opportunity to answer. you said a lot, and in your statement, let me just clarify a couple of things. i've given one news interview so the chronicle this week, and i have not given any other news interviews to any other media source about this issue, and that interview was in response to information that this very commission has put out. that interview was meant to address those issues. transparency. i have not been running out to the media. let me just clarify that. that was the one interview to the chronicle, and there were multiple reporters in that room, and they all asked

questions about whatever their issues were. so your characterization about all of this being misplaced was regarding the interview. you just said that you feel the p.o.a. is controlling this department. i respectfully disagree with that, and i've disagreed with them over the years. we don't always agree. we do not always agree. this is not about the p.o.a. at all, and i -- you said it, you're asking me, and i want to answer it to be clear, this is

not about the p.o.a. this is about the fundamental issue that i keep repeating over and over again, that we have to get to the place where the m.o.u. is what it's supposed to me. i think you said this. one of the commissions did, that if we have policies that aren't being followed, why have them? i think somebody said that earlier, one of the commissioners. the m.o.u. is the same thing. we started that in april, may, june, when we first sat down with the district attorney's office and made them known. that was the time to say, hey, police department, we're not going to give you any

information. if you don't mind, if you could just let me answer all the things that you raised, i'm not being defiant. i respect this commission, and i hope this commission respects me, and i don't mean to come off defiant. this issue is important to me. i know it's important to the commission, and i know it's important to the public. we need an m.o.u. that works, we need an m.o.u. that's fair, and if we don't have a discussion about what each party is going to bring to the table, what they're going to provide, if that doesn't happen, we're going to continue to have these problems. that's why we're continuing to have these problems, and that's why the district attorney and i are sitting at the table.

for you to infer that my intentions aren't genuine, i don't know where you're getting that from. i'm telling you what i'm trying to do, but you keep saying otherwise. i don't know what to do except to keep telling you what my intentions are. >> commissioner hamasaki: well, you know, i think -- i think the problem is that i think honestly, i lost a lot of trust about the way that you went public with this on the eve of trial, and i don't know how to get that back, but, you know, what's gone on since then, the commission has asked to be involved in this, and i understand this group has been put together with the mayor, the a.g., the city attorney,

the department. >> commissioner, i have kept the commission president apprised of everything that's going on, in the context of what the attorney general is telling us, and that's why i'm here tonight, to address the commission, to give updates, to answer questions. i said last week i welcome the commission's involvement, and i'm keeping the commission informed, so if i need to do more, i'm happy to do that, but i believe i've done what i said i was going to do. i've kept the commission president informed of what's going on. i've honored the attorney general's request, and i've kept our conversations -- the attorney general understands there's a public interest, so i've been allowed to talk about this to keep the commission and

the department informed to the degree that i just did, so i believe i've honored what i said i would do here, and if i can do more, i will. just tell me what it is. >> commissioner hamasaki: would be to say, president cohen, i won't do it without your willingness, but sit in the room with you folks and help shepherd this process because it feels like the police commission has been cut out of this. and i understand that you're giving updates, but i believe, you know, president cohen is a pretty experienced negotiator who knows police reform. i would feel more comfortable with that. you don't have to make a decision tonight. i'm just putting that out there, and obviously, president cohen would have to agree with that. the other issue is that, you

know, you keep making the statement that kind of sit me off in what was going on this week is that, you know, the m.o.u.s are going to terminate, and we're going to have this new memorandum of understanding, but that doesn't take place within our oversight role, which i believe it should because i think that this -- and, you know, again, that could take place through having the president sit in. understanding is going to be reached or not reached, and what if you say, this doesn't work. we have this letter of intent, but we're pulling out? then, all of a sudden, we're basically -- you know, and we're not in the meeting for another -- until the beginning

of march. one way would be to have you, the commission, the department to extend the m.o.u. at least until, say, the day beyond our next meeting. is that something that would be acceptable to you? >> president cohen: let me interject. i haven't seen any language, and i haven't seen anything. >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm asking him about that. >> president cohen: that would be a discussion for us. you make a motion, there's an action that we would take. >> commissioner hamasaki: exactly. obviously, i would like the chief's position on that. i can't see any harm in it, but maybe i'm missing something.

