what these deadlines mean and what the nine-month report is when i talk about it every week. i can answer questions if anyone has questions. >> thank you. next item. >> line item 2c, commission reports. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. >> i don't have a report. are there any reports by commissioners? seeing none right now, we are ready for the next item. >> line item 2-d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting, action. >> any items? seeing none, next item? >> the next police commission meeting is wednesday, december 11, 2019, 5:30 p.m. at city hall room 400. the public is invited to comment online items 2a through 2-d.

>> any public comments? next week is our last meeting for the year and we won't convene until the second wednesday in january. any public comment? okay. public comment is closed. >> line item 3, discussion and possible action to approve protocols for release of sb 1421 documents for purpose of engaging in the meet and confer process with the police officers association, discussion and possible action. >> a working group spent quite a bit of time preparing this set of protocols. and commissioner mazzucco and elias took the lead on behalf of the commission. so i will turn this over to them. >> thank you, commissioner hirsch. we received, first we want to again thank the individuals who

participated in the working group. it was very informative and it was good to see everyone in the room at the table and having open and fluid conversation with each other. we received a lot of requests and recommendations with respect to the language for the 1421. commissioner mazzucco and i's intention in terms of preparing this document was to have this document be sort of emulate the statute and the wording specifically in the statute, because we want to get this passed as quickly as possible as we know this is going to go to meet and confer. so the law is the law, and that's what has to be followed. we understand that it is a work in progress, and there are several nuances that are going to be developing as this process takes place. and we believe that ultimately, the court will be getting involved in sort of interpreting a lot of the questions that were

raised by the various individuals that appeared at the working group. so we took that all into consideration and tried to create a protocol that would address as best we could, all the different sort of recommendations and suggestions, including the city attorney's recommendations. and that's what we have before the commission today. >> i want to thank commissioner elias. this was a collaborative effort. we had the public defender's office, the san francisco police department, san francisco police commission office, we had many members of the police officer's employee groups, various groups participated. the city attorney's office provided us excellent advice throughout and was present. and again, both commissioner elias and i were very consistent in that we follow the statute. if there's issues with 1421 as commissioner elias said, that will be litigated in court. and we wanted to stick to the plain meaning of the statute. there's some things that are

ambiguous but there are professionals involved. we'll get this to the meet and confer requirement. there will probably be litigation. at that point the courts are make the determination. this do you mean came together quickly with the help of others -- this document came together with the help of others and there's nothing contentious about it at this point. >> i have a question for you. i think it's work talking about in public a little bit. and that is, it's on the third page, c1 -- page three. there is a paragraph that reads, there is no sustained if the officer resigns or retires any time before the chief or commission makes a final determination. if the commission continues its investigation despite an officer's retirement, the charges will be sustained. if the commission has made a

final determination sustaining a finding and the officer has been afforded the opportunity to appeal. and the question i had is whether we would ever have the ability to continue an investigation after an officer retires or resigns? i thought we had lost jurisdiction at that point. >> this issue did come up at the working group. and buck was present, and he actually answered the question that you just brought up. and his answer was that if the two categories that require sustained findings, the commissions had the power to order either the charging agency, so the san francisco police department or d.p.a. to continue its investigation up until the sustained finding. because that's when it could be would-be final and then subject to the 1421 disclosure. and that was an example that came up, because we oftentimes see a lot of the times the

commission where charges are brought up against an officer, and the officer resigns prior to the final adjudication, and we see that a lot. so that question came up, and he answered that, and that was his answer. >> that's correct. much to my surprise, one of our -- again, it was an attorney/client concerns, but one of the most esteemed city attorneys, buck, told us that. it's the first time i've heard that in my years in the commission. and there's some practical insures with us going forward and doing this. when these officers do resign, they are walking away from this. but how much further do we need to go, is the question this commission has to address. we can go forward, and we can, and it would be -- i don't think it would appear once they've resigned. so those are the logistical issues we've thought about afterwards. but it's an issue. the first time we learned of

that issue. i think commissioner elias and i were surprised when we received that legal advice. so it's an issue we have to deal with. and many of these cases where the officer resigns because they've had criminal charges sustained against them, so to speak, or they've been found guilty or pled guilty, and that's something that would be disclosed. but it's a decision this commission has to make down the road about whether or not we ask the d.p.a., the police department to continue their investigations and to come forward with the hearing. most likely the officer will not be present, and there would be a finding by the commission. so again, it's something we need to discuss in the future. >> and he said it isn't about dispolice, us continuing to go forward wasn't about discipline but taking the case to final adjudication so it would comply with the 1421 requirement. >> exactly. >> there has to be an opportunity for the officer to at least defend him or herself. they absolutely can.

