on to dig into. i see it as an opportunity. thanks. >> thank you. >> good evening. brad edwards, district 11. i wasn't at the previous commission meeting, however, i did watch it in its entirety as i typically do. it was among the best meetings i have ever seen as hopefully the correspondence made it to your respective files. i would also very much support and look forward to the meeting when we do discuss the working group. >> if thank you. next item. >> housekeeping to make a note for the record commissioner is now present. >> item three issuance of department bulletin pink patch to support breast cancer

awareness to modify 10-point 01 uniform and equipment action. >> do we have somebody the speak to this item? >> i can speak to it. from our community engagement division. >> good evening. >> good evening. last year we made a very passionate plea to get the pink patch initiative as part of our october uniform attire. this year our hope is to make this a continuing event every october like many other departments across the united states. all we are doing this year is we have added cadets and police

service aids and ask that it be included every year as part of our annual event with the san francisco police department. i did bring pink patches for you. i will ask to please get these to you so you can actually take a look at it first hand. the goal this october is to have 100% of the officers supporting this incredible cause. the proceeds will go to bay area cancer connection which is an organization really focused on breast cancer awareness and the details, education across the bay area. i am open for questions if you have any, commissioners. >> any questions from commissioners? are you charging us for these? >> tell us how much the patches

are. >> the patches are $10 each and police officers are required to have two patches on uniforms during the month of october. it is optional. it is not compulsory. we hope to have 100% of the officers supporting this incredible cause that is so near and dear to our heart. we have had officers both male and female impacted directly or through family members through breast cancer. >> just to clarify. those are suggested donations there is not a charge. >> that's correct. >> doesn't need board of supervisors' approval. >> chief. >> deputy city attorney covered what i was about to say. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioners. >> next item.

is there a motion to approve the department bulletin pink patch project? >> so moved. second. >> we need public comment on this. any public comment on the pink patch awareness campaign and motion? seeing none comments are closed. ready for the vote. >> all in favor of approving the pink batch project. opposed. hearing none the bulletin passes unanimously. >> line item 4 discussion and

possible action to approve revised disciplinary penalty and referral guidelines foresworn members of the san francisco police department for purposes of engaging in the meet and confer process with the police officers association as required by law. >> we worked on this many months ago for quite some time. the dpa assisted us. i think the california d.o.j. had some input and reviewed it. it is here for discussion and adoption there are red line items for changes. ir will open up for comments and questions. commissioner elias. >> there are some edits on page 3 of 19.

the aggravating factors is a typographical error. the fifth bullet point should be two. there are two categories. the employee should know his actions were inappropriate based upon experience and another bullet point the employee was not forthright or truthful during the investigation. >> any discussion on that recommendation? >> the other question or addition that i had was on page 9 of 19 regarding domestic incidents. there was an addition that a violation of court order related to domestic violence included not limited to restraining order would probation terms qualify if there is a violation would that be included in this section? >> isn't that deemed a court order? >> are you saying so basically

superior court somebody moves for probation violation they admit and are found true after hearing? >> right. >> is there somewhere. >> that is a violation of court order. >> that situation. >> speak into the microphone. >> the person is on probation would have to comply by his probationary term. that is a court order he would violate to revoke to come before the court. that would apply under this definition. >> if you wanted to add a sentence including not limited to restraining order or violation, yeah. >> are we creating more problems? >> i guess probation as long as people understand that which we understand in criminal.

