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. >> yeah, that's as needed, right, if they have a settlement on their m.o.u.? >> president cohen: that's correct. >> then we will not need to go forward on it. >> president cohen: that is right, sir. all right. seeing no other names in the chat, let's go ahead and open it up for public comment. just remind them to keep

comments clean, professional, and we welcome them. >> clerk: members of the public that would like to make public comment, please press star, three now. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> thank you. as a lifelong san francisco resident, i would like to state my support for chief scott, who [indiscernible] let me just say that the district attorney's office has a pattern of withholding evidence from the sfpd. suppressing exculpatory evidence is not only unethical, it's illegal. his own deputy testified that

he withheld evidence from sfpd. we demand that police commissioners stand for reform that san franciscans can actually trust. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi, there, i'm a san francisco resident, and i'm here to say that it's really ironic that you're upset about due process when your own office fail to provide due process. i'm glad to hear that sean moore is seeking some justice, but we still need justice for so many more. you should not be allowed to threaten and respect the safety of our communities by harassing

outside investigations and investigators. do better. bye-bye. >> clerk: thank you. caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> this is alarming that the commission is more upset with chief scott for pulling out of the m.o.u. than it is with the highly unethical behavior of chief scott in the first place. what chesa did matters, and what you're doing matters. you're placing the blame entirely on chief scott. there is an affidavit signed by a deputy d.a. you say you're guardians of the guardians?

you're bullies and prefer a liar to an honest man. by the way, the actual guardians of the guardians are we, the people, and we, the people are here, and we will hold you accountable. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi, good evening. my name is carolyn gusen. [indiscernible] i'm also an asian american mom of two and a san francisco resident. i'm really dismayed to learn that the m.o.u. is now set to expire in seven days, and there's no guarantee that an interim one will be approved. i hoped that under chief

scott's leadership, we could move forward in this area, and yet, it's quickly becoming apparent to me that we're lowering the bar, moving away from police accountability and oversight and towards beating, injuring, and killing of unarmed residents by police officers. i really hope, commissioners and chief scott, that you vote to reinstate the m.o.u. immediately and ensure that the m.o.u. remains in place without a lapse. all -- >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hello. commissioners. this is chuck obermeyer [indiscernible] who should be made aware of assistant d.a.'s

misconduct to ensure that no one else would be directed to lie under oath. clearly, this e-mail from the whistleblower should exonerate and clear the d.a.s office of wrongdoing. we need d.a. boudin to turn over that e-mail to chief scott. if the d.a. is telling the truth, he has nothing to hide. and respectfully, i can't understand why police commissioners keep minimizing the lack of two-way -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> chesa boudin is not a normal

attorney. he is a radical d.a., so bad that 73,000 san franciscans signed for his recall. . >> good evening. my name is brian goldstein, and i'm with the center of juvenile justice in san francisco. we stand with the m.o.u., and we're concerned that the chief would unilaterally walk away from m.o.u. for no reason. the sfpd arrests black residents at the highest rate of any major california city.

with these issues, and the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in sfpd, we need independent oversight especially around police shootings, in-custody deaths, and use of force. this m.o.u., it protects our city, it builds community trust, and we can't move backwards. thank you. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. magic altman. the people deserve an apology. the m.o.u. needs to stand while these negotiations go on. we are not naive, and we know that the p.o.a. has made sure that no such trials have ever

taken place until now. [indiscernible] brilliant and compassionate d.a. next, the chief will be back pedaling about the rape kits. this is the people's m.o.u., and it must stand. we the people demand that it stands to respect our process. you all said this meeting was to take some action. i demand that you move that the chief uphold the people's document. do not forget who you represent. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> yes, my name is felicia jones, and i am the funder of mario woods, racial justice, wealth, and disparities in the black communities. malia cohen, you were there,

and you are sitting in that seat because of the black justice movement. you've shaken our community, our trust in your community. you keep dropping the a.g.s name, well, by legislation, the police commission oversees the san francisco p.d. -- i'm sorry. that's it? wow. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hello. my name is michael donos. i'm a resident of district two, and i'm speaking to express my dismay at the attitude on display in the chief's

unilateral withdrawal from the m.o.u. that forces me to ask two questions. first, with all do respect, sir, what do you think you are? we have civilian oversight in this country, and your action smacks of royal authority. and second, whom are you listening to in this issue? is it the citizenry, the rank-and-file, or the p.o.a.? which, by the way, is an organization so shiftless and parochial, you can walk up and shoot the mayor, and they will still support you. those of us who still remember will always remember. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> i'm calling to ask that the san francisco police commission maintain this m.o.u. to encourage more accountability.

murder is not progressive. without the m.o.u., it leaves officers to act on their own which heavily affects black and brown committees. this is a change that people need. this is a demand that people want. officers have committed crimes that bipoc people clearly could be jailed for. people have voice and clearly have protested to this m.o.u. no one is above the law, including police. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> i'm sally [indiscernible] third generation asian american san franciscan, also a member

of s.f. rising. i also want to call on the spirits of the families of alex johnson, mario woods, and others. i urge you, police commission and chief scott, to keep the m.o.u. in place to investigate police shootings and violence. the names read are no longer in san francisco because of police crimes. it's no coincidence that this is happening in the first trial against a police officer in modern sfpd history. this ensures checks and balances to hold police officers responsible. ending this m.o.u. would be a huge step backward in the eyes of civil safety, racial justice, and healing for all families. >> clerk: thank you, caller.