they can participate. they can just choose not to. >> all right. is there legal authority to this? or is this just an opinion buck gave at the time and we don't know if there's authority? >> at the time he did answer the question, and he did say he looked at the charter. because when he was giving us this advice, we were in the working group and he collected all the submissions by all the various agencies. because i think one of the agencies raised this issue or came up during the working group, i think he went back and may have spoken to the city attorney working group that they have on the 1421. that i'm not sure of. but then when he came back and told us again, it was at the second working group we had, because the first working group we had was the one you were present at and he was sitting next to me and said it. and the second time was when commissioner mazzucco and i set at city hall with the very select sort of agencies and the city attorney. and he again reiterated that.

>> this is actually our third meeting at city hall with our attorney. and it was the agencies that are represented by the city attorney's office were present. and that's when he gave us that opinion. >> all right. i want to stay on this issue. so do either commissioners taylor or hamasaki have a comment on this point? >> i do. >> i think miss taylor >> that was one of my questions. i mean, i think we are all surprised by it. it's an interesting vote -- [off mic] >> yes. we are all pretty surprised by this. it's an interesting road to pursue, right? if we pursue an officer who is resigned, i want to make sure we are on firm ground if there's litigation over that. it would be nice to have more than buck, who is obviously wonderful, and i respect him, but more than that for our

ability to move forward. so i don't know. >> i'm not sure what the question is, but that is the opinion of the city attorney's office, it's not just buck >> and this is based on legal analysis of case law? >> right. so the commission has subpoena power. the commission could issue a subpoena. we would have to go to court to enforce it. but all those are questions that would be anticipated heavily litigated down the road. and we'll cross that bridge when we get there. >> commissioner hamasaki? >> yeah. so this is something that's come up for me since i think early in my term on the commission. it's always seemed troubling that by resigning, an individual deprives us of our ability to investigate disciplinary or criminal conduct that's being -- that's occurred, either under the cover of law or another

capacity, because they resign, and then the city, we're not doing our job by conducting and overseeing the investigation and releasing findings and holding individuals accountable and being transparent to our city about the problems that may have existed. so i've always been in favor of this. i'm glad to know that we have the legal authority on this, because the idea that we are going to sweep things -- or that we have forever swept things under the rug, not intentionally, because i think there wasn't the knowledge that we could do this, i welcome this news. and i look forward to us instituting this process. and i also think it's good for the members who want to clear their name, instead of resigning

and quitting, going somewhere else, they have the opportunity to have the full rights and due process that is afforded to any member of the departments through the investigative and disciplinary hearing process. so overall, i think this is an excellent addition. >> commissioner dejesus. >> so i got two questions. why haven't we done this before? because this is incredibly frustrating. and we've been told we have no jurisdiction, and now we are told we have jurisdiction. so i don't know how that switch flipped. but let me finish the second question. i am concerned about due process. i mean, if somebody leaves the country, our subpoena doesn't work. if we can't give anybody notice, and we are having a hearing without notice, there's a due process and potential litigation and potential privacy issues. so i'm baffled by this process. >> if i can address two issues.