our policies are supposed to out last us. that is the reason i understand why more specificity might be warranted. are we trying to pass this tonight? >> we need to. this has been on the back burner for six months. >> that is a court order to provide by terms of probation. >> hang on. we are going to approve this tonight and it goes to meet and confer. we still. i would prefer it not come back to the commission. it has been held up. we have been using something from 1994 for 25 years now. >> i think it should be clear that a court order is probation. commissioner elias. >> we all know this. >> sometimes when a person they

don't adhere to the terms of probation, it is a violation. however, a hearing is held. at the hearing the court decides if a violation occurred. my question is if there is a violation of probation does that trigger the violation of court order or after motion to revoke hearing on probation? >> to be a violation of court order for due process you have to go through hearing and there be an admission or finding, right? but then there is a second level of discipline air redue process that would come in when it was filed with the commission or with the however it was filed. >> chief do you want to weigh in on this point or a different point? >> i wanted to clarify the question. are we talking about an officer who is on probation for domestic

violence? >> yes, sir. >> part of a conviction for domestic violence is going to result in an officer's firearm being taken away by the court which would get into conditions of employment. most likely we won't have an officer to continue employment if they are on probation for domestic violence. i can't see that to be the case if they are convicted they are not allowed to carry a firearm. >> sometimes specific violations would prohibit that person from carrying a firearm so they pick other charges that wouldn't tricker the prohibition. i think this section would relate to those offenses where there isn't an automatic prohibition of carrying a firearm to subject them to probation. >> you resolve it for a

nondomestic violence plea but would say domestic violence terms. >> if i am overthinking. >> this is a guideline for discipline. if you want language in here, i don't have a problem with that. i don't want to start getting specific because then you have to run through a lot of other specificity. >> the court order. you could add after violation of court order or terms of probation related to domestic violence. >> that is still a court order. we can add additional words. the only reason you are on probation for domestic violence there is an order saying you can't do x. if you violated what you are violates is the court's order directing you to do x or not do

x. the court order precipitates the event no matter what. it is the court order. >> as much as i enjoy being on the commission, i don't plan to stay for too long, and again, i understand commissioner elias' point regarding clarity. i am on the fence. i don't see any harm to the language. adding in language. >> what is the language you want to suggest? >> i guess you would put in not limited to restraining order for a probationary term. >> including but not limited to restraining order or violation. >> or probationary terms. >> conditions of probation. >> that is fine. it doesn't add anything. >> why don't you read the language so we have it in the record.

>> we are going to adopt as is and prior to the pairren 2.01 we would add after restraining order comma or condition of probation. or conditions of probation. >> any other additions? >> there is one other one. page 17. i know i raised this issue last time with respect to how we incorporate implicit bias in the section. there are two things. first, i think with respect to the d.g.o. 5.03 should be added because of the 5.17 references

5.03 which is the investigative detention and the first paragraph talks about bias and how it cannot be a basis for detentions or stops. i think that d.g.o. should be included since it is referenced in the actual bias d.g.o. >> any comments on that suggestion? any issues? >> only because that d.g.o. references more than one other d.g.o., and the d.g.o. regarding detention is not about bias. >> it is not about bias. we have an entire d.g.o. devoted to buy as. i don't feel strongly but it seems as if we could cross-reference multiple d.g.o.s that we could create an end less list. >> it distinguishes 5.03 it

references specifically bias. >> that is the detentions? i think just from a policing pore speculative and historical issues with bias, implicit by at with policing detentions are probably one of the areas with the most concern raised. i assume that is why that paragraph is leading off the d.g.o. i don't have a problem adding it in. >> what is the next item? i had a question on that last addition. just to clarify. we are referring to the section of 5.03 that deals with bias, not the entirety of 5.03? >> we would reference 5.03 because the first paragraph

reads that the police department, i can read the paragraph but it references how in essence race, gender, identity and other characteristics cannot be the sole basis for de tensions or stops and references 5.17. 5.03 should be in this because there is one section in 5.17 that talks about a factor and what can be used. it references 5.03, and like we talked about, those two d.g.o.s are intertwined. that is why we devised 5.03 to sort of be in companion with 5.17. >> chief, this only deals with bias policing. that is the focus of this. if there is anything in 5.03

