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 bulletin

refers to the fact that any information among other check points would have to be cleared by the officer in charge of the investigation. and that mirrors the general orders as well as the field operation and officer-involved shootings and replace homicide with isd. >> thank you. any questions? >> essentially this is just a name change that we have had already before and no questions about it. >> correct. >> no substantive change. just the name. >> commissioner de jesus. >> well, i don't know if it's just a name because i looked up d.b.19-092 and it is not on the website. the only thing that comes up is

the one from 17. so have you changed it already? or is there a new department bulletin that is out? >> it is out. it is posted on the sfpd internet internal website. >> i'm sorry? >> it's posted on sfpd internet internal website. >> an i was looking at the website for the public and d.g.o.s and department bulletins and no such thing there. when you give us a report and says this will effect the following d.g.o.s and department bulletin, i would like them attached to see how they have been changed. i actually go line by line and compare, and i don't see that. so i really am interested in obtaining a public safety statement and what changes are made. and i don't know. and that is something that we should know because your department bulletin can't stay that way. isn't it part of a d.g.o. or should be changing to a -- i'm sorry -- >> eventually.

>> eventually it turns into d.g.o., right? >> if it amends. >> there are d.g.o.s here and i would like to see them. i think it's really important for us. and asking to rule on something that's been effective and i don't know fit's just a name change. if you are telling me db19 and the department bulletin is reissued with a name change for investigative services detail and everything else stays the same. >> correct. >> for each of these, can you answer the questions and 3.10, 6.20, 8, 11, 8.12, and 19.028, db18.040, and dm16 section k. and section p, fob40403. >> the only thing that is changed on the entire list of what i just mentioned is the name, is that right? >> it is the name and that homicide is no longer involved in those investigations. that is the primary piece of it

is that homicide was tasked with conducting those officer-involved shootings and in custody deaths and they no longer are. >> there is no other substantive change, right? >> right. >> you mentioned written reports and does that mean it just didn't come from homicide anymore? >> correct. so if homicide would lead a report during the -- excuse me, would provide documents and the firearms discharge review to rely on those. we are not going to be getting the reports via homicide. >> where will we get them from? >> that is the follow-up. where do you get the reports from the administrative review? >> we would still have all the other reports that ewith would normally get and then any other report that we would eventually receive from iab in their final investigations. >> are you changing homicide to the iib? >> no.

>> homicide is not involved in this. >> just taking out homicide from the d.g.o.s. >> homicide would be removed, correct. and for officer-involved shootings and in in-custody deaths. >> commission sner >> just a quick question. effective may of 2019ia has been changed to isd, correct? >> correct. >> the d.g.o.s and the d.b.s, d.m.y., all still read i.a., correct? >> well, some do. like probably the number one on this list is 6.20 which is number of domestic violence which specifically speaks to i.a. crim which is now isd. and the other ones like officer-involved shootings and excuse me, officer-involved shootings and in custody deaths don't specifically speak to ia crim, but speak to homicide. >> we have d.g.o.s and d.b.s that have the name of a section

that doesn't exist, right? if we change the name of i.a. and it's i.s.d., we are simply changing the name. >> there is a name change and then the function changes of homicide being involved as the lead investigator on officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths no longer exists. it is now a function of iid and investigative services division as outlined in that m.o.u. and where it says ancillary investigatic functions to assume those functions. >> commissioner elias. >> does it now refer the officer back to the m.o.u. with the d.a.'s office? if you take out homicide whichevers the lead of the investigation -- which was the lead of the investigation and not replacing it with who the lead of the investigation is going to be, how does the -- where is the information going? are you telling the officers to look back to the m.o.u.? >> so it would remove -- and are you speaking specifically to

officer-involved shootings and discharges and custody deaths? >> right, the three categories. >> it would remove homicide from that and just replace it to isd, but the actual investigation piece of it and who is responsible for it would be the m.o.u. >> that is outlined also in -- will that change also be outlined in the d.g.o.s that you are changing the name to isd? >> it will not be in the general orders. it's -- the name change is simply in this department bulletin. i don't know if we have a separate bulletin that is coming out that speaks towards the functions of the iib, but once the m.o.u. and everything was approved and that function, then we could put out a separate bulletin that speaks to that. >> do we have a motion? >> wait.