one, i think it's very important to remember that this be, this only play mris to sustained findings. only applies to sustained findings in co2002 categories, sexual assault and dishonesty. we owe it to the public to continue the investigation on those two categories. because the public has the right to know whether there's someone accused of sexual misconduct, they have a right to know about that or dishonesty. >> the other thing i want to -- >> [off mic] >> okay. >> one at a time. go ahead. >> only because this came up at the working group too. so with respect to the charges portion, that was another issue that was raised at the working group. and the sort of consensus was the officer would know about the charges, i mean, presumably, he would have the charging

document, and then he resigns. so he or she would be fully aware of the charges. and given the opportunity to either litigate the allegations, up until the final adjudication or not, but at that point he would have notice these charges are happening, because usually the way we do cases, they resign right after the charges are filed or -- okay. >> vice president taylor. >> the city attorney -- >> we've had cases before, as we know, from before the commission, where we all felt frustrateed because obviously nt in every case, but there are cases where we've all felt like we really -- my understanding was that we couldn't keep going. so i understand the frustration, and that's part of the question i was asking. i want to make sure we are on firm ground if we are going forward, if we have a legal basis for this. >> what changed?

>> what changed? >> we could maybe get a memorandum. >> what's your question? >> the question was -- is what changed so that now we can continue up to sustain charges with or without the officer's presence, when before we've been told we have no jurisdiction? i guess that's just a big question mark in my mind. >> to my knowledge, the questions that have been asked of the city attorney's office has not been specifically about can the commission continue once an officer has resigned and the charges have been withdrawn. >> you weren't here. you weren't present, but it was to a different deputy city attorney. >> and again, to those specific situations that you have, i ask that you direct those questions specifically to the department that was here in closed session, i imagine. but to my knowledge, there are walls for a specific reason.

so i'm not involved in that. moving forward, this is the advice from the city attorney's office, that once a week u.k. proceed. i think actually every -- that you can proceed. i think actually every, i can't speak to those facts as to why you couldn't move forward. >> is there a consensus, we would like to get a written statement from the city attorney advising us as to the law? >> that would be helpful. >> i think i understand the opinion but it is different than we receive aid year ago >> i had a second follow-up. >> just so we can make a request. >> if you don't mind, can you put it in writing so i can pass it along within the office? >> put the question in writing? >> the exact question. >> okay. can you draft the request. like a one-sentence request. >> i'll send it to you. that's why we were shocked and kept asking buck, are you sure. we asked him several times. and it was the answer that was

repeated. and he's well-respected, so we didn't, you know, after the third or fourth time, we sort o- >> great. you had another question. >> my second question. that was my first question. my second question was about sexual assault, but child sexual assault victims, there are privacy concerns and issues there, and that's not laid out specifically in this document, but i'm sure that's part of what you consider. so if you can just talk about that and being able to redactorr protect in regards to sexual assault. >> there are redactions. there's another area like privacy protections that are normally in existence which that would be, then it would be protected or redacted. so this was just for 1421 issues. so we have to focus it on 1421. >> it mentions federal and state

law. it doesn't lay that out, so i wanted to make sure that was clear on the record that nothing changes with respect to the privacy of children and victims of sexual assault. >> and just for the record, the people that are being hired to do this work, to review those files, i know on behalf of the police department, for example, the people that we have in the commission office are experienced, have an understanding of the law, and their judgment will be -- they are familiar with what needs to be redacted, what's privileged and what's not. nothing is going to be perfect, but we have people that understand what is privileged. they have experience as paralegals, whereas attorneys or investigators. that's going to fall within their discretion. if it doesn't work, we'll hear about it. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> yeah. just a procedural -- what do we -- in the interim, what

happens? >> we are going to vote on this tonight, right now. >> right. >> public comment >> i meant so are they using this for guidance? are they releasing records now although it's not going to be an official document? because it has to go through meet and confer for some reason? >> we've been using something close to this but not exactly this, only because the statute is there, and these agencies have to get their information out. but once we do pass a written protocol, we'll have to go back and make sure we were in compliance retroactively. and going forward we will, but in the meantime we go to meet and confer. and that will take -- >> what's the meet and confer basis busy for -- basis for thi? >> i don't know to what sent but that's what the department of human resources will advise us as to what issues we are obligated to meet and confer over >> okay. are they going to be here in

