i have not done the investigation, however, i have done numerous m.o.u. seeing a memorandum of understanding holds individuals accountable, that is what the document says. the question that i had was just towards the end of the document. it says the duration of this m.o.u. is for two years. >> that is correct. >> how long have we been working on this m.o.u.? >> since 2016. >> when was the last time we had an m.o.u. put in place? >> i think it was 2009 or 2010. it was nearly ten years ago. >> okay. i think it is really imperative we have a document that is put in place to hold people accountable. >> sure. >> thank you. just two follow-up things really quickly. i definite he have a kern just a concern that i.i.b. is in charge of investigating officers who violate the law. i think it puts them in a

peculiar position because not only are they warranted with a task of doing that, but they also have to rely on police officers for this type of investigation in order to investigate police officers, so i think it puts them in a very peculiar position, and then the other question i had was, was there any training on this m.o.u. with the police department or the d.a.'s office or -- i know there was a section about training and stuff, but i mean, is the police department being trained on this m.o.u. and how the investigation should go forward? >> that has occurred already, and will continue to occur with joint training between the district attorney's office and the police department. that has already started. >> that would have been nice to let us know so we can go and observe and, you know, some of these questions could probably have been answered there, you

know, and flushed out a little more. >> i certainly knew about that, i don't think that is a secret. >> i'm not sure we all knew about it. >> long before i was leadership. >> moving forward, we can notify the commission when future trainings occur. that process has already started yes, ma'am? >> i think that would be helpful for the entire commission. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. , chief, anything else? >> that is it for my portion of the report, next we have the presentation of the third and fourth quarter, 2018 findings and recommendations and o.i.s. recommendations. >> good evening. director henderson, chief scott, and members of the community.

my name is greg, i and the deputy tree -- chief of the bureau. i am presenting the firearm discharge review quarterly reports. i would like to start with the purpose of the firearms discharge review board for members of the public who may not be familiar with what that board does. it is a policy of the san francisco police department to review every incident in which a firearm is discharged, whether or not such discharge will result in injury or death. the firearm's discharge review board shall review every discharge of a firearm and the purpose of the review is to ensure that the department is continually reviewing its training policy and procedures in light of the circumstances that led to the firearms discharges by members, and to determine if the discharge was in policy. there was not a third quarter 2018 discharge review board meeting. there were no cases to be

presented, however, the fourth quarter 2018 discharge was convened on august 8th of 2018 where they reviewed four cases. on page 4 of the presentation, the officer involved shooting occurred november 11th, 2015, approximately 4:15 p.m. in the afternoon on the 3,000 block of cesar chavez street. officers responded to a construction sight mac of cesar chavez street. workers reported a man with two guns had made its way to the sixth floor of the site. upon the officer's revived -- of arrival, they snack up to get an eye on the suspect. they found the suspect holding a long gun. they were looking at potential targets, it was armed with a

long gun. they pose a deadly threat to themselves and the members of the community. three officers fired at the suspect, fatally striking him. after a review of the case in and the analysis of the case by internal affairs, a recommendation was put forth to the firearm review board that a piece of the firearm was seen policy. chief scott has concurred with the recommendation. on page 5, and officer involved shooting, which occurred october 14th, 2016 at approximately 8:00 p.m. at 28th street. two uniformed officers were assigned and were among the officers responding to the city regarding an officer shot in the

sunset district. the suspect was contained within the perimeter. the officers were on the edge of the perimeter when the suspect emerged from the nearby cover and opened fire. the officer returned fire and mortally wounded the suspect. the investigation and recommendation to the firearm reviewed board -- review board was that the use of the firearm was in policy, and it was forwarded to chief scott and he concurred. page 6, officer involved shooting, on may 3rd, 2017, approximately 11:22 a.m., on the 900 block of market. a bystander directed officers to a disturbance on the 900 block of market. the employee attempted to flee. the suspect was in close pursuit , steel wielding his knife. and officer fired at the suspect