i have one more question. >> that was very confusing. one of the things the d.o.j. said is we have bulletins on top of bulletins that change d.g.o.s and it is hard for officers to keep track. now what i hear you say is this bulletin is going to change these d.g.o.s, d.b.s, and manuals, but the d.g.o.s will remain the same. they have to know to look here and to the m.o.u. for d.g.o.3.10, 6.20, 8.11 and 8.12. >> got you. >> u an i was going to add, so on top of this we have now the schedule of d.g.o.s that will be revised by the commission. so when those d.g.o.s come up, that will need to be changed. there is a number of general orders with units and names of units that are -- through the reorganization of the department over the years, and those units no longer exist. those will all have to be updated.

and what we are trying to do here is do what the d.o.j. report says is when we do have a bull fin that impacts the d.g.o., that it comes before the commission for approval. this is not the only ones that have to be updated. there are many d.g.o.s with names of units that no longer exist or changed through the numerous reorganizations that the d.g.o.s are written and have to be updated. >> i understand that. >> and the d.g.o. is not in front of us. this is department bulletin in front of that is altering several d.g.o.s and they are not in front of us. with o.i.s. and something significant to change the lead investigator to the district attorney's office, that is real significant. that is something that should go to the top of the list. and if it's minor changes, that is something that cok be brought forward very quickly. i see this getting very confusing a z the rest of the stuff is already confusing.

>> my impression is that this is the minor change, and i can't imagine that anyone in homicide is going to be confused that they should be conducts officer-involved shooting investigations when they are specifically no longer allowed to do so. so with that, i would ask if anyone has a motion. >> move to adopt. >> second. >> second. >> all in favor? >> public comment. >> public is invited to comment on line item four. no public comment. all in favor? all those opposed? all right. can we do a roll call vote please. >> sure. commissioner de jesus. >> no. >> commissioner mazzucco.

>> aye. >> commissioner vice president taylor. >> aye. >> motion passes. no, it doesn't. 3-2, it doesn't pass. oh. next line item. >> line item 5. discussion and possible action to approve issuance of department bulletin 19-101, outside agency courtesy reports, modifying dgo5.11, section a2 and discussion and possible action. >> commissioners, chief, vice president, executive director henderson, our public, good evening. i am the lieutenant dave falzon,

the acting captain of the crime information services unit and we are responsible for dispensing the department dpoz sir of police report or incident reports to the pub luck with outside agencies and the necessity because of the technology. >> and tonight's discussion and and going back to 2017 and where we used to have manually written reports and we would handwrite in outside agency report. that is what i did when people like myself and the assistant chief were on the street. we now have evolved into a computerized report writing system that requires an incident case number and as such, this outlines how we go about doing that. i wish i had something more exciting to tell you. my one shot in front of all of

you. >> that was brilliant. >> this is what i got. >> so as -- it's great. but i would actually request from this point on, and i think commissioner de jesus brings us is if you are going to give us department bulletins to look at and amend the d.g.o., and if we can make ate policy and when i went to the internet to find the original d.g.o., it takes some time. >> i can completely appreciate that. what i can tell you in this case it is outlined in the top of the bulletin. this is the section that is being amended in this one circumstance, but your point is well taken, commissioner. >> thank you, and i appreciate that. >> great seeing you. >> thank you. >> okay. do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> nice to see commissioner falzon here and that is the

entertainment commission, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> if it affects -- and i know this is similar to what we were just talking about, but if it affects other d.g.o.s and other documents, why wouldn't you update it? it seems so dismissive to say, well, no one would be so stupid to not know that they don't go do this. show me the piece of paper and the document. if this is the policy, show me the document. is this what you believe? show it to me in writing. if you are not willing to say that, i am probably not going to believe you. i think you know i am informed by my experiences. >> thank you. any other public comment? okay. shall we vote? all in favor? opposed? >> motion passes. >> all right. next line item.

