>> a felony case. so prosecution of a case that they were arrested for. >> all right. and then the misdemeanor arrest was six times higher? >> yes. >> i guess the only one i personally don't understand fully is the citation and how that's treated. >> i think what this is trying to say is that people who completed lead were more like likely to get cited as opposed to arrested. whatever they did afterwards, they did not rise to the level of danger or concern where they were arrested and booked. they were simply cited out and they could appear in court at a later date so to me that's supposed to signal something positive because the alternative would have been they were arrested and booked because whatever they did was of a more dangerous or volatile quality. >> exactly. the folks who were -- sorry. >> so commissioner elias. >> as someone who actually was there when the pilot program began here in san francisco, and

i do think that we, she used to be a da and was my counterpart in this program as well as my adversary in many cases was tiffany sutton, and we were given the opportunity to go to seattle, to the founder of this program and created this program to address recidivism, and the issue was that people keep coming to jail and it's not deterring behavior. when you go to jail it's not making someone who is addicted stop using drugs, it's not making someone stop engaging behavior that's harmful. and we had all these programs that were zero tolerance type of models like drug court or prop 47 where it's like someone who is suffering from addiction, they can't always just stop cold turkey. so this model was aimed at harm reduction. so that it's a whole different style and model that law enforcement and social workers and people who are dealing in

crisis can emulate. so the program was designed, again, for, it was a harm reduction model. it addresses recidivism and the racial disparities in the criminal justice system. and those were the three goals or tenants of the seattle program. tiffany sutton and i went to seattle and we spoke with the people who founded the program, the officers who were actually day-to-day implementing the program and sort of other individuals on a national basis who were trying to emulate this program. san francisco received a grant for this program for five years or three years? three years. and there's only so many slots allotted to this program and it was to address recidivism and people in crisis. and one of the things that lead wanted to do was address sort of not only the addiction issues but sort of nonviolent felonies that sort of arise because of addiction, mental health and

crisis situations. and so i think that's what the goal was, and when we look at the analysis, because i did reach out to the district attorney as well as the public defender who are now handling the lead program who used to be tiffany and i back in the day, and this analysis is centered on the fact that lead is in fact working in terms of recidivism. you are seeing individuals rather than a resolving door going in and out of jail on various arrests, what's happening is once they engage in lead, and once you get referred to lead, they walk you through the entire system. you have a social worker that's assigned to you from day one, someone who can help people who are in crisis, because we don't realize that when when someone is in crisis, things like going to go check in with your probation officer or going to glide to get services won't be that doesn't compute to them, because they are in crisis. every task that we have that we take for granted, because we do

it on a daily basis, when someone is in crisis, those are huge issues they can't really comprehend, so there's someone assigned to them to make sure they go to court, make sure they check in with the probation officer, and the officers are there to make the connection and identify people that they see in the community that they come into contact with on a daily basis to refer them to lead or certain types of crimes. so i think this analysis really shows recidivism, not necessarily sort of the 72 percent higher citation rate i think does alarm people because because a it looks like they are people who are participating in lead are more -- they are committing more crimes, when that's actually, it's the counter. >> right. [off mic] >> it is. and both commissioners are right. i went to seattle long ago. and i know, it does, it looks

misleading when you look at the 302 percent higher rate, i mean the 72 percent higher citation rate, and i think that collectly collect -- intellectually we think they are doing more things. they are not doing more serious things to land them in jail, which is a good thing. i was very happy, and i think our team was very happy to see this. >> i wanted to make sure we all were understanding the numbers in front of us. commissioner dejesus, do you have a question on this or you had an answer? >> i have a question when it's all over. i actually had questions. >> let him finish and then we will. >> probably the better quote for this, because, again, these are all ph.d.s, even trying to

explain in the policy committee required a little explanation. but what she said, and i can't quote her verbatim was that their evaluation pointed to one thing, that people referred to lead were changing their behavior for the better. so probably should have just put that quote up there. i apologize. >> all right. commissioner elias. did you have a question? >> i did. >> i have a couple, and i promise to get through them quickly. selection bias, when seattle started, i believe they had three officers assigned to lead, los angeles had five. i might have the numbers flipped. one of the things that the doctor said, the ph.d. said at our meeting was our strategy of deploying this in the tenderloin in the mission was over 200 officers. the result was there was an effect due to plege

implementation. this was rolled out, eliminated that effect. social contact outpaced referrals of my one of the things that lead has a lot of resources, a lot of documents, they have core principles for every partner within the lead program, and they have core principles for law enforcement, and one of them, and i was told this repeatedly by the folks in seattle is that it was very important to allow social contacts, it helped build faith in the process for police officers who would then be left skeptical and be more willing to make those referrals in the future. the second goal that we pointed out very early on in the process was that they felt we built stronger relationships with the case managers and actually hopefully mikaylah will have an opportunity to speak to that. so our kecks with caseworkers, we -- our connections with

caseworkers. i'm going to leave that and offer an opportunity for mckayla. did you want to? i just want to give her an opportunity because we did get a lot of feedback from folks at glide, and by we i mean the police officers, police department, and it made a difference. i wanted to give her an opportunity to speak. >> good evening. >> so i am one of the caseworkers for lead. and i would say that when i first came on, time to build the relationship with officers and clients was very, very hard. especially being a minority and everything that is going on in the world, you are scared of the police, to be honest.

it's intimidating, the way they approached was intimidating. and building relationships with officers for myself, i've seen a huge difference. it's almost like i can only speak for mission, because that's the district i worked in. it's almost like the officers are getting back to community policing. i have clients who have asked for officers by name. i have clients who i outreached and waned to be brought into lead and was literally like i want sergeant coal to submit by referral. and i was like i have another officer, and they were like no, i want him to do it. there are officers who are driving by in their cars and our clients who are homeless, drug addicted, mental health, are walking up to the cars and talking to the officers. so it's not so punitive like i see the police, i'm scared they are going to arrest me, they are not here to help me. and working with us as well

because the community as a whole did not, i won't say they accepted us right up front and was like are you undercover police? is this going to get me put in jail, is this a joke? i'm not playing, i don't want to do it. and so building relationships with the officers, there's times where an officer can be out in the community and come up on a client that's not a client that has called us literally on our phone like hey, i have this person, they'll be a good fit for your program, and the officer sat there and waited for us to come on board. especially with the homeless, with dpw, most of the homeless are getting their stuff taken, when they come through, their tents are getting taken. they are asking for us and for officers. they are asking call this person, they can tell you what's going on with me. and we've been able to go out there with officers, and it's been very, it's been uplifting to the community. there's a lot of entities within

the police force that i did not know about. i've had clients who are sex workers, who then what is the word, they've been abused. and that's the last thing you want to do to talk to a police officer when you are a sex worker and you've been abused. talking and working with sergeant coal, that's how i learned about vvu, and i had officers who came out in plain clothes, was willing to get in my car to go meet the client in a starbucks, and shows the community we are not punitive, and that we really are trying to help. and there's clients who work with other programs in if other agencies who are asking to be referred to lead. they are asking can you please refer me to lead, i need help, and i want the help. and i agree that a lot of it is hand holding, but if i was on the opposite side of it, i would not want to walk that by myself because it's intimidating. you can go to any drug rehab and

say you are addicted and they'll close the door on you. there's a lot of red tape, a lot of yellow tape. so to have someone holding your hand saying i'm going to walk you through this process and then to say i have an officer i can call who will help me get through this door has been amazingly beneficial. so i just wanted to speak on that. >> thank you >> thank you so much. >> thank you for speaking and thank you for the work you do. commander, you probably have some questions coming your way. are you finished now? >> yes, sir. >> commissioner elias. >> yeah, i have an hour of questions for you >> i hope not. >> just kidding. thanks for coming to speak with us. the felton institute is a phenomenal institute, and they were there at the table at the inception of this program. and i think the success of this program is attributed to their participation partly. i am very happy to see that we now are getting, we are now

receiving more police officer buy-in. i remember when i first started, being in lead was the first time i met the chief actually was a conversation we had about the problems of this program and officer buy-in because this program is only successful if there is officer buy-in. and i think that officers at the time were sort of feeling that they come into contact with people in crisis every day and they give them sort of referrals or programs but they are not working, and it's frustrating for an officer to continually do that every day, especially with the homeless crisis we have, to see people every day, in crisis and not being able to see any sort of resolution. so i'm really happy to see that we are now having officer buy-in, because i think that's really what the success of the program is based on. the social context versus pre pre-booking, i would hope that sort of in the future that that sort of will level out a little

more, because i know there are only so many social contacts that were allotted in the program. and i think that it's really aimed at getting people who are really being arrested for crime rather than just social situations that are being referred to the program will be really helpful. and my hope is that this program actually spreads out to different areas and, chief, you can talk about how successful you may think that would be, because this program is only centered in the tenderloin and mission, and there are other districts who can benefit, especially like northern where there's a lot of retail stores and things like that, which -- >> yes, commissioner. our hope is that it does spread to other districts, and our policy meeting we voiced that very loudly. it runs out at the end of the

fiscal year. we didn't get any funding for it anyway, so we are bought in. in other agencies, as far as funding, d.p.h. is the administrator of the grant, and we hope we get some budgetary support as a city to continue this program, because i think it's a difference maker if we continue it. >> the other thing is on your slide 6, the lead participants based on race, what are the dates of this? because i know that -- >> so this -- sorry, to interrupt. so this is information that was reported out to us at the last policy group meeting, which was on the 27th of january of this year. >> is it based on all the participants in the program? >> no, commissioner, it's a snapshot in time of the individuals who are in the program at that moment, active participants. have completed their intake, are working with case managers to address their different needs.