, mortally wounding him. no one else was injured from the discharge. the internal affairs investigations conclusion in the recommendation was that the use of the firearm was in policy, and chief scott concurred with this. and the final incident being presented is on page 7, the officer involved shooting. may 21st, 2017, at approximately 10:56 p.m., they responded to a home invasion robbery by armed suspects. officers arrived and circled the perimeter and attempted to make contact with subjects in the residents. they ran out the black -- the back door and officers ordered them to stop. the suspect fired multiple rounds at officers. one officer -- when officers returned fire, no one else was hit, and the suspects escaped from the immediate area. the internal affairs

investigation was that the use of this discharge and the farm was in -- a firearm was in policy, and the chief has concurred with this recommendation. on page 8 of the summary, in custody death reviews, there were no investigations presented the status of open officer involved shooting investigations on page 11, there are four investigations presented. there is still seven that have active criminal investigations with the sfpd for the d.a.'s office. one has an open reticle examiner 's investigation. it does still need to be concluded, and then there are additionally three o.i.s. cases that are actively being investigated. page 12 gives a summary of previous cases, and that is it

for the third, apparently the fourth quarter, 2018, the firearms discharge review board. >> any questions from the commission? >> thank you for your report. i want to remind folks that we have talked in the past, and i want to make sure we continue the conversations about expanding the scope and the focus in terms of making it broader and more inclusive, and we move it forward. thank you though for the report. i wanted to flag that. >> members of the public might not know this. director henderson and i attend these meetings, but we don't have a vote, so i think director henderson may be getting to that >> i was. >> this is a good example.

the o.i.s. is four years old. the other one is three years old and the other two is two years old. and part of this community trust is to resolve these things. in policy, out of policy, no administrative hearings, whether they will be criminally prosecuted. i know we used to wait for the d.a., and the d.a. says they are not his priority. they said they are not his priority, and he'll get to them when they can. i just don't understand why, i thought we weren't going to wait for the d.a., we are going to move into a more consistent and more -- a quicker manner. those are the ones you just had. the oldest one is four years old at the very end, you still have the summary that there are still some that are quite old.

so you have four of them that are two years old. i don't understand what the holdup is. two or three years to investigate whether they are in policy or not? >> we are moving them faster. there was quite a backlog a couple of years ago. we also had a backlog. we are down to about seven cases now. we need to move them even faster , but we are much better than we were in years prior in terms of getting these forward, and you are correct that the commission has concurred we should not wait for the d.a. on these cases, and that is what we intend to do. >> i have to say, this is not the report i was given in my packet,. >> it wasn't. it was added today. we were given the first quarter of 2019 in the packet.

>> are you making the report for 2019? >> i was waiting for the fourth quarter. >> i thought you were done. i will ask questions about that one. >> okay. >> the 2019, first quarter of 2019 discharge review board met, however, both cases, -- it was presented to the review board, but then referred back to internal affairs with decisions for policy review, and they were presented to the discharge review board, though it was referred back to the fdrb for review by the field tactics force options unit. chief scott referred that one back to for further review, those investigations had not been presented and closed yet.

>> will you go on to talk about the example? >> sorry about that. >> the last one, it is still outstanding, or have they been referred back to internal affairs? >> they referred back to the division for the policy review and further by the field tax at the academy. >> let's take this -- let me call you? >> i guess my question is, in reading the report that was

provided, the first incident is from a 2016 o.i.s. that was referred back to them for clarification on the findings pertaining to the department bulletin regarding how to respond to mental health calls within armed setback. this is an incident from 2016, and it came before the board, and the recommendation is that we turn it back. what is the status of it now? my understanding is it was presented in march of this year to the board, and it was supposed to go back for a 30 day investigation and clarification. do we have that yet? >> i don't have that. >> i'm from the internal affairs division. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. the two cases have not been presented again in front of fdrb

they are still in the process. they returned, and others were returned to the academy. there are still further investigative steps that are being done at this time and will be presented to fdrb. >> okay. isn't the third one, also wasn't that referred to i.e.d. for 30 days as well? >> that will be presented in the next one. >> when will that be? >> it should be sometime in june we don't have an exact date right now. >> you were telling me that all three of these cases will have an update with respect to the status? >> yes. >> have you spoken about the other case? >> it is the last one.

