. 100% affordable housing projects are absolutely essential to ensure san francisco remains a city of san franciscans of all incomes, not just the rich. by lowering costs and streamlining the process, this legislation supports the construction of these important projects. they are simple, creative, and cost-effective solutions for expanding our housing supply, especially for studios and one bedrooms that are more

affordable by design. a.d. use have been found to be good matches for the housing units -- housing needs and preferences for single households, which make up a significant and growing percentage of all san francisco households. nearly 40% today, and an even higher percentage of households in my district, district five that are san franciscans of all ages. we hope and expect the fee waived well make a real difference for small property owners who typically personally financed the cost of a.d.u. construction. we are asking them to help us build the housing we need in san francisco. according to d.b.i., for a typical a.d.u. project, the average dollar value of these fees is 3,200. that is not a lot of money to a developer, but it can be significant for every day san francisco homeowners. for affordable housing projects,

fee average -- fees average around hundred 50,000 for new construction and 15,000 for small site and small observation projects. this pilot will limit the overall effects of the legislation and will allow us to better assess the impacts of the fee waiver program, including increases in a.d. use and affordable housing construction and the actual revenue reduction of dvi. i'm excited about unlocking this potential and looking forward to continuing work with supervisor mar and all of my colleagues on the board and city department staff to encourage more housing to help build new affordable housing. and the department of building inspection i think is still here if you have any questions. >> thank you supervisor brown. does dvi -- do you want to speak to this legislation? >> i only have a question -- only if there's a question, i'm happy to respond. >> thanks for being here.

i don't have a question but i want to make a comment. thank you so much to supervisor brown for you and your staff on your leadership on this legislation. i'm really glad to cosponsor it, and as a legislation currently standing, i do fully support the fee waiver for 100% affordable housing projects. we need to do everything we can to remove barriers to affordable housing development. regarding the fee waiver, i would like to see the reporting requirements strengthened, while accessory dwelling units are often touted as quote naturally affordable, we know this is not always the case in san francisco , especially in our hot housing market that we have been in. as the latest housing balance report from the planning department highlighted, we are meeting and exceeding our market rate housing production goals, but we remain far, far off from our housing production goals are moderate,," and very low-income households.

if the city is offering a new financial subsidies such as fee waivers to expand housing development, i believe the subsidies should really support our affordable housing development goals. i am currently working with the city attorney's office to drop some amendments to this legislation to expand the reporting requirements for a.d. use, and d.b. i would have to -- would be required to comply with that. what i'm looking at is i would like dvi to report on the portability level that are granted the fee waivers. additionally, i would like dvi to report whether they are built in single-family homes or multi- units, and how long the applicant has owned the property also, is the applicant an individual or a corporation, or a business, and do they have other permit applications or multiple -- our own multiple properties in the city?

and also do they intend to live on the property themselves? and also do they intend to rent the a.d.u.? what i'm trying to get out as i want to understand that if we are subsidizing private developers, or are we subsidizing private developers, conservative speculators to build market rate a.d.u. or are we helping individuals stay in their homes and provide housing for their family members? are especially or especially are we creating rental units for members of our community that are affordable? so i don't know if you would like to speak to that, whether these additional reporting requirements would be possible. >> well, we would certainly make every effort to collect what we can. we may have to be working with other city agencies for some of that data, but, yes, of course, we would be happy to follow up on that. >> great.

thank you. well, you know, with the amendments -- they amendments that i have been working on and i have been in communication with supervisor brown's office and d.b.i., they're not ready to be introduced today, but i do support moving this legislation forward in a timely matter, especially with the urgency on supporting affordable housing development in the city. so i would support moving this forward with a positive recommendation out of committee today, and i could bring forward the amendments, you know, at the full board when it comes up for a first boat. >> yes, a chair mar, thank you, i am in agreement with chair mar i think it is really important when we're doing this kind of legislation where we are waiving fees and especially for affordable housing, and to see if we are going to increase our affordable housing, that we should definitely have the data to make sure that we are doing the right thing, and then also,

later on, if we need to amend it in anyway, we know how to do that. i am in full support of these amendments. thank you. >> great, thank you supervisor brown. colleagues, or supervisor fewer, any comments? why don't we go to public comments. are there any members of the public would wish to testify on this item? >> one of the things that you failed to realize each and every time you negotiate a deal like this, like you claim, 100% affordable housing. s.f. viewer, please. when you place 100% affordable housing on the income scale, 100% affordable housing at the medium is $82,900. so when you say it low income and affordable housing and you make the requirement to be a tenant in a building that you just completed building with a market rate developer, and you