good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. my name is matt roy, and i'm an elected delegate to the democratic party [indiscernible]. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> i support chief scott ending the m.o.u. with the d.a.s office. oversight is not a problem, only when chesa is involved.

where is the accountability and transparency when it regards the d.a.s office? chesa boudin is not above the law. we will remove him in june. thank you, chief. do not cave. you are on the right. [indiscernible]. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. caller, you have one minute. >> my name is [indiscernible] and i'm with the san francisco public defender's office and a community member. i support this commission, i

support chief scott, i support director henderson, and i support chesa boudin. it's clear that the san francisco district attorney's office has charged four officers with illegal shooting and assault. we must ensure that everyone gets a fair trial in san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. this is john crew, and i've tried to listen carefully, and it's unrealistic that an m.o.u. is going to be negotiated in a week. what's going to be coughed up now is what is being called the interim agreement. the interim agreement, if you listen to chief scott, is clearly not going to be as strong as the m.o.u.

he talks about both agencies performing their functions. what happens is the d.a. will no longer be the lead agency, and indeed, when they roll out to the scene, if their role will be respected as it is currently under the m.o.u., so i think maybe you're going to put it off a week, but you're going to be in the same position. if you put this on the calendar next week, the draft interim agreement needs to be publicly available for the public to evaluate. you've only heard one side of the story. the chief said he wasn't aware of the d.a.s grievances. he received a letter eight days ago that lists the -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. i'm call in as a san francisco resident and concerned community member. i'd like to first say that it was a really egregious attempt to silence the motion that was

on the table to keep the m.o.u. that was in place while a decision is reached with the -- the -- chief scott and also an attempt to keep one of the commissioners out of the meeting as well as the effort. i'd like to request to keep the m.o.u., and i think that all callers today have been unanimous in calling for independent oversight, and the oversight that is currently offered is the m.o.u. there's no reason, and there's been no answer to the question of what would happen if it lapses. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> yes. the issue of whether or not the agreement between the district

attorney and the chief can be allowed to expire comes down to whether the chief can trust the d.a. to live up to its terms. his actions violated the terms and then he hid it, it's clear this d.a. cannot be trusted to comply with the m.o.u. terms. moreover, the d.a.s refusal to be held accountability, his flippant account that noncompliance happens all the time, is appalling. i don't believe this would affect whether or not the d.a. investigates or prosecutes

crime as the d.a. does so all the time, and the d.a. has started to investigate -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. my name is barbara [indiscernible] and i've been asked to speak on behalf of the national lawyers guild of san francisco. as a san francisco, i'm embarrassed that the district attorney has had to sit down at the table to re -- attorney general has had to sit down at the able to resolve a fire storm between chief scott and the chief and undermined civilian overnight of the sfpd, oversight by the commission, the d.a., and the community. chief scott's insubordinate and short sighted action must be met with a serious response. i ask you to unanimously exercise your authority to

extend the m.o.u. no interim m.o.u. should be needed, no special meeting is needed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> i appreciate chief scott's input on the m.o.u., but it only operates if both sides are acting in approximate good faith. clearly, the d.a.s office is not doing that. the d.a.s investigator testified about acting in opposition to the requirements. how about a little focus on that? no one is above the law, not even d.a. chesa boudin.

>> clerk: good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> caller, you have one minute. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. i am alarmed by the police commissioners minimizing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. we must hold d.a. chesa boudin accountability for violating the public's trust. his own investigator has testified withholding evidence, fearing retaliation by chesa's own assistant. we are alarmed by some of the

police commissioners who are minimizing or dismissing possible instances of prosecutorial misconduct. i ask all of you in that position to look deeper and at the root of the problem. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> i do not have a prepared statement. i'm a grandmother. i've raised my four children in san francisco. two of my children are in school here, and i think the issue is, as a citizen, i don't feel safe any longer. i think we want more police, and i think we want the police supported. i don't know what that means about everything you're all talking about, but the trades men i speak to, the business owners i speak to, the residents i speak to, we don't feel safe here, and i think all of you on this call have a

responsibility to speak to that. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. i'm -- yeah, i would just like to speak about trust, something that's been on the table a lot tonight. what we're really addressing is the trust between the public and the police and the actions of this commission tonight as well as the police chief over the last few days as well as the police department ever since it was invented. it was eroding public trust -- the fact that i am a teacher, i have to wake up at 6:00 a.m. in the morning, and i had to wake five years because of this comic book section was moved to far. how are we supposed to trust a

police chief who caved to the district attorney? it's absurd. there are mothers, families that are grieving because of the action of the police, and the first time that a police officer is actually being charged with use of force, this -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hello. my name is larry roberts, and i'm a long-term resident of san francisco. i work for the public defender's office, and i just want to speak in favor of continuation of the m.o.u., and i feel like some of the boiler plate comments, they can stand of the comments are misplaced.

