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

waylen can speak to that. >> for clarity for the public and as the commissioner said, this commission has made it a priority that there be disclosure to the public defenders office and any and all information regarding a pending case where someone is in custody with pending charges so that gets a first priority when you make your request. and we made that -- we put that in our protocol and procedure. it's important for the public to know that this is new. we are hiring people going through backgrounds in the police department and the d.p.a. to review this and it's va loom inus and they requested each and every san francisco police officer, that's 2300 officers. now we said if you have a case where it's pending, then we would expedite that request. it's important for the public to know, and i've heard people go back and fourth on this, in the criminal-justice system, for those of us have that been there, these requests are made before the court where the case is pending and it's made pursuant to either a pitch us

motion, i hear you don't get everything you need and for the general public, it's for a request for the police officer's personnel file. there has to be a showing of relevance whether it's dishonesty or use of force. the court does an incamera review and if something is in that officer's file, the same file that would be turned over in 1421 the court makes that determination. >> that's not accurate. >> that's not close to accurate. >> i don't know what changed. >> secondly, the prosecution has a brady obligation. if there's anything in the police officer personnel files that affect affects their abilio tell the truth they have to disclose it. there's another method for getting this disclosed and the 1421. i want to make it clear, again for clarity, that if you have a case pending, and you make a 1421 request, you will get the first priority and we made that clear. >> first and foremost, thank you

for your due diligence. you guys have been coming toe meetings. we've been having this conversation and i look forward to the robust conversation. i want today ask my colleagues and it's fair to the public if we see the rest of the presentations as well too. i think some things might be answered in the presentations. there can be further questions and we can bring folks up if that's ok. >> nothing like a guy without a law degree who is smarter than the rest of the folks here. vice president taylor. >> now i feel stupid. [laughter] i had questions specific to you and i'll have questions specific to d.p.a. but my over all comment is that you come here every week but i think you guys should be talking to each other. that would be so helpful in getting you the documents where there's an immediate need. >> we do. i've tried to be clear about that. when we ask for a specific officer that we need right away, we have been able to work with d.p.a. and i've tried to be real

clear, yeah. >> i hear you but something occurred to me too when i was looking through this material. on january 2nd, it would have been great if the public defenders' office, instead of sending this request for every officer, if the news stations and various other groups, instead of just sending these huge requests out, they called up the police department and the commission and the d.p.a. and said, we ned to get on this right away. when can we meet. we need to talk about how this will work. i'm not asking for a response. this is just the thought i had. it would have been helpful if we started working that way initially. we're not up to speed. we're not moving as fast as the statute contemplates. we know that. the statute is unrealistic. it has no concept in the statute as to how the mechanics of this would actually work for large police departments and large cities. that's the problem. >> thank you. any other public -- this is your presentation. we're ready for the next

presentation. this is department of police accountability. >> and you will have 12 minutes. >> thank you. the presenting agencies get 12 because that's what i originally asked them to do. i want to present what it is they're doing. >> five minutes is what the judiciary house got to so that was sufficient for impeachment. >> look where they ended up. >> good evening. >> good evening, everyone. commissioners, chief scott, executive director, my name is diana rosen steen and i'm here to present on behalf of the department of police accountability about what we have encountered with respect to sb 1421.

the discussions that we have seen occurring before you, whether in public comment, what we've seen in the media, has led me to believe that there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what we as attorneys do in the department of police accountability. i thought i would give you a brief overview first. we were not simply sitting around and twiddling our thumbs waiting for sb1421 to be enacted. we all had jobs before then. so we are going to answer the questions that you asked us. we're also going to give you a brief overview of what we do. before and now, there are five of us and there are direct offers andirectorsand chief-of-. four of us lead teams of four investigators with a senior investigator. each team carries a load of

about 80 to 100 cases that have to be completed within six months, if not six months than nine months, and if we don't complete them within a year then we're screwed. we do that on a continuing basis. as attorneys we help with the investigation, we help with the interviews, we analyze issues that come up and we write the sustained reports that the chief sees and we write the charges that you see, and we write the summaries of cases where there are no sustained findings. we also represent the d.p.a. and administrative hearings before this agency as well as before the chief. that happens about, on average, i would say twice a month for each attorney and as i said there's four of us. we also respond to officer-involved shootings and we are intimately involved in the investigations in those cases specifically.