>> and i would ask that sort of moving forward, we are a little more cognizant of the racial issue because the whole tenant of lead was to sort of address racial disparities. and while i appreciate this breakdown based on the race and ethnicity, it's concerning because the arrest rates and the jail population don't coincide with these sort of, the racial makeup in this chart. >> if i could -- >> not just one day in time. yes. >> i'm sorry, commissioner? >> she wants the numbers for the entire duration of the program, not just a snapshot of january 2020. because i know when we first started the program, that was one of the issues. there were a lot of referrals for nonminorties which didn't jive with the racial makeup of those being booked and arrested and in the local jail.

so those two numbers need to make some sense or have some correlation. >> one year, something more than one day. >> i understand what you are asking me for. just to be fair so that you understand what the challenge to that would be, so the administrative component of this in terms of collecting data, that wasn't assigned to the police department. and the department of public health, being the lead in this, for the individuals who had taken that role of capturing this data, so we've asked for it, and what they are telling us is the challenges when somebody completes their intake, that's when they can record the information. so i can ask them for all the intake information to see what that group is, but i'm not certain if that would even be reinflict-of-of all the -- reflf all the referrals that were

made. if i didn't follow through, that data is not collected in regards to gender or race. >> i think they did collect it, and i think the d.a.'s office also had the racial makeup of the referrals. >> okay. >> commissioner dejesus. >> i have about four or five questions or suggestions. so i'm not on the criminal justice system. i'm not that familiar with lead, only when it comes up here. so this time i really paid attention, and i want to ask a couple questions. when it says -- because i'm like a viewer. when it says social contact and referral portals, just remind me, who are the social contacts? are they like social services? are they community agencies or a mixture of both? >> so social contact, one of the core principles related to social contact, just to give

context to this, and i have a direct answer, is whenever lead programs begin, social contacts outpace prebooking and that's because police officers are making decisions and the level of commitment to it increases as they see the success of social contact. so to be eligible for a social contact referral in lead, a police officer has to witness a person engaged in criminal conduct, low level criminal conduct that would be eligible if they were arrested for the same or cited for the same, or they have to have information from the community, case managers that an individual was so involved. the value of this, especially in the tenderloin with all our foot officers and the density of folks in that neighborhood and the amount of police officers we have in the mission and tenderloin, if they get to know certain individuals who are stuck in this conduct. so they know, and then they are eligible to make that contact. >> so thank you. i didn't realize it was just the

police officers social contact. that wasn't clear to me. >> it's like if officer bob, john is always on the street. john hasn't committed crimes but he knows he could benefit. maybe a little asterisk. i also, on the graph, i don't know what page this is where it says percentage lead referrals, there's an abbreviation for s.f.s.o. i don't want to guess. >> san francisco sheriff's department. >> kind of thing the auditing person said we should have these definitions in here. i was guessing at that. i thought it was something to do with the school. so that's the sheriff. and they can also participate in this lead program? >> yes, they can >> good to know. there on the ethnicity. thank you, commissioner. i want to look at the gender chart. and i think there's a typo here

for the male it says 100 percent, and for the femalet percent? those are people? okay. thank you. i was wondering if that was a percentage. and then when we get to analysis, now you may have given this before, evaluation by the california state university of long beach, we may have gotten a copy, i don't recall but i would certainly ask that i get sent a copy. i don't know if other commissioners want this. but it would be nice to have a link either on here that the community can go and look up this evaluation and read it themselves and have the link on our website for when this is coming up that the community can also see the 130-page evaluation which could help understand the program. and then the definition of hire was so confusing. that might need an asterisk to see it means recidivism at low

level. that sounds like a -- what do you call those? professors, i can't remember the word i'm looking for but pie-in-the-sky analysis. and the last one, selection bias. i'm assuming the way i heard you say that, there was no bias due to strategic implementation by the police department. is that what you mean? because it says not an effect. >> if i can come in on that one. selection bias. so one of the things that was looked at in the evaluation was whether the officers who get the basically make the decision of who they refer to lead, whether there was bias based on behalf of the officer, who got in the lead and who doesn't. so it was really, i think, good news for us that they evaluated -- because of the way that we implemented lead,

different from some other cities, for instance, seattle, it was a very small group of officers that started lead. they worked in a specific area, very small, defined area, and i believe it was eight officers, i believe. they made all the decisions as to who got the referral and who didn't. we wrote it out, and we opened it up to anybody working mission or tenderloin. so we had a larger pool of officers. so what they felt is because the way we rolled it out, it minimized a small group of individuals making those decisions which lessens the possibility of this selection bias. because it's put out. we have a variety of people making decisions. so that was a good thing in terms of -- >> i guess the question that commissioner elias was raising, i was thinking is maybe we should also ask long beach, when they look at bias, do they reconcile the jail population versus ethnicity, black is

41 percent. does it toldhold true when they look at the race -- hold true when they look at the race of who is participating in the program. >> it's not proportional, and i think that speaks to commissioner elias -- >> these are not percentages, they are absolute numbers. >> but still higher on the red column versus the blue versus the jail population. so maybe when we are looking at bias can we also analyze the participants versus the jail population? >> i think that was the goal. i think when it says selection bias and strategic implementation, when someone is referred to lead it goes into what the commander was saying, it goes before the lead committee, which is comprised. d.a., public defender, d.p.h., the police department. so there are like 20 people in the room, and they talk about each case and whether the person can be a part of lead, if they can't, if they are not eligible. so i think that when they talk

about the implementation, like the no bias, that's what they are talking about because all those individuals are in the room to sort of examine the case. >> case by case basis. >> got it. >> that and the pool of officers. because the officers really control -- the officers determine who gets before the other panel. >> i want so thank you for bringing this. i'm kind of a novice to the program, and that's why i had some questions on it. but yeah, if we just send that 130 pages, it will be helpful. >> i can say one last thing if tiffany doesn't throw a pen at me and ask me to leave. one of the things we did do that i've found very valuable was there were different levels of meetings. they had policy committee meetings, but we had parking lot meetings that typically started. and it was myself, tiffany, the

public defender, there were a lot of us. we talked about this. we talked about cases and about what was referred to as missed opportunities. and i looked at, i figured approximately 100 cases in total on three occasions to look within the four corners and see was there something missed. so we talked about that, and we definitely have conversations with captains who are looking at arrests every day, every arrest made every day to see if there was a way that we were assessing our performance and trying to determine if there was a way to improve. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> these are good numbers. these are good reports. we are going to go now to the d.p.a. director's report but i'm going to ask you to start with a protocol when we get there. so if we can call that next item. item 2b and we'll fold one into

that. >> line item 2b, report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. d.p.a.'s report will be limited to a brief description of d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues made for a future commission meeting. presentation of the d.p.a.'s 2019 first amendment compliance audit of san francisco police department records pursuant to department general order 8.10. >> good evening. so we have this year so far, 82 cases have been opened up. as opposed to 69 the same time last year. we have an uptick in cases and increased caseloads. cases that have been closed this year, we closed 13 cases this year -- 133 cases this year. this time last year we closed 68 cases.

cases sustained we are at 7 this year, this time last year we were at 10. for cases that are past the 90-day mark but not at the 3304 deadline, we have 32 cases. 14 of the cases have been told. this time last year we had 27 cases that were past the mark. cases mediated, we have seven cases. this time last year we were at three. i do have, and i'm going to come back to the 21 because i have an update on that. for the mediation, we talked about that. we've been really active this past month and weeks with our outreach. we participated this month in a group meeting at u.c. hastings with 100 other organizations talking about d.p.a. and the law. on february 7, we attended the

black history month. the mayor's office at city hall. and on the tenth, we made a presentation on our mission and function with our budget at the library, that was this week. and on february 10, we also gave a presentation at north beach community center. there are no cases today in our closed session. and the audience in case issues come up that need help or assistance, i have today with me my chief of staff, investigator and my director for policy. no cases in closed session. so unless there are other questions, i would present the 1421 update. >> before you do that, we have this protocol quarterly report. is this just for us to receive?

is there anything we are supposed to do? >> i don't think so. let me bring someone up. >> all right. it just says, the calendar says receive and file, action. and i don't know what action is required. >> good evening. it's a report that is done in combination with the police department as well. so every quarter, there's a discussion as to the document protocol, cases that were complied with within a period of time and there's a quarterly report. it's historically been on the consent calendar so the commission has an opportunity to review it. if there are issues, they could take it off the calendar and they could discuss points of concern. >> are there any highlights you want to call to our attention? >> no. >> all right. so it will be received. next item, director henderson.

>> 1421. if i can bring up my chief of staff to raise some of the issues last week. >> good evening, president hirsch, vice president taylor, commissioners, chief scott, director henderson. my understanding is that commissioner hamasaki wanted a presentation regarding the total numbers of our 1421 files so i'm using the same metrics as when rosenstein presented in november and give you updated totals and answer any questions you might have. >> before you do that, i'm going to calendar for some time in march or april, a full presentation by the department and the d.p.a. on the 1421 update so we get the most current picture of where you folks are. are you giving us a piece of that now? >> i'm prepared to. and i'm happy to also present again in march or april. i can give you the short rundown and skip the long.