the san francisco police department has a long history of brutality and so on, and they need this outside oversight. i encourage people to watch judge cordell speaking about brutality at the hands of police officers and racism -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> yes, hello. this is mary vale, and can you hear me? the -- i would endorse the comments of john crew and the representative of the national lawyers guild. this is about your oversight

authority, and i am a just mind blown about how you're not renewing. the m.o.u. needs to be extended. >> clerk: thank you, caller. hello, caller. you have one minute. >> yes. i believe all of this conversation is because of all the power that the police has and the application of this under the law. we know that police officers have shot people, beaten them and testified on the stand all

without oversight that they would hold on people to. it is certainly not a coincidence that this has become an issue during the first ever trial of an officer. this is testimony that the status quo is changing, and they can no longer operate without impugnity. this city shutdown city hall three times, and this is why city hall is in his position, and that is why chief scott is in his position -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> in we can't talk to the police with [indiscernible] how are we supposed to trust them

to lead their own investigations. this isn't the first time that an off duty officer has been on trial for using excessive force. keep the m.o.u. and investigate the rape scandal. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> good evening. murray javiel. just in response to the last caller, the reason this is happening now is because chesa

boudin withheld evidence. both parties need to uphold the law, both parties need to present evidence, and chesa boudin's office did not. that is egregious, that is grounds for disbarment if it goes to boudin. that indicates a very strong reason for scott -- for chief scott to step back from the m.o.u. that is completely fair on his part and legitimate to do because of boudin's office's -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one. >> police commissioners, tonight, i would like to call attention to the continuance

draw of the power paradigm from the people to the power. and here, we have a government entity attempting to seize power from the people, saying that they will remain above the oversight, will remain above the long-term action of our police commission president, malia cohen, in her action as a president. they demand the demand an officer go out and molest anyone who does this.

>> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. i'm dina [indiscernible], and i'm calling -- i can't believe it's almost midnight. i support police investigation, and i support police reform, but i do not support or trust this d.a. in this case, i definitely support chief scott, and i would like to have an open mind and understand that the citizens in san francisco and understand that we don't like the direction that it's taking. >> clerk: thank you, caller.

hello, caller. you have one minute. >> hello. i am calling in, and i believe the reason that people are calling in is because people have lost trust in boudin. i do not feel safe living in this city, like many of the other callers have said. when the d.a. said the police are not above the law, the d.a. is not above the law, either. so i urge the police commission to consider this, and i support chief scott in withdrawing from the m.o.u. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> my name is melissa hernandez. as a resident of san francisco, i urge you not to abdicate

responsibility of your oversight in this moment. the chief unilaterally withdrew from an m.o.u. that governs investigation in their office [indiscernible]. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> seven years ago, a previous district attorney remarked to several citizens, of which i was one, that the district

attorney's hands are tied when it comes to investigating and prosecuting officers because the sfpd would stop cooperating on everything if one officer was indicted. effectively, this meant no charges would be filed against an officer. now that the current d.a. has prosecuted an officer for criminal conduct, we see what the wrath of the sfpd looks like. the previous district attorney was right. the m.o.u. that we're discussing was a very important step in the process -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. good evening. my name is alexandra pray, and i am a public defender and long time san francisco resident. i have a lot of support for

chief scott, but i want to echo what another caller said about trust. i believe he's acting in good faith and is reform oriented, and, you know, i want to believe he wants the m.o.u. to succeed, but i believe he was waiting for an excuse to pull out of it, and it doesn't make me so trusting to believe that it's not trial oriented, so it makes me think twice about how he pulled outunilaterally. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. my name is nikita, and i just wanted to remark on what was earlier said, that withdrawing from the m.o.u. is giving a racist and terrorist sfpd more

authority to act unlawfully. i also feel like even after you hear all of these public comments though, like, you're still not, like, going to do anything that, like, reflects how the folks are doing tonight? like, you proved the mayor's state of emergency thing even though a majority of the callers were against it, so i'm just, like, hoping to see change and some accountability, and i know -- and not just moving it onto the next week and shrugging it off. thank you. >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> when your independent system of checks and balances includes a corrupt local d.a.s office then it's time to find a higher authority. this is not about the chief, this is about the d.a. suppressing information. who is investigating that? i agree with chief scott terminating the m.o.u. trying

to move accountability to the state's attorney general's office. i'm thinking back to this past september when judge chan blasted the d.a.s habit of not turning over evidence in the investigation. i'm specifically referring to the d.a. investigator who said she was directed to withhold evidence otherwise she'd lose her job. chief scott is asking for a change in oversight, not an elimination. also, i am a san francisco resident. i have no affiliation with the p.o.a. -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> good evening, commissioners. this is deputy public defender brian cox. i think the question is simple.

do we have police officers the ability to investigate themselves? this isn't about if i like chief scott. personally, i like chief scott, and i like many of the officers i work with, but because what this is about, that this department has shown itself to still need oversight, and this m.o.u. is an important step in that direction. please take action, commission. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> my name is susan buckman, and i am a member of wealth and disparities in the black community. there has been a lot of ugly

personal comments both last night and tonight directed against the police commission and wealth and disparities. these callers, who i will continue to call p.o.a. shills, are trying to undermine reform efforts. the police commission has the power to enforce the m.o.u. that scares the p.o.a. they are scared of the m.o.u., and they are scared of you. they are terrified they are losing control of the narrative, and they're lashing out. don't lose your nerve now that you finally found it. stand your ground and fight for reforms, and don't think that once this business of the m.o.u. is resolved, you can relax and go back to business

of being useless as usual. thank you. oh, by the way -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. hello, caller. you have one minute. >> where's the berating of chesa boudin to the extent that you've berated chief scott? never once have we heard this commission say you support the department and chief scott. you have not once mentioned your support for chief scott and the sfpd. support the people who work to protect and support us every day. if you support the sfpd, you would have his back with respect to this issue. you would demand the d.a. be accountable as you are demanding chief scott.

