here. and there's like five or six body-worn cameras and some of these are improper searches of the car or of a home and when you look at them and i guess what i was focusing on is i counted 49 where the department agreed that there was a violation but there was no discipline. and i guess just looking at that that's just concerning and we don't know why and it's concerning. especially when there is somebody here that violated a fourth amendment or data fell to that so those are important things and when there's no discipline, not even a reprima reprimand, it tells them that tt was ok and they would be disciplined. we're just looking at this and wondering if there's a pattern

here. [please stand by] >> commissioner dejesus: when you're under ten days, do you have to do the same thing and

give notice and the violations are going to be a reprimand? are the violations going to be a one-day suspension or a ten-day suspension? do you have to follow the same program rules? >> yes. >> commissioner dejesus: so now, we have a chart, and i'm glad you pointed that out, and everyone will be on the same page of what the discipline is, but it sounds like you're selecting the reprimand or the discipline, and i guess that's where the concern is coming from commissioner elias and myself. >> yes. and i understand that. you guys have all been doing this for a while, but i will say that unless you see the case and understand -- and we have these discussions, and we have our positions, and sometimes they have theirs in terms of a disagreement. but to be fair of the process, you have to see the progress of

the case. >> but without more facts, we can't provide more information. we can't give a full factual analysis in a written public report on cases because it infringes on officer rights. >> commissioner dejesus: no, i didn't mean that. you're saying the chief says i don't agree with you. there's nothing you can do because it's under ten days, and he refuses to act. how do you get around that? if you're saying 11 days, you can meet with the chief. that's really the threshold, is that 11-day or a ten-day? >> we have to be honest about what the conduct is. we can't just say violation of the -- >> commissioner dejesus: i understand that. so maybe going forward, we'll see these charts, and if we continue to see that you guys have recommended reprimands of one day or two days, and if we continue to see more

discipline -- >> one might be -- i'm sorry to interrupt you. one thing that might help you specifically is speaking directly to the behavior, so there won't be why did d.p.i. think this? why did the chief think that? i just have to point out there's always been a huge distinction between the charts and guidelines that d.p.a. was using which was totally different from the charging guidelines that the department was using. >> commissioner dejesus: so that's good. so you have something going forward, so something going forward, you're going to stay on top of the findings of who's doing what. and you have guidelines and you have a report, and then, you can make a assessment. but going from what we have, it's a little disturbing. >> commissioner elias: maybe you can ask a box of progressive discipline because that would be a huge thing,

whether it's the first offense, second offense, third offense, and that determines the level of discipline that an officer would receive, and i think that should be in there, as well. >> president hirsch: i think the concern that i'm having is we know that we're not getting the facts, chief. we know that we can't look at the details of this case, chief, and we know that you did, and we know that the d.p.a. did. but there's a pattern, when the d.p.a. looks at the same facts that you did, they tend to look at these different than you do. they're not the 40-day and the terminations. they're the three days and especially arethe reprimands, and the seven days. i think there's a difference of opinion, that we have two experts looking at these and seeing them differently, and there tends to be a clear bias one way or another. i was told early on when i became a commissioner, that the d.p.a. was overcharging cases

because then it would meet and confer and negotiate down. it was almost like two parties in a litigation that would come together to negotiation. commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. just as a point of clarification, if there's an admonishment of an officer based on discipline that comes to the d.p.a., how long is that maintained in the officer's file so that we can look back if there's another issue and progressive discipline is to be imposed? how do we know what's come before that? >> so just to be very clear, an admonishment is not discipline. discipline starts with a written reprimand or higher. so take that point. and then, to answer your question, under the new disciplinary matrix, the

agreement was seven years. >> commissioner hamasaki: for the written -- sorry, the written reprimand. >> president hirsch: that you can look back. >> commissioner hamasaki: oh, that you can look back for seven years, and that starts with a written reprimand. because previously it was six months or something like that, for the written reprimand, and then, it was destroyed. so seven years sounds like a much better option. if we're going to use progressive discipline, we want to know what we're progressing from and to. one of the questions i had for the -- arising out of this, the chief, you know, when you said that where there's issues, and this was also addressed by the 22 or 21 fourth amendment issues, where you have a difference of opinion as to case law, are you consulting with lawyers?

