. . . >> 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. exhibition reports to the brief description to the whether to calendar the future meeting. commission president's report and commissioners' reports. >> anything to report? >> 3d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration of a future commission meetings.

and warrants and you talked about several agencies which you talked to the press about and several agencies with the investigation and you had a plan going forward in terms of this and what needs to be done going forward. >> and going forward to avoid this type of situation and didn't come up and is maybe something to put on the agenda to speak about it because i think something i would like to knowened an i have been asks and i don't know the answer to that. and so that's, i think, we should agendize that and who is hand ing this now and what is the plan going forward. i talked to commissioner hirsch who is thinking about creating a working group to drop a property coal and d.g.o. revision to

address subpoenas and search warrants involving the press and if we decide to move forward and that he puts that working group together. and in terms of policy give the department guidance how to move forward with that. and out of that, there is certainly i discovered that the -- further rules, we have certain roles. with rules of orred arenaed can send it out and whoever is the first to get to a letterhead can send it out and that is disturbing. i would like to add and the police commission rules and the

use of the letterhead to address that and set policy in place. my understanding as a commissioner and i can't speak on behalf of the full commission and make a statement on behalf of the full commission, but if i can say something contrary to what other commissioners want is disturbing to me. i would like to bring forward the discussion with the and not 72 hours. and the 15 days notice and put this on as soon as and the whole commission and not as one or two individuals. and i thought the letterhead reflected that. and if it doesn't, it should. i think we should put that on the calendar and address that. >> this has come up time and time again. we can put it on the calendar and get advice from the city attorney's office, but it is clear because it's happened

under every commission administration that the president of the police commission is allowed to speak for the commission and allowed to use letterhead. this is not the first and won't be the last time it happened, but we are happy to put that on the agenda for another meeting. >> you cannot speak of behalf of the full commission. you send out a second one to say it was from the two of you and you cannot make a statement on behalf of the full commission if the full commission has not supported it. that's in the rules. >> i am pretty sure i am familiar with the rules, but it was clear that the statement was on behalf of myself and president hirsch. let's move on. next line item. >> the request to put those on the agenda were made? >> yes. >> i would like to add the next police commission will be june 12, 2019 here at city hall at 5:30 p.m. and please note that the police commission will hold a special meeting at a location at the park district at gratton

elementary school on wednesday, june 19, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. and to hear comments from the public and the park station captain concerning public protection issues in the park district. the public is now invited to comment on items 3a through 3d. >> public comment will be two minutes. >> i am with the united public workers for action. we are outraged about the raid, illegal raid on brian carmody and no report and no investigation and i guess you will plan to bury it. not that important. this is not just a san francisco problem and the attack on journalists in australia and where abc, australian broadcasting company, was raided by the police to get a

journalist with information illegally. this is a real issue of repression of journalism and free speech. so what we have here is a potential criminal conspiracy to violate the california shield act that you knew he was a journalist and conspired to say he had conducted a criminal act in order to invade his office and home. i think that's very very serious rand we have to compare that to the treatment of african-american poor people who were arrested, put in jail. has anyone been arrested or put off because of administrative leave because of the actions they took? and no response. i think what's needed is an independent investigation.

>> and can be relied and the commission folk. and the attorney general and you can't solve problem with the conflicts of interest and and serious and in san francisco and the attack on journalists. >> >> brad edwards, and i was disappointed that it seems to be a put bury and no discussion and it wasn't brought up. chief scott, since the previous meeting has noted he has seen the light and noticed this was an error and the carmody raid and likely an illegal warrant, and it doesn't come up in the report at all. one speaker previously at the

previous meeting noted he believed chief scott was saying that he believed that the -- i made the point he appeared to say that the journalist was -- had exhibited legal behavior and distribution. president hirsch responded that is not what he heard at all. that he heard the only description of the legality from chief scott was that it is transfer from the original source to the journalist, and not the journalist activity and since then we find that to be false. and not even going to bring that? up that is exactly with a false impression to be with the

president and recognized the mistakes and this is a positive step. so i support that. if you never come out and admit that we screwed up and are not going to fix it, and the p.o.a. does. i am going to run out of time here. there are so many more things to be covered. it is unprofessional to bristle as the title leadership when you are in leadership. >> just getting used to it. >> ms. brown. >> i'm tire and i need to get home to my grandbaby. i am here to talk about my son and i am pretty here is chief scott has talked about the homicides has beening here in san francisco. and as i come here, i like to use the overhead.