>> that's fine. but i would welcome more data so we can actually see what it is back in march or april. >> great. and this is just my understanding from last week's commission. so to date, we have reviewed 2,126 files. we have produced 51 files of those, four were officer-involved shooting cases, which meant that we turned over 12,000 plus pages of discovery just for those four cases. we currently have 42 cases pending production, meaning that they are in one of various stages, they've been identified for production, and they are at either the first or second level of redactions. included in that number of 42 cases pending production, one is another officer involved shooting which is another 2,000 plus pages that we are preparing to produce. we have 226 files that are pending secondary review, meaning that at a cursory level,

they might be disclosable, but we have to pull the files and go through the deeper level to make sure they comply with the statutory requirement. most notably, we worked with the public defender's office in terms of an approach going forward to prioritize their cases, and we identified that their needs and how our system works will work best in a categorical approach, meaning that we are focusing on dishonesty cases right now, in addition to the other cases that are in progress, which are in the g.d.i. and officer-involved shooting categories. so our dishonesty review has been separated into two levels. in the first level, we did a search in our meta data for misrepresenting the truth. we pulled 61 potentially disclosable cases. we determined that 48 are not qualified for production, either because the data was inaccurate, meaning they weren't really a dishonesty case or sfpd didn't

agree with our findings, therefore the cases were not sustained. we found three that we are going to produce. we have enough information that they were sustained as defined by the statute, and ten we don't have enough information on. we have sent a memo to sfpd to see what their information is, and we'll determine whether or not they are producible. the second layer of our dishonesty review is going back to the beginning, because we have refined the search terms that we can use so we are going to be looking for writing a false report, writing an inaccurate report, falsifying, fabricating or failing to disclose material evidence and start from that same process at the beginning. so we'll review those terms in our data, pull all potentially applicable files, do the deeper level of review, send anything to sfpd if we can't determine if something was sustained and produce what'sable. >> -- what's

producible. >> thank you. to not only let the public know where you are in terms of releasing this data. one thing i want to ask is for you to start including in your chief's reports is also the same material d.p.a. is producing is how many 1421 requests you are getting and how many cases year to date you have been able to comply with, because i think that data is very important and gives us a better picture, especially since the department and d.p.a. have received funding for 1421, and the public has told us that it's sort of, they are frustrated with how slow these documents are being produced. so i think that data should also be provided by the department since d.p.a. is now providing that data. >> i have a question about whether that is weekly. weekly, these things don't change fast enough in my understanding, what i've seen, they don't change fast enough for a weekly report. >> well, i mean d.p.a. is doing

weekly reports so i think we should definitely have -- yeah, we should definitely have the department do the same thing. not changing, then it's not changing. >> unchanged. >> so we haven't gotten this specific number weekly, but we have every week since commissioner hamasaki asked for it, we've been saying for example, since our last meeting we disclosed four files. my understanding is that commissioner hamasaki didn't find that helpful because there was no context so that's why we gave the full rundown this week. >> a similar process with the department. >> and it's obviously whatever the commission wants in terms of frequency of that reporting, we are happy to comply. >> i mean, i apologize for -- i think tonight was helpful because we didn't understand the broader context of everything. so thank you for that. i just have one question. this is based on my lack of familiarity with how they impact

d.p.a. so if d.p.a. sustains a finding for dishonesty but the department doesn't agree, then that's not a sustained finding? >> correct. because the interpretation that was reached was that sustained means there has to be an opportunity for appeal, there could be a finding and opportunity for appeal. >> i understand. thank you very much. that's it. >> i'm stuck on that point. something about that just bothers me. >> there was a conversation that was had with advice from various parties, including the city attorney's office, and that's the policy that we have been operating under. >> all right. so the city attorneys advise you that comports with the statute? >> advice as well as it's part of what is in the 1421 protocol that's been discussed with the commission >> i guess the only way that that would be disclosable then

is if it came up on a appeal to the commission? >> committee for appeals. correct. so when d.p.a. sustains a finding, essentially, we are not the finders of fact, we are essentially recommending charges based on our sustained finding. so what we have been advised is that it has to then have a decision, either by the chief or the commission, depending on what level of discipline is imposed in the case, and then the officer has to have an ability to appeal that decision in order for it to be a sustained finding. they don't have to exercise the opportunity for appeal, but that has to be part of the process. >> so we've had cases come up from the d.p.a. where the department disagrees, and you pursue, and the officer then appeals. >> not what we are talking about. >> why is that different. hang on. i'm asking her. why does that not work? why is that not part of this scenario? >> well, it is. if it goes to the commission then there's a commission finding.

so the commission -- so commission or department has to make a finding in order for it to be sustained. >> all right. >> cases don't have facts. >> hang on. i just wanted to ask that in most reports it would be good towards the staffing. i know there was some funding for s.b.-1421 and having staff on board, so that would be good to hear. >> i can give a quick update on that now. so we finally got the funding to bring on board the legal assistance. we finished interviews with those people last week, and we will be making offers to two legal assistants shortly. that's great. we have one full-time attorney who will be working on sb-1421, another attorney who will be devoting 50 percent of her time to it and a volunteer attorney who is starting in a couple weeks who will be doing 100 percent 1421.

>> thank you. anything else from the d.p.a.? next line item, please. >> we have not heard that. i would like to introduce the 810 audit by our award winning director of policy, samr a marion. >> good evening. director of policy at the d.p.a. good evening, commissioners, chief, director henderson, members of the public, many youth commissioners as well, and then of course sfpd staff. tonight we filed a report which is our first amendment report, so you've been provided that in your materials, and tonight i was just going to summarize the results that -- of that report. the general order 8.10, it requires that the department, that they can conduct a criminal investigation that involves first amendment activities.

but there's certain requirements. there needs to be a reasonable suspicion that an individual is planning on engaged in criminal activity that is expected to result in bodily injury or property damage or constitutes a felony misdemeanor hate crime, and there are first amendment activities that are relevant to the criminal investigation. so 8108 laze out those requirements as well as if those requirements are met, then there's a requirement this type of investigation be written up and authorized and signed off by both the commanding officer of the special investigations division, the deputy chief of investigations and the chief of police. every year, we conduct an audit where our staff go to the special investigations division, we ask them for the particular documents that are required that they keep pursuant to 8.10. so in this year, similar to many other years, we conducted that

process. this year our audit results are as follows. sfpd reported to us they had conducted no investigations or undercover activities that were subject to the requirements under 8.10. they reported there were two public records requests made pursuant to 8.10 guidelines and provided us documentation concerning those requests. and that they based on our review of the documents they provided us, we did not find any violations of the 8.10 procedures. we do have two recommendations. one, and this is a recommendation that had been discussed at last police commission, our recommendation is because department general order 8.10 is old, and is part of the cycle to be reviewed, our recommendation is to have a review of 8.0 through a working group which is a part of the what the commission is already

authorized. there's just an urgency to move forward with that working group. and our second recommendation, which is one that we made last year as well, is that the training materials concerning 8.10 that the department provides are within the special investigations unit, those materials are quite old. there's a video that's several years old and our recommendation is to update the training video so that it really addresses the broad range of first amendment or activities that are protected under the first amendment and involves training scenarios so officers in the s.i.b. unit as well as anyone else that training would be relevant to within the police department has an opportunity to really understand the broad range of first amendment activities that now technology really addresses as well and that they have an opportunity to compare their knowledge in those scenarios with 8.10. >> thank you. the working group is planning to reconvene in 2020 and it sounds like the training materials should be part of that discussion. commissioner hamasaki. >> yes.

i was just going to say i didn't realize it was, but i worked on 8.10 last year, and so conferred with president hirsch and see where we're at with that, but i would like to get that moving forward as well. >> commissioner dejesus. >> thank you for your report. i would just say on that last page, item 7, where police commission logged examination where the police commission log indicated -- it would be nice to say who the commissioner is, it's not a secret, and only one of us gets to do that, and i think we should identify the police commissioner who reviews the logs. >> my understanding -- i didn't review this year's logs but in the past it's been a variety of police commissioners. but it's your request we identify -- >> not anymore. there's only one person. >> my apologies. >> right now it's the president. but there has been no activity so there's been no log to

review. >> that should be clarified that there's been no review. who is in charge and there's been no review. >> i had no idea. public reading is going to assume all of us. >> actually 8.10 says the president shall appoint a commissioner, and i appointed myself, and that was made public. i'm entitled to appoint myself as well as anybody else. >> the report should reflect that. >> we'll do that. >> okay. thank you. next item. >> line item 2c, youth commission report. presentation of the omnibus youth commission preliminary priorities for fiscal years 20/21 and 21/22. >> good evening, youth commissioners. >> hello.

>> my favorite presentation. >> hello. haven't seen you in a while. >> good evening. >> are you waiting for the computer? >> i think i'm waiting on the powerpoint thing to go. i don't want to start talking and then it's not up. >> we love a good powerpoint.

>> hello. i'm going to start. background information. the youth commission meeting, our role is to advise commissioners and the mayor on issues related to youth. and there's cool people like you all who want to hear us too, so we do that. the objectives, we passed our omnibus preliminary budget priorities in january. the reason for that was to be able to advocate early in the budget process. civic engagement, transformative

justice and land use. i'm the vice-chair of transformative justice and the transformative justice mission, a group of young people that are starting to build cooperative and compassionate relationships with community and eliminate youth incarceration. since police are the people who make arrests, we have to have relationships with them to, you know, i'm sure you all get it. so the transformative justice priorityies are developmentally comprehensive trainings for youth and justice system agents such as police as well as

probation officers and so forth. and community opportunities to be involved in the policing of the communities. this is one of the departments we addressed such as adult probation, juvenile probation, police department, department of police accountability, so forth. pictures. so we think some of the really important priorities are community visibility, human rights training and in depth

community engagement and feedback. we believe there should be mandatory instruction, training for law enforcement officers on youth cognitive development and youth intake transition, know your rights trainings from an equity and trauma-informed lens. there we go. we also believe that sfpd oversight should have more consistent and timely implementation and response with community-oriented action plans and issues that relate directly to youth, there should be more opportunities for youth to be engaged, you know, reasonable

meeting times and even more seats on working groups for youth to have a say in things that involve them such as one my personal experiences. but, hey. all right. we can go to the budget slide. the youth commission strongly urges therefore that youth and case-specific programs and opportunities not be scaled back in advised budget cuts from the mayor's office. there we go. there's a bunch of contact information there. some of you on the commission actually have my contact information. feel free to e-mail me. i love talking to people. yeah. and i'm the vice-chair of said committee that i mentioned and here is the chair. >> thank you. we do have some questions. commissioner dejesus. >> thank you for sitting through

all of this. and thank you for suggesting working groups. i think we should look at some of the working groups, not only the ones that affect youth but others that might be relevant to your input. that's something we should talk about, maybe get input from you, if you know of working groups that you think you should have representation, we can talk about that. that's something you can take back. we have the use of force, we have the journalist one coming up. there's a lot that we have. >> i know that i'm on the biased policing one. and then there's -- i'm sorry, were you saying something. >> i was about to compliment you and say what a fantastic job you do with the bias working group. you are there for every meeting, and we've put in a lot of hard work, and your input has been really helpful and appreciated, and you have, it's something i know that commissioner elias and i, we have enjoyed, and

appreciate your perspective on these things. >> you have great ideas that have actually contributed to the success. >> go ahead. >> so one of the things i want to bring to this commission is it's kind of a double thing. is that on the days that you are here, i'm wondering if we can put you first, if you are just going to make a report to us or advance you so you don't have to sit through the whole thing, but if you are going to stay, the way i envisioned this, if you have any, all the issues that we discussed, if you have any input or any questions or any of the youth brought up like the issues with the superbowl, they thought there might have been excessive force by the police department, things like that. i always envision that you would have input on some of the things we discuss. if you don't, that's fine but i was hoping you could give us input from the youth's perspective on the issues on a weekly basis. so maybe that's something for

the commission to talk about to find a way you can have a question and answer time with the chief or us. so maybe going forward we should discuss that. >> yeah, i think personally and some of the commissioners that know me, i think if given the opportunity, any one of the other commissioners as well, but just speaking for myself, because, you know, i know myself. i can definitely develop opinions. [laughter] if that opportunity is there. >> i would like to give you an opportunity on the schedule, like we just heard this from the chief, we are going to report back some of the things we heard. i would like input on this. week to week current things that are coming up. so i don't know maybe we'll talk to the president and see if there's a way we can work that out. >> if you want to get together and show that vision out and like e-mail me or d.j., you can

text me they know my contact information. >> i'm happy to have your opinion, you and any other youth commissioners here. >> okay. >> who are the individuals with you tonight? >> well, nora is still here. >> are you nora? >> yes >> and austin is with the staff. and then two were here too but they left because it was running late. >> i want to congratulate congra on receiving the change maker award. i'm looking through where my son goes to school. my son is in the program there. and i was reading this, and i said i think i know that name. and it says works with san francisco youth commission, so congratulations on being recognized for your work and keep up the good work.