>> on every occasion, yes i do. >> commissioner hamasaki: so there is a lawyer rendering an opinion in disagreement with the d.p.a.s heavy staff of hired guns. >> i don't know that they're heavy guns, but we have city attorney that issue legal opinions, and these are not agreed-upon legal opinions. one department has a different interpretation than another. i believe i'm always right, but you see -- >> commissioner hamasaki: i think everybody has proven up here that we all share that opinion about ourselves. >> and you see, but i do think it's important beyond me feeling that i'm right or the chief feeling that he's right, that we have a record with an indication of some of the issues are that we're dealing with, and it is the cannon

fodder for the department or the public to look at the disagreements and what the outcomes are to those disagreements, as well. >> commissioner hamasaki: and then, the others -- i get the chief's point about, you know, we look at some of these summaries, and they're, you know, you -- they're -- i mean, 27 officer told civilians to go back to their country during a traffic collision investigation of an sfpd vehicle. i can't see what the facts that would surround that that would make that anything less than a bias-motivated incident, but perhaps it was. [inaudible] >> commissioner hamasaki: oh, i'm sorry, yes. a written reprimand. >> commissioner dejesus: that's what the d.p.a. recommended. >> commissioner hamasaki: that was just the foundation of my question.

which was how do you determine what to produce publicly here for these summaries because obviously, we're reading this short summary, and oh, my gosh, that's outrageous, or meh. who decides who to put in the summaries? >> so the summary's a work in progress between a bunch of people in our agency including one of the staff lawyers as well as sarah monder and myself and director henderson review them. >> commissioner hamasaki: is it possible to get more information than we already have? >> we have to provide enough information to make it somewhat useful but to protect the officer's rights about what happened. >> commissioner hamasaki: under what circumstances could a police officer in the city telling somebody to go back to their country be anything under ten days? >> i don't know anything more about that particular case so i can't get into that. >> commissioner hamasaki: that's, i mean, horrifying,

so -- and -- but maybe there is. no, there's not. but you know, these summaries, the chief's point, it is difficult -- and i understand we're operating under certain confines, but -- thank you. >> president hirsch: commissioner mazzucco? >> commissioner mazzucco: yes, thank you. and commissioners, this is a great report that we have from the d.p.a. it's a vast improvement than what we've had over the years just by virtue of the report that director henderson showed you. but i just want to caution the commissioners, we're focusing on 79 little blurbs in a report like this. we're losing 150 officers because they feel like they're not being supported by the department. all of these things in here cause me concern, but we also have to stop and think fourth amendment. we as prosecutors and public

defenders, public defenders in the audience, we defend it every day in court. the fourth amendment changes every day. supreme court heard a case today about traffic stops -- u.s. supreme court. it changes every day. you have to stop for a second, and we can't expect these officers to go be legal scholars -- to be legal scholars. so we have to look at that and take it for what it's worth. it's a little blurb, fourth amendment. but the chief does have attorneys look at this. the body-worn camera. that's a work in process. i think the officers don't know when to turn them on and turn them off. there's an investigation, there's tactics. that's something that we're working on as a commission, so you have to take those are a grain of salt. with regard to the 805s,

officers are extremely busy. i will tell you that not taking a police report, laziness is not excusable in my book or any book. those are things that i think should be taken seriously, but i want to stop everybody and caution you for a second. there's 1,000 interactions that our police officers have every day with the public. there's 79 little blurbs, and there's officers watching this tonight, saying this commission is out to get us. i want to caution you, look for patterns, but also look at the bigger picture. >> president hirsch: vice president taylor. >> vice president taylor: yeah, and that's what i was talking about. i was looking at complaint 25, the traffic stop. it's not about the traffic stop, it's about the fact that the officer didn't enter information, i.e., laziness. so because it says stop and a little blurb, if that's not

what the complaint is about, this is not a fourth amendment issue, and it's not fair to paint it that way. >> commissioner dejesus: but it's towing the car. >> vice president taylor: no, no, neither did 14 or 15. there were no fourth amendment issues brought up. it is -- one that i think that i completely agree with, though, commissioner dejesus, you mentioned that 49 of these complaints, the chief did something -- there was no discipline imposed, even though d.p.a. recommended discipline. i actually counted 50, and so i would like to see, you know, more -- more thought given and more presentation as to what the reasons for this disconnect is. and, you know, to echo commissioner mazzucco, there's just no explanation for laziness. if people call 911 because they feel they've been harmed in some way, the least our