sets that requirement at $82,900 , that means every income bracket that is below that income bracket is not being included in the inclusionary ordinance, and you violate due process and equal protection under the law pertaining equal opportunity housing. you have been doing it for years and i'm real upset about it because you discriminate against the people who are homeless on the street, but you sit up here and act like you want to help them. this is discriminatory practice that constantly provides housing for high income bracket people and not the very low and low income bracket people. you claim a federal tax credit pertaining to low income, and then when you go through the process and build the building and start accepting applications , the only people that can apply his people in

high income brackets. that is called price-fixing and price gouging. it is a violation of the penal code law. you could be put in a county jail for that because we have emergency housing, and emergency shortages of housing situation on our hands. you meet the requirement to be prosecuted on that. you are running a racket it is called racketeering and i'm tired of it. you sit up there and act like you're helping people but you are not. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to testify on this item? >> hello. i'm all for targeting fee waivers, however, given the duro fists support of s.b. 50 of the majority of the board members, it might be prudent to review 2016's progress regarding the conversion where there has been political resistance towards

housing construction and housing information. you might tend to building inspection at existing unpermitted and law units. some of the city's neighborhood homes are densely concentrated, but not all the property owners live in the city. you might want to engage in community outreach efforts, perhaps running eight page adds in local papers, and hold a brief lecture held at the department of building inspection regarding the permit -- permitting process and inspections that might go a long way towards preventing yourselves from being raked over the coals through the press and in the event of a householder and neighborhood fire. i hope you do everything in your power to prevent the possibility of such ever occurring to begin with. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed.

colleagues, can we recommend this item to the full board without objection. great. mr. clerk, please call item five . >> a hearing on the police department and general orders governing the public release of private information. >> thank you. i would like to recognize supervisor fewer who has joined us -- who has joined the committee for this item and has called for the hearing. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, everyone. thank you for your patience. i know it has been a long meeting today. i first want to welcome and thank must ago adopt sheet for joining us today. the week following the death of jeff adachi and the subsequent league to police report to the press, i call for this hearing on the policies and protocols within the san francisco police department governing the public release of private citizen information particularly during an active investigation. i was outraged by the inappropriate nature of the leak

and extremely concerned about whether laws are broken in the process of the leak. the issue is, at its core, about violation of public trust in our police department. in addition to the leak, police support following the public defender's death, there was a high-profile issue in january od employee publicly presented an individual's rap sheet as -- at a community forum for purely political purposes. this former sfpd employee should never have access to these records to begin with, and certainly this records should not be on public display for political reasons. it is reported this action was in violation of state law. i understand that it is not ordinary for anyone to have immediate access to police reports. i have actually heard that it can take a significant and sometimes frustrating amount of time to gain access to police reports from the public defender

's office, district attorney's office and even within the department. there are protections around privacy for a death case, sexual assault, or a case where there is a need to protect the victim, and for a death case, there is a significant restriction on who has access while the case is still under investigation. it is only the inspector who has access. even uniform officers cannot access this info. it was shocking with the ease and speed with which this police report about an active death case was released to the press. today i have asked the police department to present at this committee to address the following questions. what are the departmental general orders governing the release of private information? who has access to sensitive private information? what is the protocol for what information can be made public and by whom? what is the accountability mechanism within a department if staff were found to release private information in violation of departmental general orders

or in violation of state law? and how is a san francisco police department ensuring that improper conduct with regard to the release of private information is prevented in the future? this is about whether members of the public contrast that they and their left ones are not being exposed to unwarranted invasion of privacy or confidential information, whether as a subset, a victim, or informant, and that we ensure that nobody is above the law. today we have captain barconi to present to us today. rejoined also by supervisor ronen. thank you. >> do you want me on this one? >> that is the san francisco government and you may speak in any microphone. >> okay. good afternoon, supervisors. i am from the san francisco

police department's investigation bureau. i'm here representing chief scott as a command staff member, and i will be able to answer any questions you have after. as you mentioned, supervisor fewer, the acting captain is a captain in charge of a risk-management division and he will give you a presentation on many of the questions that you posed a minute ago, and then we will take any questions after. >> thank you very much. thank you, commander. >> good afternoon, members of the board. i am the acting captain for the risk management division of the san francisco police department, and i will present a powerpoint that will go over the general outline of the policies, hopefully it answers many of your questions. to start, i would like to address the san francisco administrative code that talks about private information.