good to see a c.d.s. graduate up here. that's children's day school. >> what we just discussed, i didn't realize you were here. is that something we can discuss with you, having more input on the commentary that's ongoing when they are at the meeting? >> yeah, i think it's more of a concern about capacity because commissioners already have four meetings every week and youth commission and their committees. our current work with the juvenile hall working group and the blue ribbon mayor's panel, there's only five committee members. and as well as one additional commissioner of district 11, are 18 and up. >> i don't mean additional meetings, i mean when they are here if they have any input. or if that doesn't work for you. >> i think it's definitely a valid capacity, and seeing what the vision forward. >> chief scott. >> real briefly, president

hirsch, i just wanted to thank the commission. i know they also meet with me. this is one of their meetings. and i value those meetings. and nora i believe also got an naacp award as well. i wanted to point that out as well. >> that's right. congratulations. >> so we are inviting a youth commissioner to sit on the workgroup for 7.1 as well. so i want to thank them for that. >> is that the juvenile one? >> yes. >> we were trying to get two of us on there but apparently it's against the rules. >> we are inviting three other youth as well from outside the youth commission. so we have a good mix of very talented youth. >> i have a question for you on the report. the pages aren't numbered. so it's the reference to the sfpd oversight for more consistent and timely

implementation of responses. i'm not sure what that means. could you tell me what that means? it's on the transformative justice committee page. i guess there are a few of them. >> okay. just about, like, community accountability, and, like, being accountable with public requests, of, like, records and anything else like making sure that, like, communication with community is a key point of sfpd's, what they are trying to do to make sure, like, we have a lot of presentations and we get a lot of questions about how we think that sfpd officers can gain trust back in communities that historically haven't been either trusting for very legitimate reasons, and we think that holding sfpd accountable for having, i don't know,

two-bay street of communication between between communities is very important. so that's why that was there. >> i can add to that as well. so kind of reference to some of the working group stuff that we've been doing as well. i think conversation, especially in the working group is around, like, where the police can let the community know what they are doing now to address things, areas where they may have not performed their best. and i think a super important part of that is to not only listen to the community but actually have a drafted report of some nature that points out what you heard from the community and how that led to new things that are implemented and where you may have made mistakes and why that's leading you to do something different. so for example, saying we had a meeting last month where we talked about this, we went back, looked at it like this and

created this idea. we wanted to know how the community feels. we think this will be better to address said issue as opposed to, hey, we are doing something new and great, but never saying, oh, we did something wrong or poorly. so we need to do better. and having that be a more consistent kind of report back. >> thank you. >> in addition to that, this is really built off of our own working relationship with the police department in regards to the m.o.u. with the school district. we were following along with it, and then numerous hearings came about and then it came down to getting rescheduled at the board of education. so it was just, like, they ended that the m.o.u. did not get adopted by september which is the start of the semester and we will have to wait for another semester to roll it through, knowing that there were numerous community roundtables we were a

part of, and it was just a little bit of a letdown. >> okay. thank you all. i appreciate your work. next item, please. >> line item 2d, 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. commission president's report, commissioners' reports. >> is there any report by commissioners? >> i have a report. >> you'll have to put your name up. you're third now. [laughter] vice president taylor. >> yes, in addition to the bias working group meetings that mr. jones referenced which was productive and i think we have great ideas we are exploring. i wanted to highlight attending the black history month event at city hall this year. commissioner brookter is usually

with me but he was called out of-of-of town this year. but i'm always really struck and moved by the beauty and just importance of those events, and it always makes me very proud to live here and to be part of this city and this community whenever i see brown voices singing the negro national anthem together. so it was impactful as always. >> commissioner dejesus. >> so the language access group met on tuesday. i was ill tuesday morning, but you can give a report. it was a very important meeting. they had maggie from the d.h.r. there discussing language certifications. if you can tell us what happened. >> thank you so much, commissioner, for keeping this on the ray dog -- radar.

it was a really great to have this presentation by d.h.r. there's a number of hurdles in terms of just working out the mechanics, but essentially we were looking at, and it's been an ongoing issue is is there the opportunity for officers who already have proficiency in languages beyond the core languages, is there the ability to have them be certified so d.h.r., and they've been in discussions about how to get the financing and the details in place so that that can occur. there's also an issue about is there an opportunity for officers to get certified concerning translation. and again, there's some mechanics that have to be worked out. or is there another kind of resolution that can address an ongoing issue of if a statement is taken by let's say a victim, a witness, a suspect that is in language other than english, is there a way to get that translated immediately so that by the close of, or the end of that officer's watch, that

report has been translated, the statement is summarized and included in the police report, and the mechanics of how to do that in the past we believe that language would be able to work with the officer and do that, and it seems that's not possible, so it's another area we are trying to resolve. so there's ongoing discussions, and the hope is that in a month or two we will be able to resolve it and move it forward. the great news is most certainly the department and d.h.r. are committed to be able to test recruits at the police academy, and the hope is to really institutionalize that and to be able to have that in place is really a positive. >> i guess commissioners, the concern is there are new languages in the bay area. there are new ethnic groups of people, the police department doesn't have certification for that. i would hate something to happen with people from these, speaking these new languages and it falls through the cracks like the bakery thing that happened, misunderstood, misinterpreted, didn't have the right people

there to speak. and this keeps dragging on. and it's just that i don't know where the buck stops, and i don't know who is going to sit down and work out these complications, because that's what's going to happen and everybody is going to ask why has it been going on for five years now. so it's important we get these officers certified, that we pay attention to the new languages in our community and we get translation. we don't have a translation ability at this point. is that correct? >> right. there's not a certification for officers. >> so it's a lingering issue and i know it's going to blow up and they're going to say you have been working on it for four years >> where is it stuck? >> my understanding is it's discussions between the chief's officer and d.h.r. and the ability to get the key parts in place. >> there are a number of issues as ms. marion stated.

some of it is working out the lodgist -- logistics. any adds that would cause budgetary additions, so those types of things have to be worked out. >> d.h.r. does the certification. >> so there's some other things we have to work through as well. >> the budget -- >> put your name up. >> maybe what we should do is we should have d.h.r. and the department talk to us about what the roadblock is and how can we move past that or why we can't move past that. so i am going to ask that we have a report on that so we know what's holding it up because everyone -- it's going to blow up. >> the great thing is there are officers who could be certified. so unlike other cities that might have that challenge, the

department really has great officers who are -- who would like to be certified. so that aspect has been taken care of. so absolutely, time is of the essence. the presentation by d.h.r. was positive, and they are wanting to move forward. so, again, i think those are all positive things. >> so they can come here with the department and talk about that and then also talk about what the roadblocks are and see if we can try to figure out a plan to move forward. >> thank you. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you. i would like to ask to agendize or address -- >> we are not on that. [laughter] >> slow down. >> this is just reporting right now. >> that's why my name went up. >> next item, 2e >> commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. >> commissioner elias.

>> thank you. i would like to call regarding a d.h.r. trainer to address regarding bias in the department. i would like the chief to address that issue at maybe our next meeting. actual e-mail. oh, it's in and out? okay. i think the chief should be given the opportunity to respond. and what i really would like to know so the public knows is what the department plans to do to address the situation. specifically the issues that are raised in the letter that was provided to the newspaper as well as what bias training officers go through. i think the public really needs to know the trainings that officers receive regarding bias. i know that you, chief, have worked very hard and closely

with us in our bias working groups to get the d.g.o. revamped and actually came up with a brilliant concept by proxy which was added to the g.g.o. so i would like to give the department the opportunity to familiarize the public with the training officers receive and the remedial steps the department is going to take to address this situation. >> i think we may have all gotten that e-mail or call today. but it won't be at the next meeting which is going to be a district station meeting. it will have to be the following month. we'll get that on the agenda. commissioner hamasaki. >> elias just stole my material. [laughter] i got more material, don't worry, president. i got things to talk about. >> that list. >> i was in the lift over here, and commissioners elias and we all got the call, commissioners

elias and taylor had some strong statements to say about it. i would like to hear from mr. dante king if you would be willing to come forward. i think this is a big, you know, nobody was happy to get this call today, because i think that's something that has negatively colored this department since before the d.o.j. reforms. and we are all pretty optimistic about the d.o.j. reforms, and it sounds like somebody who is working inside the department training officers on bias and inclusion, equity, had some real concerns that he expressed to the chief. so i would like to hear from mr. king in one capacity or another. you know, if what we are doing is part of the d.o.j. reforms are not working, then we as a commission, it's something we should look at and figure out a better solution, so i great with