i am here concerning my son who was murdered august 14, 2006. to this day his case isn't solved. i am still looking for justice for my son. i come here every wednesday to talk about this, and i guess i will be doing this for the rest of my life. i just don't do it for mire children. i do it for all the other homicide victims here on this picture and their mothers and their fathers that can't stand and are standing along, so i speak for them, too. i want to tell you that my son had a father who is still grieving for his son. and here am i standing over my son's casket and this is what the murders left me with to

grieve for the rest of my life. they say there is no limit, no statute of limitation for homicide. you guys have the names of all the perpetrators that murdered my son. and i am just asking for justice so that i don't have to come here anymore and show these pictures because it hurts. sometimes i feel like i am just really stupid coming here every time, but i need to for my own therapy, and this is my therapy coming here instead of sitting at a therapist's office. thank you. >> thank you, ms. brown. i think we're all sad and disappointed that you are here every week. and i would urge the public and the tip line if you have any information about the murder of

aubrey, call 415-575-4444. someone knows, someone was there. when this boy was murdered. if you have information, please bring it forth. that is the only way these can get solved. >> good evening. i want to reiterate what the twho gentlemen have said, why do we hear nothing about this report? who is doing the investigation? why doesn't the -- why didn't you mention paul henderson that you are doing an investigation? you don't have to say what it is, but it is like it disappeared. this is where this is matter is supposed to be discussed. we're all kind of in shock. this has gone national and international. # our city is looking terrible and nobody is even talking about it. and now the p.o.a. which i find to be the most despicable group

that i have ever experienced noo my entire time as an activist because they do personal attacks over and over ben again. i do appreciate, chief, that you apologized and the ability to apologize is commendable, but that you are not talking about it at all tonight is disturbing. i think that people if i were you, i would go the high road to not talking to people like p.o.a. and called hillary ronin imbalanced and up to jeff for the neighbor he lived in so a police officer call someone a crazy white marxist. and i don't think that works for me. i think it is important that you make sure there is no attacks on personalities and people and their lives during this process.

that there is a memorandum and we don't support this behavior and we want to hear about it in all situations. i would preeshlt it if you would stop calling us the audience. we are not here to observe in a passive role. we are the people. we are the public. i am the president of officers for justice and we are here to

support our chief. thank you for your time. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your service, too. and just for those in the audience, we're not commenting on an open investigation because it's an open investigation. and we want the results just as much as you do. so if there is curiosity about that, that is why. >> and i will talk about sb14 again during general public comment, but one thing that the current item drew my attention from the m.o.u. between the d.a. and the interviews of sfpd officers which the commissioners discussed. prior to interview, all sfpd officers directly involved in or witness to a covered incident shall be physically sequestered from one another and directed

not to communicate to maintain the integrity of their statements. well, the last time i was here i spoke about how the d.a. and rather, the d.p. a. and the m.o.u. and the collaboration that was required in the proposed language. i would urge you to follow this language that could maintain the integrity of the agency's representations to the public. thank you. >> anyone else for public comment? public comment is now closed. next line item. >> item four, discussion and possible action to approve issuance of department bull din 19-092, investigative services detail internal affairs. criminal unit name change and responsibilities modifies dgo3.10, 6.20, 8, 11 and 8.12.

discussion and possible action. >> good evening. >> good evening, vice president taylor, members of the commission, executive director henderson, chief scott, member of the public. i am assistant chief robert moezer and here to present to you db19-092 that covers the internal affairs criminal section to the investigative services detail. as partover that name change and part of the responsibilities and the m.o.u. discuss and it involves or touches several d.g.o.s and department bulletins. and you can see with the department bulletin and responsible for the following

types of investigations and custody deaths and use of force in great bodily injury and member involved criminal conduct and any investigation that is deemed appropriate by the chief of police. and the investigative services division as part of the new m.o.u. with the d.a. will be replacing functions that were traditionally done by homicide. and will be assisting in ancillary investigations with iib outlined in that mou. that is why it's noted for with use of force and as a result of taking the place the homicide and affected the following g.o.s and the firearms discharge review word and previously relied and from the homicide detail regarding officer-involved shootings and that's the change due to the new

m.o.u. member involved domestic violence is simply a name change from the i.a.d. crim to i.s.d. there is no other change beyond that. investigations of officer-involved shootings and discharges and in custody deaths touch on the return to duty panels which traditionally had presentations made by homicide because homicide was there investigating. and i.s.d. would take that place. and attaining public safety statement had to do with providing the public safety statement to homicide. obviously homicide is not going to be at the officer-involved shooting investigations going forward. release of information to the news media regarding homicides and the title says homicides but also covers in custody deaths and officer-involved shootings. part of that department bulln