closed session next meeting or something? if we are sending this to meet and confer, why are we and on what basis? we need to meet with -- >> before they go to meet and confer, they get back to us, usually in writing, and tell us what it is we have to meet and confer over. >> just so this isn't one of our multi-yearlong engagements >> that's why we treed to keep it very -- >> it seems very unoffensive. to anybody even tribe to be -- >> there was -- trying to be. >> there was a request as to how each department releases records. we tried to do that but we realized the system in which they find records and release records is a completely different than what d.p.a. uses and what the commission uses. so it was not practical for us to create one unified document

where it would require san francisco police department the commission and d.p.a. to follow one set of logistical procedures in terms of how these documents are released. we tried very hard, but it wasn't feasible. they have different systems, different protocols. and so that's why we only -- we have this. >> and i would like to add, the statute is in effect. and what's happening now with reference to disclosures is they are following the statute. so again, we are just dressing up the statute a little bit with more explanation. there's going to be challenges and issues. then the case law will develop thereafter. you look at the statute, next time we look at it, there will be more guidance. but we are starting. and what we've asked everybody to do is follow the law and turn over the documents as required. and i think the public needs to know if there is an issue, if there's a concern, then that concern or issue is run by the city attorney's office for

advice as to whether or not we should go forward with this disclosure or redaction. so there's a process in place that follows the law. this is just sort of a little bit of a codification of what we are trying to do. the public needs to know, we are following the statute, and those involved are asking and seeking the advice of the city attorney's office to ensure that we are in compliance with the statute. >> commissioner dejesus >> so i wasn't privy to the city attorney's comments with the working group, but i just have two questions again. why are the initial records that are mandated by statute part of work conditions for the employees? why isn't it the employer's obligation to comply with the law? why is this an exception to the meet and confer process? i need some understanding why this is an exception. and the second one is if we do put this through today and get a memo or clarification that we need to make changes, shall we

do that while it's in the meet and confer process or do we have to start all over? >> if we have to change something, we'll change it. if we have to do it in the middle of the meet and confer, we'll do it. we are not going to get bogged down in the process. >> whether it should even go there -- >> i think what i would like to do is invite the city attorney and d.h.r. to come and present to us in closed session after they've made a determination as to what, if anything, has to go through meet and confer. >> that's what i was requesting before. >> normally they -- >> that's in my question to the attorney. >> i'm making that request >> that's an issue we were asked to deal with, is whether or not we were putting the protocol in place. again, we stuck to the statute. >> lovely protocol >> we stayed with the statute. >> if they have a problem, there's an appeal process which is governed by the sunshine ordinance and the public records act. so there's the governmental

codes that gives people sort-of-rights to bring litigation to appeal any decisions where the records are turned over. so there is a process that would allow an individual access to the records if they felt that they weren't being disclosed properly. >> commissioner mazzucco, did you have anything else? all right. so nothing else. we are going to vote on this. but first i'll take -- i would like to call for public comment before a motion on whether we approve or not, this protocol. >> good evening. i don't see a copy of the police department's protocol that they are acting under now. >> this is it >> it's the same then, as what we are seeing? okay. very good. yeah. so i'm just concerned about

this. i'm glad we are going to get a direct report. it says on page three, public accountability, i think that's supposed to be police accountability. the public is doing okay. [laughs] so yeah i'm glad we are moving forward with this. but i would like more clarity before the meet and confer why this is a personnel issue that has to be -- >> thank you. >> has to be handled in that way and what you are expecting from the police officer's association so it doesn't get mangled by them. >> we wanted to make sure you were reading it. >> well, the law is the law, so there's no way to negotiate around the statute. but that's the good news for most folks. any other public comment? >> hi, there.