the code says private information shall mean any information that could be used identify an individual including without limitation name, address , social security number, medical information, financial information, date and location of birth, and names of relatives , basically that this ordinance forbids the disclosing of. the ordinance, whoever gives an exception for much of this information as it relates to law enforcement, as there are state and federal laws that direct the department to provide some of these things. so in talking about information typically released by the police department, obviously copies of police reports that are requested by members of the public, victims, and media. the sfpd media release to the

public regarding investigations can be limited based on certain factors. we also are responsible for releasing mugshots as well. the procedure for releasing police reports is covered -- the easiest access to police reports is through the sfpd website, and the gov qa system which blogs these releases, creates a reference number, and a history of the release. police reports are released under department general order 3.16, and just to discuss and make sure we are all aware of what the department general order is, this is the most authoritative and permanent

directive established revised and adopted by the police commission after public hearing for the overall administration and management of the department , and the general conduct of members. the policy is to release copies of police reports upon request unless that release would endanger citizens, law enforcement personnel, and law enforcement investigation. here are some examples of how the department may deny disclosure of some of this information. it is a list that is dictated by administrative codes and the california government code as it relates to the california public records relief act. that is section 6254 of the government code. i can go over these real quickly

endanger the safety of persons involved in an investigation, endanger law enforcement personnel, endanger the successful completion of an investigation, reveal secret investigative techniques or procedures, reveal information regarding the identity of competent -- confidential informants, reveal the name of any victim of sexual assault to specifically request nondisclosure, reveals medical or other information constituting an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and reveals a name or address of any person detained to do too well for an institution code 5150 which is a site called -- which is a psychological hold. these are the conditions we must ally the release -- denied the release of information. this is juvenile suspect, arrested or detained or any information that might lead to the identity of the juvenile, vehicle collision reports involving death or personal injury, and exceptions have to do with insurance companies, the

victim's insurance companies, primarily, any report regarding child abuse or any report regarding assault or abused conduct made confidential and in these penal code sections, and the address of any victim of sexual assault. this is a list of the things that must be released under 6254 of the government code. i can go over this as well. let's see. individual arrested including the name, address, occupation and physical description, facts surrounding the arrest including but not limited to time and date of arrest, and booking location of arrest, the amount of bail, location of arrestee or time and manner of release, charges brought including outstanding warrants and parole information holds, time, substance and location of all complaints or requests for assistance, and

time and nature of responses thereto including where an incident report has been made, the time and date of location and occurrence, and the time and date of report, factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, general description of any inquiries and property and weapons involved. okay so i think we are getting more towards the nuts and bolts of your inquiry as to who can authorize a release of a report, and i will tell you that i formerly was an investigator with the homicide detail, and these are important issues, especially as it relates to homicide investigations, so the assigned investigator in charge of the unit that is charged with investigating the crime, the record management section officer in charge if the case was not assigned, so in other words, if it was not assigned to an investigative bureau, the

media and public information officer, but again, after consultation with the assigned investigator, and the department of operation center after consultation with the assigned investigator. so really, the driver of the release of a police report, of a case that is under investigation will be the lead investigator. this is a bulletin, this is a synopsis of a bulletin regarding specifically homicide investigations. here is the synopsis of this. officers, and this is officers as in patrol officers, not the person assigned to the case generally, will provide the type of investigation being conducted , and the general location of the incident. any other information regarding the open homicide investigation shall not be released to the public or media without

expressed approval of, and then this is a list of people who can give that approval. i will go over it real quick. chief of police, assistant chief of operations, deputy chief of the field operations bureau, commander of investigations, captain of major crimes or the officer in charge of the homicide detail. in this slide, i want to talk a little bit about -- about the release of mugshots. 6254 describes what law enforcement agencies shall make available to the public, and again, the overriding concern here is if it compromises an investigation, that would be the police department's shield if they did not want to provide some of this information, otherwise the government code expressly encourages law enforcement to provide this information. i will read that to you quickly. state and local law enforcement