officers can do is follow up. >> president hirsch: commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: thank you. commissioner mazzucco, you make some excellent, excellent points, and i agree with a lot of things that you said, but i really want to make sure that things don't get lost. because in the issues of 79 of these cases, there's only one where the chief disagreed with d.p.a. whether the misconduct occurred or not. like for example, number 38 where it says the officers vie violated the complainant's fourth amendment right by sitting on a hydrant, which is not illegal. the chief agreed that misconduct did occur, and the only difference is d.p.a. said hey, this person should get a

written reprimand, and the chief said no. i think that's the only thing that caused me concern, and i wanted to understand sort of the reasoning is because the chief did agree that this -- this was misconduct, right? and so the question -- that i don't think that was the -- sort of issue, the issue was, you know, why isn't he -- or why isn't he agreeing with d.p.a. when they're suggesting a certain amount of discipline. >> commissioner mazzucco: conduct or a mistake? >> president hirsch: well, hold on. chief, you want to answer? >> this is a perfect example because there was a vigorous debate in our office as to whether or not sitting on a fire hydrant was actually illegal, and the -- what led up to that citation being issued.

so the issue was whether sitting on the hydrant was legal or not. so these -- i would just say, you know, i -- it's really not fair to the process to have a summary in here and assume mantthat summary is the same as what the discipline was because oftentimes the summary is not what the discipline ends up being. the letter might be allege allegation of an alleged search, body worn cameras, but the discipline is something else. i don't know a better way to report it because we're limited to we can report on these matters, but i think the bigger

issue for us is that we understand that there is issues that we have to get better at, and i think we are getting better. and between director henderson and myself and miss hawkins and assistant chief mozer, these things aren't happening anymore. so i think there's a lot more discussion, a lot more vetting of the issues, and hopefully, what you'll see is a lot less disagreement because we were at a totally different place in 2017 when some of this data was collected. >> president hirsch: commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: chief, i think you made a great point. i agree with you that it is not fair to the process, fair to the officers, fair to the civilians, the complainants in this case that we are restricted in this way from these incidents, and so i would join you in supporting the repeal of polver, as least as it applies to the release of

incident reports. this is ridiculous. we're being denied our ability to have oversight to sit up here and do our jobs by an unfortunate bill. i would -- well, that's another discussion but your words did prompt me to think of that, that we go through this dance around, and not able to deal with the real issues that are in front of us. but the reason i did hit the buttons, you know, i -- we -- as a commission, i think we all come from different backgrounds and different experiences, and i think that it is valuable to have the variety of experiences we have up here. and commissioner mazzucco made some comments just now about, you know, officers feeling unsupported. and i don't -- i think -- and i -- you know, commissioner mazzucco, i've come to respect

and admire this commission for his advocacy that officers -- we -- we need to have the best officers in this department on the streets representing the department and our city. but where i would disagree is to me, this process, this robust process of accountability is the core of what this commission does. and officers should feel supported when we are putting and identifying the problematic behavior, the issues that's caused all of this history of mistrust between communities of color, marginalized communities and the department. when we allow the officers to say go back to your country, and the people in the community see that same officer every day, that spreads. and throughout that community, you have this distrust build up between the officers and the community. and so if we don't standup and say hey, you know, we need to

have accountability here, we need to make sure this isn't happening, then to me, that is supporting our officers and our department. so you know, i think -- i think all of the comments were coming from the right place, but where i disagree is i think accountability and transparency are key to maintaining the -- the best possible police departments in the country. >> president hirsch: okay. i just wanted to weigh-in on that comment, too because i also feel as if i do my best to support the officers and this department, but not when there are problems, not when there are violations, and that's the reason commissioner elias and i rewrote the disciplinary code so that it would be much more specific, it would be uniform. and i really hope officers read it in advance so that they know what is prohibited and what is not prohibited, what behavior

works and what behavior doesn't work, and how you can get trouble. a body-worn camera can be -- there can be a failure to turn a body worn camera on for a very legitimate reason. exigent circumstances. there can be a very wrong reason for not turning on a body-worn camera, because you don't want evidence on what you're about to do, and everything in between, and this new disciplinary chart will address that and allow the department to fully address that and where the discipline plugs in. we have a responsibility for transparency, and discipline is one of them. there's a lot of things that we're kept out of. we can't access information, especially when a case is going to come to us. we rely on the d.p.a. and their oversight, and the department and their oversight.