i stand with chief scott. hold the line, chief scott. >> clerk: thank you, caller. hello, caller. you have one minute. >> this m.o.u. is more important than ever in the charge of a police officer beating a black man. our police officers need to be held accountable in the same way that the public is held accountable in a proceeding. i would like the police commission to use all tools at its disposal to keep the m.o.u. in place at a minimum until a permanent oversite is in place.

an interim agreement is not acceptable. also, breaking the m.o.u. -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. i'm kyle, and i just want to say, keep the m.o.u. in place. have a good night. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> yeah, i find it comical all of these people calling in that are now all of a sudden for the people, they don't represent san franciscans. i'm not a resident, i'm a native san franciscan, born and raised in the city. every day average joes, we support you. hold the line, keep doing what you're doing.

>> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. in 2019, the year the m.o.u. was implemented, there were no police killings, and there have been just two since then, after the m.o.u. it is deeply concerning that no coincidence that this attempt at withdrawing from m.o.u. coming during the first ever trial to hold a san francisco police officer accountable for excessive force. risking the lapse of this m.o.u. now during this historic trial sends a message that san francisco lacks a true kpimt to violence and accountability. i urge the commission to protect this agreement tonight

and promote police accountability and public safety in san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> good evening, commission and chief. my name is francisco costa, and i've spent my life trying to work with the police, including people like you. when the first prosecution of an sfpd officer is happening, what am i going to tell young people -- happening during the time that you're pulling out of the m.o.u., what am i supposed to be telling all of these young people that i work with?

let me be clear, chief scott. i support you, and i believe in you, and i look forward to working with you, but i'm telling you -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. good evening, caller. you have one minute. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi, there. i am a resident of san francisco, and i would like to point out that the department is [indiscernible] your department is killing people and beating innocent people in the street. your department is adding

criminal rape people to the d.n.a. base. [indiscernible] imagine san francisco as a city of community union, peace and justice and wealth. that is not possible with the supposed peace officers of the city not being held accountable for extrajudicially beating people on the street. we will become closer to a future of fascism. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. i'm lea [indiscernible] and i'm a lifetime resident of san francisco and a lifetime democrat, and i'm 40. sfda has not been transparent with coming up with information in regards to perpetrator who the victim had called 911 about, and that is very

alarming. he's withholding information which could clear an innocent officer, so bring everyone to the table, chesa boudin, and you want chief scott to keep working with you, you need to be as transparent as he has been with you. you need to provide him the same courtesy and cooperation. i stand with you, chief scott. stand firm, and we're going to get this done. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have one minute. >> good evening. my name is cheryl thornton, and i'm a resident of san francisco, and i would like to say i would like this m.o.u. to stay in place, and there needs to be police accountability and transparency. please don't walk away from the table. too many black people and brown

people have been killed by police violence in san francisco, so don't take the m.o.u. away. thank you. >> i'm not affiliated nor a member or friend of the p.o.a. i am a resident of san francisco and have absolutely no confidence in district attorney chesa boudin's ability to hold a person accountable. i believe another party such as the attorney general's office because the d.a. has not done so in a way that is transparent and fair. heads of departments only sign an m.o.u. after they have had ample time to review and edit before signing. this means that d.a. boudin was aware and agreed to the expectations of that m.o.u.,

and yet, he still failed to uphold his responsibility and commitment. i am unclear how this is acceptable to this commission, and how they want to continue to move forward with someone who has shown -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have -- caller, you have one minute. >> hi. my name is robert [indiscernible], and i'm born in san francisco, raised in san francisco, and i think that chief scott has done wonders in chinatown now, so i support chief scott all the way, and term knowledge m.o.u. unless the sfda is going to cooperate

with chief scott and be transparent with him. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. president cohen, that is the end of public comment. . >> president cohen: thank you very much. lost track of where we are on the agenda. i think we were preparing to go into closed session. thank you for all the members who have weighed in. we'll keep you all posted when the emergency meeting is scheduled. >> press -- president cohend, i thought that this item was on

the -- president cohen, i thought that this item was on as an action item for us to adopt the accountability matrix and then to have a subsequent meeting about the -- >> president cohen: i gotcha. >> thank you. >> president cohen: we will make a motion for that. also, we've got [indiscernible] who also needs to do a presentation on the budget. >> commissioner so: we'll be with you in just one minute. >> commissioner yee: i move to adopt the matrix. >> president cohen: we'll come back to you for that motion. so we will suspend this item. we've heard item 6, and now, sergeant, if you could call -- i think it was item 14.