we are at the interviews. we are at the crime scenes. we provide guidance and we write the reports. we also respond to other record requests other than sb 1421. so far this year, we've responded to 58 such records. those come from the city attorney's office in cases where there are pending lawsuits. those come from the u.s. attorney's office, the d.a.'s office and individuals that just want records other than sb 1421 related records. our dance card is pretty full. we also have two attorneys, sam ra marion who you all know and janelle kaywood that go to meetings 10,000 times a day. you asked us to explain how we deal with sb 1421 requests. what i did was prepare a chart for you about how these requests

move through our office. so first, we identified them, because not all requests are easily identified as sb 1421 requests. we get requests from the public who say give me everything that you have about officers who are killing someone. so we then, the public records act puts the onus on us to identify it. is it an sb1421 request, we scan it, log it and assign it to an attorney. then the attorney has the unenviable task of figuring out where the records are that respond to the request. and the problem with the -- i'm going to call it the occ because we're now dpa is that at that time that it was occ, records were not kept in a uniform fashion. what we have learned, is that records, sometimes, are attached to an officer's name.

sometimes they're not. sometimes they're attached to the name of a specific case. sometimes they're not. so what we have done is we have developed a system in our office, three different systems that we check with respect to each officer to determine what records are responsive so that we can be thorough. one is the mold card which a employs to officers employed currently and that is based on our old data base. we will run the card and we will determine all cases that pertain to that officer. then we have to pull all of those cases. we only have cases from 2016 on on site. the rest of the cases are in storage. so we pull cases because from the card we can't tell if they're responsive to sb 1421 demands because the records were not kept in that fashion back then. so we can't look at a mold card and say oh, look, unnecessary

force causing great bodily injury, it's not there. officer-involved shootings are not there. that's not how we kept records. so, when we pulled the card, we pull those files for the attorney. we also have created a master spread sheet of cases based on incidents. so that way, we also know each and every case that involves unnecessary force. that involves l.i.s., that involves dishonesty. because again, records weren't kept in this fashion so we can't just assume that every case that has unnecessary force also has g.b.i. we also just check that list. we pull those cases as well. when all the cases are pulled, and sitting in the attorney's office, we start the task of reviewing each and every case. we review each and every case to determine whether each case falls under the categories.

when we've done a preliminary determination, we have one person currently assigned full time to handle this clerical aspects. mary poll being, who is not here, but god bless her, had the task of then scanning all of the materials doing the first level of redaction and asking for the digital or audio things to be prescribed, transcribed and then we start with the reductions. then we go to the attorney and they do a second level of redactions and then we notify the party and we release the records. so this is not an easy task for d.p.a. to do. the types of request that we received have been many. right now we need to add one more to this specific list. because there's been a new

request for everything under the sun for all categories. we have been working with the public defenders' office. we have their, what we call the omnibus request and we have 30 individual requests from them and we also have records from the aclu who i'm sure if they were here would not be very happy about the prioritization issue. we also have requests from private citizens who are savvy enough to ask for these records. prioritization has been a challenge. when we first got the first requests, and we were going to go newest to oldest and by officer still employed, but that system was scratched based on our conversations with the public defenders office and the

needs that they have so we have been trying to prioritize request to the extent possible and the problem with those is that each individual request doesn't necessarily list different officers so what we've come we realized we didn't know the two different requests request the same officer. we're working on it but the protocol helps. we've also got taken care of some small individual requests. >> i want to show you the statistics of what we've been doing. although the number of requests is low and the number of the files that we've disclosed may look low. i want you to understand what

that entails. the number of files that we disclosed contain more than 15,000 pages. 15,000 pages that people had to read, redact and produce. and there are currently 36 identified cases that are in various stages of production. in order to get that that point, we've reviewed 1,998 cases. because again, not every case is disclose able. that's the whole point. so, that means we are reviewing eight files on each working day on top of the full time jobs we had before this law was passed. each file we review is not five pages, it's hundreds of pages

long. and i think chief scott should be proud of this statistic. what we've also done is we've app signed one specific person to find officers that have never had any complaints with the d.p.a. and we've identified 244 currently employed officers that have have owe complaints with the d.p.a. we found that was an efficient system to get information out the door quickly. we have multiple people working from multiple angles to provide as much information to the public as possible. i think the future of sb 1421 is extremely bright. we now have protocols by which to identify the cases that will need to be disclosed in the future and we know the request we need to make of the evidence. so part of the problem is we're reviewing case after case that looks potentially like it's disclosable but the evidence isn't there.