director henderson? >> commissioner elias: great explanation. >> i just want to say i appreciate this conversation because i don't think we were able to have this conversation before with the reports and the information that was coming out of the organization, so i, for one, just want to recognize that the value of this conversation, even in the areas where we're not agreeing, were all more clear rather than not about the subject matter and the content. and to the degree we're having this conversation, it's not, i don't think, reflective of the entire department but specifically addressing mistakes in misconduct, and the fact that we're having a conversation about what that accountability looks like, what comes from specific incidents, i think is a good guideline both for the public to know what kind of things are being addressed by this process of the police commission and from the d.p.a. but also a guideline for the officers to see, to know, to read, to observe what is discipline and what is not.

and that process is only going to continue to get better, but having this type of form and having this type of presentation i think actually helps in the process. i did want to clarify, we keep talking about the time period, but just to we are -- so we're clear about what the time period is, it's 18 months, not a full year, but i don't want there to be any gaps between the time period when i started writing these reports and what was being done in the organization, so that's why we have that 18-month period being referenced in all of this work. i will say, and several of you have mentioned, that the importance and the significance of many of these legal issues that, again, as we've talked about, we don't agree upon, and they do include complicated issues like the fourth amendment and the cases of bias that we've talked about. one of the things that i just want to point out is we had a sustained case for bias. i only am pointing that out because i think that it's

important that we point out that in the history of this organization, we've never had a sustained case of bias ever. so the fact that we're -- >> commissioner elias: is that the case that commissioner hamasaki was referencing? >> clerk: case number 40? >> yes. >> commissioner hamasaki: oh, yeah, that was on the news. >> the fact that we're able to have these conversations and the fact that we're able to track the work more clearly i think is reflective of the department moving in the right direction and by the department, i mean the police department and d.p.a. and from the police commission. i'm pretty proud of the report and what it reflects. it will continue to get better. i do take very seriously, and i take notes on all of the commentary on all of you, both from the public and from the commission to keep improving

the reports and hopefully next year's report will be even better than this and have a more clear presentation for everyone all the way around. >> president hirsch: the next report will be a 12-month report. >> oh, no, there are quarterly reports in between. >> president hirsch: but the annual report? >> yes. i don't want to get it wrong. >> commissioner elias: the appendix information will be in a quarterly report from now on? >> no. the next report, meaning it will be 12 months, not 18 months. >> president hirsch: so the quarterly reports are what? >> we have a variety of quarterly reports. i was saying both. you'll get all the quarterly reports that you are already getting. >> commissioner dejesus: will the quarterly reports have the discipline stuff that's in

appendix a? >> we have not talked about that. one thing i think we should talk about as we have the hearings for the disciplinary review board is generating a report out of that body, so that is a conversation we should have going forward. >> commissioner dejesus: okay. because i think waiting a year is too much. >> president hirsch: commissioner mazzucco? >> commissioner mazzucco: i think when we're talking about search and seizure issues and looking at those as attorneys and looking at what the police officers did, that's what i'm talking about. when they turn the camera on and off, that's brand-new. we have officers that have been in the department 20 years that are suddenly told when to turn it on and off. i agree, with if they don't turn it off, it looks bad, but they may have an explanation. telling somebody to go back to their country is a disciplinary offense, and i don't think

that's a situation where any officer would think we're picking on them or nit-picking. that's a big issue. but we've got 79 cases for 18 months here. >> president hirsch: okay. we thank you all. >> commissioner mazzucco: thank you. >> president hirsch: okay. next line item. >> i have another report. warming up here, folks. so we have our c.m.s. presentation about our case management system. >> president hirsch: let's just finish this and then, we'll take a break. >> this will be under two hours. >> a picture of an inbox tray? that's -- >> that's how brief. >> commissioner hamasaki: do you know how many colors -- >> president hirsch: i do know. >> commissioner elias: he's color blind, so he doesn't even

see it. [inaudible] >> commissioner elias: hi. >> good evening, everyone. my name is sarah monder. i'm the operations manager for the d. -- d.p.a. i wanted to share with you one simple example of how our work flow has changed and improved ever since we implemented our case management system just for context. so in the past when an investigator got a new case, they would have to put the new case intake data into five different systems? so they were repeating data entry five times and in five different formats. then they would print out paper

copies of all of the work that they had done and place them in this box. next, a member of the clerical team would collect all the forms from the box. they would walk to a different work station where they would enter the same data again in two different places. i'm happy to tell you that with our new case management system, investigators now only enter information one time, and we have retired the wooden box, which was an integral part of our work flow. we have a new case management system which is based on sales force technology and eli hill is going to tell us how it all happened. >> thank you, commissioners, chief scott, and director henderson for having me here today. i have some prepared remarks, so i'll be reading it. my name is eli hill. she says i'm a client partner at slalom consulting.