commissioner elias in agendizing and i would like to hear from the actual trainer himself. >> the trainer is not in the department, right? the trainer is from d.h.r. >> right. so the other -- well, there's a couple things i would like to agendize. i would like to agendize a discussion that i'm not sure we've had in open session, but we've definitely had in closed session. which is, and this was i think mentioned by d.p.a. -- i'm not going to say anything about discipline cases, was the issue of, and this came up at the last meeting, when it was stated that there was no sexual assaults findings, and the comments to

that was because they would have left the department. and so our discipline city attorney advised us that actually we can continue an investigation even after an officer is terminated. so that, in fact, we are doing our jobs as commissioners, we are ensuring that transparency and accountability are being had as to all cases. and so, you know, i think that it would be remiss of us not to fully investigate these within. and we were given advice before that we were not able to do that. but i assume that paul, who is the expert in this field, would be able to explain. i think that's a discussion we should have in open session with the public, i'm not talking about any specific cases, then that's something that should be a public discussion, and i would like to calendar that for march. >> before we move on, i think we

asked for a letter, a legal opinion, a memo from city attorney, and we haven't gotten that yet. and i would like to get that before we do anything estimate, because i don't know the law -- anything else, because i don't know the law, and it sounded like the city attorney didn't know the law, because they changed their view on it. we got one opinion from one person and another from another person. i want something we can rely on. i consider that to be a confidential memo to us in terms of attorney-client. we are entitled to waive that and have a public session if we do that as a commission, but i would like to get that letter first. >> yeah, no, i don't have a problem waiting until the memo is complete. i think it should be a public discussion. i think that i just don't think it would reflect well upon us as commissioners if we tried to do something like that which is not necessary to do behind closed doors, behind closed doors. the other issue was the question has been raised about 1421 and

closed session. i've asked deputy city attorney cabrera to prepare a memo on that as well. we are keeping him busy. when the memo is done, i think we should have a public discussion about that. i understand some of it is going to be attorney-client. but the public defender's been very out front in this issue in questioning what we can release and what we should release. and so i would like to have a discussion about that when the time is ripe. and again, but that's dependent on the memo. and we don't know the answer. we are waiting for a memo with law and stuff. my final, yeah, my final, item

to agendize in the future for today is i discussed with or raised the issue with president hirsch, chief scott, the director maguire regarding the d.g.o. on deaf and hard of hearing. i asked that to be agendized for today and to have director maguire address why we have not gotten back the copy of the d.g.o. that's within department now. president hirsch assured me it's in the final stages. so i would like to have the d.g.o. itself on for i'll give them until march 11. and whatever state it is in at that point we can work out the details, but i've asked for it to be agendized for today. i'll add another month to that. but i do want to have it heard on march 11. the reason for having this

specific date is because we have to, there's a fair amount of prepation for the community advocates who do need access to certain procedures to allow them to participate in the hearing, and i know they've been asking myself and others to have this on session to give them ample notice so they could be here and we could get the procedures in place to allow them to express their views. so i'm asking that be heard on march 11. so we can notify the community as well. >> it's already on that agenda. i've already asked it be on that agenda. >> you could have cut me off at the beginning, just said john, we've got this. [laughter] >> i would love to do that a lot, john. it's on the 11th. >> perfect >> i'll let you know in an e-mail when you sent that out, i said it would be on the fourth or 11th and we put it on the

11th. >> sorry about that. >> all right. commissioner dejesus. >> i had a question for you on your report but i was waiting to the end and i got lost in the presentation so i forgot to look at my notes. i understand there was an f.b.i. shooting in san francisco, and i have questions about that. and inquiring minds want to know. when there is that kind of shooting, how does the department handle that? do we do the investigation? do we defer to the f.b.i. to do its own investigation? exactly how does that work? >> [indiscernible] >> you can tell me now. >> i can be brief. to answer your question directly, so we had a team from the homicide unit respond, we investigated as a shooting in the city, it involves a federal agent. the district attorney's office was consulted. they did roll out a team as well

to monitor the investigation. the f.b.i. also rolled out their team, so the f.b.i. conducts their internal and external investigation. this particular -- this happened saturday night in the park district. there's been numerous conversations between myself, the district attorney and f.b.i. representatives on doing what we need to do to make sure that whatever information results from this investigation is shared by all parties that have an interest in it. and the f.b.i. is going to do a federal investigation on this. and district attorney has to make a decision in terms of what he chooses to do on this as well. but our role is to investigate the shooting. so we don't do any jurisdictionally, it's a cross jurisdictional, because there's

a federal jurisdiction because it's their agent. there is, of course, the state charges that the district attorney has a responsibility. and then we investigate that as well. so we don't do any of the administrative piece. the f.b.i. does that, but we are involved in the investigation. and we share information. we are kind of in the middle and we share the information with the involved entities. >> sometimes i am hard of hearing, so during your presentation, i don't think i heard that. so if you said that, i'm sorry, but i think it's significant event in the city and it should be mentioned. >> i did. and so it did occur, it occurred saturday night. but it is an investigation that's ongoing. and all those discussions and entities that you asked about have been involved in the discussions regarding this. >> so i want to agendize, because we are on the agenda thing is i did talk about the d.h.r., the sfpd to talk about

the language certification and translation issue and work out languages to we can frame it so we have something to focus on and maybe give a report. and i guess we have to invite d.h.r. and i don't know if we can dot it -- can do it right now. >> we can do it the other month or so. >> i got the report and i thought it was on for tonight, and it's not. i'm wondering if it's -- >> yes, it is agendized. the department is going to be presenting on it it. i am formulating questions for this department to answer with respect to that report. so if you have any just let me know. >> do we have a date for the 96a report? i think it's march 5, march 4? >> march 4. >> those are the three things. >> commissioner elias >> i wanted to ask you a question. you said you share information because it's a joint investigation with the feds. but who keeps the evidence?

>> the -- we keep some of it. the federal, f.b.i. requested some of it. and it depends on really what the evidence is. so the evidence that they have requested, we are going to furnish that to them, and this is with consultation with the d.a.'s office as well as the f.b.i. leadership. some of the evidence we still have we'll process. but it really, because there are two investigations going, i think the overall overarching goal is to have an exteedient investigation, so what the f.b.i. told us is that any information or evidence in process, those reports will be shared with sfpd and the's office as well. >> we don't have procedure or policy with respect to how the department handles these sort of investigations when they are sort of joint or shared with

with federal agents do we? >> with federal agents it depends on the jurisdiction. their agents are under their jurisdiction. so depending on what the nature of the cause of this is, if it's federal jurisdiction, then they are going to do their investigation. they also do their internal investigation. but to answer your question, there's no m.o.u. between the federal government and the sfpd. we have m.o.u.s with other agencies. we had a similar situation with a park police officer last year. and we were asked to handle that investigation, because the park police didn't have the resources. the f.b.i., that's a little bit different story. so there was a lot of communication there to make sure everybody was on the same page, and i think that was really important between the district attorney dollars office, the sfpd and me and the federal

authorities that have a hand in this. so that was the key to this. is do we have communication. >> the other question is do we have a policy on how cases are referred to f.b.i.? do we have a written policy with respect to that? >> no, in terms of what goes to the f.b.i. or what goes to federal, because it's not just f.b.i. >> right, federal authorities. >> a lot of those decisions are made at the time of charging or depending what the charges are and what the options are, for instance if there's a gun case that has federal jurisdiction, sometimes we will go to the federal, whatever federal agency that applies there, sometimes that case would be filed at the's office. usually there's communication with those offices to see what's appropriate and if there's any conflict we try to work that out. but it's not a set policy on this case must go to the d.a.'s office, this case must go to

federal. it's a fluid situation. we have a crime of violence or whatever, and we want to see that case is prosecuted federally, that's an option for us that we exercise sometimes. but there's no set policy, to answer your question, on that. >> the federal government would come in and deprive the state or local authorities from making that >> no, it doesn't really work like that. i mean, if there's a case that we present to them, they don't just come in and take the case. there's always discussion. so that's not the way it works. >> vice president taylor. >> yeah, i mean as someone who has, when i was -- i had cases that started as state cases. it wouldn't work like that. if the evidence is housed with sfpd there's no reason for an agency to stake that evidence. that's not how it works. most crimes don't have a federal

nexus. a lot of crimes you charge locally, you wouldn't be able to charge federally. there are certain crimes where they have a federal nexus because there's something in the federal criminal statutes that would apply. but it really is dependent on the crime, particular time, and on a case by case basis, i know myself i have, you know, helped, there was a murder in oakland, a mother who lost her kid two days before christmas did not have the capacity to move forward with and that murder would never have been charged if i didn't charge it, not because of the evidence but they didn't have the capacity to do that. so there are certain situations where the u.s. attorney's office, the f.b.i. will help when states need it. and that mother got some peace of mind that the person who killed killed her son was off the streets because of the involvement of the f.b.i. and the u.s. attorney's office. so it depends on the situation. >> folks, we are way off agenda. i got to be honest.

all right. commissioner dejesus. >> something we talked about last week, commissioner elias and i were wondering, on this f.b.i. shooting, there were issues in the paper where the police department referred criminal charges to the department of justice for prosecution, and one of the questions we had is do we have policy on when the chief, maybe it can be agendized, does the department have a policy in place when a department itself will refer to the department of justice rather than our own district attorney. if we don't have a policy, i want to agendize that and maybe we should have a policy. >> the same question, that was the same question. so there is not a policy. i've spoken to the commission about this issue. i personally believe, professionally believe, actually that the department should be given the latitude to use

whatever options are available to do its job. and i think overrestrictive or any policy that overrestricts that impacts our ability to do that. so i'm welcome to have the discussion in front of the full commission, but there are some serious concerns with the possibility of not giving the department the discretion to take a case to the federal government, federal authorities if it's fitting to do that and if it's appropriate to do that. >> right. so i would like to put that on the agenda when it is fitting and when it is appropriate, especially since you are not the prosecuting arm for you to select who is going to be the prosecuting arm might be something we should discuss. >> okay. thank you. next item. >> the police commission will hold a special meeting at a location other than city hall. the commission will meet at 55

sherwin street, san francisco, california, 94134 on wednesday, february 19, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. to hear comments from the public and ingleside station captain concerning public issues in the ingleside district. the public is invited to comment on items 2a through 2e. >> we are asking for public comment on the items we have discussed already, 2a through e.