someone says, oh, i broke my leg. but there's no evidence in the file of a broken leg. what do we do with that? now we know, if you are going to say you have a broken leg we're going to ask you for records to support that. in sight our new progress is amazing because it allows us, at the end of each case, to flag it as an sb 1421 case. in the future, any time we need to run future reports, we can do that. in terms of additional staff, i will let my chief-of-staff explain to you the issue with the two attorneys and the two people that we planned to ask for as clerks. >> your time is actually up. that was your 12 minutes. we have some questions for you. >> sure. >> good evening.

so, obviously it sounds like you guys have done an incredible amount of work with -- i don't think anyone here doubts -- i speak from -- speaking for myself, i don't know. there are some doubts. it sounds like you have done an incredible amount of work on this. so, is it that -- i was trying to follow all those numbers. you said the only files that you have physically at d.p.a. are 2016 and onward? >> correct. >> and so, how far back do files exist for currently employed officers. >> we are very lucky in that no one followed the retention policies in our office so we have all of our files since the inception of our office, which is '82 or '83, right.

>> '82. >> ok. potentially, there could be officers still employed that were employed in '82? >> yes, we have requests that ask for information even officers that are no longer employed and we will eventually have to satisfy. >> right. and again, just like with the public defender before, i'm prioritizing what should we be focused on and what's most important to get out. of the ones off site, how many do you know how many files exist that you still t still have to h through and code. >> we used the liberal identifying method with certain key words and we have identified a little bit over 5,000 cases that we will eventually have to pull. and review.

you said some files aren't necessarily, they have a big officer so and so attached to the front of it. >> yes, the data collection system in our office has changed from year to year. at some point, we were using these things called involvement codes that have to -- they mirrored disciplinary labels and like i said what's we have found unfortunately, is that not every allegation is tethered to a tech officer each and every time. if it were, we would probably be much further along in this. >> how are you able to responded that there are no records for an officer if you haven't searched those 5,000 files? >> our records of complaints per officer go back to 1989.

and so we can search a data base by the officer's name and star number and determine whether they have any complaints with our office so that 244 officers, that i spoke about, are officers that are currently employed who have never suffered a complaint with the d.p.a. >> and you mentioned the staff that was previously or currently currently employed with d.p.a. was there not new hires relating to 1421? >> i will let ms. hawkins speak on that. thank you. >> good evening. so, a few conceptions about the funding that we received. the money was allocated in this budget cycle, however, we could not use it until october. the positions for the lawyers didn't fund and become available

in the system until october. we have hired one lawyer who will be transitioning to do 1421. we are not able to hire the two parallel positions until december 14th. because of city civil service hiring protocols. what that means is that we also didn't get the funding for that until october. then we can send out an r.t. f. which is a request to fill the position and we have to go to a list. there is no current list. the list is being developed and will be finalized as of decembe. then we start the interview process and we go through backgrounds. so, in a very unlikely optimistic viewpoint, i'm hoping that we can bring those people on mid to late january so that's where we're at with the hiring and that's why even though we did get funding, we asked for a lot more than we got. we did get funded. we haven't been able to access

that from now to the end of the year. >> that's encouraging to hear. to the question i asked the public defender before, is thern times, say if they have homicide do they get a priority. >> everyone has any name and number. >> sure, i will be happy to do so. in december of 2018, i went to the public defenders' office and did a two-part presentation about how we plan to tackle this issue. i provided everybody with my contact information and let them know i would be the point person. i have spoken on some occasions. the issue, as i said before, has