for disclosure, i serve as a member of san raphael fire commission, but in my role today, i'm only speaking as a slalom consultant. so building on sarah's conduct, this leveraged a paper-based system as she mentioned, but the d.p.a. this year made a focused investment on d.p.a. technology to introduce a foundational tool to introduce timely and accurate report with specific reference to 1421 in mind. the tool provides near real-time visibility to cases in progress and opportunity for improved efficiency in collaboration. looking forward, the d.p.a. can leverage case data to drive policy recommendations. and in considerations of lessons learned on this endeavor, i would raise a couple categories, namely training and adoption of the system as well as data.

so a couple comments about that. time for training and adoption of the new technology by d.p.a. personnel was insufficient. we would have included an additional month of training. and although there is 100% data integrity, there are still mappings that need to be completed. i think director henderson made mention of a couple of kinks in the system, and we're still working to get these ironed out. but in closing, we believe that the system aligns with the core tenets of the d.p.a., promoting information sharing specifically with sfpd and other agencies moving from core screen access to more fine grained access bidirectionally, looking for patterns to inform policy recommendations and overall improving the complainant experience. those are my comments. i thank you for your attention.

>> president hirsch: thank you. anything else from d.p.a.? -- oh, you know what? we're going >> clerk: line item 3-c, commissioner reports. reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. discussion will be limited to determining whether to schedule any items for a commission report. >> president hirsch: the only report i have is i was told to schedule 1421 for next week, and i was told that neither the commission nor the staff people for the department are going to be available, so i'm going to move it to the 14 of december for the commission reports. >> commissioner elias: so the 1421 policy is going to be moved to december 2 or just the

presentation? >> president hirsch: i'd like to move everything. i'd like to have a full discussion of all of it at one time, so the policy and then the presentations from the departments as to where they are i think should all be done together. commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: so since you braought it up, i think this falls into that area. but i'm been inundate -- i've been inundated with e-mails about 1421 and surrounding, and whether they got in the seminar or didn't get in the seminar. this is covered in 1421? hirs >> president hirsch: yes. i've asked the department, the commission, and the d.p.a. to present on 1421 where they are, what they've produced, how they go about it, what the issues are, and that is going to be scheduled for december 14.

>> commissioner dejesus: so there's a presentation. >> commissioner hamasaki: is there a policy? >> commissioner dejesus: we can't do that on the 13 of november? >> president hirsch: we're not available. i don't think we have a meeting on the 20. there is no meeting on the 20. >> commissioner elias: there is no meeting on the 20? thanksgiving is the following week. >> commissioner dejesus: so now, the presentation, i guess the question that i have is how is this -- maybe the d.p.a. should tell us how the -- hu >> president hirsch: well, we shouldn't discuss that because it's not agendaized. at that time, i will ask the d.p.a. to address the issues that have been raised on 1421

by the public defender and by your office and give us a presentation. >> commissioner elias: and can we have the opportunity for the public defender to address their issues so it's both and not one sided. >> president hirsch: well, it's 1421 and they'll have an opportunity to address that. that's not calendared for a full discussion top to bottom for the d.p.a., which i think we had today. okay. next item on the agenda. >> clerk: commissioner's report? no commissioner's report? >> president hirsch: no, no more. >> clerk: line item 3-d, items identified for future commission items? >> president hirsch: okay. any items? next item. >> clerk: as a reminder, the next commission meeting is scheduled for wednesday, november 13 at 5:30 p.m. at city hall room 400.