>> president cohen: i don't think you're missing something, but i think it's a policy issue. i wouldn't want to relinquish authority to the chief. we set the rules with the expectation that he will comply, so him saying yes or no doesn't even matter. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. so with that, i will turn it over to the next commissioner and see what else comes up. , which i think is max carter oberstone. >> president cohen: yes. thank you. max, you're up next. >> yes. i was just waiting for the president to officially recognize me.

good evening, chief. i just have two or three questions. commissioner hamasaki raised your interview with the chronicle, and i wonder if you could clarify a few things for me. you said, one, the whole m.o.u. needs to be renegotiated, and my understanding is this whole issue is derived from an investigation, but you believe that the entire m.o.u. needs to be scrapped and rewritten. thank you just clarify for us what exactly you're hoping to achieve with those negotiations? >> yeah, thank you for that question. commissioner. so just to keep this to the crux of the issue, it is true,

and that is correct that the sharing of information is that we've only had 15 incidents, so that's actually good news that we haven't had a ton of these incidents. but the reason that this is so important is that at least nine of those incidents, and we're still going through our records, but in at least nine of those incidents, we haven't received little if any information that we believe we're entitled to receive so that we can close

investigations and complete our cases. so although narrow in scope, if you want to make sure that the point is noted that you're not getting any information whether the case is opposed or active criminal investigations, we're not getting any criminal investigation period, and that is not what is going on in this m.o.u., so get, as we dive into this, but i think maybe we need to go back and define some of these issues -- they include whatever grievances that the

district attorney's office has, too. i haven't seen them, but the district attorney has made it known, both publicly and in debate, that they have identified some issues that they have seen from us, so we really need to dive into this m.o.u. and renegotiate. i think there's parts of the m.o.u. that need to be flushed out a little bit more now that we know, but the document needs to be reworked, and i don't think -- i don't think there's a whole lot of disagreement there. >> all right. just so we're clear here, are portioned of the m.o.u. that do not relate in information sharing the subject of negotiation or not? just yes or no. >> yes. the crux is the information sharing or report sharing, but i think there's some opportunities to shore up some other things that we've noted. some of them -- let me just

take a step back -- >> well, let me just explain why i'm asking there, but the reason i'm asking this is because of the timeline. as you've said before, chief, the original m.o.u. negotiation was a multiyear process that you played a pivotal role in, and so my concern, when i read in the paper that, now, what started as a relatively narrow disagreement has turned into a wholesale revision of the m.o.u., that we might find ourselves once again embroiled in a multiyear exercise of redrafting this document when it's said to -- set to expire, so it sounds like the scope of these investigations are increasing and broadening.

is it your expectation that this negotiation will have a redrafting and negotiation of a similar m.o.u.? >> no, i don't believe so, and i'll tell you why. number one, we have the experience of the drafting of the previous m.o.u. the second thing is the previous m.o.u. took a lot less time. the third thing is we know and can address each other's issues. and chief deputy johnson had a

ton of experience with this very issue. we had some other documents around the state that really, i think, will put us in a much, much better place than where we were in the first and second drafting, and the second drafting only took a couple of months. so actually, from march to july, what's that, 3.5 months? so i am optimistic that we can come to an agreement. we're all doing what we can do to ensure that it moves forward with a sense of urgency. i don't believe that it will take two years. i don't, and the fourth thing i will say is this. the other thing that's a help, now that the issues are known,

that i'm going to push for discussion and transparency. we didn't have that at our disposal six months or a year ago. we're going to work to have an interim agreement in place, so if it does expire, that we will continue to have the district attorney's office do their job, so the san francisco police department needs to do its job well, and that's the part that i am saying based on what's