i'm from the aclu of northern california. hello, good evening. we appreciated the opportunity to submit comments and appreciate the thought that's taken into the final, the third version of the protocol. two quick points. one is the definition of records in b1. i think it's page 1. the statute in 832.7b2 provides records that shall be released pursuant to the subdivision include a number of specific types of records. but the list is not exclusive. and ultimately any record that relates to the report or investigation or findings must be released. so we would suggest just revising that language ever so slightly to suggest the list to reflect the fact that the list is non-exclusive. so putting in there that a record relating to the report

investigation or findings of any of the discloseable categories described in second 1a is subject to release. and then noting that 832.7b2 sets forth a non-exclusive list of various types of records that are subject to disclosure. although any other records relating to the report, investigation or findings is discloseable. and then the second point is just that we appreciate the conversation before that was just proceeding this, about the ability to continue to investigate sustained findings. and we appreciate the commission's willingness to do that in appropriate cases. thank you. >> i'm sorry. you wanted to add -- >> so in section b1, where it's on page 1, just to add that, at the end, the penal code 832.7 lists the type of records that are subject to disclosure,

although any other record relating to the report, investigation or findings is discloseable to reflect the actual statutory language of 832.7 (b) 2. because the way the policy is written, i don't think intentionally, but suggests the list is exclusive. and it's not. >> all right. >> correct. although -- right. >> right. i mean, that seems like a relatively small fix. >> yeah >> okay, thank you. any other public comment?

[off mic] >> i'm trying to pull up the powerpoint that we submitted ahead of time. >> you are going to do a presentation in a little bit. >> i am. but i didn't realize the time i prepared and submitted it that you were doing protocols. >> you have two minutes as a member of the public. >> if you know the exact page you can have them put it on the overhead. do you have your report? >> okay. sure. >> we can use the overhead if you can't -- and after you put it on, they'll start your time. >> because this is about the protocol. >> start the clock. >> thank you. so there's just a couple things that we were hoping that could be clarified as well in the protocols. so what we had seen, we received

about two weeks, the department's 23rd request for a 14-day delay. and we get them every two weeks. so the 14 days away is now 344 and counting days away. the protocols include that there is 14 days away. but the way it's being interpreted is there's no limit. so that means there's no deadline.

>> >> thank you. any other public comments on this matter? ok, public comment is closed. how do you want to structure this? do you want to include an

amendment as part of the motion to approve this? >> sure. >> maybe we can take the two suggestions first from the aclu and then still try and understand the public defenders' request. >> i have a question about the aclu because -- i'm trying to find -- i'm trying to find -- i'm on the web trying to find the language that you were talking about. it suggests to me it's not an

>> it just says include. a specific number of records and then there's subsequent language that says any record relate to go the report investigation or findings. where does it say include? this is -- the one that starts with records that shall be released pursuant -- >> yes, include. >> include all investigative reports. where is the text that you were just citing that was more encompassing? >> relating -- i think it's further down in the statute. relating to the report investigation or findings. >> can i just interject for a

second. penal code is in our protocol. which means the statute is to be considered. i think people get frustrated with lawyers and we're sitting here wasting everybody's time and energy on language and looking at the statute. we cited the personal code section is what they need to follow. thank you for your advice. >> i don't mean to disagree, i prefer to have -- i mean, yeah, thank you. >> you did disagree. >> thank you. >> by disagreeing in a -- manner. i prefer to have more clarity rather than less. if it's helpful, i mean what's if we just tagged on including but not limited to. >> i don't see any difference here. you are saying, we say -- this sass all records relating to and you say any record relating to. this is a very minute. what is the difference between

all or any. this is a super, supe super. >> put your name up. >> can i show you something? >> yes. >> what if we did it this way. after the first sentence, of section 1-a we say, or penal code section cited and then, which list the type of records. so it includes the first sentence which is inclusive of that whole section and the penal code. >> i'm fine with that. >> we're just going to do -- >> yeah. >> we're going to direct everybody. >> that addresses the issue. >> that's fine. >> so instead of -- >> here is says these are the types, this is not a actually all types. i just want to clarify her point. i want to make sure we understand her point. >> we have to let each of us speak without interruption. i do get the chair and i want to

understand. you are not on the list yet. you are saying instead of the period next to section 1-a you put a comma and or the word personal code 832 which means you basically capture anything that the statute refers to. >> the statute has these specific ones listed which are a, b, c, and d. and so i think that if we say that whole section plus those specifically listed in the statute so if we put the or i think we're ok. >> commissioner. >> i pass. >> i'm good now. >> thank you for bringing this to our attention tonight. >> all right. so we're adding -- so the motion would be with that change s. there any other amendment you want to make to the document before we vote on it? >> another one was the public defender. i didn't understand what she was saying -- >> about the 14-day.