>> line item six, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on the agenda but that are subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. under police commission rules of order during public comment, neither police nor d.p.a. personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public, but may provide a brief response, individual commissioners and police and d.p.a. personnel shall refrain, however, from entering into any debates or discussion with the speakers during public comment. >> good evening again magic altman. all of you received the referral letter hand delivered about the sunshine task force and the district attorney and the board of supervisors put pressure on the police commission to abide by their unanimous decision to

support -- so i certainly hope you get that letter soon because this is not okay. so basically the sunshine task force has never done this with a vote decleared unanimously and just because they don't have legal teeth, apparently certain commissioners don't think ethics is enough, to have moral integrity is enough. you voted that that vote stands and even president hirsch said at the time of the and the law was violated. simple as that. i spent two years on this. and i'm not going to let this go. i spent this woke at a trial because my friend's son was killed by police with tasers.

this is a life or death poet that you cannot take lightly and i sent you information about tazeers and articles. i would appreciate just a little yes, i've got it and read it because i am doing the research so and i am so proud of the sunshine task force saying you could lose your job, be fined, be sanctioned, and you need to wake up. >> i don't think anyone on this dais got this letter. >> it is the sunshine task force referral letter. and they were told to get it to the commission. they hand delivered it to the ethics d.a. and board of supervisors. >> was it delivered to the commission office? none of us received --. >> i don't know. i didn't do it. i just know they were hand delivered to those three offices. and they were asked to get it to you as well. please request to the sunshine

task force to get this and each of you have a copy and you are on the hot seat now. this means the people want the will be attended. that is what brown and it says, we, the people. >> your two minutes are up, but we have not received a letter, so i request that the letter be presented to the commission office. >> the commission office. not sure where the holdup is. but commission secretary can make a phone call to ethics and see if get a copy next speaker. >> brad edwards, district 11. continuing with my further comments, i am not here so call for chief scott's ouster. not at all, and to a degree i

two appreciate. i have a viewpoint for and my and all is graded on a curve. i have disagreements on the policing approach with chief scott, but all the world is on a curve. we are not going to do better. i appreciate officers for justice and i don't appreciate an appeal that is endangering me and the fellow citizens every

day when marty was gone and tony will be the softer face o.p.o.a. and comes out with this vitriol. it is not even in good faith. the p. ovma. flourishes in a power vacuum. and how many chiefs of police have we had in the last 15 years. so if they can form more chaos, they fill the void. the p.o.a. is so anti-san francisco and against our values. check out the october p.o.a. nouz letter where a crooked cop who is taken repeated underhanded views and framed someone and has been against journalists going way back. check it out. these are bad people. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. >> zach dylan from the public defender's office.

commissioners, i was hoer a few weeks ago to talk about 1421 and hoping it would be on the agenda again tonight and since it's not, i am here now. i wanted to update you that we have since we last met received -- >> just so you know, we can start the time over, but it will be on calendar for july 10 and there will be an opportunity to have a full presentation. but go ahead. >> thank you. and with the spoke and the office has received three records from sf pd and one record from d.p.a. and while this is some progress, this is five and a half months intot year. and for records seems a little light. i have asked d.p.a. to make i dos honesty cases a priority going forward and is currently

released with most officer-involved shooting cases and in the last couple of days, i have learned that there have been sustained allegations that would fall squarely underneath 1421 from d.p.a. this year already. unfortunately, all the requests which are january 2 don't capture those. now i am in a position where i have to make rolling requests maybe every week to add to the backlog and delay, i am sure. you will be hearing a little more about this. thank you. >> good evening. i am a law student and a member of the community in california and here to talk about sb1421 and there are 2,339 san francisco police officers as of april this year. in january when the public

defender's office requested the records, the list was 2,315. how many of them have records that are responsive to our request? which ones? and in other cities, statistics show that it's likely about 10% of the active officers would have these records responsive to this request. a list of officers and into whether the officers have responsive records that categories of which they would fall in under sb1421 and as well as approximately how large that file is, similar to a brady list, and the level of inaction with the four records is reminiscent of the plessian