>> do you know much about... >> our office and internal roof affairs hasn't received a report from the office yet. >> the officer was preparing for the range and discharged the firearm accidentally inside the station. >> that one, yes, that one is an oid. that one is complete, yes. >> and the results of that investigation are? >> that one should have been not in policy. >> okay. >> we're looking at a letter here.

>> there was no powerpoint on the first quarter 2019 report like you did for the 2019? >> the powerpoint will be presented after the cases have been completed to do the fdrb presentation. >> the two cases or the three cases that you just talked about >> let me show you the memo, because don't we have a copy of this memo? i have questions about the way it is written. i am just trying to make it clear for the commissioner. i don't think we are all on the same page. >> this is what we have provided there was a three-page letter

from chief scott and then a two-page summary of the first quarter fdrb session that occurred on march 26th, 2019, and it had four incidents. that is the 16001, and the 18001 where apparently they were referred back for 30 days for further investigation clarification we don't have status on those. and then the third one is an oid which is zero zero one, and that also was sent back for 30 days for clarification, and we don't have a status on that. you are saying that those three cases will be put into the powerpoint and presented after the next meeting? >> correct. there will be an update for the 2,192nd quarter with the status because they were sent back to internal affairs, and when was sent back to the academy. they need to be presented to the board again with updates of what

they ask for the cases to be investigated. >> my question is, then why are they saying that you send it back for 30 days for further investigation and clarification when it is obviously taking three months? this was in march and now you're saying it will be presented in june? >> there hasn't been an fdrb scheduled since march. they are in the process of getting scheduled. [please stand by]

. . . >> is that a typo? or is it the 4-1 and i am not sure which one. and it says 2018-001, but i

wasn't sure if that was accurate. >> is that below it? >> above it. >> so there it is. all right. that helps. all right. so i have sat on the discharge review board and the meetings go for three to four hours long and the files are thick and it takes a while to read them. we can't vote or anything and we sit as an observer and i think the d.p.a. sits as on observer and watch and sometimes we get asked questions, but for the most part it is an awkward position to be in, but knowing that and when i read this short review, i have no clue what is going on here. sitting here as a commissioner, i really need to know what is going on, and i say, well, you

know, we need further investigation. we need clarification whether this is in pom si or out of policy. -- in policy or out of policy for an armed suspect. it's just not enough. from needs to be more to get a handle. and there is one commissioner there, but we can't all talk to her. so in reading this today, i am not sure what it's not in policy and why is it going back? what part of the mental health aspect was in question in and also brings to mind that one that was sent back for 30 days and three years later is sent back for further review and whether it's in policy and

whether to comply with general order and it feels broken to get so something and it goes back and when you report, it is insufficient. i don't know what the issue is here and as a steward for the public, i feel uncomfortable with the reports. >> i take it you didn't have this memo and are not prepared to present on it. it looks in reading this that there are four cases on this memo and one of them is the conclusion to be found out of policy and the remaining three are in flux. i do want you to come back and present to us and if this is meant to be an interim report, fine. but i want to make sure that you come back and present to us as to the results of the three that are kind of still pending. >> yes, absolutely. >> thank you.

>> chief, anything else? >> we have the first quarter report. >> good evening, commissioners. good evening, chief scott, director henderson. i am taking over for early intervention and here to present your 2019 first quarter e.i.s. report. on page one of the report, it is an overview of the early intervention system and here are the performance indicators and all 10 indicators and when the officer hits the certain threshold to trigger an alert and the option to send it out to the tailgate to do an evaluation on that officer. after that if the sergeant determines there is a pattern of at-risk behavior, we can take action. even if the sergeant does not

observe any type of at-risk behavior, i can go ahead and overrule that sergeant if i see anything that may need to be addressed. after that, we can go into intervention. and so if we can move on to page two, at the request of the page two at the highlight of the request of the last time and e.i.s. alerts, fairg, we had 216. for this quarter we had 173 with a decrease at 19.1%. from last quarter of 2018 for the fourth quarter 2018, we had 193 and this quarter we had 173 for a decrease of 10.36%. from e.i.s. indicators, in 2016 we had 1107 and for indicators of 2019, we had 668 which is a decrease of 39.66%. i highlighted each individual year for 2016 to 2017 and saw a

decrease of 1.17 percent. 2018 to 2019 is 30.65%. we are constantly seeing a downward trend. for the use of force, we broke that down for you today. compared to other years in 2016, we had 952 points of a firearm and 297 without. taking into conversation from 2016 to 2019 and pointing the firearm with a 46% decrease in the use of force. and without pointing the firearm, a 2% increase.