the presentation of d.p.a.s accountability matrix. >> clerk: recalling line 14, presentation of d.p.a.s accountability mate rick. discussion and action. >> president cohen: all right. just a reminder, we heard the presentation. is there a motion? >> commissioner yee: i move we adopt. thank you for your hard work, director henderson. >> thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. a motion has been made. is there a second? >> second. >> president cohen: just for the record, sergeant youngblood, did we take public comment on this? i think we did. >> clerk: yes. >> president cohen: okay. a motion has been made by commissioner yanez and a second by commissioner

carter-oberstone. please call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: you have seven yeses. >> president cohen: great. motion passes unanimously. could you please bring us back to the agenda for the budget. >> clerk: line item 9, discussion and possible action to approve department budget for fiscal year 2023-24, discussion and action. >> president cohen: just for clarification, i thought we were on -- i thought we were not going to take action on this item, is that -- i'm looking at commissioner carter oberstone. i thought you expressed some concern about the budget

presentation? >> commissioner carter-oberstone: no, i think conferring with the attorney about the charter deadlines, i think we need to have the presentation tonight if the commission is going to have any input into the budget that the department submits to the mayor's office. we could put it over, but we would miss opportunity to ask for changes in what we submit to the mayor's office. that's my understanding. >> president cohen: could you represent that a little bit louder? >> commissioner carter-oberstone: so my understanding from chatting with our friends in the city attorney's office is he can put it over, the budget presentation. he can put it over, but because of deadlines around when the department has to submit their budget proposal to the mayor's

office, this is our last opportunity to effect that budget proposal that goes to the mayor's office, so if we want the department to make some changes, this is the last chance for us to do that, so that would be the significance of having it tonight versus putting it off to the next week. >> president cohen: all right. i hope everyone had an opportunity to review the budget document presentation so that we can be explicit in our questions or the changes that we want to see. mr. leon, you have five minutes. >> okay. thank you, commissioners. i am happy to answer any questions that you submit, however, but our intention would be to present a budget without any cuts or any

adjustments. i can go through it if you want, but i did want to be respectful of anybody's time. >> president cohen: thank you for that in that respect. we did commit to commissioner max carter oberstone to see if he had any questions about the budget. >> commissioner carter-oberstone: no questions at the moment. i might have a question depending on what my fellow commissioners ask, but nothing further from me right now. >> president cohen: okay. i know that commissioner byrne usually has some questions. >> your presentation, i'm still confused because your funds for the officers is actually going

to be -- you indicate funding for 2022 is 1871, but the actual number of officers in 2022, 1639. and then, you predict that we'll be at 1879, 2023, and it goes up by almost -- over $15 million, the wages. i get it, the overtime, because there's a short yaj. you felly expect that they're going to have 200 more officers

a year? [indiscernible] there is variants in the number of officers that we have. we do have budget for 200 officer positions, but that can vary throughout the year. at least count, that was the number of officers that was other than full duty, 244. then, with regard to the budget, i did add slide number

34 [indiscernible] in some years, it's because of the retirement share, and whether the retirement system is fully funded, so you can see from february 19 from retirement, the increase was 1.4 million, but it goes up and down. >> i guess i'm still confused because maybe my accountant skills aren't there, but if you're funding for 1879 officers, 2023, and 1871 for 2021, there isn't 1871 officers right now, there's 1600 and

something, and quite frankly, i won't say it's preposterous, but it's betting on the fact that we're going to have a lot of recruitment and we're going to have 1871 officers next year. >> it's a challenge. >> why are you budgeting it? it may be a challenge, it may be a goal, but realistically, why is it budgeted when the chances of reaching those numbers are pretty low? >> the one thing that you have to mention is that with these numbers, it only reflects the number of full duty officers, and it doesn't solely account for the number of more positions that we have. part of that variant -- >> okay.

it says sworn full duty. that's what your map says, so it doesn't account for it. there's more than sworn full duty. is that what you're saying? >> the numbers that you see on that graph for that 1639 number, it excludes anyone that's other than full duty status and then anybody that's in the recruit classes. there are vacancies within our budget. just as an example, that 1871 number that you see in fiscal year 22 -- and i'm sorry i put you off. >> for that 1871 number, that is subtracting out 200

positions for full duty staff out, and then subtracting out for recruit positions. on the next slide, the present full duty status is 1639. at last count, we had 244 officers, so that none is higher than 200 that we would have set aside within the budget; and there's also 32 recruits. there is still vacancies within the full duty -- there is still vacant sees and full duty sworn partly because people have separated from the department throughout the year. once there are academy classes, that will reduce. we do have some staffing

challenges, and part of that difference in the budget for this fiscal year has been used to backfill for some of those vacancies. we do have a large number of staffing shortages, and that helps offset those costs. >> i'm not trying to difficult. you indicate there are 200 full time officers that other than full duty? >> what that excludes are members who have gotten hurt, people that are on fmla, people that are on military leave, etc. >> so the officers that are on military leave, are they being paid by the city and county of san francisco while they're on leave? >> i believe so. >> are they being paid?

>> i'd have to check, but i believe so. >> commissioner, they are. >> they are?.

>> the other part that i explained is people that are other than full duty status. that -- it's like snapshots in time. because people get injured, and some people may come off injured status and others go back to full duty. it's snapshots in time. >> commissioner byrne: no, i get that, but what you're saying is that 200 and some-odd disparity, officers that are on active status, officers that are injured, and vacancies, and my question is how many are vacancies. they are ghosts that have been

budgeted that probably aren't going to be filled but you budget for them any way? >> some of those positions are vacant because people have retired, right? >> but they're budgeted as if they're there, as if they are a ghost? >> they are. [indiscernible]. >> commissioner byrne: sorry? >> let me try to clarify. within the model, there are -- there is a -- there is an attrition number that is expected, but then, within each of the positions, we don't specifically know throughout

the year what exact date people are going to retire -- or let me try to clarify it this way. at present, we have 521 members that are eligible to retire. if they all leave tomorrow, we have significant trouble. >> commissioner byrne: no, i understand that. what it looks like is other than the injured and military officers, i know that you'll have an actual number, and i get that, but what it looks like is you've budgeted positions that are empty, and the chances that you're filling them during the year aren't very high, so it's like you're budgeting for ghosts. >> so at present, we would hold for an academy class.