related to buy as that won't be im indicated here. >> what i was driving a little. there are other sections of 5.03 that can be a first offense termination. we have to be clear we are only talking about the bias part. >> nowhere in 5.03 does the word bias show up. i feel like we can have end less cross-referencing of d.g.o.s. it is not the worst thing in the world. >> there is an issue putting d.g.o.s in there. the argument will be made if it is not specifically referenced, it is excluded. it starts getting dangerous. maybe we put an example. >> including but not limited to the d.g.o.s. >> then my second. >> do you folks have that

language? we are saying after the word discrimination included but not limited to and we give examples and we are adding 5.03 as well. >> 5.17. >> right. we don't want that to be all inclusive list. >> that makes sense. >> the other section is the other sort of caveat on the bottom of that regarding implicit bias. this paragraph just seems just very ambiguous and unclear so i don't know. i understand the intention behind it and why it is there. i just think the way it is worded and written is not sufficient, and i don't -- it needs reworded or excluded.

i don't think that it is clear. >> i am not following. what is not clear about it. >> we added this. i put language in after talking to commissioner elias and samra. we wanted to be sure people understood implicit bias is different. once you are trained about your implicit bias and you tip to have the same issue. you are on notice there is an issue. it is important any officer reading this before he or she gets into any problems understanding what the intent is here. i am hoping everybody gets a chance to read this before they have a problem. that is why i thought it should go here. i don't know where it would know

and i don't know what to say about it. >> it doesn't tell the officers what the penalty will be if they engage in this behavior. my thought is there are sort of we see patterns where you know we collect databased on race and other characteristics. from those we are now looking at those statistics to see if there are patterns in terms of certain people being stopped and why they are stopped. that could be an example of implicit bias if the officer is not aware they are stopping one type of person or one thing. they are referring to people inappropriately. those are sort of examples of implicit bias. i think it is not clear to the officers if you engage in this conduct what is the punishment? >> you go for additional training, counseling and or education as deemed appropriate.

if it reoccurs with the same member you may be subject to discipline. >> i think the second sentence addresses the concern. >> what is re-occurring, more than one? >> more than one. >> i think the may is also ambiguous. >> you have to have flexibility. you have to give the department flexibility. >> i think -- the other part of what you are saying about implicit. i think labeling it implicit bias, i think getting into granular beyond that will give wiggle room to say this is listed. overall category of implicit

bias is okay. >> from the reading of it, it looks like it expands accountability. that is my reading of it. maybe i am miss-reading it. you are changing the definition of may to shall or should. the way i read it it looks as though it defines what is going to happen. it is clear that when i am police sit bias -- implicit bias is identified it may be explicit. it is knowingly engaged above it. >> i don't think your mic phone is on. >> i am not responsible for this. >> i do read this to expand

accountability. if something is unconscious we can't punish for it until we put the officer on notice, right? the first thing is putting the officer on notice. if it is a pattern, if it is something more than one unconscious incident that officer may be subject to discipline depending on the circumstances. this puts department on notice if it is not just explicit racist text. it is not the worst-case scenario, we now know what i am explicit bias is and we are watching. >> that was the intent in this adin thisaddendum. >> you mentioned whether or not it is permissive or mandatory. did you have thoughts about that? >> i think we were talking about

commissioner elias mentioned the word may. >> i understand what they said needing a fact specific inquiry so maybe a permissive language is appropriate. i didn't know if you had another argument. >> that is the distinction between may and shall. is from going to be a subjective autonomy in the language or not. >> subjective autonomy? >> yes. >> showing off with big words. >> that is what may is. i am just saying that is the distinction between the two. the way it is drafted there is subjective autonomy if the language is changed to shall. >> i understand that. maybe a sunshine violation going on back here. i am just kidding. city attorney is giving me a

stern look. >> well, we need a vote. >> i have a comment. i just wanted to comment. with respect to both page 9 of 19 and 10 of 19. these are requests i made and i want to thank my fellow commissioners for including them with respect to domestic violence part of this. that is important. for sexual assault and child sexual assault victims. i wasn't ready to vote last time. this is very assuring to me. i wanted to just note that. >> i would add that i would hope that like the previous category