happening now. we're being impeded, and we want to make sure we flush that out, and that's what the attorney general is helping us do. >> i'm not exactly sure -- i'm not exactly sure what you mean in terms of interim agreement. i'm not exactly sure how you negotiate an interim agreement but not have a negotiation on the underlying m.o.u. i guess i'll ask you about this, in terms of putting in place an interim agreement. the m.o.u.s are going to expire in seven days. if you do not have -- if you're

not able to renegotiate the m.o.u. in that time, are you prepared to let it expire or will you be sending it back? if you do let it expire, and there is an officer involved shooting or other incident, are you willing to accept responsibility for the fact that we will have no m.o.u. in place to have an effective independent investigation of the officer's conduct. >> president cohen: commissioner, if i could take a stab at it, a question a little bit more appropriate for the commission. there are actions that this body can take to mitigation the exploration of the m.o.u. we're not able to take these actions today, but i would like us to begin consider calling an

emergency meeting next wednesday. not on our agenda, but it would allow us to specifically take up this issue to ensure that there isn't a lapse in anything that would provide that level of coverage. the other thing i would say to you is the structure of how these conversations are unfolding. so you have three entities at the table here. you have the attorney general, who's personally involved, you have the city attorney, who's also personally involved, and you have the mayor's office, who's also involved in these negotiations. and the a.g. has graciously allowed one of his senior deputies, miss johnson, to bring both parties to the table to work out the discrepancies,

the parameters. the first step was getting both parties to the table, so i commend the chief for getting all parties to the table. the district attorney is at the table, and in this past week, several hours work of conversations, mediation was conducted. i was not in those meetings, and from what i understand, there is progress moving forward. and the chief is limited on what he can actually share publicly for obvious confidential reasons. and the reason why i think that's important for us to have a or to call a meeting for next week, there is a process that is intentional and urgently happening to continue to

happen, and somehow around friday, i will make a decision as to whether or not to schedule the emergency police commission meeting to begin to put in place mechanisms to prevent this m.o.u. from lapsing. but the mediation needs to continue to continue this natural process, and i guess that's all i have to say. >> thank you, president cohen, for that clarification. i will ask this question, which is a slightly different version of the question i just asked. chief, it seems pretty clear that there was at least a technical violation of the

district attorney on the -- on the district attorney's in violation of the m.o.u. in terms of not turning over evidence. it seems like the action didn't affect the ancillary investigation, but it happened. you chose to respond in a way disproportionate to the action. you chose the nuclear option, which is to withdraw. if there is a critical incident, are you willing to take responsibility that there was no m.o.u. in place to ensure a fair and independent investigation? >> i believe i understand your

question, and yes, commissioner, i will take responsibility for any decision that i make. and i will say this: the district attorney has made it clear that he intends to conduct investigations, and we will cooperate with the district attorney like we always do and always have, and make sure that that happens. but to answer your question, yes, i take responsibility for any decision i make. and i am in this to hopefully do my part to make this situation and make this situation what it's supposed to be. we cannot have violations of the m.o.u. i will go back to what i said

previously, and it is dependent upon the sharing of information in the m.o.u., and that does not happen, particularly when it does not happen. it doesn't madam speaker how it played out in the long run. what matters is the process is not seen as fair.

it's not a small thing for intentional violations of the m.o.u., and again, my purpose is to do what we can to make sure that we have a document that calls these types of things out, and there's accountability when they happen for us, for the district attorney's office, so you can get to accountability and what this process is designed to do. so i hope i answered your question, but i just want to reity rate that this is not a small thing. that keeps getting passed around, and the district attorney has put that out in the public, and others, and it's not a small thing. ask them whether it is a small thing. >> great. thank you, chief.