been that we keep receiving the requests. we keep -- the priority has changed on us. at minimum five specific instances. it was give us all dishonesty, then it was no, no, we need individual officers. my focus is cases where people need it. people need it because they have a right to go to trial. that was the only thing i was asking about priority for. >> i don't know because no one has reached out to me. i have spoken to ms. harris once or twice. i've spoken to zack, i forgot his last name, i welcome any phone call from any public defender who wants me to prioritize any request that may be pending criminal issues before the court. >> good to hear, thank you. >> vice president taylor. >> you've actually answered a

lot of the questions that i had. it's surprising to me you are not in more contact with the public defenders' office just to beat that drum one more time. it seems a lot of this would be help circumvented if you were talking more before coming here, which is obviously you are entitled to do. it seems as if more dialogue would help streamline the process for cases where you really need the information. i do have one question, so you have requests from the aclu, the public defenders office and you have your day jobs of helping us punish officers who are acting inprinappropriately. >> i don't punish. i only recommend. >> we do. and part of that is by bringing cases to us. bringing matters before us. that's what we do as a commission. which i think is important. maybe i'm bias in that view but i do. you have your day jobs in

addition to these 1421 requests. how are you prioritizing them. one of ms. harris' points was 115 hours was not a lot of time. i really want to unpack that because, it all seems important to me. >> well, we're struggling that and the cases beyond the nine months. we were trying to prioritize and spend, let's say, 50% of our time on sb 1421 cases and all of a sudden, we ran no this issue of our current investigations falling behind. it's a constant juggle of, ok, i finished this sustain report so the next upcoming 270 days is not for another five days so i can read a case today. so on and so fourth. as i said, it's not just the sustain report writing, it's the other requests we get. all of the other information

that we need to provide our investigators so they can do a competent investigation. >> i will point out, that the information that was presented, even in the public defenders' presentation when they talked about the articles where they said that i had all of the staff working on sb 1421, that was about nine months ago from where we are or where we were when those numbers started creeping up in terms of the staff response time so a lot of our cases. that was at the time when everyone ways all hands on deck doing 1421 all at the same time. it's just a district correlation with our on going work and the 1421 staff. we already addressed the nine-month object and goals that we had. i'm just tying it a little bit to some of the discussions that we're having now with the 1421 work going on and to point out,

when we talked about the budget allocation and the delays, they weren't and aren't unique to d.p.a. it was every department had the same thing. any one that got funding for not just 1421 but other stuff in the city department had those same delays, where the money wasn't available for us to start the hiring processes until many months afterwards. >> thank you for the presentation. i really appreciate. as a visual learner i appreciate the charts and flow categories. just two questions. on the pages that is types of requests -- the types of requests received -- really? [laughter] >> don't cough anymore. [laughter] are you done? >> there's asterisks. what do they mean? >> the asterisks mean that the requests came in piecemeal.

they're also in lists -- if the list is bayed on chronological order. the first request, although i appreciate the commission's guidance on prioritization, i'm a little bit concerned about it because i do think the cpra does not allow us to differentiate but i deferred to all of you. the requests are in chronological order and those that have the asterisks, the asterisks signal that the -- we had to work with the agencies that made the request to identify them as an sb 1421 request and ask them to give us clarity about what they wanted. so they're further in the line and are now considered as b14 requests but were not sb1421 requests when we first received them and then i also put one

asterisk by the public defenders office 30 request because even though it's -- that's the number of individual requests that we've received so far. each request is not tethered to one specific officer. so for example, we have one request for 62 officers. [please stand by]

they're asking you to tell them who is asking for the records. >> correct. yes. >> everyone gets priority because everyone's entitled to -- >> i don't know the answer to that part. >> so basically -- >> they want to know who is asking for the 1421 records. >> oh, they're not just -- >> ask them directly. >> okay. commissioner mazzucco. >> following with commissioner brookter, thank you very much for your hard work the d.p.a.