page three with 69 officers with three or more use of force in a three-month period and we had three with six officers with three or more d.p.a. complaints within a six-month period. we had 33 officers within the six-month period and one officer with four d.p.a. complaints in a one-year period and 64 officers within 12 months. we had a total of 123 members with at least one alert. over on the next page, this is the intervention and we currently have five officers on intervention. two are for failing to appear in court and they are currently being mentored and ensure they do respond to court. three are in intervention and we have use of force training and we have mentoring and post

certified tactical communication training course. turning to page five, e.i.s. alerts by quarter. so we can see for 2019 we have 173 in the middle of the page with a chart and from the chart we can see the breakdown for the quarter reporting and first quarter of 2018, we had 216. second quarter, 200. and third quarter, 222. fourth quarter, 193. and we are currently at 173. we are seeing a downward trend in e.i.s. alerts. on the next page for e.i.s. alerts by station and 164 total e.i.s. alerts and mission station number one with 38 e.i.s. alerts and terraville with the fewest with two. >> and turning to the next page,

page seven, and e.i.s. alerts by unit. the units here, one unit in particular is community engagement division which is showing us three and like to eare mind the commission that the alerts follow the officer. they don't -- they are not necessarily obtained inside that unit and the officer may transfer from another station and follow that officer. and on page 8, we have a breakdown for you. these are the indicators. 668 indicators and we had 1,053. first quarter of 2018, we had 839. we have a breakdown for you in the chart. the chart down on the bottom and on the far right of the green, this is the lowest that we have had. and we are oen that downhill

spiral. page nine of first quarter indicators by year, again, 2016, 1107. 2017, 1094. 2018, 1053. and so far this year 668. turning over to the next page are the indicators by station and is up top with 95 and park station has the fewest numbers of indicators with 24 and total of 578 indicators. on the bottom of the page, the breakdown of the different type of indicators from either o.i.s., o.i.d., use of force, d.p.a. complaints and internal affairs and e. e.o. complaints. and all the way down to the collisions. page 11, this is the breakdown

of the use of force. and we had 514 applications on the first quarter of 2019 compared to the fourth quarter of 2018 with 635. and third quarter and second quarter, 601. and we can see a total of incidents of 248 which is the lowest in the reporting period by 406 members which is the lower number. and 289 subjects where force was used for the total of 514 applications. on the bottom left corner is the breakdown of applications for pointing and not pointing of the firearm. and on the final page, this is the type of force broken down. the application of force for 2019 on the third quarter, 211 pointing of the firearm and physical patrol was 162 and strikes by objects or fists were

91. impact weapons were 14. o.c. was 13. e.r.w. was 10. others were nine and spike strips were four for the total of 514. >> i have a couple of clarifying questions before we pass it on to commissioner elias. can you explain what the color coding on the first page means? that is the first question. >> can we get it up on the screen? >> perhaps if you could put it up on the screen. the first question is with respect to the color coating and then second clarifying questions and the e.i.s. alert and the indicator. i an am not sure that i understand. >> the performance indicators that you see in the green, use of force, d.p.a. complaint, and

civil suit, officer-involved shooting and officer-involved discharge and on-duty collision, e.e.o. complaints, internal affairs, tort claims and vehicle receipts, those are the indicators. those are the ones that make up the alert. so when an officer hits a certain threshold t alert will be generated and that is when we send out the alert to the sergeant on the street. >> is there any rhyme or reason to the different colors? >> to just help clarify. the performance indicators are different from the associated factors. and that is something to take into conversation. and we do take into conversation any type of excessive time off, any type of sick pay, and this way we can try to coordinate if there is anything going on with the officer for the overall picture of the officer's health.

