each member to contribute. and in addition, we expanded the racial equity action plan by meeting with our law enforcement agencies such as the san francisco police department, the sheriff's apartment, adult probation, juvenile probation, as well as cba and to create a safe idea -- create a safe space for black officers and officers of color to share their thoughts and concerns with respect to policing. we did this by creating these circles of support that we still have going on and we had one in december. we will have one -- we had one in january and we will have one in march. in which this circle of support for black officers and officers of color can express their thoughts. this is led from we are stronghold.

last year, with the law enforcement working group, we had black history month celebration celebrating black excellence in our law enforcement agencies. this year in march, you will all be receiving an invitation, we are having a celebration for black women trailblazers. we brought together black history month and celebrating black excellence in women history month and combined it to create a black -- [ indiscernible ] -- and those supporting us in san francisco. through this -- and it started off with the former director shakira. she created this racial equity plan with law enforcement officers and we also happened to be identified as black women. that's how we got together. we know we needed to create this space and we needed to be unapologetic about that space for black officers. especially in the times we are

in in 2020 has we head towards the racial unrest that is happening with policing. we are trying to bridge that gap in that community with our community and law enforcement and bring law enforcement officers and our community to create these town halls and these safe spaces. we can coexist. we can beat black lives matter. it does happen. it does exist and we are in a sample of that through our law enforcement and racial equity action plan working group. next slide. no slides. in addition, there are four overarching concepts -- thank you. thank you so much, stacy. >> next slide. >> there are four overarching concepts that we use to enhance our racial equity within d.p.a.

that includes increased transparency, maintain integrity and ensure trustworthiness and accountability. next slide. d.p.a. is a small department, but it is intentional with our leadership to represent the city's community. our leadership is split by racial and gender demographics. during paul henderson's tenure in 2017 as the director of d.p.a., 69% of the hires have identified as women. forty% of those who have been hired have been women of color, including myself. and 24% of those -- yes, and under the leadership of director henderson, 42% of all hiring decisions please minority applicants in leadership position. i am currently the director of recruitment, so i can see that we make sure we have that diversity pipeline in place to make sure it is a fair and equal hiring practice that we have at

d.p.a. sixty% of minority hires were women and 32% of those were people of color. this also means we also have agencywide racial bias and inequity training. we also recognize and celebrate black excellence with our own annual department of police department accountability and black history month program. we started this at the d.a.'s office and brought over to d.p.a. where we celebrate black excellence within d.p.a., in law enforcement, and in our community that we serve. this has also led us to celebrating women's history month with our celebration. api heritage month and a api excellence and latin american heritage month in excellence and as well as spotlighting juneteenth with a celebration. we have to make sure that our staff knows and recognizes diverse excellence and we are not going to shy away from it. next slide.

next slide, please. in the past, our hiring process has been primarily based on the human resources process and the lack of streamlined and onboarding training. when we got on there wasn't anything in place for you. right now -- and there wasn't diversity. you had a hiring panel. next slide. with that, and what we have in place now, we are trying to, and with the racial equity action plan hitting those goals, meeting those items on our plan, we are in the process to identify biases in the recruiting and sourcing potential candidates that represent the diversity of san francisco and of the bay area. we brought in job announcements

from our recruitment process. we have minimum qualifications for our investigator position. we can now allow for a wide variety of qualifying experiences. we have hired new employees from these pools of applicants, and this is also through our intern program where we have hired from that pipeline. and as well as we have the 9920 positions, which are entry-level public service facing positions which are designed to introduce workers or city employees to different city agencies and assign them a role model so they can hi a permanent -- so they can have a permanent position in city government and learning all the jobs at d.p.a. we are also putting in the mentorship program. we are truly proud of that. that is our baby where we are

using that as an internal hiring pipeline to partnership with the opportunities for all program, which, as well as the youth law group for recruitment. for an example, we hired one of our lost in turn class for summer 2021, amaya king, she is now our public-service aid. that does create opportunities when we use the resources we have. and we want to have a test development community -- committee to look over test that they are giving when they take the investigator test so we can show there are a diverse group of employees working on this process. translates to the test so they can know what needs to go on the test and what needs to be shown, what skill sets are required. they are the ones were doing the work right now. and a sharepoint page for a job announcement as well. next slide.

