force and those are the types of cases where we think it's supported by the conduct and the disciplinary matrix that we're currently operating under that will be shifting as new disciplinary matrix looked at by this commission. but that's kind of what we gage it by. the structure that we have in place now and the severity of the conduct and any disciplinary history of the officer. >> but the chief's office, there's an 81% agreement with the actual -- there's a sustained violation and then there was also a difference statistic regarding the imposition of discipline, right. so 81% of the time they agree with you. d.p.a. and you got this right and director henderson what

alluded to this. we're working out the system. we often don't get notified of what ultimately happens? so we get the notice to meet and confer but we don't always know kind of what happens at the back end of a case. we're trying to streamline that process that one director henderson was talking about 50 or 60 letters we got recently, that's because we went through manually and made all these requests and received the final results of the case. >> ok. >> that needs to be fixed right away.

we are working a lasting solution request. everybody is great about providing information when we request it but the automated part of it has been missing. so i think we are up-to-date now and should be up-to-date going forward. but if there's not a technological solution at this point. >> i think it's really important that what we're trying to get to is an audio mated where i don't have to ask. it should be automatic when the decision gets made that we get the notification and if we don't answer or if someone doesn't send it or because even if the document that's we get we have to read through it to figure out does this correlate to one our cases and we have to follow-up. >> >> i'll come back. >> it's just a clarification.

i don't understand. if we are meeting and conferring in-person and he is agreeing or disagreeing, how do you not know the outcome by filling it in your file? >> the meet and confer is a phone call between mow ser and myself. it is at which point i'm being notified they disagree with us on either the issue of whether the findings should be sustained or the amount of discipline. then, other processes occur. we dis agreed that is the end of it and i don't necessarily get the letter that closes that loop. >> hang on the no, know, we're not going to have a free for all. anything else? >> so if there's no disagreement with the discipline is there any recourse appeal or anything from the d.p.a. side or any options

you have to challenge the lack of imposition of discipline? >> no, because the city charter authority is that under 10 days we're essentially bringing the case to the chief for the chief to make the imposition of discipline decisions. it ends there. >> understood, thank you. >> commissioner. >> i have several questions. first let me say that the report is great. great job to d.p.a. for providing this information. i think the appendix a showing the information on the disciplinary outcome because it gives the public more -- yes, it is. it gives the public more transparency because the public is confused as to what you do and they feel like given occ's history that they don't -- that people would make complaints and nothing would happen and d.p.a. has worked hard and can can and

the only thing in the 2016 report and not provided in this report and that information is really helpful and important. >> it's a well taken point. >> kudos on that. my other question is you just said that you are up-to-date on the notifications and if that's the case why are there still unknowns on the appendix? >> because we had to print the report at some point so we're up-to-date today. like calender day right now but we weren't in time for printing up the report? >> so, i love the charts and sort of your percentages and math but when i manually count it i get a different number. when i see the appendix a it looks like there's are 79 cases

and there are various officers for some cases have various officers and some some don't. i want to try to understand or wrap my head around the fact when i looked at themen79 cases9 of the 79 case it appears the chief agreed with misconduct occurring but 5 59 out of the 79 cases the discipline imposed by the chief was lower or less than what you had recommended. so it seems like a high number and i'm trying to figure out why and how that sort of happened. and i think that -- i also -- so that's one of my questions. before you answer that i want to make sure that i understand the process. when these decisions in terms of the discipline that is imposed in your chart, is that from the

chief himself or is that from the meetings where you talk about where your meeting with his upper management. >> the ultimate decision about imposing discipline is from the chief himself. >> ok. >> so can you explain why 59 out of the 79 it seems the discipline that was imposed is less than what you recommended? >> i think that's a question for the chief frankly. in terms of what happens on that side, i do have conversations o i understand certain things but i don't know the ultimate decision on his side. >> can i just jump in and add that separate from the conversations, that my chief-of-staff has with moeser, the chief and i have those conversations as well. when you are asking if we're having conversations how do we not know. even when we have the conversations there's no, there's not a district follow-up so we get a confirmation that that is what happened what away