>> yes. the delay. >> why think we can address that. that is by statute, i believe, ms. harris. i don't know how we can -- we can't change statute. i do understand what you are saying. the frustration of getting and i've also received these from other agencies, all you get is 14-day notices but i'm not certain how we can -- is there different language in the california public records acts. >> yes, that's going to address it. the fact that they're not releasing it ask asking for delays it's not a 1421 issue it's a sunshine ordinance and the public record act and government code complaint and they should file complaints or they can bring lawsuits if they're not getting their records. that's the remedy.

>> i'm president taylor. >> i'm good. >> does anybody else want to say anything? if you do, put your name up there. all right. nobody does. all right, so can we have a motion to approve the protocol with the amendment made by commissioner alias adding the word "or" after section 1a. >> adding two words. >> the word "o" and the word" which" after b2. >> and the correction that is made. >> is there a motion. >> so moved. >> a second. >> second. we've had public comment. all in favor. aye. opposed. it passes unanimously. so the next step will be to get this over to the city attorney and to get this over to human resources and we'll get them back and be able to discuss with us what we have to do and meet

and confer if anything. next item -- >> clerk: line item 4. presentations regarding reless of sb1421 documents. limits will apply. discussion. public defenders office, department of police accountability, san francisco police department and the police commission office. >> this was put on the agenda at my request because i wanted the three agencies, the department, the police department, the department of police accountability and the commission office to report on their work regarding 1421. where they are and what they've done and what problems they have what they anticipate going forward. the public defenders' office contacted me and asked if they can also have time to present. i said yes. so i have scheduled them to make the first presentation. five-minute presentation. thank you. >>

>> we've seen that. that's it? he doesn't have a work quota like you do. you have seen your way out of this. >> you only have a minute left. i'm kidding. >> so we did ask, thank you for

the opportunity. we did ask to be heard as we are a requester of these public records and we wanted our requester to be part of this picture tonight. starting on january 2nd of this year we requested 1421 information on all of the sfpd officers. starting with the response from d.p.a., we have -- we have response on 14% of active officers at this 11 plus month mark. breaking that down, the gray area represents 86% of officers that we don't know one way or another from d.p.a. whether they have responsive records. only we have two percent of officers where we have partial

disclosures, i say partial because the response doesn't tell us whether it's complete or not. so we do know whether there's something else out there and then 12% of officers who don't have any records. going to the pie chart on the right, that just tells us what the 2% i disclosure are so a little under two-thirds are shootings and a third are g.b.i. we have zero dis honesty and zero sexual assault from d.p.a. in part because of the way the sustained finding language is being read although, we believe if they make the same findings independently, that because then there's an opportunity foray peel and then that d.p.a. sustains findings should be disclose able.

we will have 100% of officers disclosed whether it's disclosure or no disclosure at the end of 2025. so seven years it will take from d.p.a. at the rate we're going. the picture of disclosures from sfpd is even bleaker. we had only 5% of officers that we have received any information on one way or the other. and that means 95, we don't know. so 3% we have partial, disclosure and then 2% we know they have no responsive records. of that,

>> there was a media report in whole or the whole issue, i can't really say. in april, the media reported that the agencies harry potter said that they were each dedicating 10 staff members to 1421 but at the d.p.a. symposium, d.p.a. reported 115 hours per week being spent on 1421 and 748. so that's little less than three full time on both issues. at the same time, sfpd said they

have two staff dedicated to 1421. we talked about this so i will skip past. the reda redactions are far beyd what is required. they are both redacting civilian contact information in every single report. and that is not authorized by the statute, it's not authorized by the draft protocol. the g.b.i. definition i would ask that you look at this in the protocol because it needs to be tweaked slightly to be fully accurate with the law and specifically where there's a group of officers who use force on an individual, and that individual surfs g.b.i.s but