of sexual assault or child sexual assault was found true by the member they would no longer be with the department. >> so would i. >> let me take an informal poll back on page 17 and the implicit bias footnote. how many commissioners are willing to approve the language as written right now. >> what are we talking about? >> page 17. >> did you read this? >> implicit bias footnote. i just want to know how many commissioners are prepared to adopt it the way it is written? >> i feel like it is confusing and unclear. >> i don't see how it is to clarify it. if you had proposed language. >> it is difficult because implicit bias and explicit bias

are fact specific and it is hard to define or qualify. we are trying to do that, which i get, but the way i read it, it just doesn't sort of -- it is unclear in terms of what the officers' punishment will be if this happens multiple times. the officers deserve clarity with you engage in this conduct, this is what happy ne -- what h. >> if it is knowingly engaging in bias it kicks up and you are terminated. >> we can't have a discipline for unconscious behavior. what this says if it is a pattern it becomes known, then the discipline is discipline then you are in the knowingly category.

>> give me an opportunity. i have to tell you now we have to be specific on discipline and i don't know if the public knows this. when we bring a complaint the department or dpa has to say what the punishment will be before we hear a witness or make a decision. we have tried to whatever they recommend. i see some coming through. i am appalled they can read the factual situation and tell me a certain amount of time. i think the more guidance the better. we cannot change it once they list what it is. i read this. it is very confusing. what are you suggesting to make it stronger? i would make it stronger personally. >> how do we punish for unconscious behavior? how many times do you say hey babe? how many times do you have to be corrected?

>> two. recurring means if it happens again. >> then i guess it is the discretion where it may no longer be considered and may result in discipline. i would change that to say will. how many times. >> let me give you an example as to why i think will doesn't work. re-occurring implicit bias issues with the same member may no longer be considered. you may exhibit unconscious homophobia in january and you are trained in april. in august you were exhibiting racial bias. you can't discipline for racial when it is the first time if they are trained on sexual orientation. that is why you need flexibility. if you say will you tie peoples

hands in a way that doesn't make sense. >> the basic training covers racial and homophobic. what is the next one gender? >> re-occurring. i don't know. >> how many chances? >> re-occurring is two. >> the nine month police academy drills what respect to give to the citizen, how do we expect them to talk to the citizens, then probation period and in the force. then they have this. i don't know what to tell you. >> or we have 96 day reports with data where certain categories of people based on race and sex have higher incidents of uses of force against them and other things happening. >> commissioner brookter.

>> thank you for your tire less work on this. for me in reading it. the words make sense. however, for me. one monkey wrench is the as theftstics and where it is -- aesthetics. i don't know if it is in the appendix towards the back or if it becomes its own box so folks can read it. i don't like the font size. >> we do address implicit bias in the bias d.g.o., don't we? >> we define it. this is what bias is and implicit bias and there ar aredifferent categories. it doesn't say if you engage this will happen. it just defines it.

>> if behavior is unconscious we cannot punish for it. we would get sued to next year. if someone does not know they are doing something until we put them on notice we can't punish them for it. >> we are not arguing that. >> wait, wait. the issue is if it recurs, yes, meaning more than once, there has to be a fact inquiry. not every situation is the same. by putting will you are putting one box into everything. i just don't think that is right or that is fair. unconscious behavior. you have to have the flexibility to ask what is the exact situation going on here? it has to be may in my opinion. >> are we using unconscious and implicit bias the same thing according to the d.g.o.? >> it is. >> i don't have a problem making

it mandatory. just for the sense that because as commissioner hirsch just delineated if there is recurring issues, how many times do we need to see bias in policing out of one officer before we are willing to say now it is time to get serious and to not put the department in jeopardy and not put all of the work that has been done in jeopardy? i do wish this was flushed out better in here because i think the commissioner's i understand the desire to pass this tonight, but i know where commissioner