many. >> good evening, commissioners, chief scott, director henderson. i am brian cox from the public defender's office. thank you for presenting on lead. as the presentation made clear, they have much to recommend it. in my view, the math of who gets to take that exit ramp remains concerning, just 36 percent of active participants are black and brown as the numbers indicate. you can't see the percentages. they are just the raw numbers but that's what the percentages add up to. this echoes similar concerns raised more than a year ago at a lead policy committee meeting on january 28, 2019. the number of black and brown people referred to lead dropped in july through september 2018 from 73 percent to around 31 percent in october. >> we can't see that. >> sorry. it's just to indicate it came

from the report. the next slide will show the numbers. this comes from that 2019 report. the presentation notes the selection bias of who is currently participating in lead is not due to strategic implementation by sfpd. that may be true but it may be beside the point because as we know, unconscious bias is implicit in our society. as an sf examiner article published today made clear, they may have a degree of antiblack sentiment. how do we address the disparities? it's not enough for the department to say they don't mean to discriminate. we have proof of discriminatory effect. they should find ways to address the disparities. they should present a plan to address those disparities. >> thank you.

any other public comment on the items we have discussed? all right. public comment is closed. next item. >> line item 3, discussion and possible action to approve proposed sfpd20/21 budget, discussion and possible action. >> good evening, president hirsch, vice president taylor, chief scott, director henderson. my name is patrik leon. i'm the chief financial officer for the san francisco police department. in our prior meeting last month, we went over the budget process and tonight we are going to be going over our proposed budget for fiscal year 2021 through 2022. within the department's strategic plan, we have to find

our strategic statement. we stand for safety with respect to all. we will engage in just transparent unbiased and responsive policing. we will do so in the spirit of dignity and in collaboration with the community. we will maintain and build trust and respect as the guardian of this constitutional and human right. further, within our strategic initiative, we've identified five areas to collaborate, to build strong partnerships with the community and our city partners to address community-wide challenges, improving responsiveness to improve our ability to respond in a timely informed, unbiased and just way to work towards a collaborative resolution. measure and communicate to align on a shared vision and transparent way of measuring safety with respect in order to work better with each other and our community.

strengthen the department to instill safety with respect in how we organize, evaluate performance, recruit, train, promote, reward, deploy and lead. and finally, defining the future, to plan it for the longer term so that we are in a position to meet the challenges of tomorrow. the mayor's office budget instructions, the instructions given by the mayor's office to each department is that each department must reduce general fund support by 3.5 percent, to not add any new general fund supported positions or enhancements, to demonstrate the effective use of city funding, to define the goals for programs and initiatives, to consider community impact when proposing increases to fees or fines, to obtain public input in the budget process and to take

independent reviews into consideration. during the prior meeting, we had identified the department budget priorities or the process to identify the budget priorities. the priorities for fiscal year 2021 are strengthening our staffing, investing in collaborative reform measures and maintaining our level of service. i do want to go over budget items that are determined in the memorial phase, and there are certain budget items mentioned in this presentation that are not part of the department budget submission. these will be determined did you recall mayoral phase, and these items include technology projects, general fund capital planning projects and general fund equipment requests.

the following table identifies the major fund categories in our department budget. we do have a budget submission of 747, possibly $747 million for fiscal year 2021. i do want to say there is a connection between the version that you have. there is a correction between category c and category e. there's a $1.5 million budget line item for city improvements, that should have been classified under category c as general fund project base but is under category e for special revenues and grants. this table provides the budget summary for all of our department activities. a fund represents activities that are separated from other activities in the accounting

system to more easily demonstrate compliance with either legal restrictions or accounting restrictions. and just to summarize, this pie graph representing a total uses across all funds. and what you can see is that personnel costs represents the majority of our budget at 86 percent, and it's roughly 6 had a million dollars of our budget. $645 million of our budget. program based uses represents 2 percent. services performed by other departments represents 8 percent at $62 million, equipment and capital is less than 1 percent at $3.5 million, nonpersonnel services are roughly 2 percent at $18.5 million and materials and supplies represents the remaining $5.7 million, and a little less than 1%.

category a, general fund operating budget requests. this table represents the major categories within our general fund. personnel costs represents 86% of this portion of our budget. the components of the personnel, regular salaries is approximately $374 million for the next year. over time, is $18.7 million and benefits is $137 million. for professional service and other payments, these costs represent non-city rent, contract services and for that, it's $16.5 million, materials and supplies, $5.5 million, and this represents uniform safety equipment, office supplying, equipment less than 1% represents patrol cars and safety equipment.

the final item is services paid to other departments. this includes city rent and utilities, phone and network infrastructure, workers comp. there is one addition to -- or one item of note, within overtime, one of the primary differences within last year and this year, there is a late ad in 2019 for $615,000 related to overtime to address the city's settlement. >> i didn't hear that. >> i'm sorry. the settlement. it relates to the no-bail decision. >> the buffin settlement is the name of the case. it deals with the bail issue and whether or not people who are

arrested have to post cash money bail. and based on that, there has to be a large degree of work done up front to determine whether or not the individuals who were arrested are detainable. so it's really puts us in a situation where we have to have basically 24/7 staff to review these cases to get them to the court at the appropriate time. >> so that's how it's tied to overtime? >> it is being addressed through overtime, because we don't have sufficient coverage to provide this, in order to ensure the reports are provided to the courts and to the district attorney within the time frame that they need. >> we'll hold questions. go ahead. >> department full time equivalent positions budget.

this graph identifies what our full-time, what our budget is full time positions have been. and it's broken up between sworn and civilian. one of the major differences between the current year and next year, for the airport there's approximately 99 full-time equivalent positions that have been added. these are related to the airport's request to add two full-time equivalent lieutenants, 11 full-time equivalent sergeants and 86 full-time officers. in terms of the city's, we have an increase of 29 full-time officers and six full-time equivalent sergeants. this is related to lower anticipated attrition and through academy classes. for civilians, for the airport, the primary difference between

20 and '21 is related to additional police service aid to provide additional support. and for the city, there's approximately 35 full-time equivalent positions between -- or the difference between 20 and 21, these are two positions that were civilianized from last year and also additional positions that were -- that are identified to be civilian for this upcoming fiscal year. and i do want to make a clarifying note that for counts, they don't always reflect the actual number of employees. if you have a position that you intend to fill, let's say, at the halfway point in a fiscal year, because that person is only working half that year, within the budget, it counts as a half f.t.e., because it's equivalent to a half, full-time

equivalent position. in the previous slide we identified the increased full-time equivalents accounts that contributed to the salary budget within the airport fund. we did receive information from the airport staff that they are requesting a reduction in the number of f.t.e. positions. we are still working through what effect these changes would have within our budget. but we expect the changes will only affect airport-funded activities. general fund project-based budget, guidance listed in this table represents enhancements and ongoing projects. the items highlighted in asterisks are budget items that were added as enhancement projects during last year's budget cycle. these items include the furniture and fixtures and equipment for the new facility building.

this is the facility at 1995 evans that is going to house traffic company and the forensic services division. the other items that were enhancement projects from last year include the foundation network systems for crime data warehouse, the collaborative initiative and the last item was for the capital planning fund for facility improvements. the remaining items listed are represent ongoing projects that we have m.o.u.s with the respective agencies. category d, service to other departments, this represents work orders. the largest item on this table is for the municipal transportation agency, and this

line item, the m.t.a. funds 23 positions and includes overtime. this activities include the taxi commission operations for the enforcement of taxi and bus-only zones, training for m.t.a. traffic control staff, parking garage security for m.t.a. public garages, and nighttime response to blocked residential driveways. the other major category is for the port of san francisco, these funds free services that are all with overtime. some of the others items include human service agency for the supplemental nutrition assistance program site, security for the library for the main and eureka valley branches, the department of children youth and their families work order that funds a position to pork on

citywide violent intervention. and the smaller items include treasure island for gate security, convention center security and other smaller partnerships that make up the rest of the total. special revenue and grants. some of the major categories within this chart include the automated fingerprint. this is for the city's life span services. the traffic offender program, joint powers authority for the security of the transit center. federal grant, state grants, private grants and some other miscellaneous revenue. and this total represents approximately 1% of our budget. just to summarize for our fiscal

year 21 budget submission, the general fund operating budget will be for $616 million, the airport fund is for $102 million, general fund project based for $15 million. services to other departments, $6.7 million and special revenues and grants about $6.4 million for. there's an increase of 55 million $from last year to this year. the majority of those increases are attributeable to increases in personnel that the airport has requested and also some additional positions that have been added to the budget for civilianization and for some academy classes. sources of funding. this chart represents where the sources of our budget come from. the general fund makes up the

largest component at 75 percent. state revenue represents about e airport contributes 14 percent at $100 million. interdepartmental services, these are work orders, that represents 3% at approximately $19 million, grants and other revenues are less than 1% at $682,000. and the remaining amount is for local and state programs at approximately $10.6 million. for fiscal year '21 capital project submissions, these are -- these projects represent items that are not within our department budget but is submitted through a separate process, and the actual projects that are funded, it will be determined within a memorial al phase.

however, within our submissions, the major ones that we have submitted is a project to provide relocation costs for our new facility. this facility is supposed to house our property division. we have also submitted promptings for information technology improvements. and this includes our crime data warehouse software upgrade, the hall of justice relocation cost and the i.d. access management system. for our various facilities, we submitted projects to provide funding for painting, roofing, electrical, hvac replacements, parking lot resurfacing, improvements at our range and stables and also security enhancements and cameras for our facilities. our project submissions to the committee on information technology, we submitted five projects.

the document management system, our human resource management system platform modernization, it will take place in several phases. we are requestingquesting fund g for phase one. property and evidence replacement system. the collisions reporting and tracking system and then lastly, the personnel safety management system. equipment request submitted to the mayor. we submitted the following equipment requests to the mayor's office for consideration. we are requesting for 100 patrol cars, equipment to assist our property unit move and also laboratory equipment to allow us to reopen our drug section over at our crime lab. i do want to go into a little bit of detail on our vehicle

replacements. the following table represents the historical view of our -- of our vehicle replacements for each physician year. as -- each fiscal year. it varies from year to year and there's been a low of 30 and a high of 73. but there's quite a variance going from year to year on what we've actually received in funding to replace our vehicles. just a point, a note of point, in fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2011, those vehicles were purchased through bond funds. this table shows the status of our fleet and there are a significant number of vehicles that are over ten years and over 20 years. it represents over half our fleet.