the public is now asked to comment on items 3-a through 3-d. >> good evening, everyone. i just want to say that i appreciate what mr. henderson and others said about the conversation about the annual report. that was good to listen to the discussion that you all were having surrounding those issues. those are some of the issues that we've raised. a lot of times, we come in here and it seems like we're being critical, but we're just trying to make sure that folks do their jobs just like we're held accountable. this is the only outlet that we have, so it was good to hear that, as well as the public defender have that type of conversation. one of the things that i want to suggest, one of the reports

that i heard today is there's these little copies that you have. i think that, for example, you know, the incident where they were talking about the person told to go back to a country, well, ultimately, all of that stuff is printed, i believe in openness reports. and so all of those summaries are there. and so what we at the public defender's office, if i'm correct, someone correct me, when you get that openness report and you try to match it up with the quarterly report and the annual report, because of the length of time it takes to try to match those up, it's so time-consuming. so one of the ways to possibly track this so it can be more transparent to the public is maybe put a number on the quarterly report and then the openness and then on the annual. and in none of those reports is the officer's name mentioned. i think that's a way to deal with that because we've dealt with that same problem as well,

is to be able to track and then that way, members of the public and other agencies can look and find if there is a pattern with other officers. additionally -- well, i'm out of time, so i'll save it for later. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, president hirsch and commissioners. i am jim salinas, sr., native san franciscan of the mission district. so it's almost daily that i have people coming in asking me for information on different things as though i have the same level of knowledge that you do at this point, given that you all have been serving on this prestigious panel for some time. but let me just say this. one of the biggest conversation pieces that i have -- and i live in mira loma park, so we deal with glen park and pacific

heights and those particular districts. people in these departments, the issue of not having enough officers, and that's the reason why crime is at such a high level. i know i hear different reports, but the perception is crime is almost rampant in this city, and it's as a result of the fact that we don't have enough uniformed officers, so i was delighted to hear that commissioner mazzucco was saying we should be at 2400. i've been saying for years that we should be at a minimum of 2200. but the reason i got up here is commissioners, each one of you have an impact. every one of you knows, it's too political, i'm not going there, and i understand why. but we lose the best candidates as a result of it. so all of you -- most of you are attorneys. you know that we have to be fair and unbiased, and that's what we have to do.

so i appreciate all of you that are working to make sure that we reach that level. we have to treat everybody fairly, including those guys and those gals that wear the uniforms. thank you, commissioners. >> president hirsch: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm a community activist and abolitionist and community fighter concerning justice for san francisco and 15 years in bayview. my son was murdered in a quadruple homicide that happened in hayes valley. the four young men and one young man who was just simply trying to cash his check, working on his half an hour lunch break. the reason that i am here -- i am here because i'm very, very distraught concerning the leadership that's going on in bayview at the department. the leadership, i don't drop names, but what i am requesting

is a group of women, ourselves went to the community meeting on yesterday to explain ourselves because we are now working on feed the babies up in westbrook and also potrero hill because the children are hungry. so a lot of issues going on in the housing development, and the babies are hungry. so myself and i organized some mothers so we can start feeding the babies some breakfast. so we went to the bayview station to find out what we should do and build a relationship, and it was devastating of the attack that we experienced, the brutality, the brutishness, the meanness, the harshness, and the leader there would not allow us to speak. the leader that's been there three months, that's shocking. i feel for us to have leadership and for us to be an example over the officers, you have to be the example. and if they're not the example, if they have to come to this

agency to experience this type of energy, we are in trouble. we are definitely in trouble because these officers are going to go out and they're going to be very, very mean because of the leadership. so we are requesting a private meeting with you, chief, in regards to this issue. i've been working to uplift this community and to let them know that we trust them, that we -- that they need someone who trusts and let them know that they're not just there for the political issues, so that's the reason i'm here. and i think that we just need to show positiveness -- and one more thing. >> president hirsch: your time is up. i'm sorry. you can address him after the meeting. after the meeting, please. >> i mean, the police accountability, my son, yolani, was beaten. >> i have people in the audience for this. >> president hirsch: all right. if we have somebody that can address this?

is there somebody that can meet with this woman? okay. again, public comment. this is not general public comment, this is about items that we've discussed. go ahead. >> my name is john jones. during the 70's, i worked for the san francisco department of social services as an eligibility worker and after being trained, by fellow eligibility workers told me that if i were ever to get into a physical altercation with a client, a welfare client, that management of the welfare department would come down on the client's side regardless of the facts and my job was on the line. this left me with a very, very empty feeling. needless to say it colored my entire attitude towards everything management did. i have time and time between left these commission meetings with a feeling, wondering who

would really want to be a police officer in the san francisco police department. the -- i come in here and listen to the d.p.a. report which brags about the high number of, what is it, sustained findings they make, 7.5% or 9%, however you count it. i think commissioner mazzucco's comment was very well taken. it has to be a morale buster to be half aware of what happens at these commission meetings. i would like to applaud commissioner mazzucco's recognition of the morale problems caused, and i'd like to applaud in the strongest terms the disciplinary attitude articulated by chief scott. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. any other public comments on the items we've addressed already on the agenda?