has been doing. >> you're welcome. >> i have to ask did the san francisco examiner really ask for all officers ever employed by the police department? >> yes >> how is that going? >> they are not our top priority, but the good news is i have been in touch with michael barba. all the of these entities have been fairly reasonable. and i have had communications or somebody from our office has had communications with each and every entity explaining to them that we are dealing an unprecedented amount of requests. and they've been relatively accommodating. >> that sets the tone for how big and wide. >> yeah. >> thank you. i really do appreciate the work you are doing, and we appreciate this report. i think i'm going to ask we have these reports quarterly so you keep us updated as to to where you are at any point in time,

what's going well and not going well. >> i agree. what a wonderful idea. >> thank you. >> we are ready for the next report. and that is from the department, the police department. >> miss elias. i'm sorry, commissioner elias. that's an interesting catch about that question. what do you infer from that? >> i didn't understand it. i didn't know if my understanding was the correct understanding. >> yeah, no, i think we have it. >> rather than guess, why not just ask? >> okay. we are ready. >> thank you >> good evening, president hirsch, vice president taylor, commissioners, director henderson and chief scott. i'm commander sullivan. i run the risk management department. i did want to take a moment to provide both for yourselves and

the public here and listening at home a brief overview of the organization of the risk management office of the police department. so the leadership team consists of myself, captain who is here this evening as well as four lieutenants. up until recently we had three divisions within the risk management office, and those divisions still exist. the internal affairs division which looks at administrative issues, allegations of misconduct as it relates to violations of department policy. we also have a legal division and the third division is investigative services division. and that division investigates critical misconduct. in october, chief scott made the decision to create a fourth division. that division, while it doesn't have a succinct name just yet, the charge that have division is to handle all matters, body

camera unit related as well as 1421 issues. lieutenant walling, who is the most senior lieutenant of the risk management office, was selected by chief scott to oversee this division. there was a recognition of, as we heard earlier, given the priority that everyone has spoken about, the demands and the expanse of all that is required to be responsive to these particular issues, we saw fit to put a lieutenant in charge of that division. as d.p.a. mentioned, in terms of employees, we too were allotted additional staff to address body cameras, specifically 1421 issues. those moneys became available to us, were released in october. and the department had taken steps to be ready to begin to conduct those interviews. the lieutenant can speak to that if you have questions. she and her team and members of

our staff services division have conducted interviews and identified eight additional legal assistants. so those are 8173, that's the coda signed by the department of human resources. so i'll turn that over to the lieutenant. >> thank you. we were supposed to start the clock at 12 minutes. i don't see it. >> thank you. >> my clock and that's the rule. >> good evening. many of our challenges are the same. but i don't want to belabor them too much. we have a few slides about what 1421 encompasses. we've covered that already. how do we receive the request? we receive them by mail, fax, through our portal, e-mail. and that is one of our challenges as well is identifying if it's a 1421 request. the categories will be for like

a specific category, a specific officer, a specific time period, for all officers who have ever been employed. and they vary greatly. so that creates a challenge as we are inputting them. and sometimes you can't tell exactly what people are asking for. so what we are required to produce are all the investigative reports, photographs, audio, video evidence, transcripts of interviews, autopsy reports, documents that are reviewed by the disciplinary board and disciplinary records related to the incident. so an example of what a dataset looks like for us. our records are similar. we don't have records identified by dishonesty or sexual assault. the only identifiable category we have is officer-involved shootings. so if we get a request for 2300 officers, that constitutes 9,000 line items request for each

category that has to be cleared. so we get multiple requests, which we have gotten for different time periods, of 2200 officers, that turns into 20,000 requests. so a total of 114 requests that we have received, that is equal to 111,000 line item categories that have been to be cleared, because we have to tie the request to the requester to the officer, to the time period, to the particular thing the requester is requesting. we have requests for officer-involved shootings that resulted in injury but not death, we have just a variety of requests that we have to respond to individually to what that person asked for. so in the prioritization, we have been looking at the order that we received them, the ability to search for the records, the number of requests received for the same officer or event and the ability of the

requester to narrow. so if someone is able to ask for a specific event, we can go to that event. it's much harder for us to approve a negative. it's -- prove a negative. it's much harder to determine we have to do the same thing as the d.p.a., go to the various places where data is kept, they are not all kept in the same place. the physical files, go through them, make a determination. once we do that, then we can make an electronic finding that it was yes or no or if we need to go to the city attorney, we can mark it as pending, and we know that record has been accessed and reviewed. we don't have to re-review it. so how is the process working for the unit? it's very labor-intensive. one of our biggest challenges is the tracking of the request. we have been working with our vendor to come up with a better system that allows us to attach