those are all my questions. >> thank you. >> president cohen: all right. next up, we'll hear from commissioner yee. >> commissioner yee: thank you very much there, madam presence. chief scott, you mentioned earlier that you're now sitting at the table with the district attorney. is that correct, on the restricted m.o.u.? >> that is correct, commissioner. >> so do you plan to sit with them on this coming friday, is that correct? >> the first draft of the interim agreement, in the event there's no m.o.u., we're working through the department to make sure that there is a first draft, and we will

discuss it on tuesday. >> commissioner yee: you hope to have a tentative agreement within the week, is that correct? >> well, we're going to do what we can on the other issues. the police department is giving its list of what the major issues are to the attorney general's office, i can't speak for the district attorney. i know he's going to make an effort to do that. i know we've given ours, so we're ready to, at least from our end, have that discussion about the things that we hope to resolve. >> yeah. just going back to what john sam ahacky said, i guess how do we get back to -- john hamasaki said, how do we get back to

before this happened, and the date, the 23, where it's expected to expire, i guess what i'm looking at to maybe reconsider to move this out to 30 days or whatever it is, do you think that will give us enough to have escape this impasse on this m.o.u.? >> i'd say i hope so. i mean, what's on the table right now is make sure we have something in place if there's the worst case scenario, no m.o.u. we're going to work to address these issues, and what i expect, honestly, is whatever the district attorney comes up with, we'll have to look at their grievances and address

those, as well. but i think going back to what commissioner carter oberstone -- we're not -- we're looking at we should be doing these things, too. to answer your question, we're going to move as fast as we can. >> commissioner yee: so this m.o.u., i guess we have differences on this agreement. looking at the mediation, i guess, that's brought you guys in right now, or the attorney general and the city attorneys,

do you see a progress going forward? >> i do, yes. i honestly do. >> commissioner yee: okay. well, my recommendation would be to continue it as 30 days out. i think we need the mediations. i think if you feel it's moving, i think we need to continue that, and making sure that we have confidence in the m.o.u. and making sure that police accountability is in place, and as commissioner carter oberstone has stated, making sure that we're not left with nothing there that is -- especially if there's a major event where there is a police involved shooting death, so we have our process in place, but

it's something i feel we truly need to have. so i'll give it back to the rest of the board and our commission. >> president cohen: thank you, commissioner. next, we'll hear from commissioner yanez. >> commissioner yanez: thank you, madam president. chief, i just have a couple of questions. you know, you participated in developing this m.o.u. from the outset, and language was included in there about information sharing that, at that point, made sense, right? and i believe this all came to light based on a different opinion and interpreting that m.o.u., right? unfortunately, we only have this side of the story and what's come out in the media that's kind of created a bigger storm than we have right now, although we needed the rain.

and what has happened, you know, you mentioned, when you first told us about skeg this -- about scheduling this issue that came up about the morale and the police officers -- and i want to remind us that this morale issue in the police department has been there for long before this m.o.u. so that we're clear that maybe there's -- you're hearing or maybe officers are bringing things to your attention specific to this m.o.u., creating a trust issue, but the morale issue is very different, and i want to be sure we

separate those two. to make a decision to unilaterally cancel that m.o.u. based on that decision that you own right now without the process of this collaborative reform initiative kind of mind said and spirit, you know, now, we're at this place where we, it seems-like, are pretty clear, and i'm not speaking for everybody on this commission, but most people on this commission wants to preserve, at least this commissioner wants to preserve the m.o.u. because it had an impact. the m.o.u. being in place alone

served as a deterrent, and moving forward without something in place is unacceptable, and i'm happy that you're moving in place to preserve some level of accountability, but we need to make sure that as we delve further and move forward, that we accept that if an m.o.u. was created with certain conditions in place, that once a misunderstanding or a different interpretation of the language that comes up, that we address that issue. and from what i'm hearing now, the issue is more than just

information sharing. the issue will be a myriad of other things that we're not privy to unfortunately. but ultimately this agreement in place was working. there are challenges with it obviously that can be resolved, and glad that there is a group of speertess at the table with you. and i don't want your officers or -- expertise at the table with you, and i don't want your officers requesting, encouraging, almost demanding that we keep this m.o.u. in place with us not supporting you at a chief of this police department or conflate that with us not caring about the officers and the fact that they do one of the hardest jobs in