elias is coming from in this and where commissioner brookter is. i wish i would have spent more time thinking about this. we are trying to do more to address implicit bias in the training and academy and so forth. i don't want people to mistakenly read this as saying basically like, well, if you call the bias that is exhibited implicit, then it is a free pass and, you know, repeated issues may or may not be disciplined. i am all over the place based on the comments. >> if we don't belief the behavior is unconscious, you know what i mean? we have the ability to call bs. just because someone says it is unconscious doesn't mean that it

was. >> this is for us but also for the department and the members to understand what the potential consequences. so i think, you know, under bias policing having the big t there is wonderful to let people know, hey, if you want to engage in conduct that damages our community, damages our department, damages our citizens, our community, you are not going to be an officer in the sfpd. i think that is great. i think the implicit bias is not as flushed out as it could be, i don't know. i am struggling a bit. >> my issue is i don't agree with you, commissioner taylor. i don't think if up an implicit bias is different than someone

unconscious of their bias. i think you can when people are conscious of what they are doing. when they say those people do certain things or act a certain way or those people deserve that. >> that is not bias. >> they don't know what they are referring to. >> i took bias training. if you believe those people are different than those people, that is not implicit. categorize the race about those people. i think that about those people that is not implicit bias. >> i would like to get this passed or change it. your suggestion is re-occurring implicit bias issues with the same member may result in discipline. >> can result in discipline. >> all right. let's do that. >> same words. >> may is more permissive. >> let's not argue.

put it on paper. >> i am fine with that. we are changing two words. first may to will and second may to can. >> now, i understand. are you changing both mays to can. >> will and can is fine with me. >> with the same member will not longer be considered implies cemenitor unconscious and can rn discipline. >> unconscious refers to a bias we are unaware of which happens outside of our control. implicit bias refers to the same bias but questions the level to which the biases are unconscious especially as we are made aware

of them. that is what i was trying to explain to commissioner taylor. thank you. the internet once again. >> you have the language now for that language? commissioner brook what font do you want? we will blow it up. >> same font. >> i would like to leave it as a footnote. it is not a disciplinary matter. it is a notice. make it as big as you want. >> the font size is very important. make sure it is bigger than. >> sergeant. we are going to increase the font size so it is the same as the other language in there but keep an asterisk so it is a note. with those changes any other changes to be made? can we have a motion to approve with the changes we have just gone through? >> so moved. >> second.

>> now we need public comment. >> thank you. i share many of the concerns of the commission respect to the language on page 17. there is a principal in police work that engaging the public uniformed officers are required to be civil to everyone but not courteous. i think that the language on page 17 is best altered to instead of using the noun diskurtz tessie use incivility and in the examples following on duty diskurtztyious act on civil act that makes the standard more objective.

it spares your officers from being tethered to the subjective expectations of members of the public. these are individuals police officers may be required to arrest, place into handcuffs. you don't want them to be courteous under those circumstances but you want them to be civil. i would also remember on the same subject that the first offense be rated an a to t rather than b to t. >> from thank you. >> we have a motion and second. can we call for a vote? >> is there a vote to adopt? >> we have a motion and second. it is a matter of voting now. all in favor. any opposed?

>> okay. thank you. it passes. this will go to meet and confer so everybody knows that. next item, please. >> line item 5. discussion and possible action to have a representative of the sf youth commission participate in police commission meetings. discussion and action. >> this was president with commissioner julius. it took awhile to get on the calendar, but it is something we talked about. we have gone to the youth commission over the years for many real sin significant issue. they would come to us with issues as well. we had talked about perhaps giving them a voice here and bringing in issues to our attention that we may not be

aware of. i also took into account some of our sitting commissioners and the city attorney. we talked about making changes. initially i wanted him apartment every meeting. we talked about starting off with one meeting. we changed it so they can nominate pay designated youth representative and they can decide if they want the same person or rotating person. it is important to be visible and to be avissible place and have access. i wouldn't mind sharing my microphone if that is an issue. i would like to read the resolution i have here. i would like to take the word draft off and it starts off whereas the police commission is to set policy for the police department and conduct disciplinary hearings on police