>> commissioner byrne: that's 32 people. >> yes. >> commissioner byrne: right, so it's conceivable there'll be another academy class later in the year. >> that's right. >> commissioner byrne: the ones that i unfairly called ghosts, are they -- you're budgeting for things that don't exist right now. >> so for the next academy class for people that are entering the academy class, they would fill into those current vacant spots. >> commissioners, let me add to the confusion here. catherine mcguire, director of the [indiscernible] bureau. if we're on slide six, if we want to look at that together,

in 2021, currently 18 -- 1,884 positions budgeted not filled, okay? we all know that, maybe not all filled. currently, our structural budget issues have afforded us the opportunity to use salary savings, those unfilled positions, to pay for overtime, which is doing the work now. >> commissioner byrne: i understand that, but you've got a separate budget for the overtime, and i feel that that's gone up because there's a shortage. that makes sense to me, but what still doesn't make sense to me, that disparity, you're budgeting for positions that you have a very slim chance of filling. is that accurate? and is that accurate, that you have a very slim chance of filling? >> not quite. >> commissioner byrne: if you have a very slim chance of filling them, why are you

budgeting them? >> not quite, commissioner. what patrick is saying we have a bunch of unfilled positions. we always budget for a variety of either leave or recruits in the academy every year, and that's about 250. then, we -- if there is a discrepancy between the budget and the sworn f.t.e. funded, we are then -- oh, sorry, the sworn filled positions, then we are allowed to then run more academy. so for instance, if we have a higher attrition or a higher retirement or separation for any given year, having that authority to then run additional academies, having the actual position authority gives us the authority to run additional academies in order to get us there. >> commissioner byrne: i understand that, but it's

still, like, 200 people. it's more numbers than what you can realistically expect right now. >> so i don't know -- >> commissioner byrne: and that's the part that i find unrealistic that you think you're going to fill this year. i understand that you're budgeting for positions that are filled, but it doesn't make sense to me that you're filling for positions that are ghosts. >> so i don't know if you caught it, but patrick said we have 244 officers that are not

currently on full duty. >>. >> commissioner byrne: and they're not being paid at this time? >> no, they have to be appropriated -- >> commissioner byrne: no, my question is, are they being paid full time? >> i think it varies, depending on the lease. >> commissioner byrne: okay. i'm being argumentative, so i'm happy -- >> and i'm happy to have this conversation -- >> commissioner byrne: i'm not happy because i can't understand it. >> i know that we did -- it was one of the follow up items --

>> commissioner byrne: i don't want to use the term ghost positions. unfilled positions are budgeted for any way, but i think you need to put that in so that the public is aware that you're funding for positions that you don't have a realistic chance of filling. >> let me describe [indiscernible] our budget. part of what you see in that variance is the fact that more people have left -- separated from the department than we've been able to hire through the academy, and that's been driving up our overtime numbers. >> commissioner byrne: i get that. i'm not arguing that part -- >> no, i guess that.

because our budget isn't sufficient to cover our operational needs, we're operating under an overtime deficit, and that comes out of those vacant positions, when we. >> commissioner byrne: then why, not in the future, budget for overtime positions because we're just moving things around. >> that is a point of discussion that we will have with the mayor's office in this budget cycle. but the point i was trying to make is when our overtime expenditures exceeds the budget, that takes away from our hiring authority because we

don't have any hiring authority for it, it comes out of our overtime positions which we cannot hire. there is that variant, but the information position authority goes away very quickly once orour -- but the position authority goes away very quickly once the overtime kicks in. when we went through the last couple budget cycles, our overtime was cut significantly,

to the tune of around 2525%. >> commissioner byrne: you're buying peter to pay paul. you'll just have -- i'm sorry. i've gone too long. >> no, we'll follow up. it's also a matter of position authority. so we have to have an individual officer in order to make that hire. now, we would much prefer to have the actual full time officers on staff. we would prefer to have the officers -- >> commissioner byrne: i'm sorry.

>> president cohen: i don't know if this is helpful, but budgets that contain f.t.e.s, what we call full time equivalents, they give the department authority to hire, whether these are new recruits or transfer officers or critical from other departments, this allows them the authority. i'm sorry. i'm tired. i don't know if that was made clear to you, but it's how the departments do their budgeting, and when they have an f.t.e., even if there is a vacancy, they still have to account for

inflation, they have to account for if there's an costly increase. does that help you? >> commissioner byrne: i understand. i expected a discrepancy, but i didn't expect -- >> president cohen: you expected what? >> commissioner byrne: i expected discrepancy, but not in the magnitude that i saw. that's all. thank you. thank you. >> president cohen: i hear the frustration in your voice. it's about ten minutes to 12:00, and we still have a pretty heavy agenda. so with your permission, may we move on? >> commissioner byrne: yes, please. >> president cohen: thank you. is there anyone else that wanted to ask questions or raise issues with the budget? okay. if you could just give us an overview where we are with the budget process? excuse me, i did not see your hand.