agencies shall make public the full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual charge of physical description, including color bias and hair, sex, wait mac, height, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of arrest, the circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail said, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds. the california attorney general provided an opinion in 2003 which describes the law-enforcement ability to release mugshots in that the information to be released should be so specific in describing the person in a mug shot falls under the date of birth, color of hair, height and

pound mac. the attorney general's opinion is the police department may release mugshots. the san francisco police department does not restrict the release of arrest photos to the public unless that release would compromise the investigation or prosecution. a lot of times example of that would be i.d. pending. if there's witnesses that need to identify a person as part of a case, that mugshots is often withheld. this is a list of general orders , department orders, department bulletins, penal code sections that all give the officers guidance in what can and cannot be released to the public. so here is, again, a synopsis of what the department, how the

department sees discipline as it relates to some of these issues with releasing information, and these are some of the ones that we generally look at. the department general order is the general rules of conduct, and in there it is described that a member shall obey all written orders, policies and procedures of the department and probably obey all lawful, written, or verbal directives of superiors. the san francisco disciplinary penalty and referral guidelines for sworn members describes these violations may be classed a violations which is the most serious violation of misconduct. as it relates to these topics, we have conduct, it constitutes a felony in the release of collected information, which is one of our databases of law enforcement, and then unauthorized use and dissemination of confidential

information as it relates to this, that could be collected information that could be other confidential information as it relates to an investigation, and serious violations that bring discredit upon the department, a penalty for a first offensive any of these types of misconduct could be suspension or up to termination. that concludes the presentation of the department. >> inc. you very much, captain. supervisor ronen has just joined us. she has some comments. >> i have questions, actually. thank you so much. i'm sorry i am only able to be here for ten minutes. is expecting this hearing to go a bit earlier, and i -- i have a conflict. we are not in budget.

>> yeah, yeah. >> what supervisor fewer mentioned in the first place, the impetus for this hearing were at least two incidences, one very high-profile that really disturbed all of on the board of supervisors was the immediate release of information that was potentially misleading, inflammatory, et cetera, that appeared to be in political retribution for the work of our late public defender, jeff adachi. so what have you done, what has the police department done since the release of that information, and has anybody been disciplined so far for that release. >> i can answer that question. my division that i oversee

includes the administrative and criminal investigations in the department for internal misconduct and internal criminal activity. so that case is currently, actively under investigation in our criminal investigations division. >> okay. , so you can't speak to it. >> no, it is a current and ongoing investigation. >> so you won't discuss any details about whether that was proper or not proper? >> i will say that the reason it is under investigation is because it is believed to be not proper or potentially improper, but is under investigation, so can't provide any conclusions to that at this point. >> okay. >> because we can't have detailed discussion about that particular case, i just want to make clear to you today, and two commanders and to the chief of

police, is that when there are these politically motivated attacks on individuals, whether it is a public defender, our city and county, the elected public defender, or a member of our community, it is absolutely a road -- erodes the public charge of trust in the police department to be objective, in your ability to serve the community in a way that we can all rely on and depend on. as we are undergoing tremendous police reform with hundreds of recommendations from the department of justice about how we have a system in need of reform, this type of activity moves us backwards. we are having hearing after hearing of the board of supervisors to go over those 272 recommendations and progress reports, in looking at charts, where you save her age recommendation where you are, if

you were blue, red, yellow, green, all of that is meaningless, and we might as well just throw that in the trash if when our community's hearts are broken, when jeff adachi's widow is grieving, when his staff is hoping and unclear about the future of their work and their lives, to have that type of maligning going on of a public official in san francisco is disgusting, and we want answers. we want a full investigation and we want accountability. i don't know when you will be able to talk about the investigation and the outcome, but if you could give us a sense of the timeline so we know and we can have a conversation about this? >> i absolutely understand your concern, and i understand where

it is coming from completely. i want to tell you personally that i have been overseeing the investigation. i have 20 years of investigative experience through robbery, major crimes, special investigations, homicide, i run investigative unit at bayview station, i've run investigative unit in internal affairs and internal affairs criminal. i absolutely understand importance of a thorough investigation, and i want to let you know that we are working tirelessly on this case. it is a priority case and in our unit. [please stand by]