this city. and with that, all i want to do is encourage you to reflect on that and move forward with the best interest not solely of one or two or a group of people that may have encouraged you or propelled you into this reactionary decision, and that you listen to the voices of a lot of reason here, and we continue to hammer out something that worked for your department, for the district attorney's office, more importantly, or the residents of san francisco. thank you. there were no questions there. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president cohen: thank you very much. i'm going to skip over you, hamasaki, and go to cindy

because she hasn't asked a question yet. >> vice president elias: it is a question. i think commissioner yanez and commissioner carter oberstone really addressed it, but i think just to be clear, chief, we as a commission also want a fair process. i don't think our intent is to create an unfair process. moving forward, how is it going to be addressed so that you're

involved in the conversation and are privy to investigation? >> president cohen: before we move forward, i think that's something we should be taking up. as they're tweaking their m.o.u., we should be tackling our d.g.o. as it regards to when a chief can pull out of an m.o.u., the required notification that needs to happen, the conversation, the due diligence. that's definitely something that we can own, and will own. this is a learning lesson for all of us, right? there's room for us to step into this space and strengthen or fill in the gaps, and one of those is the decision making power. so i just want to take that question and own it because that's actually right there in

our wheel house, and i actually have a couple of ideas around that, too, that we can discuss. >> president cohen: chief scott, do you have anything that you wanted to opine? >> yes, thank you, president cohen. thankfully, there have been some ideas already presented by the attorney general, really, from the on set that i believe will help address this issue, and just hearing president cohen's comments, i think whatever possible -- whenever possible, we can move forward, but we need to have conversations confidential, but

i really appreciate those comments over those suggestions, and i hope that we can put them to fruition, and when i'm giving the opportunity, the okay to talk more about that, i will do just that. but i -- i believe it addressed some of what you're saying. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. >> president cohen: okay. yep. commissioner hamasaki, you're up, and then, we're going to hear from public commenters. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. you know, i wanted to make one other point that i had written down earlier and forgotten about, that you think a lot of these comments arise from a different understanding with the departments that -- the

department's being investigated, so i know that you have been saying that it needs to be a two-way street, but chief, if you were vehicling somebody for criminal conduct, you're not in an information sharing arrangement with that -- if you were investigating somebody for criminal conduct, you're not in an information sharing arrangement with that person. i think that's why the comment about the end of prosecution or the decision to end the case, that certainly information would be turned over then. and i think a lot of the concerns seem to come from the idea that the officer under

investigation or the department or his supervisors or his seniors should have access to the investigation, but logically, and within the confines of our legal system, that's just not how we generally do that, and that's not how you do that as an investigating officer, right? >> commissioner, that's right. and so let me just -- let me just clarify a couple of things, and thank you for bringing that point out. this letter was sent to the district attorney, and this is based on some of these issues that we're talking about. one of the things in this letter says, sfda, and this is at request of our police department, should provide a copy of a case file upon completion of a criminal investigation within 30 days -- we asked within 30 days of declaration of a declination

letter or within 30 days of the conclusion of the investigation.

>> commissioner hamasaki: -- out of respect for, i think, your members who will be calling in, and i don't know if other people will be calling in, but i would like to move on from that point. i just wanted to raise -- >> sure. thank you. >> commissioner hamasaki: so thank you, chief. and then, i would like to make a motion, based on commissioner yee's statement, that we main -- direct the chief to maintain the m.o.u. for 30 days. i think that would be the prudent path forward, and then, if a memorandum or a letter of

intend -- intent is reached, then we can address it at that time. but i think commissioner yee is right, if you have 30 days, you folks can work on it, get it done, everybody can kind of take a step back, take a breath, and at least we're not necessarily having to call a special meeting when we do have everything here tonight when we don't know if that's going to happen at a later date. >> president cohen: i'm definitely not in favor of that motion for a number of reasons, and i believe every commissioner would make it their priority to be here in an