we want to establish trustworthiness and strengthen that. by strengthening internal trust by fostering an equal opportunity culture. next slide. we do this trustworthiness through retention. our goal is to ensure policies and procedures regarding retention and promotion are not only equitable, but inclusive and transparent so every employee has a path of success and he feel respected and included with the leadership of their peers. we are continuing to revive and analyse the root cause of racial inequity at the time of promotion and we will -- we have increased focused on internal promotion, especially with our lgbtq plus employees. with the use of peer mentorship and shadowing which is a huge component and internal share points with frequently asked questions and updates, health and safety protective measures, access to unions and ensure that

they are informed about their compensation, paid sick leave, flex time, as well as their rights as an employee in the creation of a staff survey to remain aware of the internal racism. next slide. it is important that we have integrity within d.p.a. instead of being undivided. being honest and having strong moral principles. next slide. , which is why we have a team model. this structure is an investigation unit broken up into an investigator, a senior, and a team attorney. there maybe more investigators. they collaborate on the evidence and issues. this process has increased retention because we are going through all of the cases. we do case reviews and we are talking about it. i bring all of my investigators

and we meet and discuss every case that everyone has because they can get help and assistance with their ideas and we can troubleshoot what is going on with each individual case. somebody might have had a case like that, how did you approach it or how did you get that evidence. it allows for a diverse group of employees to bring forth their own ideas and opportunities that they may not have otherwise. sometimes you can get lost in the system of your workplace. at this level, as a team model, we can ensure that integrity. we can give employees an equal voice because we come from different backgrounds, different races, different cultures, different job occupations. and it brings forth equity in our findings. they are a diverse group of employees with a distinct background. this reduces implicit bias in our work which is a goal and an action item on our racial equity action plan. next slide, please.

accountability. it is in our name, but it is also what we stand for. next slide. where do we go from here? we must continue to revise the testing strategies and diverse testing committee. they dedicated to analysing root causes of racial inequity of internal promotion, increase internal training and access to resources regarding racial equity, as well as strengthening our base and what we do, and we will continue using and enhancing the team model as needed. that was director shakira simile. thank you. and i say this. i want to thank those -- nicole, velma, amaya, korey, and the executive staff for helping implement the racial equity action plan and continuing to

make d.p.a. and equitable space for all. we will not shy against race at d.p.a. we are going to tackle it head on because we were tasked with it and it is something that needs to happen. we are an agency for transparency and accountability and that needs to be reflected in our workplace. we are not going to shy away from that or -- we are unapologetically be transparent, have integrity and accountability for what we do at d.p.a., as far as racial equity and make sure that everyone in our agency feels comfortable. next slide. that concludes my report. thank you so much. happy black history month. >> thank you so much, mr. thompson. always a pleasure to have you here. to my fellow commissioners have any questions? -- do my fellow commissioners have any questions. great. director henderson? >> she used here 10 minutes. >> i just had a summary. i had my hand raised. it was something that has not

been on any other commission as an agenda item. and the rate -- race equity plan has been something that d.p.a. jumped into very early on with the leadership. i thought it was really important, which is why i wanted it on the agenda for us to talk about it. this speaks to a problem that we have had institutionally for a very long time, with issues that have been raised when dante king was with us and speaking. it has come up several times about diversity and i think it is a good conversation point, which is why i wanted to not just present on what d.p.a. has been doing, but what the results are, i don't know of another department that is presenting in the way that we have presented tonight to talk about our statistics, specifically and intentionally talking about race and gender in hiring practices and reflective practices for employment. i'm really proud of the numbers and the work that d.p.a. is

doing. that is why i wanted it to be part of the public hearing so other departments can follow the example. it doesn't have to be in the exact way that d.p.a. has done it, but it is a model. my numbers speak for themselves. you will start seeing these numbers in the annual report as well about the program that we have designed and developed that have now, i believe, improved our program. i think the diversity that we have in the organization speaks specifically to addressing both implicit and explicit bias and it has made our organization more efficient. so, the fact that we have the training to take place, the internship programs that we have, the fellowships that we have and the 9920 positions that we have, again, specifically speaking to both race and gender opportunities and city employment is important and reflective of the work that we do as a public agency. i just wanted to say that

because i do think it is important. i did not want that to be lost. thank you so much to my staff for pulling this together. thank you for your attention and paying attention to something i believe is important, and potentially a solution for other departments to follow this lead as well by doing the same thing, or at least presenting the same types of numbers or measuring those numbers in the same way. we can't fix what we don't talk about, and we don't talk about what we don't know, study, or collect in terms of this information. thank you for your time. >> thank you so much, director henderson. can we get public comment, please? >> the public is welcome to make public comment regarding line item 13. if you like to make public comment, press star three now.