we don't know because we can't know who specifically inflicted the g.b.i., in the larger context, you can -- each person can be liable for the g.b.i. because if you contribute to force, that cause g.b.i., and you can't tell that doesn't mean you don't have any response ability for it if you can't tell who specifically caused it. but the way sfpd is interpreting it is they're not disclosing anything. >> thank you. your time suppose. we have this report though. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> we have questions. >> i had a few questions going through this report. if you don't mind. one of the g.b.i. issue, i looked at all of the jury instructions that jogged my memory when back in the day when i knew them. first of all, both instructions have the same definition for g.b.i. and then, i think the more

appropriate instruction is the one that actually governs which is assault with force likely to cause, right, which is the 875. you didn't mention that either. but all three have the same exact definition of g.b.i. i'm not sure the problem. >> it's a smaller point for certain but there's a stand alone instruction it's 3160 with only defines g.b.i. the one in the protocol is a torture instruction which could be a little bit confusing to someone who is looking to that document about what this torture business all about. and so, our suggestion was simply to use the instruction that only defines g.b.i. doesn't include other issues and that same instruction defines g.b.i. in the group context. >> it's the same definition in all three. >> the group context, to my -- i don't know the group context instruction is in the torture

instruction which is what is listed. 810 is what is listed in section 1c4a. >> 875 seems the most appropriate to me because it is assault causing g.b.i. that's what the whole thing is. the whole kit and ka budeel. it almost doesn't matter because i'll look again. they all were the eye general cal instruction for what g.b.i. is. >> the concern that we have is that someone would be confused by what the inclusion of the torture instruction or language is. and the group beating context which is the language that the cases use i don't believe is in the instruction that is cited here but it is in 3160 which i should clarify defines the stand alone great bodily injury allegation. it is the same, more than minor

or moderate injury. it's the same basic definition but it adds the group context, which we've already encountered issues with. >> how did we -- >> wait, wait, wait. >> hang on. are you finished? >> no, i'm not done with my first question. i also wanted to know, so these percentages, like the 14%, the 5%, how are you coming up with those numbers? does that include when there are no responsive records? >> yes. >> and 14% is all you've gotten, include what is there are no records, everything? and 5% for sfpd. >> right. i had a question about the resource issue. i know at a meeting with the criminal task force with someone from your office with d.p.a. and there was a whole presentation from d.p.a. about the resource issue, which seems to be to be a

legitimate issue. the 14-day delay and not meeting that deadline seems serious. when you look at the staff they have and the time it takes to really comb through those records, which you have to comb through every single record individually and make a factual determination. it was a pretty sympathetic presentation to sit and listen to. >> right, if you don't have the resources you can't do the job. >> i heard that as a criminal justice task force and someone from your office was there. are you trying to resolve this and work this out because it seems like a mandate that they can't possibly meet on the deadline that you needed and a lot of the problems would seem to be solved if you were talking to each other? >> i'm not sure. if there was something i could do to help with this issue,

short of we can dedicate some of our staff to come and look through their files. i mean, it's an allocation issue. >> you are in regular contact and working through these issues? >> we are in regular contact with d.p.a. in a variety of context. in terms of whether or not they're dedicating enough resources and including the additional funding that they got for additional resources to response to 1421 request, i'm not sure how i can do that. i'm open to suggestions. >> i know you guys come to these meetings all the time and your complaints seem reasonable. hearing that presentation from d.p.a. was like, that's pretty rough. they really don't seem to have the resources to meet the demands as quickly as they would like to. and so it didn't seem to me to be a question of the will is

there but they're only so many bodies. i'm just wondering if there's a way that -- i'm really just brainstorming here, that greater communication could facilitate these requests and you are not the only ones making these requests. determining priority, talking more, is there a way there could be greater communication that could get you close tore what you want? >> so i will absolutely say, when we have made specific requests and asks they prioritize those officers. they have done that. the reason we asked for every police officer is because of the volume we handle. if we made specific requests on every case we had, we would be in this same position. they can't prioritize every request. one of the things i saw was that there was about a million dollars in additional staffing

for 1421 and 748 for two attorney and two legal assistance. but in the si symposium informan that was presented in the written materials we got, they said they're only spending 115 hours a week on it which would be less than three full-time employees. if my math is right. so, the little information that we have access to doesn't seem like they're devoting all the resources that they were allocated to the issue and i don't know how we can affect improvements there. >> i want to move on to some other commissions. if there's brainstorming to be done, this is not the best forum for it. it can be done elsewhere aside. >> it can be helpful. >> we have a d.p.a. presentation coming up in a few minutes so that may be helpful too.