commissioner hamasaki, we'll go to you. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. i'm sorry. commissioner elias had her hand raised first. >> president cohen: okay. commissioner elias? >> vice president elias: i'm sorry. what year was that study done? >> 2014. >> vice president elias: i believe there was $2.4 million spent on the safe shopper presence, so if that's not an on going -- what i think we assumed and what we were told, it's not going to be an on going presence, why would we have to account for the 4.6 million or budget for it next year? >> this -- on slide 10? i'm sorry. slide 10 describes the major overtime categories for the present fiscal year, not what

we're requesting for next year. >> vice president elias: so did you include -- i mean, the 4.6 is a big chunk. that's the biggest chunk of overtime that the department has spent this year on a very limited amount of time during the holidays. are you going to ask for special budget overtime next year or you're not? >> i don't know. it would have to be based on conversations that we're going to have with the mayor's office. for tourism, those are more things that are policy-type decisions. those don't happen independently, just our

department. based on service needs, we would be making our over time request based on service needs. at this time, it doesn't include any safe shopper budget, but, again, approximate would not have been independently -- it would have to be with discussions from additional departments. >> if i could just add -- excuse me, if i could just add, commissioners, the safe shopper since i've been here, it's usually during the holidays and started at thanksgiving, but it was enhanced this year because of what happened. typically, moving forward, we

do have an officer presence in union square, and we plan to keep that going forward. >> vice president elias: no, i understand, but that number has essentially doubled, and i think we should know where that's going. my next question is on section 28, you list outside the classification groups and sort of how many management and leadership positions there are, but you excluded the airport. why is that, because they also have a lot of management positions and officers at the airport. why was that excluded? >> for this slide, i was trying to show the budget as sworn for

just the cityside. >> vice president elias: but the airport also comes out of this budget. even though they refuse to receive some federal funding, it doesn't cover the entire cost of what it is for the airport personnel? >> the airport is an enterprise fund, and all their position -- all the sworn positions in the airports are funded through the airport commission -- through the airport enterprise fund, and it's included within the -- it's included within their budget, and they get voted on separately. >> vice president elias: i don't think it's all that you have [indiscernible]. >> it was a little bit of an oversight, but i do have the --

i do have their figures on slide 15. it isn't broken out in the same manner, but the total number of sworn for the airport for fiscal year 23 is 177. >> vice president elias: right, but all that 177, some of that does come out of your budget, the personnel costs, right? >> it is, but i kind of consider it cost immaterial from there. those expenditures are paid for out of the enterprise benefit fund, and those are restricted use. >> vice president elias: right, but they're not all of them because i think we had this discussion as to whether the sheriff should take over the airport, so i think it's important to include that information so we know how much

that's costing since you have the comparison for every other station. >> president cohen: do you have a question? >> vice president elias: the other question that i have, and i think it was misunderstood because slide 35 has it here. my question was how many officers are on the brady list and how much is that costing us because if they're on the braidly list or they have some inability to testify in court, what is it that they do in terms of their positions, and how much does that cost? and i see, in slide 35, you outlined the staffing of the brady unit. >> yes, i misinterpreted that. >> vice president elias: no worry. i know we talk fast and are confusing at times. i do think we'd like an answer to that, to know how many of

the officers are on the brady list and which ones are not able or willing to testify and that cost. >> i have to find out and provide a follow up. my positions. >> okay. >> vice president elias: okay. and then, the other question that i have, supervisor ronen's letter, how did you budget for that? because if those resources have been created in other programs we would then not require the police department to respond, how much money are you saving or what money is no longer needed to funnel officers to the program that the city has developed other programs to address? >> i tries addressing that in

the last slide, slide 36. so with the officers -- most of the officers that have been deployed to hsoc, it's minimal staffing. there's two twoern personnel personnel -- sworn personnel over at the e.o.c., and then, there's homeless and other activities out in the field. although the city goes to divert -- many of them called for service, what we're seeing with the data, we're still seeing a high volume of calls that that department is tasked to handle. on slide 36, you can see that a significant number of calls for the year totalled over 47,000.

with the staffing that we had previously, all those positions have -- the vast majority of them have been reassigned to other units, and there's not really anything to save. >> well, i understand the hsoc. i understand all the calls that we receive, but as we're learning from the -- you know, the supervisors letter as well as community members' complaints that those calls -- a lot of the calls aren't being answered by the police, so how do we -- where's the metric to measure that? like, you know, when we look at all the total number of calls, the 47,000, the actual number, but in actuality how many calls are they responding to, i think we need to have that in context

because that represents the big 47,000 number. >> oh, sorry. go ahead. >> i think a lot of that has to do primarily with the call volume and the staffing voertages. we don't have the personnel to handle the workload, so i think some of that is, too, from the matrix consulting report, within the recommendation that we should have additional offers to meet the call volume, and part of that lack of service is driven by the staffing shortages that we have. >> vice president elias: thank you, mr. leon. i'm going to turn it over to my colleagues. thank you. >> commissioner hamasaki: good afternoon -- it'll be afternoon by the time we're done. >> president cohen: or good morning. >> commissioner hamasaki: so to follow up on what vice president elias was saying, and i know that the chief said

there were safe shopper programs that have been done before, what measures are being put into place so that this doesn't just turn into an overtime boondoggle might be a word? it turns out that everybody got to hangout in union square, getting overtime. like, how do -- why should that be in the budget for next year? >> i can respond to that question. >> commissioner hamasaki: because it's not just quill or public safety, really. >> it does support the safety and reopening of the city. part of the safe shopper program was to support the safe