>> there is no public comment. [ laughter ] >> thank you for the presentation. let's call the next item. >> line item 14, presentation of d.p.a.'s interna -- internal accountability matrix. [ laughter ] >> i have been talking about this accountability matrix for so long. i'm so excited that we are here. it is black history month. it is coming right after our race report on gender and race. it is a lot. i am excited that we have this on the agenda tonight. jermaine jones from my staff will be giving a very brief presentation. it is included as a supporting document. we already see what it looks like and i know i have been talking about this model for

months now, indicating that we have a better system to track recommendations that get made to the department. i personally tracked the recommendations that i care about on a whiteboard in my office, which is ludicrous and inefficient, but i feel like there are a lot of great recommendations that we hear and pass along. many recommendations come up. every time we have quarterly reports or institutional presentations, where it has been my experience over the years that after a period of time, i start hearing the same recommendations over and over, but we don't have the follow-up. i think it is because we are not tracking efficiently when the recommendations get made and the efficiency that happens to

address those recommendations. and when the efficiencies are there, the department doesn't get credit for them because they are not part of the agenda and the tracks that get made just seemed to pass along. that is not the way that they should be happening. we have heard for a very long period of time about the 272 recommendations from d.o.j., but we didn't hear about the progress of the cpu report and the other reports that were floated out there. there was progress being made, but again, we are not talking about what progress is being made or where the problems are so we can troubleshoot. i believe that is the role of the commission and that is part of the role of d.p.a. so we can address things more efficiently. the goal of the matrix is to capture recommendations from those various reports and to give their authors some sort of response to their work. what brought this to the head for me as the head of d.p.a. was the issues coming out of and the recommendations coming out of

the audit and those recommendations, and how they were being followed up upon to highlight the need to address the rest of the work in a more professional line and transparent method for the public and for our work as well on the commission. i don't expect the department will need to or even have to concur with every recommendation that comes through the door, but for specific reports, especially the ones that are commissioned by sfpd or the city, there should be a response, and even the things, like i mentioned before, with the money in the grants that come into the department, those come with fiscal requirements that can be tracked easily, and those accountability matrixes are already being done. we just don't see them. i wanted to make sure that this is a process that makes the work that we do every single day more transparent so the public knows,

so the commission nose, and so the department can take credit for the work that is already being done, and to track the work that may get missed or has been missed in the past. anyway, so what i would say is, i will pass this over for jermaine to talk about how we developed the matrix, and some of the examples of what i hope that it can capture. i do presume that this is an innocuous presentation and we can vote on the specifics of what goes into the matrix, that can be tracked and reported on independently. it doesn't have to be the presentation from d.p.a. it can be from the department. that is what i think the matrix, at least in its best practices model, has been in other jurisdictions where this has worked to serve exactly the needs that i just spoke of. without anything further, jermaine jones. jermaine, here is your chance.

live on t.v. here we go bayview, jermaine, here we go. >> jermaine, it shows that you are not muted, but something isn't working. >> director henderson took all his time. [ laughter ] >> i was installing until he can get his sound together. he is trying to get it out there. can you guys see him? >> yes. we just can't hear him. [ indiscernible ] you might need to call in. >> that is what he is saying. he just asked if he can call in. >> listen in from your phone, but speak from your computer.

>> i presume he can hear us. >> he can hear us. >> sergeant youngblood, can you provide him the information, please? >> yes. >> jermaine, called the number (415)655-0001. let me know when you are ready for the access code. >> all because paul stole your time. >> this is a dramatic pause because this is supposed to be so excellent during work history month. this is building the anticipation. what you guys are about to hear, no pressure, jermaine, is about to be brilliant. this is about to bring it. this will transform the work that we do. wait till you guys see. jermaine, don't mess this up.