>> commissioner elias. >> thank you so much for the report. it locks like you spent a lot of time crunching numbers and data and very impressed with the power point skills, but i am trying to figure out how those numbers fit into this z sort of flowchart. i am trying to figure out how many of those there were that went to review by the e.i.s. sergeant. how many cases were there? is it in any of the numbers that provideed? >> no, but i review. >> i reviewed all of them. 574. >> there are 574. and how many went to the closed section to the right after your review? >> that i don't have the number

for. >> do you have the number on how many that went through to the second stage. >> i don't. i will review the actual alert at the station if i feel -- if i can see there is no pattern, if we send out an alert previously, i can go ahead and close that in the office after my own personal review. if i feel that the street sergeant or the officer may benefit from a review with the street sergeant, i will send it out to the country sergeant and have him review the actual alert with the officer. >> it all goes through you and you are sort of the gate keeper, right? >> that is correct. >> i think it would be helpful for us to have the numbers of the e.i.s. and how many thatment coto you and then after you review them, how many go to the closed section and how many actually go to step two and/or step three all the way to intervention. i think that it's important to see that if we're starting off with 574, how many are we ending up with at the bottom where it says intervention. is it five? is it 10? is it 500?

i think we need to know what those numbers are so that we can get a better perspective of sort of this 'fro flowchart and we are taking intervention at the state level with the street sergeant to initiate this form of intervention and i think the numbers should be included to get a perspective because it is obvious that you took a lot of time and effort in creating the system and all the indicators and factors that are taken into conversation. so i think it would be helpful to have the numbers so that we can get a full picture of what is happening. and so that would be the first request. and then the other question i had is what is the success rate of the program. meaning we have the indicators and the factors and then

ultimately the goal is so that there is intervention and that it prevents sort of bad things, so what is the success of that >> we are about to close two of thecations. and we pretty much have completed the other two and waiting for a formality to kroez out the cases. hopefully by the next reporting period we can report that we possibly have maybe one intervention left. >> and the two that you are speaking of would be from the number of the 574 that you mentioned earlier or a number -- >> the number of the five, from the five officers that are on current intervention. and the intervention is the final f you move up the little flowchart a little bit, that is the final step, but again, that is why i want to know how many are coming in to you at the beginning with the 574 and if there are 574 that come in and five people on intervention and that is 500 plus in between and

we need a breakdown and where things are going why. and the other question is on page page 10 that is broken up by station and mission has the highest number of incidents and whoa is there a discrepancy and with the areas of the big geographical area and a lot of activity. and that might be an issue with the call volume and are one of the busier seasons.

and it follows the officer, not the station. and how many are from the actual station following the officer? or is it that i am assuming this may not be true, but is it officers that have these incidents go to mission station? >> i don't know. and i have been not kept track of this alerts and at that station by the time we generate that report. with the difference noted in these graphs and figure out if it is coming from mission station and following an officer. and the other question was, i see on page 12 the breakdown of the applications of force and

with the data you provided, it doesn't have the data on the racial breakdown of the incidents and application of force. i am assuming that data is there, is that right? >> i don't quite understand your question. >> on the applications of force in 2019 and with firearms and strike and physical impact. of those 211, of the 162, of the 91, how many are sort of african-american males and females? asian females? is there a racial composition. >> not on the e.i.s. report. we don't capture that information. we provide other reports that may have that information and

it's not included and from the commission. >> and university of chicago, have they given us the final report yet? and for 2019 alerts and one officer with four d.p.a. complaints within 12 months. and you have the little pie chart. 2019 alert. is that six officers with three d.p.a. complaints in six months? that is correct. so are those ones that are being counselled? or are those ones that you could not review.