and this is, our greatest area of need is within our marked patrol cars. they do experience the greatest level of usage, and they provide the most availability to the public. and it may play a role within our recruiting and retention efforts, because it shows that the department is committed and investing in resources that allows our members to perform their duties. the current mileage of our fleet, this table kind of shows they're approximately half of our fleet have either -- sorry. 31 percent of our fleet have mileage between 100,000 and over

150,000, and there's 19 percent of our fleet between 50,000 miles and 100,000 miles and only half of our fleet has less than 50,000 miles. what that translates to within our actual maintenance and fuel costs, because of the age of our fleet, we've experienced deficits within our maintenance and fuel cost budget for fiscal year 17/18 we encountered $300,000 deaf fit for fiscal year 18/19 the deficit was $681,000. for the current year, the estimate from administrative services is a projected $1.3 million deficit. and this was the estimate as of january.

fleet analyzed maintenance repair costs per vehicle. this graph kind of shows graphically what the repair costs have been per vehicle. the under five years, the average cost to maintain and repair a vehicle per year was between 16$00 in fiscal year '16. this year the average has been about 956. for cars that are between or between five and 10 years of age, the cost for fiscal year '16 was approximately $4,500, and that has pretty much remained consistent from fiscal year to fiscal year. the average cost currently for this fiscal year is $4,200. the middle line represents cars that are over ten years, and it's kind of in between, but it

actually underrepresents the two maintenance and repair costs for some of the older vehicles we reached a point where it's not economically practical to fix the cars, and so we continue to use them until the asset is retireed. for the mayoral budget phase, between march and may, the memorial's office worked with departments to fund new projects and policies, and within this process, it includes the addition of capital projects, committee on information technology project, equipment and vehicle request and also request to add new positions or to fund, project funds requested by departments. and some of these items we just went over. in terms of timeline, tonight we

presented our department budget to the commission. february 21 is the due date for the department to submit the fiscal year 20/21 budget to the mayor's office. march and may is where enhancement requests would be presented to the mayor's office. and in june 2020 is when we provide an update to the commission on what the mayor's budget phase will be. and then in august of 2020 we can provide the commission with an update on what the actual board-adopted budget will be. with that, that concludes the presentation. >> thank you. i have two quick questions, and i'll turn it over to the other commissioners. unless i'm missing something, i don't see that you are cutting the budget for the general fund by 3.5%. >> this is a conversation that we've had with the mayor's

office, and it is a -- we do still need, it is a work in progress, and we are going to have additional discussions to identify what efficiencies can be gained and where the opportunities exist. we intend to work with the mayor's office in the coming months during the mayoral phase to determine what efficiencies can be gained and what reductions within the general fund support can be realized. >> okay. and then on page nine, i just want to understand these f. t. e. s. how can i relate any of these numbers to the charter figure of 1971 uniformed officers. is there a way? >> so the 1971 number, the minimum threshold is really the city portion. so if you refer back to that chart, the number of positions currently is 203, and so -- 2203

so anything above that would be above the baseline. >> so anything above 1971? >> correct. >> by i hear we are still under, about 100 uniformed officers. does that mean many of these people are on leave? >> yes, there are, within the 1971 number what has to be added to it are positions that are, the 1971 represents full duty officers, so there's positions that need to be added for people that are modified duty or that are on leave that would not be counted towards that 1971 number. so actually the correction would be, for the 2203 number, we would have to subtract the number of budgeted f. t.e.s that would account for people that would be on modified duty or for some other form of leave. >> all right. thank you.

commissioner elias. >> thank you for presenting. the question that i have is why the airport budget is so high in terms of the fiscal year or current and the projected fiscal year. i mean, each category seems to be increased by a few thousand, but the airport is about $22,000 more. and i'm just trying to figure out why. especially given president yee's suggestion to have the sheriff's department take that over to free up the officers so they can patrol the other districts that need their presence. >> so part of the difference is really the expectation of the airport is to try and add 99 additional sworn positions. the ability to reach that goal

is partly dependent upon the ability of the police department to meet its recruiting goals and to fill all the academy classes in the event that the -- that we aren't able to fully fill the academy classes. the actual number of positions that would be, that they would experience, it wouldn't be to the 332 number. so it's more of -- i'm not explaining it all that well. >> are you saying that the airport is requesting from the sfpd that 99 sworn officers be added to the airport patrol? it's contingent upon our ability to send additional officers to the airport.

however, that is -- part of that equation is whether or not we fill the academy classes to be able to replace the officers that -- on the city side. for the airport, they have a dedicated -- >> i can answer the question more directly. yes, the airport is -- has requested to increase the staffing at the airport based on increases in the passenger load, which has gone up exponentially over the last several years. there's the opening of a huge hotel there. so they have requested to increase the staffing at the airport. he stated, i believe they just reduced that or plan to reduce that request. >> are they providing you numbers to justify this request? because officers, you know what

the communities could do with 100 officers on foot patrol? >> they are. >> and they want our officers to go to a hotel to monitor the hotel that's built by the airport? >> they are providing numbers, but let me just, if i can remind the commission that airport is a very, very high-value asset in terms of a lot of issues. i mean, if we have an incident there, number one, it's separated from the city, so it has to be staffed adequately. and the other thing in the terms of list of high-value asset for attack, it's probably at the top of the list, because of what it is. so the number of people that come through there, we know what this can lead to. so they have made a request for that, and they justified or explained what that request was based on. that airport is like a city in

and of itself. and i know we might think nothing ever happens at the airport. security at the airport is a big, big deal. it's a huge deal. and having the amount of staffing there commensurate to the need is really important. so we had many discussions about that. and as he stated, we don't have the capacity right now to fill all the request. so we are trying to work through that. >> commissioners, also keep in mind that the, strategic management bureau, keep in mind that the airport submitting a two-year budget or we all do. so remember that the 2021 budget is a baseline number. so again as the chief mentioned, we've just gotten word that they are going to reduce that budget, which is more reflective of the less rosy picture than we had a couple of years ago or over a

year ago, with respect to our recruitment and retention abilities. so, again, remember that those numbers reflect the ability to fund two to two and a half classes. but that was also contingent on our ability to fill two to two and a half airport classes, in addition to city classes. so the department, of course, is having to make decisions everywhere about where we need to put staffing and we're having that balancing act. >> how many officers do we have? >> hang on. let's go by the -- >> my name is on the list. >> i know. >> discussions -- >> commissioner dejesus. [laughter] >> all right. so, and you are going to have to correct me if i'm wrong because budget is not my thing. but two things. we talked about the cars, we've always talked about the cars,

it's a dangerous situation. and i don't really understand why the cars or why the cars aren't in the budget itself, because when you say the mayor's office, the budget phase of the mayor's office, i've always seen that, and i could be wrong, as a discretion their funding for you, she'll pick and choose what you get. not she but the mayor's office will do that. and i just think if it's so significant if it's your greatest need, i don't understand why it's not in the budget itself. >> go ahead. >> so part of the memorial al phase is to identify what equipment projects are funded. the mayor's office has to prioritize all the equipment requests that have been submitted citywide from not just our department but from all the other departments. and so with what we would submit is our equipment request during the mayoral phase, the mayor's

office would decide based on what their priorities are, based on what the needs are, based on what the available funding is to prioritize what actual equipment requests from department citywide actually gets elected and funded. >> so you're telling me there's some kind of internal rule that you have to do it this way? because the cars always suffer. they don't get enough carses and some years they don't get any. >> yes, and that is a priority of ours at the department, and we've made that known to the mayor's office, the budget office, the last three years, as you see, we've gotten some support from the mayor's office consistently. we have a long way to go to get our fleet back to where it needs to be, but it has been a priority, and we have gotten support from the mayor's office. we haven't gotten everything we need, but we have made progress, and we are going to continue to make this a priority.

>> the phase is one part of the budget process and the memorial al phase will occur from march -- the mayoral phase will occur from march to may. and during that time we would be working with the mayor's office with our enhancement requests and with other priorities to identify what items ultimately made it within the final city budget. >> so i have more questions. we've always suggested this. i. t. is always on there. i. t. improvementses, -- improvementses or giving expertise on what we need. it is mind boggling that we are in silicon valley and we have all these rich people that we don't get somebody to grant us or volunteer, help us with this i. t.^ i guess i don't

understand whether we have a program to solicit grants or sliss at this time these i. t. rich corporations in the bay area. >> we do actively look for grant opportunities. currently there aren't that many available that will fund strictly equipment requests for law enforcement agencies. there is one that we routinely are able to apply for and receive funding for, and that one is for the d.n.a. backlog reduction and capacity enhancement grant. and that really helps out and allow usama bin laden to allow us -- that allows us to purchase equipment for our crime lab. >> one thing we have instituted is we have an i. t. committee, and we have invited the leadership from the city department of technology to sit

on the committee meetings and basically what that does, i'm glad you asked that, is we had these discussions and all the department leadership was there and executive director mcguire is leading it, so it gives us the ability to be a lot more strategic on our needs and work with our city leadership and i. t., so it's, we've been doing this now for about eight months, i think. we've had several meetings but it provides an infrastructure to keep this on the forefront. we have conducted a strategic, a gap analysis on some of some of our needs, that was one of the recommendations, and that is one of the guiding documents that will push this discussion further so it's a step in the right direction. we have a lot of i. t. needs. so we are in i. t. world. so hopefully as well. >> i remember one of the

proposed budgets you had an item that consisted with tasers. is there a taser request in this particular budget? >> it is not included within our budget. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. help me understand the word a little bit better. so the airport is not in san francisco, is that correct? >> correct. >> it's in san mateo, right? it's under federal jurisdiction. >> it is counted as part of the city and county of san francisco. >> i thought it went to san mateo. >> let me explain. the airport is in san mateo county but the city and county of san francisco owns that land. so we are responsible. we have jurisdiction of the actual physical land. the cases go to san mateo account in terms of anything that comes out of an arrest.