>> the criminal investigation, depending on the outcome, it certainly has the potential to be made public. >> supervisor ronen: okay. so what would you not be able to release? >> what types of offenses? >> supervisor ronen: that's right. >> well, 1421, if it's an administrative case, it covers officer-involved shootings, which this isn't, in-custody deaths, and use of force with great bodily injury, which this isn't. it does cover related sexual assault, which this isn't, and it may cover dishonesty. if dishonesty becomes a factor in this investigation, it will be something that could be made public. >> supervisor ronen: and this is something we should know if you meet your goals within a few weeks. >> hopefully. >> supervisor ronen: either way, i know that you are

investigating this, but i believe that miss adachi and the public defender's office deserves an apology from the san francisco police department. this has caused incredible heart break and hardship for the family, and i don't know that that apology has been issued so far, but if not, it's expected, and it's expected so that we can begin to restore some trust that you're not going to target individuals whether, you know, they're adversaries in individual cases or they're accused of a crime that you just don't like, but that the release of information, this should be a professional department, should not be used as a way to harm anyone. and you certainly don't have my confidence that the department is able to not use information like this in a retaliatory way

at this point. >> supervisor ronen, commander greg mc eachern. when we have information like this that's released, whether it's a police report or some other information, we have the protocols in place and policies to investigate it. often, it's an individual that makes a choice on your own to decide that. but what's key as you said, we are going through a lot of changes in this department and reforms, trying to bridge the gaps in the communities that we have. when incidents like this happen, it undermines the trust that we have been working very hard over the last few years. i spoke to the chief about it kbr yesterday, and wanted to relay to you that we understand it.

most of all, in this instance here, while we harm the community, there's a definite harm to the family of mr. adachi, to his wife, to his loved ones that had a report that was released within hours that it was completed. so on behalf of chief scott and the department, we apologize, i apologize. regardless of what happened, they deserve an apology, and i'm offering that today. >> supervisor ronen: thank you very much. i appreciate that. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so i have some questions about the january 2018 incident where a retired police inspector who at the time worked for the police union used a rap sheet as a political prop. i'd like to call up someone who was at that meeting and share with us what he witnessed

there. >> thank you, supervisor. i should clarify, i'm retired from the aclu working on police issues many, many years. i'm just speaking for myself. let me just clarify, they cannot release on the administrative investigation the name of the officer. they can tell you if that investigation is over and whether or not it was sustained and whether or not there will be discipline. this is not a situation where the officer or officers', plural name, is known. you have a right to know, the public has a right to know when this investigation is over. the captain is correct that sometimes investigations are complicated. the incident that i observed is very simple. the facts are not in dispute. there was an event at the lgbt community center. i'm a district eight resident. i suspected this wasn't about public safety, it was politics.

i showed up, and sure enough, it was a p.o.a., talking about why they didn't like the d.a., why prop eight should have been adopted, to get rid of regulations on tasers, why they needed more officers. it was a political meeting, and at the beginning of this meeting, they had taped to the front wall an old-style printout, if you can imagine the school paper, not sheet by sheet printer, but like a scroll came down the wall and down out into the aisle, about 15 or 20 feet long. during the hearing, they represented that as a particular individual's rap sheet information. and they were saying look, this guy hasn't had any consequences. it was a political prop. it was january 2018, so 15, 18 months ago. this was a front page article in the chronicle where they

admitted they did this. there was a person talking about this who had no right to this information, bragged in the newspaper -- this was a quote from gary delanis, we will continue to use these records until someone tells us not to. my question is, has anyone told them not to? i was contacted by internal affairs perhaps six months after this incident, and i'm like why am i just hearing about this now? there's no dispute about the facts. they're bragging about it in the newspaper, and the investigator didn't want to answer that question, but ultimately, you can have very good rules -- right, so the law and criminal history information is members of the public don't have access to it. and if it is going to be used, it has to be used for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. politics is not a legitimate law enforcement purpose. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. crew.

>> thank you. i don't know if you wanted that information now, but thank you for holding this hearing. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. so commander and captain, i understand that we are not disputing the facts that this happened. i think there was an eyewitness there. i think the chronicle also mentioned it in their paper. i also understand this is against state law which bans the unlawful furnishing of state criminal record summary information. the only people allowed to see these records are law enforcement workers and people with special authorization from a court. the person who provided it to be charged with a misdemeanor. under state law, this retired police inspector should not have access to these records, is that correct? >> i'll go ahead and answer that. a criminal record