talked about is what happened until we get those. >> chief, you want to respond. >> one second. chief, i want to respond to that because i have a follow-up question on those numbers. before you respond if i can just ask one other question, with respect to the d.p.a. report because i think the other questions may actually be more properly suited for the chief that i have. on page 17, you indicate the audit unit and i wonder when we're going to get this audit. it says 2019 but when will we get it and i know why is it taking so long but there has to be -- >> i have a couple of responses and updates on that. so we anticipate publishing an interim report relatively soon. we just got notification that it was gone through the upper chain. the agenda for commission is full for the rest of the year so

it would probably be early in january that we'll be able to issue that report. >> can i give more information. that as we recall and we've talked about this, it's the controllers' office that is doing that process and so we could not control the interim report they've had changes and management and we have been -- we started meeting with them weekly going over this when are we getting the report and when are we getting the report it was just cleared for us to release last week when you met with them. >> i thought it was earlier this week but it was recent. >> yes. >> i'm just giving you context. >> when you get the report done in january are we going to see delays like this again? >> i hope not and what i've asked to be included in that report are specific things to change so the process doesn't take as long as last time and again, the process for this report is being done by the controllers' office and hasn't been moved into d.p.a. yet and

so we've been working with them as a third party get this out into us as quickly as possible. >> if i can give one example it's being able to access juvenile records so having to go through an 827 process to get -- >> you can't do it peace meal? >> no. >> so we didn't -- we weren't involved in that because it was the controller's office who was attempting to get the juvenile records and to access purposes when people authorized occ to do that and it was revoked making it very difficult for us to get access to those records. >> do you want to address the question. thank you, commissioner.

in this report goes back to juna couple of things i just want to enter out that are really important and step positive, i think the working relationship between the two agencies is as good as it's been since i've been here. this process of our that this report started and now i think it's gotten better so if you look at all the of the disciplinary decisions most of them that where we disagree or lower level discipline and it's undisciplinary many of them involved camera and issues and that issue i think has not only are we pretty much on the same page of that with the commissions disciplinary guide

coming out and as soon as we get to that process and we'll rectify a lot of those issues i make the decision on the case presented to me. what i want to point out is our processes are really good now and there's a lot more discussion in terms of when we disagree than there have been before and there's a process that we didn't have in place and in june when director henderson took over and before ms. hawkins came aboard we didn't have a formalized process. we talked about it and now we write a letter on everyone we disagree on and we explain why and we have a meet and confer and we get to a common ground and sometimes we don't. i think what you can expect in the futur future is less of a disagreement and when we do disagree, there's an understanding as to why. sometimes we agree to disagree

but most of the time i think we come to a common place and many of these were in the past that would not have happened. >> thank you for that answer and i appreciate that. i really want to understand sort of your thought process for the fourth amendment violations. i know you and i have had personal conversations and i have expressed to you the the rights of individuals and i want to try and wrap my head around sort of how you process fourth amendment violations because in reviewing these 79 cases out of the 79, half of these cases involve fourth amendment search and sees you're issues and 22 of the case there's were instances where you agreed with the fact that misconduct had occurred and the discipline that you imposed was less than what d.p.a. recommended. and some of the examples that i

am going through the 79 cases, are for example, number two which involved a d.u.i. where the officer field-sobriety test was given and it was indicated that there are no alcohol was found on sort of one of the breath test and a more evasive test of a blood draw was taken of the individual and the individual was prosecuted and sort of -- you go that misconduct had occurred and that discipline should be imposed and the discipline was held as rather than imposed on sort of that officer. another example is example number 15 which is a search issue where you again, the person is arrested and his car is -- the individual's car is searched. the incident, the report