they are filed in the san mateo county's d.a. office but we have patrol jurisdiction on the airport. the federal authority, t. s. a. and other authorities, customs and border patrol, they have jurisdiction in part of the airport as well. so it is a city in and of itself, very complicated in terms of all the parts that go to effectively policing an airport. >> so i thought from a previous meeting i was under the impression that our officers who are at the airport are being paid by another entity. >> they are being paid by the airport. the airport funds the positions for that -- officers assigned to the parent are paid for with airport fund -- assigned to the airport are paid for with airport funding. >> okay. so we are assuming 100

potentially more officers to the airport this year? >> we need bodies. >> i think what's important to understand is for those 100 f. t. e. s, that is -- provides the authority to hire those positions. it doesn't mean that we are going to send 100 officers to the airport. if we are able to fill -- if we are able to fill all of our ranks, and we have additional officers to send, then maybe a discussion with the airport. but those -- the positions that are within the budget, it allows them the authority to hire for those positions but doesn't necessarily mean that those will be filled. >> if i can further explain. so if the airport, the officers

at the airport are funded by the airport, true, they don't work at the airport at the expense of the rest of the city. so in other words, if sophomore other entity were to take over that responsibility, those officers would not come to the city and be an additional deployment to the city. those officers would go away from the sfpd's books. so they are not put there at the expense of the metropolitan area of the city. they are additional because they are funded by the airport. so if they were to go away for whatever reason, they wouldn't be on our books. >> they are not counted as part of the number that president hirsch was mentioning. so this is completely separate. so when everybody is complaining about we don't have officer, we don't have foot beats, the airport is completely separate in a way. i heard there's like a 500-person waiting list to go to the airport. >> there is a list to go to the

airport. >> isn't it like 500 people? >> for some people it's a desirable. >> what i heard. >> i want to make sure we emphasize, it's really a forced assignment. >> i understand that. but i'm trying to figure out because we all here, any time i talk to anybody, there's not enough officers, we need more officers, that's why i brought it up at the hospital, that's why the homeless resolution was important to me. so i'm trying to figure out if this is a situation where we are losing officers on our streets addressing the city's concerns to spend time at the airport. >> if the airport weren't funding those officers, we wouldn't have them to begin with. if they ever stop funding or some other entity is called onto police the airport, we lose all that. they don't come back to the city. >> they could, we would just have to budget for them

>> that would be an additional budget expense in our general fund. >> so we could have more officers in the city if we wanted to budget if it weren't for the airport? >> if a number of officers is raised, it wouldn't have anything to do with the airport. because we would just be competing with whatever entity that's policing the airport. but it wouldn't be -- the elimination of us policing the airport wouldn't add additional officers to the city. >> it could. >> no, not because of that reason. if we raise the staffing levels of the police department in the city, it's really a separate issue from what happens at the airport, because if we were not policing the airport, we would lose that anyway. >> but if people go over there, they could also come back. >> correct. >> okay. >> all right, commissioner brookter. >> i'm sorry. >> i was going to add that if we were, if for some reason, we were able to absorb the, well,

bring back those officers to the city, that would create a 75 to $100 million deficit in the general fund. that would be news to everybody, and would require cuts in other departments. >> we profit off of it as a city? >> the airport? >> it is a cost control. they pay for themselves. that is correct. >> they are money isolated in a separate fund, and they pay for it and the city doesn't get to use that money except at the airport >> how would we lose money then? >> if we brought them back we would have to pay for them. >> that's general fund money. >> i understand that. thank you. >> commissioner brookter. >> so this is what happens when we talk about budgets. i wanted to bring it back. i had a couple general questions or at least one of the things from a statement standpoint what i would like to see is what we actually spend. i spend most of my day looks at budgets so i think being able to see what we actually spend

versus what we are asking for in budget would be great to see. i also wanted to kind of understand too, how often do you all meet as a financial team? like overall. monthly taking a look at the budget and what we are spending, what our burn rate is? >> we have a budget monitor report that is provided to members and distributed to the department every month. >> okay. and i ask because i think that would be something if we could see quarterly, i think it would help us out if that's something we can actually take a look at. i'm also wondering too in terms of the budget itself. so we're asking for x amount of dollars to be fully staffed for the most part. but we haven't been there, we don't get there. so what happens to those funds, especially since the majority goes to salaries. is there an opportunity to do budget modifications where we can look at how much staffing we

have and we can move it over to purchasing more vehicles versus having to go to the mayor? and excuse my ignorance for not necessarily understanding the entire budget process and how it works but are there strategic conversations that evolve around that? is there opportunity for that? >> commissioner, thank you for the question. there are certainly opportunities to learn lots more about our budget and how we -- there's the budget side, and there's the expenditure side and how we balance through the year. so the actual that we are spending. that could be a very long meeting. and we'd be happy to come back and speak to some of those things any time. i'm happy to do the quarterly reporting as well. i think the thing that kind of just bear in mind is that we spend every dollar every year.

and so where the buckets of money break down varies a little bit from year to year based on what's happened. often we will have to do salary transfers into a couple other locals depending on what's going on. but surplus, salary surplus, but we do have a budgeted negative number in our salary line for attrition and those sorts of things as well. >> so the current is actually the actual, isn't that right? that basically reflects the actual expenditures? >> no, that's still the current year budget, but so things might shift among lines depending on, and we are authorized as a department to move money around up to 10%. and so that there might be a little bit of movement. >> commissioner brookter, we can see the actual. >> it would be good at some point, maybe before the budget

is finalized in june or july. maybe to see what the actuals were for the fiscal year so that we can actually relate what you're asking for to what you did. >> we have this every year >> maybe offline, maker commissioner brookter. >> commissioners, as a reminder, we are coming back to you at the end of each phase. so meaning after the mayor has submitted her budget, we'll come back and give you an update as to what's happened there. and then the expectation would be that in july, we would also give you an update or maybe early august, give you an update on how the final board phase went. >> how about actuals when you come back after the mayor, after meeting with the mayor's office? okay. >> thank you >> we need to vote on this. before we do that, i'll ask for

public comment. is there any public comment on the budget proposal? public comment is closed. is there a motion on the budget? >> so moved. >> second >> move to adopt? >> yes. >> and a second. any discussion by the bithe commission. all in favor signal by saying aye. opposed? okay it passes. >> i had a question. >> you can ask it but we passed it. >> i know you passed but i did want to clarify something. i had a little note down here. when you talked about asking for more money for the district attorney for the bail thing that you -- that decision. i guess i just got a little confused because i thought the district attorney has access to the same records you do like f.b.i., san francisco rap sheets, i was just wondering why they didn't just put it in their buttoning to review for bail

hearing. why do we have to do it in ours. i don't understand that decision and why we have that responsibility. >> there are several elements to the buffin settlement the city had. and each department has its own role within the process. for the police department, the overtime money has been -- is the primary purpose for the overtime is to allow the department to provide incident reports or complete the incident reports and to have them reviewed by sergeant and to give, to be able to give the reports to the district attorney and to the courts within, i can't remember the exact time frame, you want to say it's eight hours, so that portion of it is for the police department activities, and that's why it's within our budget rather than -- >> don't we do that anyway?

no? >> i can speak a little bit more to the operational process behind it. so what buffin requires is that it puts time constraints upon when the report has to be completed and submitted to the o. r. project. where before, we did not have those time constraints. so that could, that has personnel challenges, in terms of the review process to make sure that we are complying with those time constraints and that's what that overtime is designed to do to make sure we have those layers of review available to we are not missing, and we don't have time absent. that was the new decision that was put into place within, i believe it goes into place this month. >> is it a case?

a law? >> it's a federal case, and i will double-check to see exactly where that settlement is in terms of the signage. i just realized it hasn't come to this commission but i'm happy to get the litigators which is city attorney's office involved but that particular court order was being directed certain pieces for the probable cause determination for sfpd to do it within a certain period of time that requires staffing, which is currently what the department doesn't have. so it affects overall all the city, not just sfpd, but that's the piece that will affect us. >> so it's new. so i don't know about it. we don't know about it. >> i'm happy to put it on the calendar. >> that would be great. thank you so much. >> thank you. next line item. >> line item 4, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but that are within the subject matter

jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address the remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or d.p.a. personnel. under police commissions rule of order, during public comment, neither police or d.p.a. personell nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police d.p.a. personnel should refrain from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. >> my name is thomas bussy. i wanted to plead they release an update into the murder investigation of brian ag. you might know him as the headless torso left in the fish tank on clara street. i seem to have done your job for you. i went down there, i knocked on doors, i rang doorbells, i spoke to witnesses, many of which who were relieved when i introduced

myself as a journalist. i'm just a blogger. but it was more than the police did. and there was information that came out that was very disturbing about this case about military individuals roaming around the area for months in advance. the victim was personally known to the mayor who was in appear imminent domain action. he owned property that was valuable. his father was a army general in psychological warfare operations. on the third story of a neighboring building in a condo lived the former district attorney and attorney general of california now sitting united states senator which i think is incredibly important to the case because who is she? a headless torso in a fish tank headed for a shark tank. this is clearly a cover-up that is deeply disturbing and i wish there were answers. thank you. >> thank you.

any other general public comment? public comment is closed. next item, please. >> line item 5, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 7 below, closed session, including public comment on item 6 vote whether to hold item 8 in closed session. >> any public comment on our going into closed session? all right. public comment is closed. next item. >> line item 6, vote on whether to hold item 7 in closed session, san francisco administrative code seconds 67.10, action. >> is there a >> we are back in open session. we still have a quorum. line item 8, vote whether to elect any and all discussion on item 7 held in closed session. san francisco administration

code 27.12a. >> is there a motion not to disclose? >> so moved >> is there a second? all in favor. >> aye. >> adjournment. >> line item 9, adjournment >> is there a motion? >> so moved >> is there a second? >> all in favor? >> aye >> all opposed? >> i say no. [laughter] passed. 5-1 is. 1