i do think, though, it will be a good phone call. >> look at all the mac people. >> is that what this is? >> i'm convinced. mac doesn't work with webex. do you guys want to take a five-minute recess? no? okay. >> if you just call in on the phone... yes, jermaine, there is

an access number. let's

>> towards the bottom we included the 2021 list of best practices. that includes language on social media use. there's other great reports that address concerns that are outside of the scope of the d.o.j. reports. this includes the cpe report that director henderson mentioned and the sfpd staffing report that chief scott has brought up in the past, which includes recommendations about process and technology improvements. there's other annual reports out there that have recommendations that we haven't addressed. there might be some overlap with the d.o.j. recommendations, but

the d.p.a. believes we should figure that out before moving on from the hard work that people put into those reports. in terms of this model, i spent a long time flipping around the nation on a variety of models. we started looking at homes. sfpd is publicly tracking the d.o.j.'s 272 recommendations. the sfpd website is comprehensive and they updated in realtime, which is helpful in my job. our proposed accountability matrix built on that work to provide similar tracking of the commissioner's priorities. the excel sheet that we are proposing is visually based on a tracker that i found from berkeley that was used by their fair and impartial policing group. i picked it because it was clean and simple. but then we ended up building and adding elements found in president obama's 21st century policing report in souther -- several other jurisdictions large and small.

this included the nypd. they have a model. seattle has a very impressive online portal that they use in dayton, ohio, and as far as some other small counties in maryland. i am happy to circulate links to those pages if the commission is interested in seeing them. in terms of next steps, if you're happy with the field on the matrix, we ask that you adopted and put this matrix into practice. if not, we hope it commissioner and member of sfpd will work with us to draft a resolution outlining a plan for implementation to finalize the field and roll this out. the matrix will create an institutional memory that also keats -- keeps accurate records. it will help inform the commission's agenda and measure the performance of our policies. with that, i am available for any questions. if not, think you for having me.

>> i have a couple questions. >> sure. are there any veins you saw that connect our matrix with some of the other matrixes? are we paying attention to more detail, less detail? can you make some comparisons for me? >> certainly. what i have seen around the country is that -- i should take a step back. this matrix incorporates what i found to be the best headers from all of the different matrixes that i could find. berkeley does something similar, but they only capture half of the data. in president obama's 21st century policing report, measuring the performance of the policies was an important component. we added a column to that.

i didn't see any other columns in the matrix. just the idea that we might pass a policy that sounds good on paper, but we don't know how it will work in practice. we look to d.o.j.'s phase ii and phase three reports. they give updates on how they think our policies are working in practice. phase ii mentioned very big drops in use of force, but we are not doing that with other policies, so the idea of this matrix is capturing all the data possible, and this is pretty much as much as i could find. >> given the nature of this body, this commission, you have listened for hours on how we take and receive the data. how would you advise us -- what would you advise us to do with this information?

>> i would recommend doing something similar to what the city of berkeley did when they started their fair and impartial policing group, which was to take a short period of time and look back at how many reports are out there, sit down with whichever commissioners are interested, the s.f. police department, and the d.p.a., and try to figure out which recommendations we want to move forward in the city. i think that is a good starting point. just putting recommendations on the matrix, as i mentioned. the 2021 rebut recommendation include information on social media. that is worth looking at because it has become very relevant in today's meeting. i think we have a lot of good

quality reports out there. that would be my starting point. >> colleagues, any other questions? >> could we also recommend that if you guys want to look at maybe what gets filled into the matrix, some of the areas that you might want to look back on the are the recommendations that have been made, for instance, when the department made budget presentations, there were good recommendations made, also the past few years, whenever the report reports would come out, there would good recommendations that were made. again, the whole point of having the matrix is to capture those ideas. i feel like what is starting to happen is we were cycling through a circle of why are we not taking action? what about this recommendation? and then we would have those same recommendations come forward again and again. we can response or in whatever way. i like the recommendation that jermaine made, but whatever you

guys for comfortable with in terms of filling out the matrix requests and recommendations is fine. i'm happy to help with my staff in whatever way. >> thank you. >> thank you. i just want to understand, director henderson. our commission staff, specifically the secretary, every time we ask to request to put something on the agenda, it is obviously something the staff does for us and is very diligent. the problem is, the information doesn't come from the department to have this on the agenda. how do you propose to resolve that problem with respect to the matrix? >> typically it is follow-up and recommendations. it could be incorporated into the presentation from the department. it doesn't necessarily have to