brown. and i urge the offices to be on the right side of history and not a mar on our record. i hope we look forward to the future and the public information that we have a right so is being released to us. the last thing in 3a is the importance of transparency to public trust, and i am ask that value be supported here under 1421. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening. i am an intern at the san francisco public defender's office and also speaking about

sb-1421. with dozens of records and same with this commission. and if someone were looking at the content of the reports closely with an eye to what an outsider might consider dishonesty, and how about g.b.i.? publicly defining the terms is essential to keeping with the spirit of transparency mandated by sb1421. how the departments define the terms of are critical importance with the first and most fundamental future for what they have the right toing access. the public defender's office trusts whether it is determined dishonesty or not. if we have a report from the client saying i had a sustained report, and we ask d.p.a. and

there is nothing, it's challenging to that relationship of trust. it would be imperative to have public definitions. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. director henderson, chief scott, my name is marshall hammonds and i am a law student and a resident of the tenderloin in the great city. i have spoken before as an intern under paul henderson at the d.p.a. and this summer i am interning at the public defender's office. upon starting the internship, i was concerned to discover about the numerous letters of extension that the d.p.a. and the san francisco police department have given the public defender's office to why they are not disclosing the 1421 information. in an effort to discover what information would be likely open to disclosure, i looked through every single openness report of 2019 and made a list of anything

that would fit squarely within 1421 and the list of things that would likely fit within 1421. this information is public. the people have determined it to be public. sacramento has determined it to be public and judges have determined it to be public. release the information as it is the public's observation. thank you. >> give to the secretary so we can get them please. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is hannah larson and i am a student at columbia law school, and although i go to school in new york, san francisco is my lifetime community. the other day i was talking with my father about the prison -- excuse me, the county jail population in san francisco. and while just 5% of the city of

population is black, black people make up 53% of those sitting in county jail. and shocked, my father asked me how we fix that. how do we fix that? one easy starting point is to give the public access to police misconduct records. in other words, an easy starting point is for sfpd to comply with california law. what this public access to police misconduct records have to do with disproportionate incarceration of black people? it strongly suggests racially discriminatory policing is at least partially responsible. without public access to police misconduct records, this community cannot identify police officers who may exhibit racial bias. the sfpd has a major stake in promptly releasing the conduct records and the failure to comply with penal code 832.7

serious serious seriously undermines the credibility of the office. fewer crimes are reported.

>> the oakland police commission rejected a report because it was not investigated properly, and also because there might have been collusion between the police department and the investigators, and could have influenced their findings. this causes the public's trust to be shaken, and having separation between the agencies and the records being released from each of these agencies is

beneficial because it holds the police accountable. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening. my name is lauren bradley. i am a law student at u.s. avenue. a february 1st, the defender's office made a public record request to the police's commission for records on two specific police officers. four days later, we received an e-mail response from sfpd's position, assigning a single tracking number 2 are separate requests to these separate entities. upon required -- inquiries, we handle document requirements for sfpd in the police commission. since that time, we have not received any further communications about our request to the sfpd or to the police commission, subsequently, on may 23rd -- on may 24th, we received an e-mail for --

response to our february request , this time directly from the police commission, stating they had received our request that very day. more than three months after the request was made. in that e-mail, the police commission said they would be handling their own responses and that they would get back to us by the 6th of june. the 6th of june would have been ten days from the 24th of may, however, it is more than 90 days from our initial request. the handling of his public information has cause an undue delay in receiving response of record, and it is unclear to us whether these requests and responses are being coordinated by separate entities. we do not know why this mission has changed the policy now, and we don't know whether the commission have different or similar records. regardless, we request records from the commission specifically because we have seen they have different records. we look forward to receiving any and all documents to our request