documenting the incident was inaccurate and su one officer failed to supervisor and the decision was no discipline would be in that case and then there's also example 14 on the case snow squalls another one where the fourth amendment issue would arise and sort of a stop and or search of a residents. search of a residents and also to some of the examples that i saw were stopped where the stop data wasn't entered in the system and that is troubling but this data isn't entered and it's

important because it allows to track the demographics of why people are being stopped and you agree that this misconduct occurred with no sort of discipline is imposed and and number 26 involved five officers where it was an improper traffic stop and it stuck out to me and you know, it stuck out to me because of sort of the jewel nile issue and it's example number 34 and we had talked about in our bias working group about minors being given cars when they're detained or stopped by police officers and that wasn't something that the department was interested and how they would figure out how time notment that but examples like number 34 where children,

you know, a juvenile is detained and his parent aren't notified and the violation of the policy and given our talks about those situations and sort of and so have their parents notified of any interactions they have with officers it's really concerning to me and i think that sort of individually, maybe when we see these cases and individually they don't really sort of rise to a certain level but i think that when they're compiled into a report like this and there's patterns that we're seeing or numbers that are sort of coming up, i'm wondering what sort of your thought process is and two what you can do sort of to approach this on a sort of whole

so that you can start looking at patterns that maybe not -- they're not obvious when you lock at them individually and in isolation, right. because 22 of them, i mean, they have to do a search or seizure issubut it'sa little bit confusm just trying to get clarity on it. >> i'll start with the larger issue. fact patterns. i don't think it's fair to the process to real see look at a couple sentences from a summary and make an assessment about a case because when those cases are presented to me they're presented in their totality and all those things have to be

considered. a lot of is these cases you do look at facts of the case. it's unfair to look at a sentence and say, you know, make an assessment of whether i disagree or not agree based on two sentences. the other issue with that is the one thing than i do is i see all the cases. so the consistency of discipline i think is really important. progressive discipline and i know we talked about this in the commission before. let's say the stop information. for many, many years that first offense has been an admonishment. if there's aggravating factors that make that rise up to a level more than admonishment it has to be considered. i try as best as i can to be consistent and not be all over the map when i'm dispensing

discipline. and i think that is really important. but to say -- to look at a couple sentences and make an assessment about a case, i don't at this it's fair to the process. some of these cases i can remember really well because i actually read the case and others i was briefed on and even when i'm briefed those cases are given in totality with mitigateing and aggravating factors. some of these cases we don't grow on. some of these cases are interpretations of case law that we might not agree on but as far as the policy violation itself, i mean that's first and foremost of what we look at what is the policy violation. i say all this and say we -- i look at the case as a whole and the patterns that may or may not be present i think you will see more consistency now that we

have a disciplinary guide because we look at the same factors. they're using separate disciplinary guides. in terms of my understanding and directing anderson or ms. hawkins, the admonishment, the guide with admonishment on it i don't think you are using. when paul came along he considered admonishment but before d.p.a. cases were started in reremant and the department if it's a low level of discipline, and the spirit of progressive discipline may start at a admonishment which is not disciplinary but for cases where the violation was found but it was found that violation could be handled within the admonishment and retraining so that piece has been reconcile with the penalty guide.

some of these there's a lot more to it than what is on this paper. i don't mean to cut you off. i was just going to say under the new 2.04 that you passed, there's a disciplinary review board that is going to be started to exactly address this holistic issue of looking at trends. so, there's a meeting set up next week for us to convene about what that is going to specifically look like but it will do exactly what we're talking about which is bring everybody to the table to look at the findings and to come to a better understanding of what happened over the past quarter, what are the trends, what is happening, where is the disconnect between d.p.a. and the department in terms of how the discipline is being handled and for lack of a better terminology kind of what a case should be worth or should settle for or should be disciplined at. >> the two suggests i woul suggn the report is one maybe putting