multiple requesters to single officers. what we have to do is have a request with 2300 officers and that one request and another request that would be all, and another request that has 60 officers. and it's not an efficient process. and we are getting ready to release records, we have to go through and review each request to see which requesters have requested those files and then provide them to the requester. so we have identified additional employees. and we have them in the background process. that will take several months. but we anticipate that once they come on board, we'll be able to speed up the process. we are working with different vendors with regards to technology to speed up some of those challenges as well. once, as was mentioned earlier, we are able to have one clearinghouse for these files, and we are able to post them

instead of uploading to each individual requester, that of course will save time as well. and it will make it so individual requesters don't have to get into this queue. the requests will be more easily accessible. and as far as the requests that we've received so far, which we have similar requests here to the sfpd and d.p.a. we have had 113 or 114 requests total. we've closed 36 of them. we've released 32 incidents that were responsive to 220 times. because requesters may request multiple officers multiple times. so 32 incidents went out 220 times. we had release records regarding 98 members that were responsive

records for 202 of them or determination letters that are category-specific that went out to 220 people for a total of 422. >> can you slow down a little bit? >> yeah >> i'm getting lost. the 32, can you say that part again. 36 closed. go. >> the numbers on the paper. >> the hardest part about this is the data collection. so getting these numbers, like when you say come back quarterly to us, until we have the technology in place to -- >> you have that right now. >> yes. these are just notes i've made. it's not an official printout. >> can you answer vice president taylor? >> yes >> can you explain what that represents? >> we've released 32 incidents.

i believe 29 officer-involved shootings and 40 g.b.i. events. >> those were involved in 220 different requests? is that what you said? >> they were responses -- responses, documents with that 220 times for the various requests. because they could be requests for officers. so if they requested -- we do officer, an officer-involved shooting. we consider that to be two different categories. >> how many times would those 32 incidents? >> what's that? >> went out 229 times for the 32 incidents? >> yes. 220 times, approximately. and the numbers change every week, obviously. one thing we do try to do is we do try to release documents every week on a schedule so we know that we have items in the

queue, and we are on a schedule and we try to release them every week. so we have released documents regarding 98 members. as of last week. it's probably more this week. the responsive documents were 202 responses were sent out over the 32 incidents so that 94 members and determination negotiation letters for category categories of clearance categories were 220. so we may be able to clear that someone did not have an officer-involved shooting. that's the category they were able to search. or they were able to clear they had not had a sexual assault or dishonesty. but we are not able to determine whether or not they've had a use of force that resulted in great bodily injury easily. so we have over 12,000 injuries regarding use of force in this system that don't differentiate

the type of force or the type of injury. so each one of those, we have to go into, pull up the report, read the report, they have to drive to the hall of justice, check the photographs, see what we can do to determine if it did fall under great bodily injury or not. so it's pretty labor-intensive to make a determination. and we don't have medical records associated with it. so we may not know the extent of the injuries. we don't know what happened that night. >> we interrupted you. you have more to present? your time -- >> you have more questions? >> i feel like it's better if you ask me questions and i'll try to answer them. >> let me put you on the spot, since your name is on the letter that the public defender's office submitted to us. and you may have answered this

already. there's this production of 23rd letter extense. and i really don't know what to make of that. can you help us understand what's going on there? >> it's to comply with public records act, we try to maintain contact with our requesters. so we do a production every week of the productions that we have done for the 98 officers, i think the public defender has gotten at least 73 of them. but in addition, because they have the 2300 officers, we just send out a letter saying we are still working on your request. we haven't forgotten about you. we'll be sending them records every week. we have this same issue of multiple attorneys asking for multiple officers. and we have asked them to narrow or prioritize. and they have not. so to your earlier question of what would make it easier for us to actually attempt to provide