thank you. >> let's keep this up for our july 10th commission meeting to talk about how the process works. thank you. >> good evening. >> good evening. we appreciate july 10th being the next date, as of today, we are 156 days into the year, in july 10th, we will be 186 days into the year. we have people sitting in cages, waiting for these records to be released. this is an exclusive arm. it was raised last time about potentially filing motions. the california supreme court and the brandon decision stated, in daily trial practice, the pitch 's pendulum has swung too far in favor of police privacy rights and the gift of

disclosure, henceforth, and that was 20,002, 16 years later, the legislature decided legislature decided to act. additionally, an accused has a right to discover and is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent advance. with the public records request, this information should be readily acceptable, and although i am not necessarily saying that you all as individuals or entity are stonewalling, but we feel that way from all san francisco agencies to have these records. i walked over here and i looked at the first definition to stonewall all -- on my phone, and it said you could delay or block a request, process, or person by refusing to answer questions or by giving the basic

replies, especially in politics. the highest level of bureaucracy stonewall, that is what they used it in, and that is how we feel. these records do not belong to you. they belong to the public. enough is enough. this is gamesmanship and you all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. i'm not. >> good evening, commissioners. chief scott, i am with the public defender's office of san francisco. since generally first, 2019, you have been compelled to comply with spee 20 phone -- s.b. 21. you have produced just full records. the public defender's office reserved that the request should be narrowed and sfpd lacks a resource to comply fully with the law. instead of streaming a way to

respond to a simple request first, the ripon to the request silently. specifically, these letters state that despite best efforts to respond promptly, the backlog has developed and will remain for some time. sfpd has no clear policy on how to process claims other than in the order in which they were received. consequently, it adds unnecessary delay to those requesting records. members of the public and those awaiting a day in court. suggest that they use mechanism to control the release of information. this adds unnecessary expense. the few resources that the office has should be for zealously defending clients to access what the law entitles them to receive. the current policy wastes public time because several staff must constantly submit request to

capture new incidents. staff monitoring request and public hearings leads to delay and disclosure. if s.f.p. real -- comes this lowly, one can wonder how they would move if there was no pressure at all. justice delayed is justice done lied. -- is justice denied. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? hearing none, like -- next line item. >> public comment on items pertaining to item nine below, closed session, including public comment on item eight. vote whether to hold item nine in closed session.

>> any public comment? hearing none, next line item. >> line item eight, voting on to vote on whether -- >> do i have a motion? second. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> motion passes.

>> you still have a quorum. >> please call the next line item. >> vote to elect to disclose any or all items held in closed session. administrative code 37.1 to a york action. >> vote on whether to elect or disclose any or all discussion on item nine held in closed session. motion? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. we have to take public comment. >> public comment from the ghosts in the room. [laughter] hearing none, can i get a vote? >> all in favor?

>> aye. >> next line item. >> item 11 is adjournment. action item. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> eyes. >> okay. , great.

>> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their

struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador. we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the

area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the

services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back. the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents.

>> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now.

>> we think over 50 thousand permanent residents in san francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant community. >> making sure they're a part of what we do in san francisco the san francisco pathway to citizenship initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and community safe organizations and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the san francisco since 2013 we started reaching the san francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working

groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in san francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. >> we think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in san francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they don't have trained professionals culturally appropriate with an audience you're working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have

met the 56 year residents arrangement or they're a u.s. citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 that's when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum

get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of community resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other community services and benefits there's an economic and safety public benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over $3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money $86 million by

reducing the benefit costs. >> thank you. >> i've been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. >> one day - i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. >> you're welcome. >> (singing).

>> (clapping.) >> introduce the san francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. >> citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this difficult examine and after two trials they come back i'm an american now we're proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy. >> you know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of. >> out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldn't count as it counts now.

>> it's everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself there's a good life for everyone. >> that's why. >> you have people from all the walks that life and they're standing in water 8 hours to be an american citizen and contribute to the city and that's really what makes this

worthwhile. >> ♪ ♪

>> supervisor mar: good morning. the meeting will come to order. i'm supervisor mar, the chairman of this committee, and i'm joined by supervisor brown and supervisor peskin. thank you to sfgov. mr. clerk, do we have any