emergency meeting. i haven't talked with every commissioner, so i don't want to be in violation of the brown act, but there is a process that you heard that is in place tonight. that process needs to continue to mature and unfold. we're talking about a difference of a week here, so i just want to be very clear that i am not in favor of this in this motion. i hope it does not go forward, and that we allow the attorney general's office to continue to mediate. >> commissioner hamasaki: maybe i misspoke, president cohen, but all it would do would maintain the m.o.u. until they reach a letter of understanding. so it's not impacting what's taking place within the meetings that are taking place. >> president cohen: well, commissioner hamasaki, you're a master of negotiations. if there's a back door or an escape, people are use it. we don't want to give them that

back door. what we've discussed, a lot has already been said. >> commissioner hamasaki: i don't know what you mean, press cohen. >> president cohen: okay. anybody else want to comment? >> commissioner hamasaki: i guess, what would be the harm in keeping the m.o.u. until they reach the letter of intent, which is the plan? or actually, you know what? why don't we actually open it up to the commission for discussion? >> president cohen: before we do that, we need to hear from director henderson. he's been waiting. >> commissioner hamasaki: well, he can wait. he's not a commissioner. there's a motion. >> president cohen: you're right. he is not a commissioner, but i asked him to wait until every commissioner spoke until it was his turn to speak. it is now turn to speak.

>> i just want to say, i know we've had a lot of discussion here, but i wanted to point out something here: that i would encourage the parties that are still at the table to address some of the inconsistencies that have taken place in the past to address that, but this is an opportunity. if there's going to be a new m.o.u., that it is more clear, more defined, more specific, has some sort of independent oversight or specific. it is my strong suggestion, and i hope that i am supported in this, not just from the commission but from the parties themselves, that d.p.a. either be at the table specifically or be intentionally included in the understanding or the

agreement in case it has not been made clear -- agreement. in case it has not been made clear in conversation from the past, d.p.a. is the only department mandated to be involved in officer involved shootings, and to the agree they are involved in this process, i think it's important to recognize the role that civilian oversight plays, and it's part of the same mandate and significance that i think that the commission operates under every day. i do think that it is absolutely relevant that we don't miss this opportunity to address the deficiencies of having individual m.o.u.s from the district attorney to the

police, from the police to the district attorney, and from the police to the d.p.a. i think there needs to be shared evidence with regard to that process. it's not lost on me, and i'm sure it's not lost on the public that in many instances when there are officer involved shootings, d.p.a. is the only agency that comes up with accountability, sustained cases, and/or the follow up that leads to both transparencies and accountabilities in ways that we have not found in the past in the criminal lanes of accountability and sometimes in the civil lanes of accountability. i think that the work that gets done in the d.p.a. is valuable. i just don't want it to get

short shrift no, sir be left out of the conversations to come as we work out a remedy. i would say this is something i feel personally responsible for at the d.p.-a. the work that we've done, the first sustained case for accountability from an officer involved shooting came while i had been at the d.p.a., and i don't want those opportunities to be left behind in the conversation to address something knew and clear, and i just wanted to articulate that and to make sure that people were including that in their conversations as we move forward. that's it. thank you. i know i don't get a vote, but my opinion matters, that perspective matters. it's part of why i'm here.

>> commissioner hamasaki: we're on an issue here, though. >> totally understand. >> president cohen: so listen, in the event -- i'm not looking to -- certainly not looking to give the media for fodder, and i'm certainly not looking for a fight, certainly not with hamasaki, perhaps i can offer something of a conciliatory officer. a motion for the chief of police to negotiate an interim m.o.u. until they can negotiate a new one. i'm willing to meet halfway. although i'm not interested in a vote, i'm willing to meet you halfway. >> commissioner hamasaki: so the problem is if you're asking them to negotiate, they're already negotiating, right? and so what if the m.o.u. lapses? and i think that's what you expressed last week, every