that is one of the facts we look into. and regardless of a d.p.a. and resolution and that goes out to the street sergeant to review with the officer. and the results as well. the type of individuals and the sergeant and before you have 10 d.p.a. complaints and on page four, you talked about the open ones. and to communication to help

them speak and present themselves and with more retraining and that is part of the academy program. >> that is the name of it. tactical communication? >> yes. and how to comport with the public and moving forward? >> yes. >> we are eagerly awaiting that report. >> we are as well. >> thank you very much. having the benefit like commissioner de jesus of watching this problem evolve and with the university of chicago, with reference to the first quarter of alerts and it looks clear that these are the busier

stations based upon the number of officers assigned to the station and/or the calls and service and encountered with the public. this is a training station, a large district. it has the highest number of officers of any station. this follows a pattern. and also we have had reports with the number of officers that actually make it down to the intervention and i am going to call on the good sergeant here who actually used to do it. what was the usual number of interventions? after sifting through these when you were running this program, sergeant? >> are you talking about quarterly or yearly? >> let's do yearly. >> kind of they are minimal compared to the number of

alerts. and comes down to one or two interventions and commissioner de jesus, what does that mean? filtered or not taken care of? the explanation and automatically goes into the pool. and maybe sergeant youngblood can explain that, too f you don't mind. >> the o.i.s. and there is not the pattern of the behavior, but being in the o.i.s. and e.i.s. is there and to speak to the officer to ensure that they have been offered services with peer support, c.i.t., and that was basically what that alert is for. with the uses of force and that

triggers an alert. with the three uses of force. and that caused that alert. that is what's going over and each use of force report is with the sergeant with that area. >> and we hear 572 and filtered to two or three too be human. with the drug and alcohol issues. this is a great system and in the disciplinary process. with the lieutenants to collect

these things and sergeant so and so is not doing well. and welcome aboard. thanks, sergeant. >> and the commissioner asked about the success rate and a similar question and wondering how you measure success. you talked about the reduction and indicators from 2016 and 1094 and 1053 and this year 668 and classify success? and i am not sure what that means and how you are classifying of the measuring of success rate. with the report and i think the report is here to have the

numbers and percentages and i believe in 2016 we laid out the foundation of working e.i.s. differently and sergeant youngblood was part of the process. we are seeing the effects of it on a downward spiral and the effects hopefully as it will continue going down but to me that success as far as the program itself, as far as an individual officer, i don't know if we can measure success in that way as far as from this report. but as overall, i guess we can just kind of go with the numbers at this point. so great job. that is fantastic.

are more officers getting mental health? i am curious if you looked at that. >> 2016 was the year we instituted body cameras. 2016 is when sergeant youngblood instituted sergeants should go out and speak with the officers. that is something that wasn't really being done. that is something that other agencies and other e.i.s. programs, that is one of the recommendations from the d.o.j. when they did an evaluation of their e.i.s. program and something we did here as well. it is a combination of all those factors together that we're starting to see the reduction in the total numbers. >> great. >> just briefly, and is there contact with the university of chicago >> and we have contacted them

three weeks ago and calling them every week with no final report. >> and there are other things that are happening that aren't being counted as interventions, for instance. first quarter of 2018 there were over 100 -- so 99 counseling sessions done. 90 informal and 90 formal. and performance evaluation plans put in place. those type of things also add to the proornsd add value. in terms of what success looks like to us is when officers aren't involved in the incidents that either trigger an e.i.s. alert and we can reduce those incidents and that is a picture of success to me. and although, like i said t formal interventions are small, there are other things that the supervisors and commanding officers are doing to try to help that process along and the counseling is a big part of it

being it informal or formal to grip and talk to an officer about the issues that are at play. it does do a lot of good. i think that also helps to reduce these numbers over time. >> thank you. director henderson. >> i just want to say and i went to the last meeting where we talked about a lot of the shortcomings with the university of chicago. i would say i echo the frustrations in terms of the reliance on what they're going to give. i am not very optimistic that we're ever going to get something that will be productive to us and at this point i would say and urge the rest of the commission and the department as well to start focussing alternatively on secondary options or best practices options based on the information that's already been provided to us from the university, specifically where they had told us we need to expand some of the data points to include things like the calls for service with the use of force. i know that sort ware may not exist already, but maybe our discussions need to move towards