okay. public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: line item four, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address the remarks to the commission as a whole and not to an individual commissioner or d.p.a. personnel. neither d.p.a. personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public but may present a brief response. d.p.a. and commissioners shall refrain from entering into debates from speakers on public comment. >> president hirsch: okay. public comment. >> hello. my name is reeta lark. it's been a long time since i'm here, on october 9, i called them because i wanted to document the conditions i live under.

my power was off for five weeks. it was an endangered situation because if i needed to buzz the police or ambulance in, i couldn't do it. i would have to come out of my apartment 24 hours a day to let somebody in. i also wanted to let them witness the condition that's going on since mother's day weekend about the stink that's stuck in the structure of the building that comes into my bedroom. an officer said that they would make a report, and then they turned it into a c.a.d. report, and all it says on this c.a.d. report is talking about strictly landlord-tenant issues. i wanted them to give more detail in the problems that i'm having, and so when i went to the station, could you please write a letter, the same officers that came to my home and make it more details, i left my -- make it more detailing, i left my number and never heard back. and i'm going to court next

week to hear all of these issues, and i'm trying to use that as part of my witness problem. so i'd appreciate it if someone can look into it and i can get this letter. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. general public comment. >> thank you, commissioners. so about three, four months ago, i was contacted by a senior citizen in the sunset district regarding a situation that developed as she was parking her vehicle around the corner from her home, an individual certainly less than her age came out and was very aggressive and very offensive to the extent that at some point, the woman was so angry, she'd seen fit to park her vehicle on a public street. she blocked her vehicle. things became very tense, and

the police were called out. a police report was taken, and the individual, the senior citizen who had, by this time, decided to take refuge in her home and had not come out as a result of the fact that she felt that the police had sided with the young woman as opposed to hearing all the details as to what led up to the incident. so i had the good fortune of running into commander dan perea, and i relayed the incident to him, and unbeknownst to me what he did was he contacted the commanding officer out at the sunset station, and a couple of wonderful officers came out and knocked on her door and said we're here to take a little bit more information on the report. they did so, instilling trust and confidence in her that the police were there to take care of everyone, including former

retired u.s. park rangers. but all it takes is a couple of people with a little bit of sensitivity to instill trust and confidence in the citizenry, and i thank all of the folks that were involved to make sure that she gets out because our seniors deserve to get out and about. they've contributed, too. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. good evening. >> linda chapman. i wonder whether that report of statistics on sexual assault includes jewish home, although i told it was actually sexual battery. and you know, i see all the publicity about laguna honda, and that's there because everyone did the right thing. and the reason there's no publicity at this time because of course i haven't gone to the press is that nobody did the right thing at the jewish home except central station and the

advocates who came on when they sent their report. i was talking with emily merase about the special victims unit that creates special victims. you know, i didn't feel that much like a victim. i was a professional, and by the day after the event, i was giving advice to the jewish home staff on what -- how to manage this for their own protection and so on, which unfortunately, they didn't take, you know? but i really felt by the end of four months of police investigation, i was drained, you know? it was like a rag being thrown out in the street. today, i went to get -- oh, after -- this is the first time, a little bright note from the last time i was here because i really am quite sure you want to change the special victims unit, but i went right back into the black hole after that, and i was told, go to the d.a., go to the city attorney, and go to the public defender, not the police. so today, i got a card, which i

think was helpful. however, this afternoon, i made a long trip to public records -- i mean, police records because there was no records in the d.a.s. when i did finally call them, nothing but the incident report, which was never corrected. nothing in the police records, either. four-month investigation. the things that i signed for him to go and get what would have been evidence, the medical reports, the r.o.i., all gone. the administrative -- okay. >> president hirsch: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners, chief scott, director henderson. >> president hirsch: good evening. >> just a few days ago, an author penned an opinion in the sacramento bee expressing frustration with the speed of

sb 1421. i hope you read it. i want to just read a new snippets of her piece because they bear on why i'm here and why i will continue to be here at these police commission meetings going forward. access to the records is necessary to preserve public trust in the integrity of the criminal justice system. an officer's word can often end up being the difference between innocence and guilt. in los angeles, dozens of cases have been tarnished by -- although sb 1421 has given us a way to begin identifying potentially problematic convictions, the process isn't working smoothly. the state's largest law