records related to cases that were current, if the attorneys could coordinate so only one person is asking, making a request and then not making multiple requests for the same officers, because we have to create a line item in our system, a tracking number, send a letter that's specific to that specific request, and just creates more work. >> there's a redundancy there >> yes. >> which doesn't make sense. >> the 23rd extension, that was for the 2300 officers. that's for the big request for all the officers? >> i don't know which number that relates to. but i imagine they have gotten one to send every two weeks to let people know we are working on it. but we also release records every wednesday or thursday. >> so this covers all 2300. but you are constantly releasing information, but you are sending this letter out every two weeks

because that's what you feel you are responsible to do? >> yes. >> all right. i have a question about the public defender. and i encourage the public defender to sit down and work with the department. to me, when a request comes from the public defender, it comes from the p.d.'s office. and they second request from a different person in that office is now redundant if it covers the same individual. how many times can we get a request for one individual from the same entity? that's the question i would have. >> yeah. individually responsibilities to each of our clients so they have to be -- >> they need to coordinate that. because the production is just one time. the documents will be the same, right? >> right. >> it goes up on appeal and you didn't make that request as part of your case, it turns out late- >> i see. >> you have to make the request. >> there's a case that holds

criminal defense attorneys personally liable if you don't ask for pictures or related information. so that's probably why each individual public defender is asking for that, because there's a horrible case -- >> [off mic] >> that helps explain this letter. >> we also have requests from private attorneys as well, which we are working on. >> okay. commissioner elias. >> i want to talk to you about the staffing. i know that -- i'm assuming there's two different staffing situations, one which is before you receive the money that was allocated to your department for 1421, because it's my understanding that the police department receives more money than d.p.a. did with respect to the 1421 budget. so i want to talk about how many staffing individuals you have in this department, because d.p.a. has four attorneys, and they have full-time jobs, so they are doing this on the side. it's my understanding the police department has certain staff that have, this is their full-time job.

so i want to know what those numbers are. >> we have two employees that are dedicated to this, but they also have other responsibilities. eight are in the hiring process, and we are in the process of hiring an attorney. we are conducting interviews. so within six months we should have adequate staffing. >> right now you have two civilians. >> yes. >> that are processing the requests. you have the process of hiring eight more civilians? >> yes >> and one attorney. so that's nine, in addition to the two? >> yes. >> okay. and then the other thing i'm going to ask is i'm going to ask also that you report quarterly as to the process or how many cases you've released with respect to the 1421. and i'm going to ask the next time you present that you present data so that we have

numbers, because both the commission office and d.p.a. indicate they have a master spreadsheet that allows them to track this data in terms all the requests that are coming in and what they are producing. i've seen the commission office when, and it's phenomenal. it really does track everything. and i think you should have something to that effect, because it's very important to know all the requests that are coming in, because when i look at the public defender's presentation, and you have five percent sort of return on the requests that have been made, that's lower than d.p.a., and i think you need to do better in terms of processing these requests and getting these requests out. so i'm going to ask that you go ahead and include those numbers. i did see the list of sort of logistical procedures that the s. f. p.d. does in terms of once it gets the 1421 request all the way until the end in terms of when it's released, and there's a lot of steps that sfpd has in

there. i'm not sure if they're sort of beneficial or even required. and maybe you can look into that sort of list of procedures and try and see if you can streamline some of that, because some of it does seem to attribute to this delay that you are having. >> okay, commissioner hamasaki >> thank you. so that was a little shocking. so you only had two civilian employees since the law was enacted to work on this? >> yes. we released 32 incidents. >> i mean, considering you only had two people, that seems like a fair amount. but i'm just shocked at -- i didn't realize how underresourced the department was as well, in regards to s.b.1421 resourcing.

so i'm going to -- i was trying to understand this with commissioner taylor too. when you say you closed 36, does that mean that you've produced files in response to requests for 36 incidents? >> we don't have that necessarily specific to that. but one of our data collection problems is we are working with our vendor to create the system that we need to be able to push a button and spit out these numbers. we thought that it had taken place. we thought that we were moving forward with that system. and it's held up somewhere in the budget process, because the way that money is allocated, that funding wasn't allocated, is my understanding. >> oh, no, no, i understand. >> so that is one of the problems with our dataset. so the ones that was closed, some were duplicate requests.