figuring out third party agency that can develop that sort of software with us and for the department independently. i don't think we're going to get the answer from the university of chicago at this point based on the last meeting that i went to summarizing not just the current shortfalls from the university of chicago, but the transitions that have taken place at the agency that aren't likely to ever get us the answer. and when we get the answer, the information will be already obsolete and stale past what best practices are for a more effective system. >> are we paying the university of chicago? >> we are not. >> it was a grant. >> and they got money and they blew us off. >> it's not going to cure that. by the time they cure it and present something to us, it's not going to reflect best practices. i think they gave us good direction in terms of what the shortcomings are for what they were going to do. i feel like we should move on and instead of -- i feel like

we're stuck. >> how much money did they get? >> i don't know. it was a grant, right? >> i am not for certain but i think around 50 grand. >> $50,000. >> yes. >> that is business terms and we're not getting that. >> and any other questions? public comment? oh, sorry. d.p.a. report. >> 3b, d.p.a. director's report. report on recent activities and announcements. limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determine whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. presentation at the february, march, and april 2019 monthly statistics report. >> okay. so we are currently at 300 cases that are open.

that is up from this time f last year. the numbers are up across the board. this time last year we were at 251 cases. in terms of cases closed, also see a higher number at 263 versus 200 this time last year. and open and pending cases and with 2018. and in terms of cases that we have that are still open past the 270-day mark and we are at 33 of those. 18 of them are being told. and these are the cases that are past nine months that are still open. we have increased the number of mediations at well at 16 that have been completed this year

versus five last year. i will say as part of -- i will come back to that, the monthly stats. but in terms of the technology staff, we have been spending a lot of time on the case management system. we are on the building stage now which means we are working to tailor the program to the specific needs of the investigations, legal, mediation outreach and executive team that. will last for several more weeks is a separate project and the rebuild for the website. again, it will be external and internal and the external effects the c.m.s. system to interact with complainants online by accepting evidence and in tracking the complaints. we don't have that capability yet, but we will. and internally, we're going to use that as a substitute for handling papers back and forth and making all sorts of copies

between and open investigations and files. i spent most of the past few weeks coordinating with budget, and our current needs both with ongoing operations and new issues that are evolving with the d.p.a., both for sp1421 and for sheriff work. i know the -- in terms of the statistical reports that you are given that is also on the calendar, again, i think what they are just most reflective of and i will give you a summary and most reflective of the trend and the numbers increasing. i tried as you will see as a comparison from these reports to the previous reports being done by d.p.a. that at least now you can read and see numb we ares going up in a more readable fashion that is user friendly,

so anyone looking at them has a better sense with the types of cases coming in and correlate to previous months and previous years. and these are the past three months and you will see they are 15% higher for march, 8% higher for -- i mean february. 8% higher in march, and 36% higher in may. we talked about before and why we were having that increase at d.p.a. those are my reports. i know we have something in closed session and i will also acknowledge that there are folks here in the audience tonight in case issues come up where we can be helpful to the broader audience with the senior investigator.

that is it. >> is this the new format talking about in terms of the summary of cases receiveed? i know we talked about giving or providing more information to the specifics of the cases and i think it is sort of in the details. and are you only providing that level of detail in the findings portion and not just -- >> there is another place to find it, too. you will also find expanded narratives that are more clear in the annual report. they are not specifically tied into the quarterly reports that as we talked about earlier. and from these monthly report, it will be sort of summation of what the complaint was and not the specifics and we'll get that in a different report? >> i wanted to list all of them out so there is no ambiguity and to start tying it specifically to everything that comes in in a way that someone can pick it up and see without having questions

to what -- how many was it this month and what are the cases to identify the friends and target areas about what the complaints are come to the offices. >> this is a good visual with the showing of the cases that you are getting and the follow up with the detail and specificity with respect to the cases that you have received will provide the public the transparency and the information they really want. >> for context a lot of the information was in the reports and were in the reports before and 50, 60 pages and in my opinion it was difficult to figure out what they were. this lays it out and that level of specificity will be included with legal restrictions about how to present them and how they are presented to the public.

>> commissioner de jesus. >> summary of cases received, i just don't know what unwarranted action means. that is page one of two in the end of the report where you give us a quick summary. with that identifiable, so maybe a cheat sheet for the categories and i love the suggestion that i can add. >> that would be helpful. thank you.