misconduct and they have a history in engaging with summer projects that focus on educating and employing young people and whereas the police department successfully worked with youth in the garden project and san francisco youth works and community safety initiative, youth career academy and delete anything else to add. whereas in 2016, san francisco youth successfully facilitated group meetings on the police commission revised use of force policy and the youth have provided the police commission with a new perspective on outreach. san francisco voters created it under the charter to advise the supervisor on policies and laws and they are responsible for providing comments and

recommendations on all city ordinances. be it resolved the police commission two request a designated youth representative who may be a member of the youth commission to participate once a month in police commission meetings and be it further resolved the youth commission participate and make recommendations on all policy issues that affect san francisco youth. this is a long time coming. i would hope you would support me in this resolution. austin strong is in the audience. they have brought other youth commissioners to address the police commission briefly on this issue, and support this resolution. >> thank you.

>> hello commissioners, i am austin. i am the community staff specialist at the youth commission. i have three members of the transformative justice committee one just got sworn in last wednesday, ron jones. we have josephine this year's chair as well as nora who is part of the mayor's blue ribbon panel as well as the district 10 commissioner. they would like to share a few words why we are interested in having this resolution and making sure that you all have the full support and vote this through. we believe that there should be youth voices in city commissions as well as committees and making sure that there is a youth presence felt. i will let the youth speak now.

>> thank you. >> thank you for the introduction, austin. hello, commissioners, i currently represent district four on the youth commission and chair it this year. today i am here to strongly urge you to add a youth seat on the police commission. throughout the 20 plus years of history we have been advocating for improving police relations with youth and other add adjusted issues. we have done community outreach when commissioner hilton and i were first year commissioners we hosted a youth police round table. thank you, chief scott. very common thing we noticed during the round table, youth's lack of feeling empowered. they didn't feel the police commission or any city hall bodies were accessible to get their voices heard on issues.

we were so glad they had us to come to that we could addvo indicate for them. however there are so many loopholes that we have to work through and i think throughout our time it is going to take a very long time to get changes they want passed. we would love for you all to have a youth seeth -- seat to advise you on the youth of color and lbgq. we are oppressed by the criminal justice system. it is important they have a voice on this political body. i hope you are supporting this resolution. thank you. >> i am nora hilton, a mayoral appointee and former chair of the transformative justice committee last year. in march 2019, the youth

commission in collaboration with sfpd hosted a round table. we heard from a lot of san francisco youth and community-based organizations about negative experiences they had with sfpd or comments or criticisms of sfbd policy they wanted to share but they didn't have a choice to share that because it is not uplifted as much as other voices. in the last year's budget and policy priorities we urged the mayor and board of supervisors to add a youth seat to a lot of commissions. youth voices are not heard as much as they should be. we would like to advise you to add the seat and show your support for the youth in addition to your support for under represented communities in san francisco.

>> good evening. i am still getting used to the microphone thing. i just got appointed on wednesday. >> hold it closer. >> i am ron jones district 10 youth commissioner. i think the reason why it is very important to have the youth voice represented on this admission is because it is very cute to talk about summer efforts like earlier in the meeting. overall one of my goals in the youth commission is to expand or reach to represent all youth in san francisco. if we have the opportunity to address this commission on issues affecting youth on a monthly basis we can give you a better view of the things youth want to see in their communities. directly we deal with young people throughout not only the

summer but the full calendar year. therefore, if that is going to happen, there needs to be a direct link to youth voice on a consistent basis and the youth is empowered to say things that need said and you all don't have to hear 100 public comments as you can hear a consolidated idea what the youth think. thank you, commissioners. >> okay. i think we need public comment before we vote on this. >> i would move we accept the resolution. >> is there a second? >> second. >> public comment on this policy. is there any public comment? >> the chair is clear the time is pressing. i will be very brief and confirm