be the chief on just what recommendations were made and typically how i do, when asked from the commission about, hey, can you start reporting on this, hey, can you share with me data about the cases that came in? do you have statistics about what the visions are at the precinct where the cases are coming in? all of the things that i mentioned, they can be done. and i think a lot of those things do get done and the department doesn't get credit for them. it gets done and we don't talk about them. but to the degree that things come up from the commission, it is an opportunity to pull that into the presentation so the department -- and then on top of that, to fold in the recommendations that get made and passed from agencies like the blue ribbon report, from d.o.j., from stiffer policing equity, from rebut, from whatever. and then this organization can collectively determine what goes

on to the matrix to be tracked or followed up upon and/or how it gets reported. that is my suggestion of a way that i feel would be very efficient and effective for the commission. and the department could present on it as part of their reporting every week. again, it doesn't necessarily have to be the chief. it could be someone from his staff. the commission determines collectively or individually through a representative what gets requested or put on to the discipline matrix. that is just what i came up with. that is similar to the model that has worked efficiently. >> thank you. >> thank you. anyone else? >> i just wanted to clarify. i think the commission staff

does do an excellent job. this is not just about tracking commissioning requests. this is about tracking when, for example, a public call comes in and has an excellent recommendation for a reference to a specific report that is relevant to something that we are discussing. that information can be introduced and incorporated into the matrix so that the next time that there is a discussion about the issue, when you do put it on the agenda, we can pull it up. remember, call her ex said this. this was a really good idea. let's talk about that. i just wanted to clarify how those two are not mutually exclusive. thank you. [please standby for captioner switch]

>> during that meeting, as the previous caller stated, supposed to be a list created. when director henderson asked what was going to happen with the list, vice president elias said, maybe we can look at it quarterly. we worked hard and we worked collaboratively to get these items into front of the police commission. it seems like a slap in the face to work through the mechanisms that you provide.

i'd like to see that picked up -- >> clerk: that concludes the public comment, president cohen. >> president cohen: thank you very much. sergeant youngblood, i'd like to move back up to the top of the agenda. let's call item 6, please. >> clerk: item 6, discussion and possible action regarding the chief's notice of intent to terminate the m.o.u. with the district attorney's office to investigate independently officer involved shootings, in-custody deaths, and uses of force incidents that result in serious bodily injuries. >> president cohen: just a couple of comments. chief cohen, director

henderson, and everybody who is listening to this very important item, chief scott, we will let you speak. over the past few weeks, we've had time to reflect on the termination or the proposed termination of the m.o.u. with the district attorney. and i think we are all beginning to realize how important independent review is. i think it is important that we have acknowledged from members of the p.o.a. that are concerned and recognizing the value of oversight. also, the chief, i've heard you talk about independent

oversight, and this commission, as well, wants to echo that. i think it's important that we maintain public confidence in the investigation based upon the belief that there will be unbiased, that there will be neutral investigations of use of force actions. i want to say that i want this to be civil and level. if it gets insulting, public comment, we won't cut you off, but i hope you would remember that we are humans, volunteering our time, trying to do good work on behalf of all of san francisco. so with that, i want to turn it over to my colleagues. any opening remarks? none. all right. so chief, i hope to hear an update on where we are. in the last week, we heard conversations with the district attorney and other

stakeholders. the floor is yours. thank you. >> thank you, president cohen, and thank you, commission, for giving me an opportunity to update you on the status of this m.o.u. and the intent to terminate. and i'd also like to thank attorney general banta and his chief counsel for their guidance [indiscernible] in which sfpd officers are involved. chief deputy jansen facilitated the first of a series of on going meetings this past monday, and because all parties

have agreed to a certain level of confidentiality regarding these meetings, i will honor that matter. however, there is a great deal of public interest and police commission interest, as well, and i've been given permission by chief jansen to give the public, commission, and all interested party an update, and i will keep this high level as we work through this. first of all, i also want to mention -- i want to thank, again -- i did make this clear that attorney general banta personally attended the first

meeting, so that's the first thing. the second thing, the m.o.u. is ambiguous that the termination is 15 days after the notice of intent to terminate. all parties have agreed that the m.o.u. decision to terminate is 15 business days. that means that the business days would be the end of february 23, 2022. the third point, in the event that the m.o.u. is terminated on february 23, we, the sfpd have agreed to work with the california attorney general's office to have an interim agreement in place that would allow for the district attorney's office and the san francisco police department to conduct their respective