>> i think that's the point of having a discussion. to get ideas out that people haven't been communicating to each other. you started to touch on this during the last question. as a commissioner, my view would be the greatest concern would be for active cases where you need to have the information on an individual officer similar to a motion and whatever you never get from those. are you doing them with each case where you will need them, specific requests or you just relying on this blanket one? >> we're not relying on the blanket one. >> so if you send in a specific letter with, you know, a case

number and saying and i don't know if you need to do that. is that -- i would assume that should be given priority over general requests. i know that across -- >> yeah. >> so, i'm sorry. i'm asking what is your office doing for ones where there's an expedited need for them. >> we get in, on average, 20 plus cases a day. 20 new cases, that's probably a low. >> felony unit? >> that could be in the felony unit alone. i'm giving a low average. it's higher. >> san francisco is such a quiet place these days. >> everyday. so if we sent over, if it's a buy bust and you have 15 officers on each buy bust, if

we're doing that every day on each case independently, individually, it's not going to change. they're in longer going to be able to prioritize, right. >> so there's things that are being done on your end and there's the responses from the different agencies and i was going to follow-up with questions for them about that as well. so, i do think that the case specific, i mean, obviously all these records should be available but the way that the law was passed, and the departments and d.p.a. and so fourth were given no resources until recently, to manage requests for over 2,000 active officers and thousands more that are not active, it just seems to me there has to be a way to make sure that you are getting the

ones that you need as soon as possible. >> i don't think the way for us to make an individual request on every case. >> so you are or you are not? >> not on every case as it comes in, no. on the more serious cases if the cases get to the trial stage, it's happening at that point. i don't think it would be fruitful for us to do it earlier in the process as the cases come in. i think it is -- i think it has to be looked at as an allocation of resource. this is a legal lehamn dated duty of d.p.a. mediation, as i talked about before, while lot able, is not a mandatory d.p.a. duty. there has to be some openness to allocating the resources that we have to the mandatory functions before the discretionary ones.

>> has your office taken a writ yet? >> have we taken a writ on the failure to comply? no, not yet. >> aclu -- >> i've been dealing with this in southern california and dealing with aclu down there and i mean, eventually, you need to take a writ. that's not -- >> so, i think what we'll do -- >> i'm encouraging you. >> a civil suit is probably more likely. a criminal writ -- >> it's not a criminal writ. it's a writ from the public records request. you can find the aclu does them, yeah. >> yeah. >> ok. >> ok, thank you. i just want to know that we just passed a protocol that on page 8 has a priority of release. and we've actually outlined six

priorities. we're trying deal with that. we're following that i believe, currently even before this was. commission elias. >> two things, one, i think i said it before but i want to say it again. that we are currently working on obtaining the ability to have online access for 1421. we've started having meetings with d.p.a. who has been budgeted money to get this done. we've been working with the police department so we can have one central place where records can be released. i think that a lot of the hold up is with the body-worn cameras and especially for the commission office, a lot of the hearings are on taped casettes s so they have to listen and get them transcribed and it's taking a long time. the way that we tried to remedy that situation was to tell the department, the commission and d.p.a. to roll out what you can in terms of documents and with respect to the electronics

stuff, you just have to take a minute and deal with it when you can. so i think that all three agencies have been complying with that request. with respect to the redaction, this is another issue that came up with the working group. the news media had approached us and said that the san francisco police department was redacting pronounce when they were releasing the documents to the news media and to anyone else who was requesting the 1421. again, we spoke with buck and the city attorney and their advice was they should not be redacting pronounc pronouns becy should discontinue. it's my understanding they have. chief, i don't know if -- i think they're on board with that as well. i think -- >> when we present lieutenant