some have been fulfilled. some of them, they have been requests that for 1421 but didn't actually cover materials that we have requests for bias for instance, under 1421, which is not one of the categories. but overall, we have closed 36. >> okay. and so you said the other number you gave was there was 32 incidents, 29 of them being officer-involved shootings, and three of them being incidents involving great bodily injury, is that accurate? >> yes. >> is there -- i guess -- is it that you've just come across o. i.s. and g.b.i.? why hasn't there been categories involving sex and dishonesty that have been produced? >> well, i don't believe that we

have many currently-employed officers that would likely have those categories, so we haven't come across them in the records that we have been searching. so o. i.s., we are look for o. i.s., and we had a request for 42 specific o. i.s. with the date, the case number, everything, so i can look and look for those. i haven't had any requests for anything specific to those, but i can go look for. and i haven't come across any that are responsive under 1421 to produce yet. >> okay. so you actually, in your review of folders based on the requests you've received, none of them have actually contained sustained findings for sexual misconduct or dishonesty? >> correct. >> okay. so it's not that you -- because

i mean -- and i -- there's kind of a conspiracy theory going around, people are like oh, they are only releasing the ois and keeping out the juicy stuff, and i wanted you to clarify that you haven't actually come across that as part of the files that you've reviewed? >> correct. >> okay. and then you said 12,000 use of force cases? >> so we have -- >> or allegations? >> no, that's knotts allegations. so we don't -- that's not allegations. we don't handle the excessive use force complaints. they go to d.p.a. what we have is our tenures of actually i think it's 13 years of use of force records in our electronic system, which could be many things that don't result in even injury such as pointing of a firearm, but we have to go

through each line item and determine whether or not injury resulted and if that injury actually met g.b.i. >> okay. the other question is how long are you going back -- or how long do files exist for you to go back to response to these requests? >> they probably go back quite some time. so what i'm able to search in our electronic system, starts about 2006, there are some records that have been entered in there that are pre-2006. they are just line items or what we call multiple code. but we also have typed-up index cards, which is what we used prior to the electronic system, and those still exist in binders, so we check those, and we check the electronic system.

and any place we can think of the information might be. so we've been focusing on the requests that we have gotten. but i really couldn't say how far back we go. >> you don't -- i mean -- you don't know how far back the department maintains these files? >> correct. >> 1950? 1990? anywhere in between? you don't know? >> i don't know. what i can actually put my hands on and go through, don't have anybody employed but we'll keep going back as far as we discover records. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner brookter. >> i had one statement and really just one question. i think one of the things, at least for me, that i'm hearing that seems to be consistent across the presentations, while i'm not a lawyer, also not an exist, i'm hearing there's an issue of supply and demand. there's a demand coming in for

requests. we don't have the resources or human capital to supply. that makes sense to me. and also conversations i've had with members of the public. so it understands, and it seems we are moving in the right direction. one of the questions that i had was for the folks from the public defender's office. and you all didn't get to share your achieving goals as your last slide, but what i wanted to ask from the public defender's office was while we know that there is that lack of resources and human capital to supply requests, and outside of the achieving of requests, is there a conversation around the process is what i want to hear. as the commissioner working with d.p.a. on s.b.1421, i wanted to hear if there was a conversation around the actual process that you are utilizing and will be utilizing moving forward that you all have a nuance or a conversation or thoughts on?

>> you have to come to the mic otherwise we are not getting you. >> so the question is you all have stated that the resources and the fact that we don't have individuals from d.p.a. to be able to magnetic resonance imaging you with the demand that you are asking for, and you are not receiveing requests quick enough, i'm asking, based off the presentations that you've seen, what's in the process, is there something that can be done? i'm trying to get to a solution versus i think to commissioner taylor's conversation that there's been the complaint i'm trying to figure out, is there solutions and conversations that we could have on the process currently, given the fact we know we are going to have, stated the facts -- >> i'm certainly open to any discussion or any suggestion that would come our way about how we could help speed up this process. i mean, if we look through our bulk requests and started making requests on every