investigations while we continue to work to renegotiate a fair, impartial, transparent agreement that meets the spirit and letter of independent investigations of officer involved shootings resulting in deaths, and we do have a meeting this coming thursday to discuss this further. i want to assure the public, the commission, as well as the district attorney and his staff that we will remain at the table. we are committed to doing our

part to working with this agency, and we remain committed with chief deputy johnson and attorney general banta to resolve these matters. and with that, i will turn it over. >> president cohen: thank you, chief scott. i'm going to ask you to put your notes aside and tell us what's going on. how are the meetings going? how are the conversations going? what is the mood at the table? share with us as much as you're able to share. >> we are at the table. one of the things that i've already shared publicly, and one of the things that we see as our concerns and grievances is the expectation of what information can be shared with the san francisco police

department, and the majority of our conversations resolved around that. we had a renegotiation of our existing m.o.u. last year. the city had an expectation that some -- that, some reports, we were entitled to. i raised these issues in a letter that i wrote in march 2021, and really, one of the fundamental issues here for the police department is we went into this m.o.u. after raising this issue with the expectation is -- and no contrary response from the district attorney's

office that any investigation that rose to the level of legally protected, that that information would be shared, and that is our understanding of the m.o.u. as it sits right now, and the more we dig into it, i find there is a fundamental difference in that issue. >> president cohen: let me ask you, you say there is a fundamental different in that issue. that different than what is currently existing in the police department? if you can drill down a little bit more, what exactly is the fundamental difference? chief, what are we talking about? >> yes. as we dig into this, this culture of one-way communications, it's a real thing. and as we raised this this

matter march, we were not told anything that was in that m.o.u. we would work cooperatively, that the police department would receive any information that's not legally protected, and we totally understand the criminal investigations and on going investigations that may not be able to be shared, but situations where investigations are closed, charges have been filed, we believe that information should be shared with the police department. and when that's not done, it impedes our ability to investigate these ancillary crimes in these incidents and to conduct our investigations to determine whether or not the officers involved are actually within the san francisco's use of force policy, so that is a major, major thing than ever before, and that's been the

crux from the start. when i made the decision, that's been a part of the conversation from the start, and when we dig into it, i do believe there's a culture that is different from the spirit of the m.o.u. that exists. >> president cohen: do you believe that we will be able to get to a mutual respect? >> i believe we will be. i raised that on behalf of the commission. if if i were told that we would not receive any document that we needed to do our

investigation, it would be a different situation then. when i say then, a year ago, we were not told that. we went into this agreement in the spirit, which is we will be provided with information, and we will work collaboratively, and that is not what's happening. and now as we dig into this, i find that there is a culture of we're not giving you anything. >> president cohen: no, i understand what isn't happening. i get -- i guess i want to pivot a little more aspirationally to the future, and i guess i'm not asking for you to look into your crystal ball, but you've got a history and a level of understanding. i want to know what steps would it take to get to a place where

an m.o.u. is physically and securely in place. >> what we're working toward, and again, i want to honor what the california d.o.j. has told us -- >> president cohen: just so that everybody is clear and i'm clear, the california d.o.j. is what? >> we need a safe space to have these conversations -- >> president cohen: so there's certain confidentialities that you have to keep in place. >> that's correct. >> president cohen: let's just get that out in the public. i understand that, and we will respect that.

>> i'm going to work as hard as i can, and everyone in this department, and i believe we have the same type of commitment from the attorney

general's office, attorney general banta and chief deputy. the other thing i would mention, and i've gotten permission to say this, the district attorney has made it clear he's going to do his job. we're not trying to stop the district attorney to do his job. he has a right to investigate cases, and we're not going to stop that, but we have to work collaboratively because regarding that issue and despite that issue, the san francisco has a right to do this. the best case scenario is that we work together. we understand that he has a job to do, and his team has a job

to do, and we understand the respect for police investigations. but it has to be done, and it has to be done right, and i think there's some issues that have couple of up regarding that, and i think -- i want to thank the district attorney and his team for helping us get through this, and i want to thank the city attorney for offering his help. i want to thank him for working with the attorney general in the capacity that he can to help move this forward. . >> president cohen: okay.