my remarks and explain in a letter. the leadership of the police department recently attended a event at the church. >> the this is just on the youth commission. >> i misunderstood. i am sorry. >> public comment on the youth commission proposal. please take the vote. >> all in favor to adopt the resolution. a. any opposed? >> okay. it passes. thank you. next item please. >> we thank you all for coming. >> thank you. >> line item 6 general public comment. public is welcome to address the commission regarding items not on the agenda but are within the subject matter of the commission. speakers shamming address to the

commission as a hole not to individuals. under police commission rules of order neither police or dpa or commissioners are required to respond but may provide a brief response. individuals shall refrain from entering into any debates during public comment. >> general public comment. >> confirm and explain my remarks in a letter. time is wasting. chief scott and other leaders recently attended a meeting at the glide memorial methodist church. i read the transcript. after the introductory remarks of reverend morgan wheat, the minister of celebration there it is my impression the leadership is obliged to leave and they did not. >> next speaker.

>> okay. linda chapman about the special victims unit issue. i know that the limitations of the venue. when you leave here you would be able to look to some reforms and having the investigation reopened and what not. thithis is a matter of public safety. the victim's office from the da's office and adult protective services tried to have an investigation. what is it? you saw what happened at laguna honda. this is worst. they could get a job at the jewish home and be protected by the administrator who looks after his own even after it was found that the registered nurse in charge of the night shift that she did what she was accused of which was sexual

battery? they confirmed it was the case. nobody denied it until the sergeant came along probably. i can't go into the whole thing, but they were mandatory reporters and didn't do it. i was a investigator for the federal service. i wori worked on rape in one ca. i investigated sexual assault and ind indecent exposure. up need to allow me to correct the incident report which was done by two excellent young officers from central. there were multiple statements in the report that were material such as the suspect checked off

unknown whereas they identified or found she did it. her name would not be released. >> your time is up. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners, brad edwards district 11. one of my favorite race mayors was read the footnotes. the discipline penalty reminds me of the race mayor. the fact the most well-mannered of those in the audience speaks well for the detail and participate in this commission. some of the housekeeping i appreciate commissioner br on. okter coming to the public

banking forum the other night and lastly. well, i take no position on it in particular. i do note there has been a drop in officer-involved shootings. i aii am bitter the most recente involved a dog but we are pointed in the right direction. >> any other public comment? .

>> those e-mails are public boat shouldn't the meeting have been public as well?

[indiscernible] i am at a loss for how compliance with the law away from public transparency and accountability is in sharp relief of -- to hold sfpd accountable. [indiscernible] the last openness report was six month ago. we received seven records from d.p.a. this year, and who knows how many more. can d.p.a. ever catch up? it is unclear. we don't know what stuff they have taken to speed up this process, so i encourage this commission to investigate this process. >> thank you. >> can i ask one quick question? who denied you entry and said you couldn't participate because the public defender's office has a vested interest?

>> we knew we couldn't participate because we have a vested interest. we were told not to identify specific individuals. >> you can identify whoever you want. >> i was told by director henderson that i couldn't participate. >> i will take it up with him. >> i would like to give you a chance to make a very brief response. >> sure. i did respond in writing. there is an e-mail that went out , as well. the point of it is the intention of the symposium was a roundtable discussion with the oversight agency about operational challenges and solutions related to 1421, amongst other issues having nothing to do with 1421. technology, operations, budget, work policy, auditing, management, mediation, community engagement. there were several outside law enforcement agencies that attended only the welcome presentation of the symposium,

but all of them were asked to leave, as well. the attention was the roundtable discussion with the oversight agencies. what i want to be clear about is that this was not the policy group discussion addressing ongoing plans related at all to the release of police records as defined by the letter and the allegations. i think there was a miss communication about that intention. i tried to explain it in person to the group that came there, but the group that came came after the welcome part where other people were in the room, but i just want to be more clear that no other agency that was participating even does 1421 in the way that we do because their city attorney's office does the role of taking all the evaluations and dissemination his. we couldn't have had a discussion about the process that we were doing, anyway. >> let me stop you becauseis