commissioner on here expressed that we cannot let the m.o.u. lapse. and so whether it's a -- i was just following commissioner yee's lead on that, but president cohen, you say a 15-day one until our next meeting, i think it would be 15 days. that's final. i'm not -- >> president cohen: if i hear you correctly, you're concerned with a lapse. what i would propose is if a lapse should occur. i don't believe a lapse would occur, but if this would give you comfort, it would be giving permission for the police department to negotiate an interim m.o.u. while negotiating another m.o.u. >> commissioner hamasaki: i guess i'm not understanding how that stops the m.o.u. from

lapsing? >> president cohen: say it again? >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm sorry, president cohen. i'm not understanding directing the chief to negotiate -- like, a negotiation can take months, and what if the m.o.u. lapses -- if it lapses when i'm out of session. and i'm in l.a. -- i know you said we can be available -- >> president cohen: the interim agreement that i'm proposing would cover in place of a lapse, but let's be clear, i'm offering this in a conciliatory agreement. there's nothing in place, the mediation is continuing moving forward. i don't believe everyone is prepared to make a vote tonight. >> commissioner hamasaki: i don't believe anybody said

that, but i appreciate you directing the conversation. >> president cohen, if i may be heard? >> president cohen: absolutely. >> maybe declaring an emergency meeting next wednesday -- >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm not available. >> but i think preparing to do that is the best way forward. >> commissioner hamasaki: yeah, the issue is i'm not available on wednesday. >> president cohen: well, commissioner hamasaki, we know you want to be available, but

we can still conduct business of this body because we'll have a quorum. we know that you, more than anything, how you feel. you have weighed in. i will schedule a meeting for next wednesday, an emergency meeting of the police commission to take up this one issue. sergeant youngblood? >> clerk: yes, ma'am. >> president cohen: commissioner youngblood, let me

ask you something to accommodate the schedule as commissioner hamasaki said he would be available on tuesday. would we be able to meet on tuesday or does that affect the other regularly scheduled broadcasts that are already scheduled for tuesday? >> clerk: i might have to defer to the city attorney and then also contact sfgovtv to find out the logistics of doing that. >> president cohen: that's what i was thinking. what is next wednesday's schedule looking like? >> clerk: we -- the commission office is not -- is open next wednesday. >> president cohen: excuse me? >> clerk: the commission office is open next wednesday, on the 23, and is available.

>> president cohen: so i think part of the problem with tuesday is i think it's just going to be on going negotiations happening on tuesday, so wednesday is probably going to be the best time to have this emergency commission meeting, so i'm going to go ahead and direct him to have this meeting on wednesday, february 23, which is the same day that the m.o.u. is set to expire. so let's be prepared to come and vote if necessary. alicia cabrera, i see you joined us. is there anything that you wanted to opine on this matter? >> no, i turned my camera on because stacey mentioned it's something that we have to check in with sfgovtv regarding those details, but there's nothing legally preventing us from scheduling a meeting next tuesday. >> president cohen: okay. let's say this.

we will schedule a meeting either next tuesday or wednesday, and we will wait for sfgov to tell us which day would be best to broadcast this meeting. >> commissioner yee: madam president? >> president cohen: yes, commissioner yee? >> commissioner yee: that is to meet if they have not reached an agreement on the m.o.u. >> president cohen: yes. [please stand by]

today we are going to talk about fire safety. we are here at the urban center on mission street in san francisco. it's a wonderful display. a little house in the urban center exhibition center that shows what it's like in a home in san francisco after an earthquake. one of the major issues that we are going to

face after earthquakes are fire hazard. we are happy to have the fire marshall join us today. >> thank you. my pleasure. >> we talk about the san francisco earthquake that was a fire that mostly devastated the city. how do we avoid that kind of problem. how can we reduce fire hazard? >> the construction was a lot different. we don't expect what we had then. we want to make sure with the gas heaters that the gas is shut off. >> if you shut it off you are going to have no hot water or heat. be careful not to shut it off unless you smell gas. >> absolutely because once you do shut it off you should have