let's go ahead and take some comments from my colleagues. i think commissioner hamasaki is at the top of the list. >> commissioner hamasaki: yes, thank you. chief, i appreciate the conciliatory comments, but we've been here in about 3.5 hours of comment, and they can say what they want about me. i step into social media. i think the antiblack, the antiasian racism, there's not a place for that in this department. to the extent that can you do that, ask them to dial it down

a little bit. i think i'm fine with it. i'm used to it, but it does impact people. to jump into my point, this all arose, and i understand because we had this discussion, because for the first time in sfpds history, an sfpd officer is being held accountable. we talk about accountability, but there's never been anything like this. this is actual criminal accountability, and i understand this has torn apart the departments. the calls we received the last two weeks from police officers and their spouses and so forth, i understand this is very stressful.

but how do you enforce the laws when they say wait, these laws don't apply to us. we will shut them down, we will shut the commission down. there has been front page news for two weeks now. looking at all the trouble and turmoil that this has caused for city hall, city attorney, d.a., departments, we have to get to a point -- i know it got a little bit heated last week. i'm trying to lower the temperature a little bit -- but

we need to get back to working this out. nothing that we said last meeting, that you feel that it applies to you. you've set in the chronicle yesterday that you're not going to go back into the m.o.u., you're going to start fresh. you're not going to keep an m.o.u. open, and so i guess my first question is do you recognize the role and authority of this commission to determine oversight of not just the departments, but you as the administrator of the departments -- department because your comments and interviews this week have indicated that that's not the case, or at least that's how it

felt to me. >> i'm happy to answer that. i've been brought to the attention of your tweets which appear to criticize the department. i realized that from day one, and i appreciate that. my comments to the chronicle are the same comments that i made about this m.o.u. as i just said, there are fundamental problems that need to be addresses, and there's nothing for me to change my decision on that because i'm not going to change my decision on that, but what i am going to do is work hard to resolve these issues, and the fundamental issues are we

understand the importance of independent investigations. i don't know about you, but i have seen police officers held accountable for use of force incidents. i worked a unit, and i did that work for two years. i understand that work very well, so it's no shock to me to see police officers held accountable when they're outside of that. i worked in that, i investigating that, so that's not anything that's a shock to my system. it's the right thing that has to be done, but it has to be done fairly. i understand the commission's role, i understand my role. i understand it very well. i'm trying to work -- commissioner, if i can just answer your questions.

>> director rahaim: please. commissioner hamasaki: please. >> i will stay at the table, and i will continue to stay at the table. i'm here as your chief of police. i'm going to continue to do my job. one of my responsibilities is to make sure that we do everything in our power to fulfill what we committed to this city, and that is to hold independent criminal investigations of these incidents, and i intend to do that. i don't know what else i can say to that, but i think i just answered your question. >> commissioner hamasaki: and chief, let me back up.

i think, chief, i've worked with you for four years now. i've supported you. a lot of the people that are mad now, the people that are turning up at working groups that are frustrated, the narrative has always been the same, and i support this narrative, which is i believe that you're a genuinely goodman doing your best in a very difficult position politically in having the p.o.a. on the other side, which i maybe doebt have the same feelings about. and for the previous four years, the narrative has been the same, that until the chief is willing to take on the

p.o.a., we're never going to change this department. so i think what was so upsetting to me and to the people that have supported with you and worked with you, is that you seem to, instead of taking on the p.o.a., join in their campaign to disrupt this prosecution of officer stengel. and i don't know that that was intentional, but that's how that felt. and so as we seep going through this process, and as you keep putting out more and more statements that you're going to try to delegitimize the

department investigating your officer, i haven't seen that coming out in public. you're telling that investigation is happening back here, but no one is making you go to the chronicle and put all those statements on the front page. so you're telling us one thing, and you're doing another, and that's frustrating to me. that's upsetting because it goes to the route of what -- i've gone back and forth on whether, you know, my role in the commission over the years, have i done enough, have i not, have i failed, but it seems -- i don't know. how do we get back to a point

where we can be comfortable that the p.o.a. is not the ones driving the car. because if we look at the history, this is the department driving the car off the cliff. i invited mr. montoya to come in earlier in the meeting, but how do you get control back of the members? is. >> well, that's a question, commissioner, i would like an

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]

>> i am so happy. african-americans in the

military from the revolutionary war to the present, even though they have not had the basic civil rights in america. they don't know their history. in the military the most sacrifice as anyone in this country to be willing to lay down your blood and fight. i believe that all african-americans have served because they love this country and the hope that the citizens.