dates? >> since it does cover that it will be helpful information and providing more information in the sort of case summary or even adding a box to sort of why the discipline was lower than you had recommended. >> those are great ideasment we'll have to talk to the city attorney's office in terms of what we can include but i grow witagreewith those suggestions. >> vice president taylor. >> thank you. first, commissioner stole one of my questions. i think having the complaints by demographic was helpful so putting that back in would be helpful for the commission. and then, second i want to apologize because i have to disagree with her on the number only because i had it's

important that we're accurate about this and what i found in going through this and the vast majority of the complaints here why citizens explaining about failure to investigation. the vast majority. i counted nine having anything to do with fourth amendment. even those you just referenced and 14 and 15 they have nothing to do with fourth amendment and there's nothing about unlawful search but it's having a incident report inaccurate and failure to exercise a subordinate. what was surprising to me is the scheer number again of police in writing an incident report so they didn't and police were trying to dissuade someone from moving forward in the investigation so they file a report. they didn't want to investigate it. that's a little horrifying to me. i counted 18 of those and that was over we wil overwhelming mae

79 that i saw. followed most closely by issues related to body-worn cameras. failure to turn on your body-worn camera was a serious issue. i counted nine having anything to do with unlawful detention searches and sees you'res but it's concerning to me to have citizens complaining and calling the police which is a terrifying thing for a lot of people to do and then the officer just not wanting to file a report and i don't feel like it. or you know, so, i was surprised by that number. i didn't think that would be the number one issue and so i do know in terms of trends i don't know what -- if you have an answer why that was such a high percentage of the 79 complaints and that was a majority by my

account. i realize this is a snapshot in time from june 2017 to december of 2018. i don't know. i don't know if you see any trends about anything and it indicates some trend and that is a chief and i don't know if you have an answer. >> i can say it's on the most part random but one thing that i see over and over again with some of those type of neglective type of constitute is experience. we've had incidents that have been sustained where officers we felt should have known better. i mean, ignorance to the law is no excuse and we know that. experience does matter. particularly with new officers, you know, in a chaotic situation sometimes where they just make a mistake. and that is the case sometimes other times it's more egregious

and we try to adjust and address those accordingly. on the large scheme of things, what really helps is if we have body-worn cameras put to help us determine what happened and often times that is another factor with some of the cases where there's an allegation of neglect of duty and there's no camera because you didn't turn it on and captured that part of the incident so what you are seeing again, these go back two years and i think you are seeing less of that and i think we've made our point to officers that this is a serious matter and discipline will be handed out accordingly on this and we actually started seeing less of them. we've made some policy recommendations on the body-worn camera and we wrote a lot of issues we were seeing during this era and i think that both

and also help because some of thcommissioner's questions, some of these were policy failure because of the ab barghouti of thambiguity so youwill see lesse plays into the other. we can actually see evidence as to how that situation evolved and makes us able to determine the pro pro at level of discipline and whether it's a training issue. >> i would like to see follow-up. especially with the failure to investigate. all of it. i would like to see if there's han been improvement and folks are confident about that. i would like to see post december 2018 data. >> i think the other thing is with the quarterly discipline review board so it's not a year and a half we're waiting to have these stats an stats and we cans

the trends as they're happening so that will definitely help drill down on what the issues are and fixing them in a quicker amount of time. >> chief scott, did you have something else to add? >> oh, no, i'm sorry. >> ok. commissioner dejesus. >> i don't know. i counted 21. let me just say, i think you hit the nail on the head, you know, patterns. i think when we looked at this, this is all we have available to us and so it's good to point out that it's over a two-year period. this is all we have today. we're looking at it and there's some flaws that we're trying to get some better understanding. it does look like a pattern and that's what we're trying to talk about and rather than one individual instance and we don't have all the facts in front of us and i can't second judge you but i did look at 21 either traffic stops and searches. first amendment stuff and i mean, i have them circled over

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