reopening of the city and to support tourism. as i recall from the san francisco chamber of commerce, tourism helps create -- in 2018, tourism provides $10 million -- over $10 million to the city, and part of that reopening effort, that's a safe shopper support is -- >> commissioner hamasaki: so can i ask, mr. leon, what is your -- i can't remember. what is your -- are you an accountant or -- what's the term? >> chief financial officer. >> commissioner hamasaki: chief financial. have you ever been able to breakdown a cost benefit analysis to something like the safe shopper program? like, is there any, like -- you know, i understand a lot of

feelings is based on, you know, this idea that, well, if we put police every year, then crime will go somewhere else, although you can't really quantify that. or is this also the chamber of commerce having a loud platform -- or not a loud platform, but maybe the influence within city hall that other entities aren't getting? >> i can address that. i have been in account with s.f. travel, the mayor's office, and others in city

government where a number of conventions have expressed a concern of bringing their conventions to san francisco. what has been expressed is concerns about safety, places that tourists like to go, union square, lombard street, and that does have an economic benefit. it's a real issue. my understanding is the mayor just went on a trip just last week at the request of many of these convention leaders to address some of their concerns and try to assure them that this city is taking care of those issues as best it can, so if you want to talk about the

economic benefit when these issues go unaddressed, there is a real economic benefit. the other thing is in terms of the local employees who work at these businesses, part of these meetings that i've been a part of with some of the different trade associations, the different hotel workers and similar types of associations, there are real concerns about workforce safety, and it makes it harder and harder to get workers in the city. there are a lot of things going on right now, and they do revolve around public safety

issues. >> commissioner hamasaki: you know what? i do read, and i try to follow up on that, and we've talked about it. like, okay, there is the idea for, some people, that seeing police there makes them feel safer, and if they feel safer, they're going to come shop at this store, and that's an added benefit. i guess -- i just -- i don't know -- and i don't know if -- that there's a good answer, and i don't know that anybody has a good answer, but how do you do that in a way that we are, you know, prioritizing violent crime mostly, i think we should lead with, and doing it in an

economically and financially responsible way? >> yes, sir, yes, sir. >> commissioner hamasaki: i just -- let me just speak for myself, saw the union square thing last year, with 50 cops on the little block, and thought that was, at $1 million a week, was really the best use of resources? >> commissioner, there were a lot of other things that factors into that. i mean, we did reach out to business owners and employees themselves, and story after story of people getting attacked or getting robbed as they walked to the public transportation centers, and part of this deployment was to address those issues. and i can say this, that based on the fact of the police statistically, that those

officers deployed during that time made a real difference in reducing those issues. it was almost nothing for a while. so it is relevant, and to answer your very good question about violent crime, it is no difference than what we do in other instances of violent crime. because we are 500-plus officers short, we have to make adjustments all the time when we have spikes in crime. that's not the ideal situation, but we're forced to do that. like we just did to add officers to the bayview just a few months ago, we're constantly making adjustments to try to keep up with what's going on in our community.

it's a challenge, but it is a really good question because we do the same thing in areas where we do have violent crime, as well. >> commissioner hamasaki: or, or, let me i.d. that. we fix that morale thing or fix that indifference thing -- >> i'm looking forward to that conversation, because i think you'll be enlightened about that conversation. i look forward to it being agendized and, we can talk about it at that time. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. i guess, mr. leon, why don't we set that for the budget for 2022? was that a similar outlay and, you know, for give me, 46,000

some-odd hours of $4.6 million. is that kind of the cost of safe shoppers program? >> are you referring to slide 10, commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: yes. >> there isn't -- these categories that you see, it's not what we're budgeting, it's what the actuals are. >> commissioner hamasaki: i'm sorry. i thought you were basing that to use that for the next cycle? >> no. this is just to illustrate the challenges that we're facing. our overtime budget for this fiscal year, we've already exceeded that. the challenges that we face are not just with understaffing but all the other challenges that

we face contributing to the deficit. this isn't what we're suggesting what our over time expenditures have been for this fiscal year. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. that's it. thank you. >> president cohen: max carter oberstone. >> commissioner carter-oberstone: thank you, president cohen. the first question is maybe just a process question. commissioner byrne asked a number of astute questions about the numbers not adding up. commissioner elias asked about officers on the brady list. the first time the department

gave its budget presentation over a month ago, and i'm just wondering, this time, the department didn't have any additional facts or information to answer those questions, so i'm just wondering as a matter of process, what is the department doing to keep track of these questions and responding to commissioners' questions about the budget? i'm just wondering why the same questions are being asked about the budget over a month apart with no information? >> thank you for the question, commissioner. to answer your question, at least with commissioner elias and her question, i thought she

asked how many were in the brady unit, and we provided a slide for that, but it wasn't the information that she was asking for. for commissioner byrne, i did try to attempt to answer it tonight. i did intend to have a conversation with him to explain the process, but given everything that has gone on from the first presentation until the present, i do want to say that we are significantly short staffed. i myself am having to fill multiple hats. i'm down two staff members. i'm not excusing what it is, but i'm trying to provide some context. >> commissioner carter-oberstone: all right. i appreciate that. thank you. substantive question.