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 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 identd