enforcement agencies still are not releasing records that are public undered law. and when departments have released records, they have been so in a deliberately slow and increasingly frustrating manner. we must commit to using these tools. senator skinner cuts right to the heart of the matter. san francisco can either be a leader on this issue or fall behind. as a letter we submitted to the commission last night made clear, we take the release of misconduct records seriously. i implore this commission, chief scott and director henderson to get all the sb 1421 records out so that anyone charged with a crime has a fair shot at justice. thank you. >> president hirsch: thank you. >> commissioner dejesus: wait. you said there was a commission letter you sent last night? >> president hirsch: it's on your e-mail. >> commissioner hamasaki: not everyone checked their

commission e-mail every day. >> president hirsch: all right. >> commissioner hamasaki: we all check our e-mail by the minute. >> commissioner elias: yeah right. >> president hirsch: okay. next speaker, please. >> good evening again, commissioners. >> president hirsch: good evening. >> chief, and mr. henderson. we are 310 days into the year, and unfortunately at this point, there is no written policy, and that echos what senator skinner was writing about. you know, come december 4, we'll be 328 days into the year and there still may or may not be a written policy at that date because the matter keeps being continued. we came here in may of this year, and there were working groups after working group and other issues and now we're being told that certain folks aren't available when we were told that this would happen, this meeting in october. additionally, at this point,

we've received 21 letters of extension from the san francisco police department. i want to submit one of these to the record -- for the record, as well, and this friday, we would expect our 22nd. in the mayor's budget for 2019-2020, it indicated that the city is committed to ensuring that public safety services are transparent and accountable to residents and the mayor's proposed budget allocated for the two years $7.4 million for technology and staff to help departments comply with this law. mr. henderson and chief scott were in front of the board of supervisors and they asked for 11 positions, that's the police department for d.p.a., and i presume that many of those positions were filled. but yet, there was a conversation earlier today about, you know, stanislaus county and how they get paid -- like, there's more pay here and there's less pay there, but

there's less pay, like senator skinner mentioned in an article, in the modesto bee -- i know because i'm from modesto. on that date, they released 57 incidents of misconduct. and in san francisco, we still have not received 57 incidents of misconduct from any condition, and they are able to do more with less there. we should be able to do better in san francisco. >> president hirsch: thank you. commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: one thing i would note that the policy for 1421 that commissioner mazzucco and i did is posted on our website. it was posted last friday. it was scheduled -- it was scheduled to be heard by the full commission and voted on on november 13, but the -- but commissioner hirsch just moved it to december 4. but the policy is on-line and posted, so i suggest the public go and look at it because it's up there, and that's what we'll be voted on -- >> president hirsch: do you want to have that calendared for the 13 of november and not the same day -- i'm willing to do because we don't need the

people who are unavailable. >> commissioner dejesus: deposition in tahoe. >> commissioner elias: well, i think commissioner mazzucco and i spoke that we do want the 1421 altogether. >> president hirsch: right. i think that makes sense. >> commissioner elias: and i had requested to agendaize that d.p.a. address the public defender's issue, and the public defender address d.p.a. issues so that it's all in one session. >> president hirsch: okay. next speaker. >> my name is john jones. i would like to address the situation at the 200 block of hyde street, which is a ve veritable jungle. i used to work as a seaman as a younger man. been around the world through

t the mediterranean a couple of times. what i saw was not that bad. i don't think it will end well. i don't think it's a police matter. i don't think it's something government can do anything about. i think our government is downstream, if you will, from the larger culture, and what we're seeing out there in the 200 block of hyde street is a cultural phenomenon. but what i'm asking the commission to do is say that. everyone's running around, and we're getting more needles, build more million-dollar affordable housing for people, whatever. but i think this commission has t the expertise to turnaround and say cut the crap. we need something done, and we need it fast. >> president hirsch: thank you. any other speakers for general public comment?

good evening. >> good evening. i'd like to use the overhead, as usual. i'm here concerning my son, aubrey abrakasa who is murdered -- who was murdered august 14, 2006, and to this day, his case isn't solved. i bring this with me because it was former mayor good afternoon newsom -- former mayor gavin newsom say they know, the police know who killed my son. the police can identify individuals and addresses. so he said all of this to tell you that he had the names of everybody that murdered my son, which is thomas hannibal,